HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.15 - 2316 IKEA 2nd Reading
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 20, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
IKEA Retail Center PLPA-2016-00016
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On November 8, 2018, the City Council approved the IKEA Retail Center project
(branded as “The Glen at Dublin”). The project is comprised of up to 410,000 square
feet of commercial uses, consisting of a 317,000 square foot IKEA store and 93,000
square foot retail center on the 27.45-acre parcel. The land use approvals include
certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, a Site Development
Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792. In addition, an ordinance was
introduced to approval a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan. The City Council will hold a second reading of an Ordinance
amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the IKEA Retail Center project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive the reading and adopt an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a
Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan for the IKEA Retail Center project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The subject 27.45-acre parcel is located south of Martinelli Way between Hacienda
Drive and Arnold Road as shown in Figure 1 below. The property currently has a
General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, which accommodates a
range of regional and community-serving retail, service, and office uses.
Page 2 of 3
The Applicant proposes to construct an IKEA retail store and adjacent retail center on
the project site. The proposed IKEA Retail Center project, branded as “The Glen at
Dublin”, is comprised of up to 410,000 square feet of commercial uses consisting of a
317,000 square foot IKEA store and 93,000 square foot retail center on the 27.45 -acre
parcel.
On October 16, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed
project. A copy of the staff report for the October 16, 2018 meeting is included as
Attachment 1. At the meeting, the City Council received presentations by Staff and the
Applicant, considered public comment and closed the public hearing. The Council
requested Staff provide additional information and adjourned the meeting and its
deliberations to November 8, 2018. A copy of the staff report for the November 8, 2018
meeting is included as Attachment 2. At the meeting, the City Council waived the
reading and introduced an Ordinance to adopt a Planned Development Rezone with a
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The City Council also adopted
resolutions certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impa ct Report, a Site Development
Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 for the IKEA Retail Center
project.
The City Council will hold a second reading of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map
and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage
2 Development Plan for the IKEA Retail Center project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Staff Report dated October 16, 2018, without Attachments
2. City Council Staff Report dated November 8, 2018, without Attachments
3. Planned Development Zoning Ordinance
Page 3 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 16, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: IKEA Retail Center (PLPA-2016-00016)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
1=r14x0111I1IV1=--illI,,I,IT-11IWO
The City Council will consider the IKEA Retail Center project (branded as "The Glen at
Dublin"). The proposed project is comprised of up to 410,000 square feet of commercial
uses, consisting of a 317,000 square foot IKEA store and 93,000 square foot retail
center on the 27.45-acre parcel. Requested land use approvals include a Planned
Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site
Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792, and a certification of
a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and take the following actions: ay Adopt a
Resolution certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption
of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the IKEA Retail Center project; b) Waive
the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and approving a
Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan; and c) Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and
Vesting Tentative Map for the IKEA Retail Center project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with processing the application will be borne by the Applicant.
Based on a fiscal impact report prepared by Keyser Marston on behalf of the City, it is
anticipated that the project would generate an additional $1.765 million annually to the
City's General Fund in the form of sales tax, property tax, and other revenues.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
Page 1 of 21
The subject 27.45-acre parcel is located south of Martinelli Way between Hacienda
Drive and Arnold Road as shown in Figure 1 below. The property currently has a
General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, which accommodates a
range of regional and community -serving retail, service, and office uses.
Figure 1. 'Project Location
The project site is currently vacant except for a DSRSD water turnout structure located
at the southwest corner of the site and a water fluoridization structure located
immediately adjacent to the turnout. The site is generally flat with localized high areas
and stockpile areas resulting from the site -clearance and clean-up activities.
When the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted in 1995, the site was designated
Campus Office. Commerce One received entitlements to build a corporate campus on
the site and abandoned those plans in 2001. IKEA subsequently acquired the site, and,
in 2004, the City Council approved the development of a 317,000 square foot IKEA
retail store and a 137,000 square foot "lifestyle center" by Blake Hunt Ventures on the
subject parcel (total of 454,000 square feet). The approvals included General Plan and
Specific Plan amendments changing the land use designation to General Commercial.
In late 2006, IKEA withdrew its plans to build a store in Dublin, and Blake Hunt Ventures
acquired the IKEA portion of the project site to enlarge and redesign their commercial
shopping center on the entire 27.45 acres. In 2008, the City Council approved an
application by Blake Hunt Ventures to construct a 327,400 square foot commercial
center referred to as "The Green on Park Place." The project was ultimately impacted
by the Great Recession and did not move forward.
Subsequently, the City Council considered a General Plan Amendment application to
change the General Commercial designation to mixed use. In February 2013 the City
Page 2 of 21
Council directed Staff to study a mixed -use development proposal for 372 residential
units and 37,000 square feet of restaurant uses on the site ("The Green"). The City
Council denied the project in April 21, 2015. Following that action, the property owner
marketed the property, and IKEA decided to acquire the property (again) thereafter.
The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is General Commercial
which would allow between 239,144 and 717,433 square feet of development (floor
area ratio of 0.20-0.60). The current zoning for the parcel is Planned Development (Ord.
No. 34-08) approved for "The Green on Park Place" project. Among other things, the
zoning limits the development to 327,400 square feet (maximum floor area ratio of 0.27)
with heights of up to 55 feet.
Proposed Project
The Applicant proposes to construct an IKEA retail store and adjacent retail center on
the project site. The proposed IKEA Retail Center project, branded as "The Glen at
Dublin", consists of up to 410,000 square feet of commercial uses. Accordingly, IKEA
has applied for the following land use entitlements:
• Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan to
establish zoning uses and development standards;
• Site Development Review requesting approval of the site layout and architecture;
• Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the site into two parcels; and
• Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
In response to a question raised during the August 21, 2018 City Council study session
on the proposed project, the project was modified to reduce the size of the IKEA store
from 339,099 square feet to 317,000 square feet. Refer to attached letter from IKEA
(Attachment 1). IKEA's proposal is to eliminate approximately 22,099 square feet from
the warehouse area and therefore reduce the overall size of the building to
approximately 317,000 square feet. This is achieved by pulling in one side of the
building in the southern end, and thereby shortening the length of the building by
approximately 60 feet. This reduction will have no effect on the overall design or
function of the building or the site, and the only changes are: (i) a reduction of the
warehouse area where goods are stored; and (ii) an increase in open space on the
south side.
The Planning Commission considered this modification at their September 11, 2018
Study Session and September 25, 2018 Public Hearing for the Project. IKEA initially
proposed that the square footage associated with the reduced size of the IKEA store
would be available for future development on the retail center. Based on feedback
received at the Planning Commission, IKEA requested that the Planned Development
ordinance be revised to reduce the maximum square footage to reflect the proposed
SDR. In other words, the zoning would prohibit development that exceeds the square
footage being approved with the project.
Page 3 of 21
On October 4, 2018, IKEA submitted a letter which further refined their project in
response to the Planning Commission meeting on September 25, 2018 where several
Commissioners requested that the proposed Planned Development be modified to be
consistent with the size of the retail center as shown in the Site Development Review
Permit and project plans. The letter, included as Attachment 2, revises the maximum
building area for Commercial Area 2 (retail center) from 115,099 square feet to 93,000
square feet. This revision is reflected in the draft Ordinance.
With these amendments, the proposed request is for a 317,000 square foot IKEA
building on Commercial Area 1 and a 93,000 square foot retail center on Commercial
Area 2 for a total of 410,000 square feet of commercial uses.
ANALYSIS:
Planned Development Rezone
The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planned Development Rezoning for the property will
establish the detailed Development Plan (site plan) for the site (See Figure 2 below), the
specific uses that are permitted by right, conditionally permitted, and prohibited, the
overall development density and intensity (e.g. floor area ratio, building heights) for the
site, and design guidelines for the two commercial areas (e.g. IKEA store and the retail
center as further described below). IKEA is proposing that the Planned Development
Zoning District allow for a variety of retail and service uses to accommodate the
proposed project. The draft Ordinance providing the details of the proposed zoning is
included as Attachment 3.
Page 4 of 21
Figure 2. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan
IKEA — Commercial Area ?:
The western half of the project site "Commercial Area 1" is proposed for an up to
317,000 square foot IKEA store above two floors of partially subterranean parking for
approximately 1,026 parking spaces. Commercial Area 1 is connected to Commercial
Area 2 through a large pedestrian plaza leading from the front entry to the IKEA store to
the plaza area of the adjacent retail center.
Retail Center — Commercial Area 2:
The eastern half of the project site "Commercial Area 2" is proposed as a 93,000 square
foot "lifestyle" retail center. According to the applicant the retail center would focus on
the social and pedestrian experience and contain a mix of up -scale restaurants, retailers
and related services. It is anticipated that approximately 58,000 square feet would be
food -related uses, and any such uses above that amount would require the applicant to
demonstrate, through a traffic study, that the trip generation would remain within the
scope of trip generation analyzed in the E1R. The site plan contains multiple buildings
that are oriented around a central plaza, encouraging a social and pedestrian friendly
atmosphere. Enhanced landscape and hardscape treatments, including large specimen
trees, manicured elements, site furniture and colored/textured paving, will be utilized.
Three additional pad buildings are placed within the parking area along the perimeter of
the parcel. Parking will also be provided around the perimeter. A total of approximately
568 parking spaces are provided on the eastern half of the project site.
Page 5 of 21
Planned Development Requirements:
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose, and
requirements of the Planned Development District. The Planned Development
Ordinance contains requirements that ensure the project components will be developed
as a cohesive and complementary project. The Development Plan establishes the
following regulations for use of the subject property: permitted and conditionally
permitted uses, development regulations, including setbacks, floor area ratio, height
limits, and parking requirement, standards and design guidelines, site plan of the
Project, and other requirements which regulate the improvement and maintenance of
the property. An overview of the Planned Development Zoning District is provided
below.
Permitted, Conditional and Temporary Land Uses:
The list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses is as provided in the Planned
Development Zoning District for the project site (Attachment 3). The list is divided into
Commercial Area 1 and 2. Both areas allow for a variety of commercial land uses,
focusing on attracting quality retail and restaurant uses. Outdoor seating and dining will
be an integral feature of the retail center due to its pedestrian -focused nature. The
Planned Development Zoning District permits the establishment of outdoor dining areas.
The Ordinance includes a threshold for the amount of restaurant uses allowed without
additional traffic analysis.
Also included in the permitted uses are retail kiosks and mobile food truck vendors. The
goal of these uses is to further activate the center with alternative retail experiences.
The ordinance addresses the potential to locate retail kiosks, both temporary and
permanent, within the pedestrian plazas. These can be used temporarily for seasonal
vendors or permanently for smaller businesses that do not need or want a full-size
tenant space. In addition, the ordinance accommodates for mobile food trucks in the
parking area. Mobile food truck events, which have become increasingly popular
throughout the area, would be allowed with specified parameters. Other temporary uses
such as farmers' markets and pumpkin patches are also included.
Similar to the other commercial zoning districts in Dublin, the proposed conditional uses
include animal sales and service, hotels, and outdoor storage among others. The details
of the Planned Development Zoning District are provided in the draft Ordinance which is
Attachment 3 to the Staff Report.
Design Theme:
According to the Applicant, the IKEA Retail Center project is the first of its projects to
fully connect lifestyle shops and restaurants with an IKEA store. The architecture for the
proposed project combines a variety of materials, textures and colors intended to
provide visual interest and to complement its surroundings. Building materials will
consist of a variety of colors, and textures to add richness to the wall planes. Materials
include composite wood, Richlite (a composite paper product), stucco, metal, and
masonry. Awnings, canopies, trellises, light fixtures, and landscaping all contribute to
the layers of detail at the pedestrian level. Finish materials are shown in the project
plans.
Page 6 of 21
The central plaza, which connects to the front entrance of the IKEA store, provides a
multi -functional outdoor space where people will gather and socialize. Buildings
throughout the Project are no more than 35 feet in height and one story, except for the
IKEA building which measures a maximum of 65 feet at its tallest point. The proposed
maximum height of 35 feet for Commercial Area 2 allows for a variety of rooflines and
architectural features for the one-story commercial buildings. The 65 feet
accommodates the proposed IKEA building which has an average height of 61 feet.
Most of the building measures 58'6" (blue and grey panels); however, the yellow panels
at the front entry extend to 65 feet.
The design of the Project is provided in more detail below (Site Development Review
Permit) and completely illustrated by the proposed building elevations and landscape
plans that are presented in the project plans.
Site Development Review Permit
A Site Development Review permit for the entire project site, including both the IKEA
building and the retail center is included in the proposed application. The City Council
resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit is included as Attachment 4.
The following is a summary of the key components of the project associated with the
Site Development Review.
Overall Project Design:
The project, as proposed, is designed to include a 317,000 square foot 1KEA store
located on the westerly 13.65 acres of the 27-acre site and a 93,000 square foot
lifestyle retail center on the easterly 13.66 acres. As previously stated, IKEA modified
the proposed project to reduce the size of the IKEA store from 339,099 square feet to
317,000 square feet. This modification eliminates approximately 22,099 square feet
from the warehouse area and will therefore reduce the overall size of the building to
approximately 317,000 square feet. This change is not reflected in the project plans.
This will be achieved by pulling in one side of the building in the southern end, and
thereby shortening the length of the building by approximately 60 feet. This reduction
will have no effect on the overall design or function of the building or the site, and the
only changes are: (i) a reduction of the warehouse area where goods are stored; and (ii)
an increase in open space on the south side. This modification to the project description
is reflected in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment 3) and in the Site Development Review
Permit Draft Resolution as Condition of Approval No. 18 (Attachment 4).
The project is proposed to be constructed as one phase providing for build out of both
areas concurrently. The project includes the construction of proposed buildings,
associated parking, landscaping and frontage improvements along Arnold Road and
Martinelli Way.
Site Plan, Access, Circulation, and Parking:
Page 7 of 21
As shown on the proposed site plan (Figure 3 below and Sheet SP-18 of the Project
Plans, Attachment 5), the overall orientation of the project is inward to the pedestrian
plaza, with main entry of the IKEA building facing the central plaza of the retail center.
The retail center has five buildings surrounding the plaza with an additional pad building
along Martinelli Way and a secondary area near the intersection of Martinelli Way and
Hacienda Drive formed by two buildings and a smaller plaza linking the development to
the fronting public streets.
s. uveraii site Tian
Y
nll In IHHHI IAA
4)i HHHHHN fl,
I�f TOTAL UPPER LEVa PMKffiG
5OOSPACES
I1111I Vfl ll�
379,899 SF
ILLLIHHInf� f1ffl-M
ll lfllll�,lfllllllf� �. •:
7
i} Ali
O EL7vA
a
N
®LJG B I �i
BLOC,G I BLDGH I i{
j
i BLOC, F 9LDC3 E
I
L
Primary vehicle access into the site will be provided from Martinelli Way at the existing
intersection at Persimmon Place. The existing 3-way intersection will be improved into a
full intersection creating the main driveway into the development shown as IKEA Place.
Secondary access points are provided to the east on Martinelli Way, an the southern
end of Arnold Road, and an exit only on Arnold Road near Martinelli Way.
At the main vehicle access, visitors will enter the Project Site and then make a choice of
turning right into the IKEA parking structure, turning left to the retail center, or continuing
straight to the southern portion of the development where access to both the IKEA
parking structure and the retail center's southern parking area. Once parked, IKEA
visitors can access the IKEA store internally by stairs or elevator up to the main lobby.
Visitors who made purchases requiring convenience loading would return to their
vehicles and move them to customer loading spaces located within the parking
structure. After loading, the customers could leave the site at the two egress points
along Arnold Road or the main exit at Martinelli Way and IKEA Place. Additional large
Page 8 of 21
vehicle loading is provided for customers on the south side of the store outside of the
parking structure. IKEA truck loading and trash pickup will be separated from customer
traffic and will be located on the western side of the IKEA building in the elevated
loading dock, on the opposite side of the store from the main customer entry.
The site plan shows a total of 1,643 parking spaces. Based on the mixture of retail and
restaurant uses in the center, the minimum number of spaces required per the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance is 1,639. The reduction to the size of the IKEA store would
simultaneously reduce the number of required and provided parking spaces within the
parking structure. For Commercial Area 1, the provided parking accommodates for the
8+ outdoor seating patios associated with the planned restaurant tenant spaces.
Therefore, the Project has adequate amount of parking to meet the City's requirements.
A multi -use Class 1 bike path is proposed along the eastern and southern edges of the
project site. This trail would provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access through the
project site as well as connection to the BART station and the Iron Horse Regional Trail.
The project will also include a new bicycle lane and sidewalk along the east side of
Arnold Way and a 14-foot wide sidewalk along the south side of Martinelli Way.
Building DesignlArchifecture — IKEA:
The design of the IKEA building utilizes many of the iconic IKEA features through simple
rectilinear forms and a distinctive store entrance. The exterior colors are gray as well as
the traditional blue and yellow, to match the colors of the flag of Sweden, the home of
IKEA's original store. The building is four stories with two floors of retail above two
floors of podium parking. The two floors of parking are partially subterranean. The
building stands approximately 65 feet at its tallest point.
The building is enhanced with bold geometry, and varying building materials such as
composite metal panels, steel elements, and clear anodized glass and aluminum
storefront, all of which are durable and of high quality. The renderings provided on
Sheets A600-663 of the Project Plans demonstrate the exterior elevations, and Sheet
A404 illustrates the location of the various colors and materials on the building
elevations. A colors and materials board will be available at the City Council meeting for
review and consideration.
Page 9 of 21
Existing development along the 1-580 corridor in Dublin includes a variety of different
building colors, materials, architectural styles and sizes. Several commercial buildings
employ similar blue and yellow tones in the project vicinity including, Best Buy at
Hacienda Crossings, and Dublin Chevrolet. Moreover, Fallon Gateway features red
colored buildings associated with Target and BYs Brew House, Persimmon Place
features orange and peach colored buildings, and Hacienda Crossings features
buildings of numerous colors (terra cotta, red, white, peach, blue, yellow, etc.). In
summary, Dublin currently has a number of prominent retail buildings that employ a
variety of bold colors and designs. The proposed IKEA with its blue and yellow scheme
would be in visual context with other retail nodes along the 1-580 corridor.
Building DesignlRrchifecture — Retail Center:
The architectural concept for the Retail Center is clean and contemporary referred by
the Applicant as "Contemporary Casual". Contemporary Casual embodies the qualities
of a strong relationship
between the indoor and
outdoor environments,
reinforced through the use
of earth tones, unique -
materials and inviting,
dynamic patio spaces. The
project offers a variety of I
contemporary building _
materials such as stone, _
wood, metal, architectural -
concrete and cement
plaster. The single -story -
building forms are horizontally oriented with varying roof lines that create a unique
design statement for the center while complementing the IKEA store and blending well
with the surrounding development. The building forms are highlighted with functional
Page 10 of 21
outdoor spaces where people can gather and socialize, with landscaping, outdoor
seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide an appropriate urban
scale for the development.
A color and material palette
has been provided that
illustrates the variety of
colors and textures for the
buildings. A colors and
materials board will be
presented at the City
Council meeting for review
and consideration.
Sustainability.
All IKEA stores are centered around sustainable design principles, but the exact details
vary from store to store. All new IKEA stores in the U.S. are designed at a minimum to
meet the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standard; similarly, the proposed Dublin store will
be designed to LEED-Silver, but possibly meet LEED-Gold. Gold scores are equivalent
to the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method "Excellent,"
which includes important measures like energy efficiency in lighting and cooling. The
proposed store will incorporate below store parking to reduce its heat island effect and
is located very closely to mass transit hub where it will be part of a sustainable
infrastructure system.
The store will also have low flow water fixtures, bicycle storage, showers for co-workers,
electric cars chargers, and an insulated thermally efficient building envelope.
Additionally, photovoltaic solar will be employed to offset its carbon emissions, and also
included significantly more glazing than other stores, thereby allowing for additional
natural daylighting.
For the lifestyle retail -restaurant center, the project is designed for compliance with the
California Green Building Code Tier 1 requirements.
Landscape Concept
The landscape concept emphasizes the outdoor uses areas focusing on providing a
variety of pedestrian experiences. Sheet L.1.1 most clearly illustrates the landscape for
the project as a whole. The landscape emphasizes drought -tolerant, water -conserving
plant selections throughout. The focus of the landscape plan is the project's central
plaza which connects the IKEA store to the rest of the commercial center. At the west
end of the plaza is the "IKEA Link" and the formal "Tulleries Alee" which serve as the
Page 11 of 21
pedestrian connection between the retail center front entrance of the IKEA store. In the
middle of the plaza is "The Lawn" that offers an open space with moveable furnishings
maximizing flexibility and emphasizing social gathering. "The Grove" and "The Deck"
are both located on the eastern end of the plaza. These areas are designed to function
as an outdoor room with a more intimate feel providing another opportunity for lounging
and gathering. Finally, the "Depot Plaza" located outside of the central plaza and
adjacent to the pad buildings near Hacienda Drive provides a second plaza area. This
plaza continues the pedestrian experience by providing a gathering space to connect
the pad buildings with the central area of the center and a connection to the corner of
Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive.
The various materials and furnishings that will be employed in the plaza areas are
shown on Sheet L2.1 and L2.2 of the Project Plans and the tree and plant palettes are
shown on Sheets L3.2 and L3.3.
In response to comments from the Planning Commission throughout the September 25,
2018 meeting, IKEA is also proposing potential shade elements for the "Lawn" to be
considered by the City Council. This revision was included in IKEA's October 4, 2018
letter along with the reduction in the maximum building area for Commercial Area 2.
The Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit for the IKEA Retail
Center is included as Attachment 4 to the Staff Report.
Public Art Compliance:
The applicant intends to satisfy the City's public art requirement through the payment of
in -lieu fees. Condition of Approval No.19 confirms this intention.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792
The subject property, as it is configured today, is reflective of the 2008 "The Green on
Park Place" Project. The site consists of three parcels, utility easements and traffic
signal easement along Arnold and an emergency vehicle access easement based on
the layout of the buildings. The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map will adjust the
lot lines resulting in two similarly sized parcels and clean-up the unnecessary
easements.
The Applicant has submitted a tentative parcel map to subdivide the 27.45-acre parcel
into two parcels: ±13.66 acres (Parcel 1 - IKEA) and ±13.79 (Parcel 2 - Retail Center).
The tentative map will allow for the two parcels to be under separate ownership. The
Tentative Map is included as Attachment 6. The Resolution approving Vesting Tentative
Map 10792 is included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report.
Fiscal Impact and Project Benefits
The City initiated an analysis by Keyser Marston to better understand the financial
impact of the project on the City's overall General Fund. Based on the analysis
Page 12 of 21
provided, the project is anticipated to generate a net new $1,748,000 in annual recurring
revenue. Approximately $1,536,000 of this amount is the City's share of the anticipated
sales and use tax revenue. The bulk of the remainder is $212,000 in property tax
revenue, reflecting the increased assessed value resulting from the new construction.
Staff does not anticipate that the project would impose material costs on the City's
budget, since the site can be served with existing public safety resources, as is noted in
Chapter 3.5 of the Environmental Impact Report.
Second, the project includes the Lifestyle Retail component that will meet a community
need for active gathering spaces and upscale restaurant and retail. The original
proposal from IKEA did not include the additional retail development. It is likely (for the
reasons discussed in the "Vested Rights; Extent of City Discretion" below) that if the
project is not approved IKEA would apply for a standalone IKEA project with surface
parking.
Traffic Impacts
At the Planning Commission study session and public hearing, members of the public
made comments regarding traffic. While the development will have traffic impacts, it is
important to put those impacts in the appropriate context.
Speaking generally, the traffic impacts are less than one might expect for a project of
this size for three primary reasons. First, the project's location is immediately adjacent
to the freeway interchange that allows for efficient ingress to and egress from the site.
Second, the adjacent roadways have adequate "supply" to meet the traffic demand from
the project, due to being improved to facilitate the original IKEA project. For example,
eastbound Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way is improved with 3 left turn lanes, and east
and west bound Martinelli Way has multiple turn pockets to accommodate large traffic
volumes. Third, the project's traffic is more limited during the morning and evening peak
hours when traffic in the area is most significant. IKEA traffic tends to be most
significant on weekends, when there is less background traffic. So, there will be no
noticeable impact on school drop-offs and morning commute, and limited impact during
the evening commute.
In addition, the other unavoidable impacts are better characterized as resulting from the
background conditions rather than the project. For example, the City has determined
that it is not feasible to complete any additional improvements in the Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, and it operates below the level of service
standard in many current and future conditions. Even the project's limited addition of
traffic to this intersection is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Several
other freeway and roadway segments involve significant and unavoidable impacts even
though very limited traffic is added to a segment that is already operating below
standards.
Finally, many of the impacts that are described as unavoidable can actually be avoided.
However, because the improvements are in the jurisdiction of another agency (City of
Page 13 of 21
Pleasanton or Caltrans) and their completion cannot be assured, they must be treated
as unmitigated. Examples of this include planned 1-580 interchange improvements and
intersection improvements in the City of Pleasanton, to which IKEA would be required to
make a fair share contribution.
Application of Superstore Ordinance
The Dublin Municipal Code prohibits "Superstores," and the proposed IKEA store's size,
317,000 square feet, has raised questions about whether it is prohibited by the
"Superstore Ordinance." However, because of the specific format of the proposed IKEA
store, the Superstore Ordinance does not apply to the project.
The Municipal Code's definition of "Superstore" focuses both on the size of the building
and on the percentage of floor area devoted to the sale of non-taxable merchandise.
(Municipal Code, Chapter 8.42.) A superstore is a store that exceeds 170,000 square
feet and also devotes at least 10% of its sales floor to the sale of non-taxable
merchandise. The Superstore ordinance defines "Non-taxable merchandise" as
"products, commodities or items, the sale of which is not subject to California State
sales tax." Under California law, sales of food for human consumption are generally not
subject to sales tax, although meals in restaurants are taxable. The superstore
ordinance, then, is aimed at a specific type of big box retailer, but not all big box
retailers.
In order to develop, IKEA will need to ensure they d❑ not exceed the allowed threshold
for non-taxable merchandise. IKEA stores' floor areas are primarily focused on the sale
of home furnishings, which are taxable, but typically a portion of the floor area may be
devoted to the sale of food. Staff understands that IKEA will devote less than 10
percent of the total floor sales area to the sale of non-taxable food for human
consumption, and the project, if approved, will be conditioned to ensure compliance with
this criterion.
Vested Rights: Extent of City Discretion
IKEA does not have a vested right to its project, but the City Council's discretion with
respect to development on the site is somewhat constrained by state and federal law.
IKEA has neither a development agreement nor a vesting tentative map that grant it
vested rights in the City's existing land use regulations. Thus, under general principles
of California's land use law, the City could theoretically change the underlying land use
regulations in a way that prevented IKEA from pursuing its project. On the other hand, it
seems likely, for the reasons detailed below, that IKEA could make a viable case that a
fundamental disapproval of retail development on the site would constitute a partial
"taking" under the California and United States Constitutions. Were a court to find that
the City "took" the property (whether partially, temporarily, or permanently), the City
would be liable for damages equal to the diminished value determined by the court,
which could be multi -millions of dollars given that IKEA paid nearly $50,000,000 for the
property in 2016.
Page 14 of 21
The development history of the site is such that IKEA could forcefully argue that when it
purchased the site had "distinct investment backed expectations" —one of the key
factors under the takings clause —that the site could be developed with retail consistent
with the General Commercial designation. IKEA could focus on the fact that the City
previously approved two retail projects on the site, including a project anchored by an
IKEA store, and more recently rejected a proposal that would have allowed residential
on the site.
Despite the possible constraints under the takings clause, the City Council has
significant discretion over the form that the retail project takes. For example, IKEA is
requesting a Planned Development Rezoning that would increase the existing density
and height limits beyond that which was in place when it purchased the property. The
City Council would likely not have takings liability if it were to require IKEA to stay within
the existing density and height limits in the existing PD zoning (0.27 floor area ratio and
55-foot height limit). Such a decision by the City Council would likely result in IKEA
proposing a stand-alone IKEA store applying the maximum floor area ratio (up to
322,845 square feet) with all surface parking and without the lifestyle retail center
component. Indeed, IKEA has indicated that it intends to pursue a standalone IKEA
project if the proposed project is not approved. The City Council would likely find it
more difficult to disapprove such a follow-on project without incurring liability.
The City Council, in addition, has significant discretion in considering the P❑ Rezoning
and SDR. Factors such as site design, architecture, and the project's compatibility with
its surroundings could likely support a denial, so long as those bases did not reflect a
fundamental denial of retail (General Commercial) on the site.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, AND ZONING
ORDINANCE:
The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial which allows for a variety of commercial uses including both retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve. The General Plan encourages
projects to relate well to the surrounding developments, and the proposed project is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes commercial, office, and
residential uses.
The proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the
Plan states that regionally -oriented commercial uses should be located south of Dublin
Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit
traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin, and the retail center is intended to serve the
community as well as the region.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin
San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval
where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Page 15 of 21
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and
agencies have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 4).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan was certified by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993. This
1993 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of urban development on the subject
property. As part of the certification of the EIR for this Project, the City Council adopted
a Statement of Overriding Consideration for various unavoidable and significant
environmental impacts including, but not limited to, traffic and circulation impacts to
Dublin intersections near I-580 as well as to 1-580.
In 2003, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for a
proposed IKEA furniture store and associated development on the subject property
(SCH No. 2003092076) (IKEA SEIR). The IKEA SEIR analyzed a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and related applications to allow the
development of a 317,000- square- foot IKEA store on the westerly portion of the site
and a 137,000- square- foot separate "lifestyle" retail center on the eastern portion of
the site. On March 16, 2004, Dublin City Council certified the IKEA SEIR by Resolution
No. 44- 04 and approved the amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan to
designate the site for General Commercial use. As part of the certification, City Council
adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this Project for unavoidable
significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that applied to the IKEA project
as well as unavoidable significant impacts that were identified in the 1KEA SEIR for the
IKEA project. Those impacts related to air quality, land use/open space, and traffic.
The City prepared an Initial Study for the Project to determine if any subsequent
environmental review was required beyond the 1993 EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and IKEA SEIR. The Initial Study concluded that much of the impact analysis in
the 1993 EIR and IKEA SEIR continue to apply to the Project. However, the Initial
Study concluded that additional environmental review was required under CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 based primarily on newly identified sensitive
biological species on -site, potential new traffic impacts and related air quality effects.
A Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared and circulated to the public for the required 45
days. The comment period was open from January 31, 2018 to March 16, 2018. The
City received 124 comment letters during the public review and comment period.
Responses have also been prepared to each of the all of comments received by the
City. The comments and associated responses together constituted the Final SEIR.
The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR are included as Exhibits A and 6 to Attachment 7
(CEQA Resolution) to the Staff Report.
The Draft SEIR (Attachment 8, Exhibit A to Attachment 7) thoroughly and
comprehensively assessed the potential for the Project to cause or contribute to
Page 16 of 21
significant impacts beyond those identified in the 1993 EIR and IKEA SEIR. Where new
potentially significant impacts were identified, appropriate mitigation measures were
also proposed to reduce or avoid the impacts. These impacts will be addressed in
mitigation findings upon City Council approval of the Project.
The Draft SEIR examined potential environmental impacts resulting from the project in
the following topic areas:
• Air QualitylGreenhouse Gas Emissions
• Biological Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Noise
• Public Services and Utilities
• Transportation
• Urban Decay
Air QualitylGreenhouse Gas Emissions
The 1993 EIR identified cumulative air quality impacts as a significant unavoidable
impact of development in Eastern ❑ublin; however, the impacts associated with
greenhouse gas emissions were not examined. The Draft SEIR examined the project's
characteristics under the most current requirements for both air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. The Draft SEIR identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality and
includes mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a level that is less than
significant. The impact due to Project greenhouse gas emissions were found less than
significant.
Biological Resources
The 1993 EIR identified numerous sensitive habitats and protected species with the
potential to occur in the Eastern Dublin Extended Area and identified the cumulative
loss of sensitive habitat as a significant unavoidable impact of development. The Draft
SEIR identified the potential for species to be found onsite (i.e. Congdon tarplant,
burrowing owls and wetlands). The ❑raft SEIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce
the impacts in these areas to a level that is less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As previously noted, the project site is vacant except for a water utility building on the
southwest corner. The site is generally flat with localized high areas and stockpile areas
resulting from the site -clearance and clean-up activities. The Draft SEIR identified the
soil stockpiles with potential to contain hazardous materials. A mitigation measure to
reduce this impact to less than significant was identified.
Noise
The 1993 EIR identified noise impact to residences from construction noise and
mitigation measure IM 3.141E was adopted requiring projects to create a Construction
Noise Management Program to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. The Draft
SEIR expanded on this mitigation measure and provided additional specificity to
Page 17 of 21
address the surrounding development. No new impacts were identified in the Draft SEIR
that were not previously identified in the 1993 EIR.
Public Services and Utilities
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Public Services and Utilities
and therefore no mitigations were required.
Transportation
The 1993 EIR analyzed the traffic impacts of the project site with Campus Office uses
as proposed at the time. As part of the ]KEA project in 2004, the applicant included
changes the land use designations to General Commercial and therefore the IKEA
SEIR traffic analysis examined how the previous ]KEA project would change the traffic
analysis and assumptions in the 1993 EIR. The land use designation for the project site
remain General Commercial; however, the traffic analysis was updated to reflect the
updated project.
The traffic analysis identified potentially significant impacts to intersection and queues in
the near term and cumulative conditions. For some impact locations, mitigation
measures such as Adaptive Signal Control Technologies, Eastern Dublin TIF payments,
proportionate share payments toward improvements and a Transportation Demand
Management Program address the impacts and reduce them to a level of less than
significant. Similar to other projects of this size, impacts to transportation were identified
where, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the
environment are still expected to be significant. Although mitigation measures were
written to reduce the level of the impact, the impact could not be fully reduced to less
than significant in all instances.
In cases where the implementation of the mitigation measure was not guaranteed
because neither the City nor the Applicant has control over the impact area, mitigations
were proposed, but the impact was acknowledged to be significant and unavoidable.
For example, MM TRANS-2c requires the Applicant to work with the City of Pleasanton
and Caltrans to identify the pay the project's proportionate share for improvements to
the intersection of Santa Rita Road11-580. While the identified improvements may be
constructed, the City of Dublin nor the Applicant has the authority to ensure that they
do.
In order to approve the project, the City Council must make findings regarding
significant impacts and mitigation measures (Attachment 10), findings concerning
infeasibility of alternatives and potential additional mitigation measures (Attachment 11)
and will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) (Attachment 12)
that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and explain why the
benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts. The findings
and SOC is required in order to approve the project, if desired by a majority of the City
Council.
Urban Decay
Page 18 of 21
The Project impacts that could potentially lead to urban decay were found less than
significant and, therefore, no mitigation is required.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
The project assists the City Council in meeting the following Strategic Plan item:
• Strategy 1: Assure the City's long-term financial sustainability
o Strategic Objective C: Look for additional ways to increase sales tax
revenue for the City.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Community Meetings
The City hosted a community engagement program for the IKEA retail center project.
This outreach program was comprised of four community meetings, as further described
below, to inform the community about the proposed project and the environmental
analysis, and to solicit feedback on the project plans as they evolved. Notifications of
the meetings were provided via email to all interested parties, posted on the City's
website and mailed to adjacent property owners and occupants as described below for
the Public Notice for Public Hearings.
y Community Meeting #1: Open House — June 13, 2016
The purpose was to introduce the community to the proposed project and receive
their feedback. The meeting was attended by 45 community members.
Public Scoping Meeting: Scoping Meeting for Supplemental F1R — September 7,
2017
City Staff provided an overview of the proposed scope and content of the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Approximately 10 community
members attended the meeting.
Community Meeting #2: Transportation and Traffic — December 6, 2017
Staff and the City's team of technical experts presented the preliminary findings
from the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the proposed project.
Approximately 20 community members attended the meeting.
Community Meeting #3: Site Design and Aesthetics — February 21, 2018
Staff was joined by the Applicant's design professionals including the architects,
landscape architects, and civil engineer to provide an overview of the proposed
site design and architecture for the proposed IKEA store and retail
center. Approximately 25 community members attended the meeting.
City Council Study Session
On August 21, 2018, City Council held a study session to receive the status report on
the project and provide feedback regarding the proposed project to both Staff and the
Applicant.
Page 19 of 21
Planning Commission Action
On September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended the following by a 4-0 vote to Certify the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report. The Planning Commission also recommended by a 3-1 vote to not adopt
an Ordinance amending the existing Planned Development Zoning District with a
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and adopt a Resolution denying a Site
Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 for the IKEA
Retail Center Project.
The Commission determined that the SEIR adequately analyzed and disclosed the
project's impacts and therefore recommended certification of the SEIR; however, the
Planning Commission was unable to make the necessary findings for approval of the
project as detailed in the attached resolution. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 18-
22 and 18-23 as well as the draft minutes from the September 25, 2018 meeting are
attached to this report (Attachments 13, 14 & 15).
Public Notice for Public Hearing
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the IKEA Retail Center project site. A public notice was
also provided to an expanded area beyond 300 feet, as shown in Figure 2 below and to
interested parties. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant A
public notice also was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations
throughout the City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the
project was also included on the City's development projects webpage. A copy of this
Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant.
I's11111>i_[y:1614►11 &-3
1. IKEA Letter August 2018
Page 20 of 21
2. IKEA Letter October 2018
3. City Council Draft ❑rdinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned
Development Zoning ❑istrict
4. City Council ❑raft Resolution Approving an Site Development Review and a Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map 10792
5. Exhibit A to Attachment 4 Project Plans
6. Exhibit B to Attachment 4 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792
7. City Council Draft Resolution Certifying a Supplemental E1R and Adopting EIR
Findings
8. Exhibit A to Attachment 7 IKEA Retail Center Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report
9. Exhibit B to Attachment 7 IKEA Retail Center Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report
10. Exhibit C to Attachment 7 Findings Mitigation Measures
11. Exhibit D to Attachment 7 Findings Alternatives
12. Exhibit E to Attachment 7 Statement of Overridding Considerations
13. Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-22
14. Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-23
15. Planning Commission Meeting ❑raft Minutes dated September 25, 2018
16. Public Comment
17. Tax Revenues to the City generated by IKEA
hft Foss, City Manager 1011012018
Page 21 of 21
Page 1 of 16
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 8, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adjourned Deliberations on IKEA Retail Center Project (PLPA-2016-
00016)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
After taking testimony and closing the public hearing on October 16, 2018, the City
Council adjourned its deliberations on the IKEA Retail Center project (branded as “The
Glen at Dublin”) to November 8, 2018. The proposed project is comprised of up to
410,000 square feet of commercial uses, consisting of a 317,000 square foot IKEA store
and 93,000 square foot retail center on the 27.45-acre parcel. Requested land use
approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
10792, and a certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This report
includes answers to questions the City Council asked be clarified as part of their request
to hold adjourned deliberations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deliberate and take the following actions: a) Adopt a Resolution certifying a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings
under CEQA for the IKEA Retail Center project; b) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE
an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning
District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and c) Adopt a
Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map
for the IKEA Retail Center project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with processing the application will be borne by the Applicant.
Based on a fiscal impact report prepared by Keyser Marston on behalf of the City, it is
anticipated that the project would generate a total of $1.9 million annually to the City’s
General Fund in the form of sales tax, property tax, and other revenues.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Page 2 of 16
On October 16, 2018, the City Cou ncil held a public hearing to consider the proposed
project. A copy of the staff report for the October 16, 2018 meeting is included as
Attachment 1. At the meeting, the City Council received presentations by Staff and the
Applicant, considered public comment and closed the public hearing. The Council
requested Staff provide additional information needed and adjourned the meeting and
its deliberations to November 8, 2018. This staff report provides responses to the City
Council’s request for additional information.
LEGAL ISSUES
Initiative/Referendum Process
Mayor Haubert requested additional information about the referendum and initiative
process and how they might apply to the project. California law gives the City’s voters
the right to propose both referenda and initiatives. A referendum is a ballot measure in
which the voters are asked to either approve or disapprove legislation previously
adopted by the City Council. An initiative is a ballot measure in which the voters are
asked to approve legislation. Although initiatives are ordinarily initiated by voter petition,
state election law gives the City Council the authority to propose measures to the
voters. (Elect. Code, § 9222.)
The voters’ initiative and referendum power is limited to certain “leg islative acts,” and it
does not extend to “administrative acts.” Legislative acts generally involve the
formulation of rules to be applied in future cases and include things like ordinances and
general plan amendments. Administrative acts involve the application of existing rules
to a specific situation, such as a site development review approval or a tentative map.
The approval of the IKEA project includes a legislative act and administrative acts. The
legislative act is the Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan. The administrative acts include a Site Development Review Permit
and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Referendum Process
If the City Council approves the project, opponents of the project could attempt to gather
signatures to have a referendum election on the ordinance approving the Planned
Development Rezone. A successful referendum petition must be signed by 10 percent
of the City’s registered voters and must be submitted to the City Clerk within 30 days of
the ordinance’s attestation by the City Clerk (which usually takes place the day of or day
after the Council meeting) (Elect. Code, § 9237.) The City Clerk then determines
whether the petition is signed by the required number of voters. If so, the City Cle rk
presents it at City Council’s next regular meeting. The City Council must either repeal
the ordinance or submit it to the voters.
Assuming that the City Council acted to approve the project on November 20, 2018, and
a successful referendum petition was submitted, the earliest, realistic election date for
the City Council to call the election is on the established election date of November 5,
2019. In order to make the March 5, 2019 established election date, the petition would
Page 3 of 16
need to be certified to the City Council at the December 4, 2018 meeting, which would
entail signature gathering and certification occurring in a 14-day period (a near
impossibility). The City Council could also call a special election on another date, but,
doing so would be much more costly than consolidating with another election. As
indicated below, the costs will vary depending on whether the election is consolidated
with a countywide election. Whether consolidation is an option is not known presently,
because it depends on whether other local cities or districts call for an election on the
same date.
Initiative Process
If the City Council chose to place the PD ordinance on the ballot as a City Council -
initiated measure at its November 20, 2018 meeting, the election could be held on the
next established election date of March 5, 2019 or as a special election on a date after
February 17, 2019. Again, the costs vary whether the election can be consolidated with
other local elections.
Election Costs
Referenda and initiatives of this kind cannot be all-mailed ballot elections. (Elect. Code,
4000.) The estimated costs of either a referendum or an initiative election would be as
follows:
Countywide Consolidated $4-6 per voter $86,680-$130,020
Standalone Special
Election
12-$15 per voter $269,040-$325,050
IKEA property rights and potential constitutional takings claims
The staff reports on the project for the October 16 and August 21 City Council meetings
discussed the potential for IKEA to assert “takings” claims under the federal and state
constitutions were the City to disapprove the project and future projects. The agenda
reports expressed the view that:
1. The City Council had various grounds for rejecting IKEA’s current project
without incurring liability, given that the project’s size is larger than allowed
under the current zoning.
2. Were the current project disapproved, IKEA would likely propose a standalone
IKEA project (the “replacement project”) of a size allowed in the current zoning.
3. Such a replacement project, if IKEA chooses to pursue it, has a potential to
create liability for the City if disapproved.
IKEA submitted a letter to the City Attorney on October 10, 2018 expressing IKEA’s
intentions and resolve” to pursue a replacement project if the current one is
disapproved and to “zealously protect its property rights” under the state and federal
constitutions. IKEA’s letter is consistent with the views expressed in the agenda reports.
Page 4 of 16
The City Council requested that the City Attorney address the legal issues in greater
detail, asking a number of specific questions related to the discussion in the agenda
reports and IKEA’s letter. This section addresses each of those questions.
Constitutional “takings” law principles and standards
In order to prevail on a “takings” claim, a plaintiff must prove that his or her property was
taken for “public use” without just compensation in violation of section 19, article I of the
California Constitution or the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While
most “takings” involve the government actually seizing a property owner’s land, the
courts have also recognized that the regulation of property that “goes too far” may affect
a taking of that property. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16
Cal.4th 761, 733.) Those so-called “regulatory takings” limit the use of private property
to such a degree that the regulation effectively deprives the property owners of
economically reasonable use or value of their property (even if the regulation does not
formally divest an owner of ownership or physically “take” any property).
The first and often key hurdle that a takings plaintiff needs to overcome is to
demonstrate that the claim is ready (ripe) for a court’s review. The property owner
bears a heavy burden of showing that a regulation as applied to a particular parcel is
ripe for a taking claim” and must first exhaust all administrative remedies. (Milagra
Ridge Partners, Ltd. v. City of Pacifica (1998) 62 Cal. App.4th 108, 117.) Practically, this
means that a property owner challenging a governmental action “must establish that it
has submitted at least one meaningful application for a development project which has
been thoroughly rejected, and that it has prosecuted at least one meaningful application
for a zoning variance, or something similar, which has been finally denied.” (Long Beach
Equities, Inc. v. County of Ventura (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1032.) Denial of a
single application, particularly if “grandiose” or beyond what is permitted under cu rrent
regulations, would not set up a takings claim. Rather, a takings claim is not ripe until the
city reaches a final determination of the type and intensity of development legally
permitted under the applicable regulations on the property at issue. (MacDonald,
Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo (1986) 477 U.S. 340, 348.)
Assuming that a takings plaintiff meets the threshold for ripeness, the second hurdle is
to demonstrate that the regulation of the property goes too far. Determining whether a
taking has occurred involves an “essentially ad hoc” inquiry. (Kavanau, supra, 16
Cal.4th at p. 774, citing Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S.
104, 124.) The United States Supreme Court has observed that in resolving claims
based on land use regulations, “no precise rule determines when property has been
taken” but the “question necessarily requires a weighing of public and private interests.”
Agins v. Tiburon (1980) 447 U.S. 255, abrogated on other grounds by Lingle v.
Chevron USA, Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528.)
Whether a regulation goes “too far” is tested under what have been called the “Penn
Central factors.” In Kavanau, the California Supreme Court identified three primary
factors to be considered in determining whether there has been a denial of economically
viable use of property: “(1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2)
the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment -backed
Page 5 of 16
expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action.” (Kavanau, supra, 16
Cal.4th at p. 775, citing Penn Central, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 124.) In addition to the
aforementioned factors, subsequent cases, as well as a close reading of Penn Central,
indicate a range of other factors that might be relevant to a takings claim. (Id. at p. 776.)
The Kavanau court listed ten additional, nonexclusive factors that might be relevant.
Ibid.) These factors include whether the regulation permits the property owner to profit
and to obtain a reasonable return on its investment, whether the regulation provides the
property owner benefits or rights that mitigate whatever financial burdens the law has
imposed, and whether the regulation prevents the “best use” of the land. (Ibid.) The
factors are only relevant “as appropriate to the facts of the case [the court] is
considering,” meaning that the analysis will change depending the particular nature of
the land at issue and the specific governmental regulations being challenged. (Id. at pp.
776, 781.)
History of the general plan and specific designation and zoning for the IKEA site
In the original Eastern Dublin planning effort, which included the adoption of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and an associated general plan amendment, the City designated
IKEA’s property for Campus Office development. That designation allows for typical
office uses and ancillary retail. In 2001, the City Council approved Commerce One’s
application for an approximately 780,000 square foot campus, which Commerce One
abandoned later that year.
In 2004, the City changed the land use designation to General Commercial. The City
made this change in response to an application from IKEA. IKEA proposed an IKEA
store, a retail center, and related improvements on the 27.55 -acre site. The City Council
approved various entitlements for the project, including General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan amendments changing the land use designations from Campus
Office to General Commercial and rezoning the site to PD -Planned Development and
adopting related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. The original IKEA project
included a 317,000-square-foot IKEA building (which is the same size as the currently
proposed IKEA store) and 137,000 square feet of associated retail, for a total of
454,000 square feet. The developer began the infrastructure improvements for the
project, but the City received notification in 2006 that the IKEA project was no longer
moving forward.
The General Commercial land use designation is the standard for retail uses under both
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. For example, Hacienda Crossing
and Fallon Gateway are both designated General Commercial. The designations allow
a floor area ratio of between 0.20 and 0.60, which equates on the IKEA site to be
between approximately 240,000 and 715,000 square feet. The General Commercial
designations specifically allow both “community-serving” and “regionally oriented retail
uses,” with regional uses defined as “high volume retail uses such as discount centers,
promotional centers, home improvement centers, furniture outlets, and auto malls.”
In 2008, the City considered a new General Commercial project and amended the
zoning for the site to accommodate the project. The new property owner, Blake Hunt
Ventures, submitted an application to construct a 305,000-square-foot retail commercial
Page 6 of 16
shopping center on the same 27.446 acres of land as the prior IKEA site approval. The
proposed project was smaller than the original IKEA project. It consisted of 270,000
square feet of retail uses and 35,000 square feet of restaurant uses in a pedestrian -
oriented outdoor center. In approving the project, the City Council adopted the Stage 1
and Stage 2 zoning for the 2008 project that remains in effect today. The developer did
not pursue the project, presumably due to the state of the economy following 2008.
In 2015, the City Council rejected a revised proposal from the then -owner of the
property. The applicant proposed a general plan amendment to change the land use
designation from General Commercial to Mixed Use, in order to facilitate a project
consisting of 37,000 square feet of restaurants and retail, and 372 residential units. In
rejecting the project, the City Council expressed various views. The views included a
majority against allowing housing on the site and supporting vibrant commercial on the
site.
The relationship of the IKEA proposal to the existing land use regulations
IKEA re-purchased the property in 2016 and submitted a new proposal. The proposed
project is a commercial-retail center anchored by an IKEA store building of 317,000
square feet and an additional 93,000 square feet of lifestyle retail/restaurants. The
project would require amendments to Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development
Zoning but not to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
As an exclusively retail use, it is consistent with the General Commercial land use
designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Under the
proposed project, the total square footage for the project is 410,000 square feet, which
equates to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.36 (410,000 square feet over the 1,189,624
square foot site). The project’s FAR is consistent with the range of 0.20 to 0.60 FAR
allowed in the General Commercial designations.
The project requires revisions to the existing Stage 1 and Stage 2 development plans
for two reasons. First, an amendment is necessary due to substantial differences
between the layout and design of the 2008 project and the currently proposed project.
Second, the proposed project would require that the maximum floor area ratio be
increased from 0.26 to 0.34 and the maximum building area from 327,400 square feet to
410,000 square feet.
Application of Takings Principles to the IKEA project and property
The current project. IKEA could not make a viable takings case from the City Council’s
denial of the current project. As noted above, the ripeness doctrine requires a property
owner asserting a taking to demonstrate that it has sought approvals under the existing
regulations and had the proposal “thoroughly rejected,” and then followed up with a
subsequent request that is also rejected. There must be a city decision that reveals
what, if any, type and intensity of development will be permitted on the site. IKEA will
not be at such a point following a City Council denial of the current project.
Furthermore, the current project seeks an approval for a density that exceeds the
existing zoning for the site. The City could reject that proposal solely on that ground,
and it would not be likely to face a viable takings claim.
Page 7 of 16
The “replacement project.” If the current project were rejected, IKEA would have the
opportunity to file another application for development. IKEA’s counsel indicated in his
letter IKEA’s intent to “revert to the site’s existing entitlements.” Staff assumes he
means that IKEA would propose a standalone, surfaced -parked IKEA store of no more
than 305,000 square feet, which is the maximum square footage allowed under the
existing zoning. The City Attorney believes that IKEA would have to file and have such a
replacement project rejected before it would have a chance of establishing a viable
takings claim under the ripeness doctrine. Viable for this purpose means a claim that
could survive a motion to dismiss, which would allow for discovery and potentially get
the case to a jury.
In the case of the IKEA property, the history outlined may allow IKEA to establish that it
had, when it purchased the property, distinct investment-backed expectations to be able
to develop a general commercial project consistent with the general plan designation
and at least the level of development allowed under the existing zoning.
The facts and circumstances that would justify that point of view are that:
1. The site was formerly designed Campus Office, and the City re -designated it to
the current land use designation of General Commercial.
2. The City previously approved two General Commercial projects, including one
that included an identically sized IKEA store and more associated retail than the
current project.
3. The City subsequently rejected a proposal to change the General Plan to allow a
mixed-use project (residential and commercial). The stated rationales for that
rejection included a preference for commercial over residential.
All of these actions prior to the IKEA’s acquisition of the property could potentially
support a finding that IKEA had reasonable and distinct investment -backed expectations
in its ability to pursue a retail development of the site along the lines of what IKEA would
propose in the replacement project. It seems plausible that a jury would agree that
IKEA could have reasonably relied upon those facts and circumstances in purchasing
the property and that those expectations would have been reflected in the price it paid
for the property.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal found a taking on similar facts. (See Avenida San
Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256.) There, the
property owner had purchased the property in 1980, when the property was designated
to allow 4 residential units per acre. (Id. at p. 1260.) Consistent with that designation,
the City approved a 4-unit subdivision in 1983. (Ibid.) In 1996, the City re-designated the
property to a land use that allowed 1 unit per 20 acres. (Id. at p. 1261.) In 2007, the
City denied the property owner’s application for a general plan amendment that would
have allowed it to build a four-unit project. (Id. at p. 1262.) The court found that the
1996 re-designation “wholly undermined” the property owner’s “investment -backed
Page 8 of 16
expectations” when the property was purchased in 1980, an expectation that was
emphasize[d]” by the City’s 1983 approval of a project similar to the one that was
denied in 2007. (Id. at p. 1273.) The facts are perhaps even stronger in IKEA’s case
since the City approved two similar retail projects, including an IKEA project, prior to
IKEA’s purchase of the property.
Ultimately, takings cases are extremely fact-specific and decided on an ad-hoc basis,
which makes any legal opinion inherently uncertain, particularly at this early stage. The
outcome of a takings case would be highly dependent on the future actions of the City
and IKEA on the replacement project. It would be impossible for any lawyer to predict
the outcome of such a case with any level of certainty before those events have
occurred. Thus, the October 16 agenda report concluded that IKEA “could make a
viable [takings] case” and “could forcefully argue” that it had reasonable investment-
backed expectations when it purchased the site. Similarly, it stated that the City Council
would “likely find it more difficult” to disapprove the replacement project without
incurring liability.” These statements reflect the view that IKEA may have a viable claim
that would be very costly for the City to defend and could potentially lead to financial
liability, but it does not reflect the view that the City would lose a lawsuit on such a
claim.
The City may be able to develop reasonable bases for disapproval of the replacement
project that would demonstrate a legitimate public purpose to survive scrutiny under the
takings clauses. For example, the City might express a general policy preference for
smaller-format, multiple-user lifestyle retail versus the replacement project’s larger-
format, single-user retail. Such a preference is consistent with the existing zoning
approved with the 2008 project, which includes a site plan that shows several retail
buildings, none of which are larger than 50,000 square feet. However, the existing
zoning does not explicitly state a preference for smaller format retail and does not
specifically single users. In response, IKEA is likely to argue that it was reasonable for it
to have an expectation of the ability to pursue a project with large-format retail for
various reasons. For example, it could point to the lack of any express language in the
ordinance supporting the view that the zoning only allows smaller format retail. In
addition, it could point to the fact that the City had previously approved a project on the
site that included a large format retailer. In support of its position, IKEA might be able to
demonstrate that a smaller-format project is economically infeasible—given retail
saturation in the area—without a large format retail anchor, along the lines of the current
project. Such a showing would likely require the City, in order to avoid liability, to either
interpret the existing zoning or adopt new Planned Development zoning to allow a
feasible General Commercial project.
Similarly, the City might be able to avoid the claim by changing the General Plan land -
use designation to another land-use designation that results in a similar land value. For
example, a re-designation to a residential land-use designation might result in a land
value that both prevents IKEA from proposing an IKEA project and from asserting a
takings claim. Specifically, IKEA might not be able to demonstrate any economic
damage arising from the City’s actions, assuming that the economic impact of the re-
designation is neutral or positive. Staff believes that may a re -designation to Campus
Page 9 of 16
Office, however, may have a negative impact on the property value, because Campus
Office land values have tended to be much lower than General Commercial and
residential designations. Evidence demonstrating a negative impact on the property
value may provide grounds for IKEA to assert economic damages from such a re -
designation. Although most general plan and specific amendments have been initiated
by property-owner applicants, the City Council can request staff to initiate them at any
time, subject to Brown Act requirements. Such amendments require noticed public
hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council and could requ ire significant
environmental review, depending upon the scope and impacts of the changes.
On the other side of things, IKEA is likely to carefully tailor the replacement project to
conform to the policies and standards in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
and existing zoning. In other words, it will design the replacement project to “give the
City what it said it wanted.” IKEA is likely to focus on the fact that the General
Commercial designation’s authorization of “regionally oriented . . . high volume” retail.
Indeed, it may “try again” if the replacement project is rejected in order to strengthen its
case, using the basis for the rejection to further tailor the project to the City’s
specifications.) IKEA will also point to City policies that are supportive of the project,
such as Policy 4-12 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which encourages regional
retail to be located south of Dublin Boulevard and adjacent to freeway interchanges —as
the IKEA project is—so as to limit traffic impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin.
The bottom line is that a denial of the replacement project has the strong potential to
result in a viable takings claim from IKEA. At the very least, such a claim is likely to
lead to expensive litigation. In the worst-case scenario, it could lead in addition to a
significant damages award against the City, given the property’s nearly $50,000,000
purchase price in February 2016. The City will of course have multiple opportunities to
avoid such an outcome in the course of its further actions on the IKEA’s applications.
Comparison with the UDR lawsuit
The City Council requested that staff contrast a potential claim from IKEA with the
lawsuit the City recently settled with Ashton at Dublin Station LLC, a subsidiary of UDR,
Inc. Earlier this year, the City rejected the Ashton at Dublin Station project, a residential
apartment project adjacent to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. UDR sued alleging
that the City’s actions violated UDR’s rights under a development agreement applicable
to the property and the Housing Accountability Act.
The cases are similar in that they both had or have the potential to result in lengthy and
expensive litigation, with substantial discovery and motion practice.
The key differences are best illustrated by the worst-case scenario in each case. The
litigation with UDR involved state statutory and development agreement claims that, if
successful, would have allowed for the court to require approval of the project. Thus,
the worst- case scenario of an unfavorable court decision in the UDR case was that the
City could have been forced to approve the project and pay UDR’s attorneys’ fees; the
possibility of any award of damages was very remote. By contrast, the worst -case
scenario in a takings lawsuit brought by IKEA would be the court could award monetary
Page 10 of 16
damages against the City, reflecting the diminution in value resulting from the City’s
action. Given the purchase price of nearly $50,000,000, the award could be substantial.
Application of Superstore Ordinance
Councilmember Goel asked about the relationship of this project to the City’s big box
ordinance. The agenda reports for the October 16 and August 21 City Council meetings
discussed the City’s Superstore ordinance, which prohibits stores that exceed 170,000
square feet and also devote at least 10% of its sales floor to the sale of non -taxable
merchandise. Staff understands that IKEA will devote less than 10 percent of the total
floor sales area to the sale of non-taxable food for human consumption, and the project,
if approved, will be conditioned to ensure compliance with this criterion.
Application of Fair share Payments for Safety Impacts
At the October 16, 2018 meeting, Councilmember Goel asked whether the City can
require the developer to contribute a “fair share component” should it be determined in
the future that the Project impacts public safety.
Historically, the City has looked at whether development has a detrimental impact on
services in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area as a whole, and not on a project by
project basis. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has a policy that “new development in
the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of infrastructure needed to service the
area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse project impacts of the City’s
existing infrastructure and services.” Currently, there are no conditions proposed that
would require the developer to pay any share of increased public safety costs, and staff
has indicated that the incremental costs would be covered by the incremental revenues
sales and property taxes) arising from the project.
As a general rule, California courts have long required a local agency imposing a
requirement to pay a fee to demonstrate a nexus between the fee and the impacts of
development. (See e.g. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n (1987) 483 US 825,834;
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 US 374.) A developer can challenge an ad hoc
monetary exaction by arguing that there is no “rough proportionality” between the
government’s demand and the impacts of the development. Although there is no “set
formula” for analyzing whether the Nollan/Dolan nexus requirements have been met,
the court conducts an ad hoc factual inquiry into the nexus between the subject property
interests served by the exaction and the extent to which the amount of the exaction is
proportional to the burden imposed by the proposed use. (See e.g San Marcos v. Loma
San Marcos LLC (2015) 234 CA.4th 1045, 1060) (impact fees were reasonably-related
and roughly proportional to the impact of the project.) Note that substantive and
procedural due process prerequisites for the imposition or increase of certain fees have
been codified in the Mitigation Fee Act, stating that in any action imposing a fee as a
condition of approval of a development project, the local agency shall determine how
there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (Gov’t Code,
66001(b).)
Page 11 of 16
The record does not contain facts demonstrating a nexus between any fee and the need
for public services. The Supplemental EIR reviewed existing public services and
potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area
including an assessment of fire protection, emergency medical services, and law
enforcement. It specifically concluded that “there were no potentially significant impacts
identified for Public Services and Utilities and therefore no mitigations were required.”
City of Dublin-IKEA Supplemental EIR Section 3.5) Although the EIR estimates some
increase in calls for service as a result of the Project, Dublin Police Services and the
Fire Department both anticipate that the project can be served with existing resources.
The EIR specifically concludes that the project “would not create the need to construct
new or expand existing fire protection or emergency medical services facilities nor
would it create a need for new or expanded law enforcement facilities. (Id.)
Similarly, a Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed IKEA in Dublin, prepared
by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. for IKEA, concluded that tax revenues generated
by the Project will significantly exceed costs associated with providing City services to
the new development and its employees. As proposed, the abovementioned study
estimated that the Project would result in an annual net fiscal benefit of $1.8 million to
the City’s General Fund. (Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed IKEA in
Dublin, California, August 22, 2017, p. 2) In addition, the IKEA study nets out the
purported costs of serving the development from the revenues (including for fire and
police) The study estimates incremental costs by attributing a portion of the existing
police and fire budgets to the project based on the estimated increase in service
population. Attributing costs to the project in this way, despite the fact that the project
can be served by existing resources, reduces the revenues from the project by
116,663.88, annually A City commissioned study prepared by Keyser Marston
Associates made a similar conclusion, estimating that the Project would generate
ongoing tax revenues to the City of Dublin totally about $1.85 million per year. (Tax
Revenues to the City of Dublin to be generated by the Proposed IKEA Retail Center ,
October 2018, p. 3). The City’s study did not attempt to estimate Project costs.
It should be noted that IKEA will be required to develop a security plan for the overall
center, with the approval of the Chief of Police, in an effort to ensure that enhanced
measures are in place to minimize the number of calls for service to Dublin Police
Services. This plan will address, among other things, the possibility of using of private
security at the IKEA store. At the October 16, 2018 Council meeting, IKEA
representatives also expressed a willingness to fund traffic control officers for the
Project opening, etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & THE CEQA PROCESS
Significant and Unavoidable / Statement of Overriding Considerations
Councilmember Goel requested information about the process under CEQA for
addressing significant and unavoidable impacts. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
must include proposed mitigation measures, where feasible, that are designed to
Page 12 of 16
minimize the project’s significant environmental impact by reducing or avoiding them. As
such, an EIR must describe any significant environmental effects that cannot be
avoided if the project is implemented. The EIR must describe both 1) significant effects
that cannot be mitigated and 2) effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level
of insignificance. These effects are referred to as “significant and unavoidable impacts.”
When the City approves a project with significant environmental effects that will not be
avoided or substantially lessened, it must adopt a statement disclosing that because of
the project’s overriding benefits, it is approving the project despite the environmental
harm. The City is also required to set forth the reasons for its actions, based on the final
environmental document and other information in the record. Reflecting case law, the
CEQA Guidelines require that the statement of overriding considerations be supported
by substantial evidence in the record of the City’s proceedings.
A “statement of overriding considerations” indicates that even though a project would
result in one or more unavoidable adverse impacts, specific economic, social or other
stated benefits are sufficient to warrant project approval. A statement of overriding
considerations often expresses the “large, more general reasons for approving the
project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes ,and the
like.” (Concerned Citizens of S. Cent. L.A. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1994) 24
CA.4th 826, 847.)
The findings regarding significant impacts and mitigation measures are included as
Attachment 5; findings concerning infeasibility of alternatives and potential additional
mitigation measures included as Attachment 6 and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations included as Attachment 7.
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
Impacts to Livability
Councilmember Goel asked how the project would impact the quality of life (livability) of
Dublin residents. The majority of traffic accessing the project site will do so via I-580
and the Hacienda Drive interchange minimizing the impact to other areas of Dublin.
Based on the transportation analysis, traffic on Dublin Boulevard is anticipated to
increase as follows during the opening year:
Weekday mornings (peak hour between 7 and 9 a.m.)
o East of Hacienda Drive – About 40 more vehicles in the peak direction
WB) or about 3% increase
o West of Hacienda Drive – About 50 more vehicles in the peak direction
WB) or about 3% increase
Weekday evenings (peak hour between 4 and 7 p.m.)
o East of Hacienda Drive – About 55 more vehicles in the peak direction
EB) or about 2% increase
o West of Hacienda Drive – About 125 more vehicles in the peak direction
EB) or about 5% increase
Saturday (peak hour between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m.)
Page 13 of 16
o East of Hacienda Drive – About 115 more vehicles in the peak direction
WB) or about 6% increase
o West of Hacienda Drive – About 235 more vehicles in the peak direction
WB) or about 10% increase
With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures including adaptive signal
systems, the traffic volumes added to Dublin Boulevard are not anticipated to
significantly increase the travel time between East Dublin and West Dublin.
Finally, the PM peak hour traffic volumes on I-580 during the opening year are
estimated to increase by about 110 vehicles (1.4% increase) in the eastbound direction
and 145 (2.7% increase) in the westbound direction. These increases in freeway
volume are unlikely to be noticed by the fre eway motorists.
One Hour Study vs Shorter Study
Councilmember Goel asked why the traffic analysis used a one-hour segments to
measure traffic impacts rather than 15-minute segments, which might show greater
impacts.
The City uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to calculate
intersection delay for the level of service (LOS) calculations. This methodology applies a
peak hour factor (PHF) to the peak hour traffic volumes to represent 15 -minute
volumes. Therefore, the methodology and findings reported in the IKEA EIR are
representative of the worst 15-minute period during the hour.
Truck Delivery Route
Councilmember Goel requested information on what routes will be taken by delivery
trucks to service the IKEA store. Deliveries will be made to the rear of the store. The
loading docks are accessed from a one -way entry off of Arnold Road. Truck egress is
also via Arnold Road. The anticipated route for the delivery trucks to the IKEA loading
area off Arnold Road would be from I -580 to Hacienda Drive to Martinelli Way to Arnold
Road. The trucks would enter the project site from the rear of the IKEA building directly
to the delivery docks.
AESTHETICS, COLOR & SIGNAGE
Project Signage
Councilmember Goel requested additional information about the Project’s proposed
signage.
The Dublin Municipal Code requires that new signage for a development of this size
four or more acres, 40,000 square feet or larger or buildings more than two stories
high) are subject to a Master Sign Program. Master Sign Programs are processed
through a Site Development Review Permit reviewed and approved by the Community
Page 14 of 16
Development Director. As part of this process, a public notice is mailed notifying the
public of a pending decision.
Typically, on projects of this size, the Master Sign Program/Site Development Review
Permit is processed after the other entitlements are obtained. Any signs shown in the
Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign sizes,
location, content, materials, and construction would be shown in the separate sign
package. Condition of Approval #25 of the Site Development Review Permit Resolution
Attachment 10) confirms this requirement.
The Applicant has not submitted a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review
Permit application, and therefore the size, design or location of the proposed signage is
not known. With that said, during the Planning Commission meetings for the project,
several comments were made with regard to the signage shown for the IKEA building in
the project renderings. Comments such as the signs are overpowering, and no banners
or pictures should be allowed on the outside of the building were noted. Staff will
consider these comments during review of the Master Sign Program.
Consistency of the Blue/Yellow Building with General Plan Policies
Councilmember Goel asked about the predominantly blue and yellow IKEA building’s
consistency with General Plan policies.
Bold colors on retail development are not unusual in Eastern Dublin. Several large
commercial storefronts employ some combination of blue and yellow in the project
vicinity: Best Buy in Hacienda Crossings (across the street from the IKEA Retail Center
Project site) and Dublin Chevrolet. Moreover, Fallon Gateway features red colored
buildings associated with Target and BJ’s Brewhouse, Persimmon Place features
orange and peach colored buildings, and Hacienda Crossings features buildings of
numerous colors (terra cotta, red, white, peach, blue, yellow, etc.).
Councilmember Goel requested additional information on what proportion of the exterior
of retail buildings in the City include bold colors. The following is an approximation
based on the field observation and previous project plans. The Best Buy located in
Hacienda Crossings is covered by roughly 50% with blue and yellow along the front
façade only. The other sides of the building are a neutral brown color. The Target in
Fallon Gateway is colored over 75% in a dark red color on all sides of the three -sided
building. The Chevrolet dealership is comprised of a bright blue color framing the main
entry. This blue color covers approximately 25% blue of front façade only. IKEA agreed
to reduce the amount of blue and yellow following the workshops with the City Council
and Planning Commission by approximately 75%. The blue and yellow colors were
replaced with either gray siding, metal screening for the stairs or glazing resulting in
approximately 25% of the exterior building covered in blue or yellow.
In summary, Dublin currently has a number of prominent retail buildings that employ a
variety of colors (including within the same retail node) and IKEA’s blue and yellow
scheme would be in visual context with other retail nodes along the I-580 corridor.
Page 15 of 16
NOISE IMPACTS TO RESIDENTIAL
Councilmember Goel requested additional information about the potential for noise from
deliveries to have impacts on residences in the Transit Center.
The City’s Municipal Code contains a performance standard that addresses noise levels
associated with the operation of mechanical equipment; however, this standard does
not address noise levels associated with other types of stationary noise sources.
Chapter 5.28 (Noise Ordinance) does not allow a person to make noise in a way that
disturbs or injures or endangers the health, peace or safety of any reasonable person of
normal sensitivity present in the area. This fairly subjective criteria is based on the
following standards:
1. The level, intensity, character and duration of the noise;
2. The level, intensity and character of background noise, if any;
3. The time when and the place and zoning district where the noise occurred;
4. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; and
5. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant.
The proposed project would include new stationary noise sources such as delivery truck
loading and unloading activities. The Draft SEIR analyzed the noise impacts of the
project from construction through operation, including the delivery of goods via large
trucks. The proposed project would result in approximately 5 - 7 delivery trucks that
would access the site daily. Main deliveries would typically occur during non -public
hours. Noise from truck deliveries and loading and unloading activities are considered to
be a stationary noise. A stationary noise is any entity in a fixed location that emits noise.
Noise generated from the use of motor vehicles over public roads is preempted from
local regulation and therefore was not analyzed in the Draft SEIR. Existing delivery truck
loading/unloading activities in the project vicinity (Persimmon Place, Hacienda
Crossing) typically result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50
feet. The loading areas for these commercial shopping centers are located near Dublin
Boulevard and situated closer to residential uses than the proposed project site.
The closest residential use to the project site is the multi-family residential homes
located more than 800 feet to the northeast of the project site located at the northeast
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. The closest residential land uses
to the west of the project site are located at Martinelli Way and Campus Drive, more
than 860 feet from the project’s nearest boundary. The closest residential use would be
located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest loading dock where loading and
unloading activities would take place. At this distance, noise levels generated by truck
loading and unloading activities would range up to 59 dBA Lmax. The noise levels
generated by truck loading and unloading activities would not exceed or increase
existing ambient noise levels and therefore the Draft SEIR found the impact to be less
than significant.
CONCLUSION:
Page 16 of 16
The recommendation is to 1) Adopt a Resolution certifying a Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for
the IKEA Retail Center project (Attachments 2 – 8); 2) W aive the reading and
INTRODUCE an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned
Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Attachment 9); and 3) Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review
Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for the IKEA Retail Center project (Att achments 10-
12).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice is not required as this item was continued from the October 16, 2018
meeting. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Staff Report dated October 16, 2018 without Attachments
2. Resolution Adopting the Environmental Impact Report
3. Exhibit A to Attachment 2 - IKEA Retail Center Draft SEIR
4. Exhibit B to Attachment 2 - IKEA Retail Center Final SEIR
5. Exhibit C to Attachment 2 - Findings Mitigation Measures
6. Exhibit D to Attachment 2 - Findings Alternatives
7. Exhibit E to Attachment 2 - Statement of Overriding Considerations
8. Exhibit F to Attachment 2 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
9. Ordinance Adopting Planned Development Zoning
10. Resolution Approving SDR VTM
11. Exhibit A to Attachment 10 - Project Plans
12. Exhibit B to Attachment 10 - Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
13. Public Comment
1
ORDINANCE NO. xx – 18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT
PLPA 2016-00016
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006-00)
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The Applicant, IKEA Property, Inc., submitted an application to construct the IKEA Retail
Center project, which consists of up to 410,000 square feet of commercial uses on the 27.45-
acre parcel. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Tentati ve Parcel
Map 10792 and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as the “IKEA Retail Center Project” or the “Project”;
and
B. The Project site is approximately 27.45 acres located south of Martinelli Drive between
Hacienda Road and Arnold Road (APNs 986 -0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006-
00); and
C. The project is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the C ity Council certified a Program Environmental
Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May
10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could
not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring
program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein
by reference); and
D. The City prepared an Initial Study for the IKEA Retail Center project consistent with
CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin
EIR was required and based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the
City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated January 31, 2018 (SCH No. 2017082047); and
E. The Draft Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects
anticipated as a result of the project such as, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions,
biological resources, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, most of which can
be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
F. Following a public hearing on September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 18-22, recommending denial of the Planned Development Rezone and related Stage
2
1 and 2 Development Plan, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available
for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
G. On October 16, 2018, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the
project, including the proposed Planned Development Rezone and relat ed Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
continued the item to November 8, 2018; and
H. Staff Reports dated October 16, 2018 and November 8, 2018, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezone and
related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, for the City Council; and
I. The City Council considered the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and related
prior CEQA documents and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior
to taking action on the project; and
J. On November 8, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 116-18 certifying the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopting miti gation findings, findings regarding
alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the IKEA Retail Center project.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Mun icipal Code, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The IKEA Retail Center Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development zoning meets
the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development
plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by
virtue of the layout and design of the site plan.
2. Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surroundi ng area
in that the site will provide new retail development in an area that has retail uses on the
north and east, a highly travelled freeway on the south, and future campus office
development on the west.
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds
as follows.
1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Project will be harmonious and compatible
with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the proposed site
plan has taken into account adjacent development, which as noted above includes a
freeway, retail, and future campus office in the immediate surroundings with high density
residential development nearby, and provides excellent ingress and egress to and from
Interstate 580. The proposed site plan has taken into account a land use type and density
that is compatible with the adjacent areas and densities.
2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being
proposed in that the project site is flat with improved public streets on three sides and
served by existing public utilities. The project site conditions are documented in the
3
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and prior certified EIR for the EDSP,
and the project will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. There are
no site conditions that were identified in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
that will present an impediment to development of the site for the proposed commercial
development.
3. The PD-Planned Development zoning 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 in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and
standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. The project
uses are compatible with surrounding uses.
4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the
Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in that the proposed use as a
retail project is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation for the site.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program via Resolution 116-18 on November 8, 2018, prior to approving the project.
SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning
District and supersedes and replaces the previously a dopted zoning (Resolution 34-08):
27.45 gross acres located south of Martinelli Way between Arnold Road and Hacienda
Drive. (Assessor Parcel Numbers 986-0033-004, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006) (“the
Property”).
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
4
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are
set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 27.45-acre project
area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan
shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
The following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans meet all the requirements for Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plans as set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan
1. Statement of Uses.
Use types listed below are as defined in Dublin Municipal Code section 8.08.020, unless
otherwise noted. The site is divided into two parcels. “Commercial Area 1” is the western parcel
of the project site (IKEA) and “Commercial Area 2” is the eastern parcel of the project site
(Retail Center).
Commercial Area 1
Permitted Uses:
• Retail-General
• Retail-Service
• Warehouse and Distribution, accessory only
• Eating and Drinking Establishment
• Eating and Drinking Establishment-Specialty
• Eating and Drinking Establishment-Take Out
• Mobile Retail Cart1
• Office-Professional/Administrative, accessory only
• Retail Kiosk2
• Shopping Center
• Daycare Center, accessory only
• Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Conditional Uses:
• Retail-Outdoor Storage3
• Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Commercial Area 2
Permitted Uses
• Comedy Club
• Banks and Financial Services
• Eating and Drinking Establishment-Specialty
• Eating and Drinking Establishment-Take Out
• Eating and Drinking Establishment
• Health Club/Fitness Center4
5
• Health Services/Clinics
• Massage Establishment
• Mobile Food Truck5
• Mobile Retail Cart1
• Outdoor Seating. This also includes undesignated outdoor seating located in
common areas usable for both information seating and dining and not dedicated to
a specific tenant.
• Personal Services
• Recreational Facility/Indoor4
• Repair Shop
• Retail-General
• Retail-Neighborhood
• Retail Kiosks
• School-Commercial
• Shopping Center
• Theater
• Tobacco Retailers4
• Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Conditional Uses
• Arcade
• Animal Sales and Services
• Community Facility
• Hotel/Motel
• Retail-Outdoor Storage3
• Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Temporary Uses:
• Arts and Crafts Fair
• Christmas Tree Sales Lot
• Construction-Related Temporary Uses
• Farmer’s Market
• Office Trailer-Commercial
• Outdoor Sales by Established Dublin Business
• Pumpkin Sales Lot
• Temporary Outdoor Sale (Sidewalk Sale)
• Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Notes: 1 Mobile Retail Cart. This includes small outdoor retail carts for the sale of any
type of merchandise not constructed on a permanent foundation. The location is
limited to the plaza areas. Maximum of 5 carts total for Commercial Area 1 and
Commercial Area 2 combined.
2 Retail Kiosk. This is a fixed structure constructed on a permanent foundation for
the sale of any type of merchandise, including food and beverages. The location
is limited to the plaza areas. Maximum of 5 kiosks total for Commercial Area 1
6
and Commercial Area 2 combined. Approval subject to a Site Development
Review Waiver.
3 The decision-maker for the conditional use permit is the Zoning Administrator
4 Permitted with a Zoning Clearance
5 A Mobile Food Truck shall comply with all the following:
a. A Site Development Review Waiver approving the location of a food truck
is required. Applications for multiple food trucks may be combined into
one Site Development Review Waiver application. The application shall
include a site plan demonstrating compliance with the following:
1. The location of a mobile food vendor is limited to the parking area
and shall not be located within a pedestrian plaza or public right -of-
way.
2. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not
limited to customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not impede the
traffic visibility area at any driveway or intersection, emergency
access, pedestrian and vehicular ingress or egress through the
remainder of the parking, or the adjacent public right of way.
3. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not
limited to customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the parking area.
4. If more than one mobile food vendor is on the site at one time, they
shall be located within the same vicinity, not more than 25 feet apart.
b. In addition to the Site Development Review Waiver, the following
operational standards apply:
1. Hours of Operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
2. The food truck must be stationary for a minimum of two (2) hours. No
trolling allowed.
3. Provision of at least one trash receptacle, one recycling receptacle
and one compost receptacle for use by patrons and in a convenient
location that does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
4. Collection and removal of all litter and debris generated within a
minimum 25-foot radius of the food truck.
5. No signs other than those exhibited on or in the mobile food truck.
6. Adequate lighting must be provided to ensure customer safety and
shall be directed downwards and away from public streets and
adjacent properties.
7. Maintenance of a valid business license from the City of Dublin.
8. Maintenance of a valid health permit from the Alameda County
Department of Environmental Health.
2. Phasing Plan.
The project site will be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole. The construction and
occupation of the individual buildings shall occur concurrently but may be separated into
different building permit submittals.
3. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Consistency. The project is consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of General
Commercial, which permits a floor area ratio of 0.20 to 0.60. The FAR is .37 based upon the
combined square footages for entire project site.
7
4. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project is not subject to the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing because the regulations
apply only to residential development projects of 20 units or more.
5. Aerial Photo.
6. Site Plan.
As shown in the Site Plan below, “Commercial Area 1” is the western parcel of the project
site (IKEA) and “Commercial Area 2” is the eastern parcel of the project site (Retail Center).
8
7. Development Regulations.
The following development regulations apply to the project:
Regulation Commercial Area 1 Commercial Area 2
Minimum Lot Area 8 acres 25,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 250 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 400 feet
Maximum Building Height 65 feet 35 feet
Minimum Setbacks
20’ at I-580, Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive
0’ at Martinelli Way
0’ at property line along main entry road
Maximum Building Area
410,000 square feet
317,000 square feet
93,000 square feet of which, no
more than 58,440 square feet of
restaurant uses are allowed
unless a trip generation study is
completed to demonstrate that the
site trip generation remains within
what was evaluated in the EIR.
Notes:
Square footage for the enclosed trash rooms, building electrical
rooms, parking areas, or enclosed loading and delivery areas shall
not be counted toward the maximum building area.
Retail kiosks and carts are permitted in the project's common
areas and are not included in the maximum building area square
footage. A maximum of 5 kiosks and 5 carts are allowed at the
project site.
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio 0.37 over entire site
Parking
Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 Off-Street
Parking and Loading Regulations unless otherwise noted.
Notes:
No parking is required for the Retail Kiosks, Mobile Retail Carts,
Food Trucks and undesignated outdoor seating located in
common areas usable for informal seating and dining and not
dedicated to a specific tenant.
Parking Stall Dimensions
Standards
Full Size Space: 9’ x 18’
Compact Car Space: 8’ x 17’ Per DMC
Minimum Parking Setback
5’ from property line along public streets
10’ from property line along main entry road
5’ from Caltrans right of way
Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program
9
8. Architectural Standards.
Commercial Area 1:
The project’s architectural style is modern with clean lines and bold geometry enhanced
through the use of high-quality materials and a strong color palette.
The architectural design of the project shall reflect the following standards:
• Bold elements enhanced with bold geometry, and varying building materials such
as composite metal panels, steel elements and clear anodized glass and
aluminum storefront that are durable and of high quality.
• Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting
base form for the buildings.
• The simple form of the building is enhanced by the juxtaposition of protruding
planes, material textures, and colors.
• Provide a functional outdoor plaza with enhanced paving treatment, and other
features that connects people to Commercial Area 2.
• The building may be raised with partially subterranean parking to eliminate the
need for surface parking, except for minimal large-vehicle loading spaces.
Illustrative examples of architectural style:
Commercial Area 2:
The architectural style of Commercial Area 2 is Contemporary Casual and embodies the
qualities of a strong relationship between the indoor and outdoor environments, reinforced
through the use of earth tones, unique materials and inviting, dynamic patio spaces
The architectural design of the project shall reflect the following standards:
• Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the project and to
complement its surroundings.
10
• Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting
base form for the buildings.
• Strong linear massing with rich articulation, utilization of a variety of materia ls and
surfaces, and a site design that emphasizes interaction and access to common
spaces.
• Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof
elements, signs, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at the
pedestrian level.
• Provide functional outdoor spaces where people will gather and socialize, with
landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to
provide an appropriate urban scale for the development.
Illustrative examples of architectural style:
9. Preliminary Landscape Plan.
The landscape design of the project shall reflect the following standards:
• Create a rich pedestrian experience connecting Commercial Area 1 to Commercial
Area 2 and through the plaza in Commercial Area 2 by the diverse offering of
activities, amenities and retail options.
• Provide flexible open space and varied seating options to allow for a mix of activities.
• Treat the site’s storm water in a set of basins throughout the site that are linked to the
site’s water infrastructure.
• Create a visual buffer and soften the edge between the public realm and the site.
11
• Utilize plants that provide a year-round vegetated landscape with seasonality, color,
and interest for an attractive visual environment.
10. Applicable Requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the use,
development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the C-1
Retail Commercial Zoning District (the closest comparable zoning district) pursuant to
section 8.32.060C or its successor.
11. Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan.
The Stage 2 portion of this Development Plan is consistent with the Stage 1 po rtion of this
Development Plan.
SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.
12
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 20th day of
November, 2018, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk