The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.1 AllAboardMinistoreGPA . . . CITY CLERK File # D[fJLaJ~-~[Q] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 5,1998 SUBJECT: All Aboard Ministorage OPA Request for RR Right-of-Way Property (Report prepared by Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Direct01~ EXHIBITS A TT ACHED: 1. 2. April 21, 1998 Agenda Statement (with exhibits) April 21, 1998 letter from General Counsel Associates, LLP Excerpts from April 7, 1998 City Council minutes 3. RECOMMENDA TI O~ J.J:y. Adopt Resolution authorizing initiation of general plan VV' amendment or adopt resolution denying initiation of study or give staff further direction FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: On April 7, 1998, the Council considered a request by Union Pacific Railroad Company and All Aboard Ministorage Company for a general plan amendment for a 4.21 acre site which is part of a larger 9 acre site formerly used as a railroad right-of-way. The Council continued the matter from April 7, 1998, in order to allow for a site inspection. The site inspection occurred on April 21, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. The Council considered the matter again at its April 21, 1998 meeting. A copy of the agenda statement is attached as Exhibit A. Because the staff received a letter from the applicant's attorney (Exhibit B) on the afternoon of April 21 which raised some legal issues, the staff requested the Council to continue the matter to provide time for staff and the City Attorney to evaluate the points raised in the letter. The City Attorney also requested the Council to continue the matter because of comments made by the attorney for All Aboard Ministorage Company regarding the adequacy of Mayor - - - ---- - -- --- - - -- -..............- - - - - ---- - - - --... - -............... ---- -- COPIES TO: In House Distribution Applicant/Owner ITEM NO. 7- 1 g:g:pa98-024\ccstfrpt Houston's announcement at the beginning of the meeting that he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. The City Attorney has evaluated the April 21, 1998 letter and has provided advice to the Council regarding the legal issues raised in the letter by way of a confidential memorandum. The City Attorney has also evaluated the statement made by Mayor Houston regarding the reason for his disqualification and has concluded that Mayor Houston's comments complied with the Fair Political Practices Act and no further disclosure was required. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council either adopt a resolution initiating a general plan amendment (Exhibit E to April 21 agenda statement), adopt a resolution denying the request to initiate a general plan amendment (Exhibit F to April 21 agenda statement) or provide further direction to staff. -#-- . . . . AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 21, 1998 CITY CLERK File # DODD-DO 1~/5 SUBJECT: P A 98-024: All Aboard Mini-Storage General Plan Amendment Initiation Request Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: General Plan/Location Map Written Statement Conceptual Site Plan Elevations Resolution authorizing initiation of a General Plan Amendment study Resolution denying initiation of a General Plan Amendment study Exhibit F: RECOMMENDATION: Give staff direction and either adopt a resolution authorizing initiation of a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment study or adopt Resolution denying initiation of the study. . FINANCIAL STATEMENT: DESCRIPTION: Costs for the study would be borne by the Applicant The Union Pacific Railroad Company is requesting a General Plan Amendment to a plan designation that would allow a mini-storage facility on its property. All Aboard Mini-Storage is proposing to construct a self storage facility on a 4.21 acre site (part of a larger approximately 9 acre right-of way) located in the Union Pacific Railroad Company right-of-way south of Dougherty Road. The facility would consist of a 2,794 square foot Manager's Unit and 10 storage buildings providing 82,875 square feet of storage, for a total of 85,669 square feet. BACKGROUND On April 7, 1998, the City Council continued this item to allow staff to conduct tours of the site for members of the City CounciL The tour is scheduled for April 21, 1998, at 5:00 p.m. at the site. - ---- - --- - ~ - - - - -......- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - ~ - - - -- COPIES TO: Applicant Owner In-house distribution . EXHIBIT 1 ANAL YSIS General Plan Amendment ;;. oJ /5 General PlanlLand Use . The General Plan designation ofthis site is "Transportation Corridor". This designation allows transportation-oriented land uses only. Self storage facilities are not permitted by this designation. The most appropriate General Plan designation which would permit a mini-storage use is the Business ParklIndustrial designation. Floor Area Ratio The Business ParklIndustrial designation allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of.40 (a building can cover no more than 40% of the site). The project, as currently designed, proposes a total building area of 85,669 square feet on a 183,400 square foot site. The proposed FAR would therefore be .46.7. No industrial plan designation of the General Plan allows a FAR greater than .40. When informed of this, the Applicant indicated that his firm would revise the project to observe the .40 FAR. Reasons for approval of initiation of the Study: 1. The use would provide additional self storage capacity within Dublin. 2. The use would be consistent with business park/industrial uses in the vicinity. 3. The use would improve a difficult-to-use site. . Reasons for denial of initiation of the Study: 1. The site could be combined with adjacent parcels that are underutilized and used for multiple high density housing, commercial office, or research and development uses. 2. There are already several self storage facilities in the city such as Allsafe Self Storage, Dublin Self Storage, Dublin Security Storage, Public Storage, and U-Haul Self Storage. The average occupancy rate of self storage developments in Dublin is 93%. RECOMMENDATION Give staff direction and either approve or deny the applicants request for a General Plan Amendment study. . 1] . , '\ ,gfti;;;!,, - ,~ . j:./....... ........ ,... 0- '"ljlll!I!I!il[!li:," ~= t:l:. in r! " ~ .. i .. r ~.. Z ,: ~Ol- .< uJl-l~ en < i:: :::> ...J I; o ::> iC: z 01:- <: c: !E ....J o;~ f'. ~ ,-S~.I.:-' --.,' ,or.'.:. .-.." --:::~.;.?;-~~:'.. ;." ;,.... r f Z <t: ..J ~ ....J <t: a:: W ~ Z .D ill = CJ -: .. z .. ...J ~ ro :::l o :3 cD /.5 .. .. .. .... '7 ..: .. ~ ~~ .. .. .. .. .,,"" ~ .. Q := - ~ .. Q ..... .. ..!.- .. E .. .. . - '" " -; .... Ell C ~ = c. =- . ,,~ .. ~ :. ;; c .. Q"'c .. ~ .!! ; .. ..,~~ :. ~ : : .: ~ '" .. .. Uj .. o := I ;:; .. ." .. ; .;: .. C ..'" Q ~.. CO' ; E- .. -::'" " ..... 0; ~] ~ C .. .. E :.O' .. "':D: .. c .. Q ~ <.> 2- " c ': ~ b .. .. :> ", CO C I " " " ." .. .. - : - = " " " ~ .. ;:; " " ::: " " .. .. "- - E ;; .. ." " -,; 2 ;: "" '" "c := " " .. :> :> " <; ~~ '" ... ." 'g c; " " ; "" " .. 0- ~ " " <.> .= " 7i .. ::::: .... .. ::::: .. 0 <; i " .. " v, ~ " CO " ~ ~ = O' ... " ~ '" .. ~ .. .... ~ " 3? .. ,g Eo ~ .. " " " .. E .. .. ~~ '" " .. ... ~ .. '" .. .. ~ .. ~ ... ... IO ... .. ~ " .. " " ;;; ." ;:: " c .. .. .... .. .. .. <.> ;~ ... ..; ] 0 0 .. ;; .." ::> '" ::: .. -' !: .. .. " ;; ~ .. Cl.- IO E ~ .. .. ; " ; .... .. .. " ..<.> I " .. .. .. " ~ ~o; ~ =t: - " .. ~ ." .=~ C '" c .. .. .. .. .. ." "ii ~ .. = :g ;;; r; c" ; .. e " .. -; :> :> :> .." 0; " Co ~ .. " " ~ 0 .i:-' <: ;;: ::. ;. '" ~ ::; - == ; ", ", tD ... ... 0 '" Co <.> 0; ~ ", I' f;?\ I I 8 I (ll \ \ ~ "1:l .. .",',-." I it"~:i~ E I :; ". . , I I:::::::~ '" , ~<:~~::. . - ~' ~:~: ~ -j ~::;..:~~~ " - c ~ L:v;~~ 0> .. -.-.;.-;.:. li'@ f.~~~ ~ ::> b::~ ~.'-'-~.~ t:: , (:) "" , b ." ~ () - .0- "- -" "--.. ~ UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 'I PO /5- CON12ACTS & fEAL :::STAT::: D::PARTM::NT _. & _. ___ ~ .. r__ fit . _., n UJlJjJ_ . Southern Pat:ifit: Building. One Market Plaza, Room 570. San francisco, CA 94'05 (4'S}541-2437. Facsimile {4'S)541-'S70 R. L Gooch Director Special Properties: Sales E. DevelDpment December ]2. ]997 In reply. please refer to: Dublin-Dougherty Rd. SR#9002 ] Mr. Eddie pcabody Community Divcloprncnt director City of Dublin ] 00 Civic Plaza Dublin. CA 94.568 Re: General Plan Amendment Study Southern Pacific Transportation Co. . Dear Mr. Peabody: Southern Pacific (now part of Union Pacific Rairoad Co.) ov.TJlS approximately 9 acres ofland fronting Dougherty Road and ronning southea~erly!~ Dublin Road as shown on the attached print. The site is presently zoned M-1. however tbe General Plan has a "T ran5portation Corridor-' overlay. At this time, we are requesting that the Transportation Corridor overlay he changed to M-] to be consistent with its zoning. Pkasc advisc what additional information you may necd in ordcr to move this rcquest forward. Thank you for your consideration in thi." matter. V cry Troly Yours. _ g~ ~~ i .' . <I ~ " I 1)16 7~' :-- ~ Richard L Gooch Director - Special propenies cc: :Ey:r- ail !' artneT s II, 1..? Attention: }iike Selby 990 Eigbland Dr., Suite 300 Solana lIeacn, CA 92075 . If)l, ~ l!l ''f z':' -- Z .- 0 . ~ - . o. . ~~ ~ ::::!s ~~ D 0 ::>- z ID~ lU lU lU \- ~- ~ Z ::> z z 0 If) 0 - 0 In D! ~ ~ ;i lU l!l > > U <( ~ ~ ~ ~ lU - lU :E DC ~ lU 0 z iiZ :::J lU ~ \- ~ lU lU lL \- ~ I in I lL b . n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i ~i ~ b ; i I I ~i ~ ~ z l.f) 0 ZlU ~ 0> ii! - D ~E lU . Z r~'~ >~ < t!l ~ ~ < ~5 ii) lUU) ~ ~ lU 5 "'7f /5 rnp-.S-EN ~...J U ~ ...J W ~.. = ~~ I;~~ s >-< ~",I<...;'" ::: p.. ::: :!~ ~ ~ "'- wi- ." ~ ~ \.: ~ o LU<!! o ~~ ~ ~q og I-D 1IJ Z 2 52 <( o [0 <( ..J ..J <( i. ~ !: I~ VI: :: k 0; l I: ~ J ~:l':t t : II U (,') ~'" ~: ::J" IOu " ~ II I !lIT In- JI'(,') I 1(,') II i(,') ;z ;z I !9! !~I :~~ i~j I I I I I I I , I I I I i ~ I ! I I I:I: I i~ I I-t/' J9tJ t 5~ . !D~ I ! 3 1-1 ,(,') I 'Z i ~~I ! i5~ I ! i I I I I ~ . I I I I 7d M O.LSnOH ~ ~. . l a I (., r.:- "', ... ~. s<: 5 -. ,. r- - .~ .... - .... ~ .~ U' ,'~ ,., ... ..... ::l t:I u.:n.:~Lu..:~u..:u..:Lu..: u.: ll'i ll'i ll'i ll'i cri m ll'i II'i lrill'i ll'i g888~iP~RRRle ~ ....1CI1C11C1....1:Si:nS1:Sro II) ui 0 .Q r-= cri ui r-= r-= r-= r-= N ro ll) (,') z 9 lI.J ~;l :5 ~::Jo 10 <<I;IOUCllUn-(,');!:-.... 0 g'lt- g (,')(,')t.!lt.!l(,')t.!lt.!l(,')t.!lt.!l:n ~t5 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~a :n i5i5i5~~i5~~i5i5 g~::: ~ ~ .... ui ~ "<t - N S- o..: 0..: ll'i ll'i eI> 8 IJl IJl ''It .n :2 10 lI.J < ~ > !;:t 8 Cl ~ ~ o:.!) % ~ l!::! 9 :5 Ii... in 10 ...t::" [l5 U~ <<I;o:.!) fu~ u!;:t :i::1lJ ~~~ <<I; 50:.!) :n~~ _zu ICI =- N o:.!) ~ ~ t- t, c{ 15 tnt:l,.!S ~- rv ~; . ~ r;J tl1 . ...... z ~~ <: E-< ~=I ~ C:< i.i" 5 ::r: 0: ::= :~; i . u.:u..: ll'im "<tel> el>1Jl ....1Jl N.n ro tu<(! <..!)u_ ~ g= o gs I r-D tJ) z :2 D ~ <( o (1) <( .-J .-J <( . (.f)\U Z> s~ LL~ tun! r-o:r - u (.f)llJ . . . . RESOLUTION NO. 98. J "'If )5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN INlTIA TING THE ALL ABOARD MINI STORAGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY WHEREAS, the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study has been requested by Richard L. Gooch on behalf of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and All Aboard Mini Storage for a 85,669 square foot storage center on the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way south of Dougherty Road. The General Plan land use designation proposed for the site is Business ParklIndustrial with a Floor Area Ratio of .467; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has stated that they would pay the processing costs for the General Plan Amendment Study; and 'WHEREAS, Section 65358 (a) of the State of Cali fomi a Government Code states that an amendment to a general plan shall be in a manner specified by the legislative body; and WHEREAS, the proposed use would provide additional storage capacity within Dublin; and WHEREAS, the proposed use would be consistent with similar uses in the vicinity; and WHEREAS, the proposed use would improve a difficult-to-use site; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6, Information Collection, of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and is in support of a General Plan Amendment study to determine the General Plan designation for the property before making a decision as to the merits of requested specific entitlements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby initiate the All Aboard Mini-Storage General Plan Amendment Study; and the Staff is authorized to retain consultant services to complete necessary staff reports. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall pay for all processing costs involved with the General Plan Amendment Study. PASSED, ~4.PPROVED,.AJ\"'D iillOPTED this 7th day of April, 1998. AYES: NOES: ABSE!\'T: Mayor ATTEST: EXHIBIT E City Clerk --- Applicant Owner In-house distribution ITEM NO. y cz( /5 RESOLUTION NO. 98- . A RESOLUTION OF THE CIIT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING THE INITIATION OF THE ALL ABOARD MINI STORAGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY WHEREAS, the initiation ofa General Plan Amendment Study has been requested by Richard L. Gooch on behalf ofthe Union Pacific Railroad Company and All Aboard Mini Storage for a 85,669 square foot storage center on the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way south of Dougherty Road. The General Plan land use designation proposed for the site is Business ParklIndustrial with a Floor Area Ratio of .467; and 'WHEREAS, Section 65358 (a) of the State of California Government Code states that an amendment to a general plan shall be in a manner specified by the legislative body; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6, Information Collection, of the State CEQA Guidelines; and \VHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth on this issue; and WHEREAS, this parcel, when combined with other underutilized properties, is an excellent multiple high density residential, commercial office, or research and development site; and \VHEREAS, sufficient self storage space exists in the City of Dublin and in nearby cities; and . WHEREAS, it is not in the best interests of the City of Dublin to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Cou~cil does hereby deny the initiation of the All Aboard Mini Storage General Plan Amendment Study. PASSED, .APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April, 1998. AYES: NOES: }\BSE1\'rJ': Mayor ATTEST: CiTY Clerk EXHIBIT F . ITEM NO. - COPIES TO: . PPR- 21-1998 12: 10 G:3-.J. COI..J~'>/5:::L H~~!.J\"". GenerBI Counsel Associates LLP 1 c;f' /5 April 21, 1998 . Mr. Eddie Peabody Community Development Director CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Southern Pacific Transportation Company: Request to Repeal General Plan Overlay for Public Mini-Warehouse Facility {"Project!"'} at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Dear Mr. Peabody: On behalf of AIl Aboard Ministorage Company {"All Aboard"}, developer of the Project, this is to respond to some important points recently raised by individual City Couricilmembers. . Thanks in part to the cooperative dialogue between All Aboard and your professional staff, we believe that the Project can been refined to the point where it will be a first-class example of successful re-use of neglected fonner railroad property. All Aboard has completed numerous similar projects on surplus railroad properties throughout California, the nearest being a very well- received facility in San Ramon. Every one of our projects is attractively designed, generously landscaped, and a "good neighbor", converting unsightly vacant land into a quiet. well-lit, safe land use. In many other communities our projects have raised property values and stimulated investments, improvements and private redevelopment of nearby properties. Our Project generates very low traffic while offering a convenient service to Dublin residents and small businesses with special storage needs. Our site plan offers a dedication of over 50% of the usable site area, in order to assist Dublin's efforts to provide nearby (unrelated) traffic circulation and safety improvements linking Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. . There can be no doubt that the Project will be a constructive economic re-use of this area. It complies in all respects with Dublin's undertying "M-1" 1 831 Landings Drive MDuntain View. Cslrrcmia 94043 Telephone: (650) 428-3900 ~aC5imile: (550) 428-3901 \Neb SiL.e: www.gcOUilseLcolTl EXHIBIT c2 ~~K-~~-l~~o ~~.ll b::.N. COU"':S=:L ASSOC. 415 428 3331 ?03/05 Mr. Eddie Peabody /tJ ?f /5 April 21. 1998 -2- General Plan and Zoning goals and policies, with the single exception of a somewhat speculative conceptual po/icy issue. Our request is that the now- obsolete JlT ransportation Corridor" General Plan overlay designation should be removed from the Project site. This would not be an issue. except for the fact that some Councilmembers recently speculated aloud that the City might want to leave it in place. Our position is that the facts and circumstances originally prompting the City to adopt the Transportation Corridor overlay no longer exist, and so it no longer makes any sense to keep the overlay in effect. Certainly not in hopes of a regional mass transit facility someday using the site and other right or way properties. The railroad right of way has been converted to other uses (obstructed) in at least two locations nearby, and in several locations farther from Dublin. It seems fairly clear that neither public funds nor pUblic demand is sufficient to prompt construction of a regional mass transit fink affecting the site in the foreseeable future. The Project site, therefore, factually no longer is capable of use for fight rail or other major regional transportation purposes, and so prohibiting all of its other economic uses no longer advances any legitimate governmental purpose. Since the original purpose of the overlay now cannot be attained, the remaining legitimate General Plan and zoning purposes are excluswely those described in the underlying "M-1" land use policies governing the Project site. Expiration of any former legitimate governmental purpose in maintaining the Transportation overlay over the Project site is important, of course, just to show the logic and good land use policy basis for removing it, but it also is impor-t.8nt for legal reasons. It has been settled constitutional Jaw for several years now that if a land use regulation Hke the Transportation overlay "fails to advance a legitimate governmental interest" and deprives the property owner of "substantially all economically viable use" of the property without payment of its value, then the overlay effects a "taking" of the property barred by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. (and California) Constitutions. See Agins v.Tiburon (1979) 24 C3d 266, First Enalish v_ Los Angeles County (1989) 210 CA 3d 1353, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 112 S Ct 2886. . . In the present instance, whatever governmental purpose may have justified imposition of the Transportation overlay no longer exists. p..s long as the.overlay continues in effect, however, prohibiting all other viable ecoilomic . . ri?2-2:-1938 12:11 GSN. cou~S~L RSSOC. 415 428 3301 ?04/0S I / ~ /5 . Mr. Eddie Peabody - 3- April 21, 1998 uses of the Project site. under current state and federal "takings" law it has deprived its owners of the right to use their property without compensation, a "regulatory taking" held to be compensable in numerous cases such as those noted above. This legal problem can remain academic, of course, until the City finally insists on maintaining its denial of economic uses. If the City refuses to remove the Transportation Corridor overlay, then my clients will be able to show that their Joss of the right to economic use of their property is no longer academic, and no longer "temporary", and they will be free to assert their Constitutional rights to compensation for the fair market value of the property. . Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have placed the burden of justifying regulations like the Transportation overlay squarely on the City. The opinion in Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 114 S CT 2309. detennined that the City here must shoyv convincingly not only that the overlay advances a legitimate governmental interest and allows economically viable residual uses of the site. but also that the severity of the overlay's use prohibition is "roughly proportional" to its adverse effect on the owner's rights. The City obviously would find it impossible to satisfy the legal test of Dolan and related cases in the present instance. The City can have no legitimate interest in preserving private property in a vacant condition, merely for potential future mass transit uses, if the former right of way property has been obstructed elsewhere nearby and no longer is a feasible future transportation resource. Even if the City (or any other governmental entity) discovered such an interest in the future, and wished to clear away the other land uses that have occupied the former railroad right of way, the U.S. and California Constitutions require all governments to pay for all private land they require for public purposes, through the normal condemnation process. The bare possibility that somehow a regional transportation agency miaht want to use this private property someday in the future clearly is a ~ small, speculative governmental interest, and not necessarily one held by the City of Dublin. Balanced against the adverse effect on the owner's use of the property (total prohibition or.all non-transportation uses), there simply is no way that the City legally can or ever could justify maintenance of the overlay on this property. . Some Councilmembers also have commented to the effect that the City might want to keep this site vacant for several more years so that some other developer could make use of it in an assembled form. A policy like this also I~ c:1/5 Mr. Eddie Peabody -4- April 21, 1998 violates the foregoing constitutional prohibition against uncompensated . regulatory takings. First, the City here has no legal right or authority to force assemblies of private property, or to prohibit viable economic land uses merely in the hope that the vacant land will attract a more glamorous buyer. In order to carry out such a poJicy, the City would have to form a Redevelopment Project Area around this property and condemn it, again, paying the owners its fair economic value. If the City wishes to acquire the Project site and the surrounding land for such a speculative public-sector development purpose, there are legal procedures available by which it can be done. A ConstitutionaJJy-mandated essential step in any such process, however, is to buy all the private property involved. We appreciate the City's cooperation in working through the technical and design issues that will make the Project an excellent example of re-use of former railroad property. We hope that the recent suggestion of retaining the Transportation overlay was just an example of "land use creativity"; the kind of long-range thinking that often can work well for all concerned. The legal is?ues summarized above, however, are very serious indeed, and matters which the Project owners and developers must address seriously. We hope that they . remain purely academic, and that the City will focus again on the somewhat more pragmatic issues that wiJJ make the Project a clear success for the City, . its residents and businesses. Please fee! free to call either Mr. Mike Selby or me directly if you have any questions regarding the Project or this letter. By Very truly yours, GENERAL COU cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Members Elizabeth SiNer, Esq.; City Attorney Mr. Mike Selby; All Aboard Ministorage Co. . -- . . . I '3 ~ )5 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Mayor Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to NOT put up stop signs. Cm. Barnes felt there should be some way to put up a no v-turn sign. Mayor Houston felt when the field opens, this should alleviate the problem somewhat. This can be addressed in the future if necessary. Cm. Barnes asked Mr. Hanson if they could address this in the school newsletter. It's not fair to the BiTch Cou.rt people when they can't get out of their driveways. Mayor Houston felt there needs to be an education process also. CITI. Burton commented the kids did a good job with their process and they shouldn't give up. M.s. Brester asked if we could have the Police patrol the area more often. Mayor Houston felt Mr. Hanson wi1llook seriously at this to determine what they can do. We don't usually have Police Services go out and regulate a parking lot. ~ RECESS At 9:05 p.m., Mayor Houston called for a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. ~ REQUEST BY ALL ABOARD MINI-STORAGE TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENf STUDY 9:11 p.m. 8.1 (420-30) Community Development Director Peabody advised that All Aboard Mini-Storage & the Union Pacific Railroad Company are proposing to construct an 85,669 sq. ft. self-storage facility on a 4.21 acre site (part of a larger 9 acre right-of-way) located in the Union Pacific Railroad Company right-of-way south of Dougherty Road. They currently have a facility just across the line in San Ramon on Alcosta. Mr. Peabody discussed reasons for either approval or denial of the request. Cm. Lockhart asked if pictures which were distributed were similar to what they are proposing in Dublin. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING April 7] 1998 PAGE 169 EXHIBIT 3 It! &0 /5' l\tlr. Peabody explained they were facilities they currently have, but this could be . alid1.'essed with !vIr. Selby. Cln. Burton asked if ABC Rental would be wiped out by this. l\tlr. Peabody stated no, they are immediately adjacent to this site. Mr. Ambrose explained that the City has had inquiries from people looking at potentially acquiring all these properties. Michael Selby, Hyrail Partners stated he and Lance AIlworth are partners with the Union Pacific :Railroad Company, who will be a 65% partner. They developed this joint ven-mre in 1990. He pointed out mey will be developing about 4 acres of their 9 acres of land. They are looking at dedication on Scarlett Way and Houston Place so they will be dedicating about 5 acres of property to get a mini- storage on 4 acres. He was aware that recently a mini-storage was turned down in Dublin on San Ramon Road. He understands the City's hesitance to give up commercial property. They feel they will be a good buffer on this site. They can landscape and alleviate any concerns the neighbors may have. It has been pointed out that there has been a policing problem there and they would clean this up and come in with a nice product. Cm. Burton asked if they pIan to have RV storage. . Mr. Selby stated they don't plan on having any RV parking areas. They are over their building coverage ratio. He indicated they can go back and revisit this. Cm. Burton stated he would appreciate it if they could seriously consider this to alleviate this very real problem in Dublin. Cm. Lockhart felt another thing needed in Dublin is for residents who drive big trucks. She asked if some kind of a staging area could be considered. Mr. Thompson discussed the area and some of the future road plans. Mr. Ambrose discussed the needed extension of Scarlett Drive when Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road is ultimately ma.."'Ced out. Mr. Selby stated they are willing to work with Staff. They have a lot of advantages in having the railroad as their partner. This property is currently under the State Board of EqUalization and it would be transferred under the new ownership and the City would benefit by receiving more taxes. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING April 7; 1998 PAGE 170 . . . . /5 if /5 Cm. Lockhart stated she wanted to reiterate the fact that boat and RV storage is a big issue in our community. Mayor Houston felt this is one of the gateways to the City and we may be selling ourselves short by having a rnini-storage on this site. Aesthetically by putting parcels together could be better. Also, in the future this may not be industrial. Once you put in mini-storage, you always have mini-storage. We have an opportunity to assemble something and put in some tax generators for the City or just go with mini-storage. Cm. Lockhart felt we need to look at the traffic issues also. Cm. Burton felt this is a transition site. Nothing is on it now. The turnoff to Scarlett Drive will be a major thoroughfare for people going to BART. This does put a choke point on the whole frontage. Cm. Barnes suggested that this be put off until the next meeting and that the Council and Staff reconvene at the site. Maps and slides are great, but she felt Mr. Peabody could better explain the implications to the Council if they were out on the site. She asked if it would have to be noticed as a special meeting. Mayor Houston stated he was concerned about how the Iron Horse Trail is being treated within our City Limits. He is not happy with the way they did it in San Ramon. In Dublin he wants it to be open and safe. Ms. Silver stated if they were considering an appeal they would have to notice it, but this is a quasi -legislative action so it is not necessary to notice it and go out together to look at the site. They could go out on their own and individually look at the site. em. Barnes felt it is important to do it as a group with Staff. Mayor Houston requested that Mr. Peabody give those interested some potential times when he could go with them to the site. He indicated he is very familiar with the area and would not need to go. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to defer consideration of this request to the next meeting. ...;$r CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING April 7, 1998 PAGE 171