Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1/3/1995 PC Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting -Dublin Civic Center Monday- 7:30 p.m. 100 Civic Plaza, Council Chambers January 3, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS -December 19, 1994 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION -At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public;however,no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Director(no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting)to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. 6.1 Election of Officers (continued from 12-19-94 meeting) 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Rezone and proposed Negative Declaration request to rezone 75±acres from Planned Development-Business Park/Industrial (low coverage)to a standard Planned Development. This project has a Specific Plan Designation of General Commercial. The proposed Planned Development would allow for an 800,000±square foot commercial center which may include retail stores, offices, movie theaters and restaurants among other uses. The project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. (continued from 12-19-94 meeting) 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) 11. ADJOURNMENT (Over for Procedures Summary) AMIN V 82) CITY OF DUBLIN PO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 • City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 FAX #833-6628 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 1 - kuDATE : #OF PAGES SENT ( INCLUDING COVER SHEET) TO: DUBLIN LIBRARY FAX #: 828-9296 FROM: GO4() DEPARTMENT:PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE COMMENTS/DIRECTIONS : PLEASE POST ON PUBLIC BULLETIN BOARD qb\Ri. Fe/ %-QACICL- `f—D (_27NKS ! ! !„„/T NOTE: IF YOU ARE NOT CLEARLY RECEIVING THIS DOCUMENT, PLEASE CALL (510) 833-6610 . THANK YOU. c:planning\forms\inhouse\faxlibry Administration (415) 833-6650 • City Council (415) 833-6605 • Finance (415) 833-6640 • Building Inspection (415)833-6620 Code Enforcement (415) 833-6620 • Engineering (415) 833-6630 • Planning (415) 833-6610 Police (415) 833-6670 • Public Works (415)833-6630 • Recreation (415)833-6645 / / CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: January 3,1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff PREPARED BY: Jeri Ram,Associate Plann SUBJECT: PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Planned Development Rezoning,Development Agreement- Supplemental Report to December 19,1994,Planning Commission Agenda Statement GENFRAI INFORMATION' PROJECT: A request to rezone 75+acres from Planned Development- Business Park/Industrial(low coverage)to a standard Planned Development. This project has a General Plan and Specific Plan Designation of General Commercial. The proposed Planned Development would allow for an 800,000+square foot commercial center which may include retail shops,offices,movie theaters and restaurants,among other uses. This report includes supplemental analysis relating to the Rezone request continued from the December 19,1994,Planning Commission Meeting, Public Comments and Responses to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. In addition,the Planning Commission will consider a development agreement between the City of Dublin,County of Alameda and Homart Development Company.The Development Agreement is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items included in the development agreement are traffic,noise and public facilities impact fees,phasing of infrastructure construction and future creek improvements,among other items. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Homart Community Centers\Homart Development Company 1099 18th Street,#2680 Denver,CO 80202 Alameda County Surplus Property Authority 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward,CA 94544 LOCATION: 75+acres on the southeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. This development is within the Hacienda Gateway in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. U PA File ASSESSOR PARCEL: 946-15-1-4(por) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The project,as mitigated,will not have a significant effect on the environment. For a complete discussion of the environmental document,please see the December 19,1994,Planning Commission Agenda Statement. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The public review period concluded on December 23,1994. It ran for thirty days,from November 23,1994 to December 23,1994. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the December 19,1994,public hearing was published in the local newspaper,mailed to adjacent property owners,and posted in public buildings. The December 19,1994,public hearing was continued at the Planning Commission Meeting to the Planning Commission's January 3,1995,meeting. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program; 3. Approve the application for a Planned Development Rezone to General Commercial;and 4. Approve the Development Agreement between Homart Development Co.,the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin. BACKGROUND. This staff report is a supplemental staff report for the Planning Commission on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,Mitigation Monitoring Program and Rezone to a Planned Development for the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project. Please refer to the December 19,1994,staff report for background information and analysis on those items. This staff report also contains new analyses pertaining to the public comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Development Agreement for the project. On December 19,1994,the Planning Commission heard the staff report,opened the public hearing,and took testimony on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,Mitigation Monitoring Program and Rezone on the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project. At the public hearing,the Applicant and their representatives spoke about issues related to the project. The draft minutes for the December 19,1994,meeting are in the Planning Commission packet for approval at this meeting and can be used for reference and review. Attached to this Staff Report(Attachment 1)is a copy of the Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Homart Development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area dated November 3, 1994,as well as a Memorandum Report on the Combined Fiscal Analyses-Homart Retail Project and Annexation Area prepared by ERA for the City of Dublin. This is included as background material for the Planning Commission and relates to the December 19,1994,staff report section on"Fiscal Analysis". ANALYSIS. —2— Planning Commission Comments on the Project: At the meeting,the Planning Commission had several questions regarding the project. Staff indicated that the answers to the questions would be provided at the January 3,1995,meeting. The Planning Commission questions were as follows(staffs responses follow each question): 1. What were the approximate impact fee costs that would be paid by the Developer? Public Facilities Impact Fee-Approximately$290,000.00 Noise Impact Fee-Not to exceed$3,000.00 Traffic Impact Fee-Approximately,$5,162,720.00 Please see discussion under the"Development Agreement"Section of this Staff Report for an explanation of these amounts. 2. Where has Homart Community Centers previously developed in Northern California? Homart Development Co.,is comprised of three development divisions. One of the divisions,Homart Development Co.,has developed two malls in Northern California: Arden Fair Mall in Sacramento and New Park Mall in Newark. 3. What road improvements will be part of the project? The road improvements that will be made in conjunction with the project in Phases 1 and 2 are listed in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement(Exhibit A of this Staff Report)and in the Traffic Study attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the December 19,1994, packet. However,the following is a brief summary: Phase One Improvements: On Dublin Boulevard from Hacienda to the easterly driveway of the Project,three eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes.Dual left turn lanes westbound to the project major driveways,a right turn lane eastbound to the westerly major driveway;and a parkway area adjacent to the project,which includes sidewalk and landscaping. Dual left turn lanes will be provided for westbound on Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda Drive. On Hacienda Drive,three northbound lanes,two southbound lanes,and a right northbound turn lane at the driveway of the Project will be provided. Parkway area adjacent to the project,which includes sidewalk and landscaping. Dual left turn lanes will be provided for southbound Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard. On Tassajara Road,dual northbound leff turn lanes will be constructed at Dublin Boulevard. Traffic signals will be installed at each of the three major access points to the Project,as well as at the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. Phase Two Improvements: On Dublin Boulevard from the easterly driveway to the Tassajara Bridge,three eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes and a parkway area adjacent the Project which includes sidewalk and landscaping. —3— It should be noted that while right-of-way will be obtained for the lanes noted above in Phases One and Two,the striping may vary according to City Engineering requirements. Also,the Traffic signals on Dublin Boulevard at the major access points may be turned on at a later date upon City Engineering approval. Additionally,bicycle lanes will be provided on Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. Public Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration: The public comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was from November 23,1994, through December 23,1994. During that time,staff received three comments(Exhibit B)as follows: 1. Letter from CALTRANS dated December 23,1994. The major comments in this letter are: a) CALTRANS discussed two additional projects which they thought should be considered;and b) If any construction is done within the CALTRANS right-of-way,CALTRANS would require an encroachment permit. 2. Letter from Reynolds and Brown dated December 14,1994. The major comments in this letter relate to: a) Circulation improvements that would be made as part of the project;and, b) Area wide traffic circulation improvements and the method that would be used to pay for them. 3. Cover letter from several Pleasanton Property Owners dated December 22,1994, enclosing a legal memorandum from the law firm of Cassidy and Verges. This memorandum contains 45 pages of comments. The two main comments in this memorandum are: a) The negative declaration is inadequate;and b) The rezoning is inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Dublin City Attorney has prepared summary Responses to Comments(Exhibit C). The complete Response to Comments will be prepared for the City Council Meeting on January 9, 1995. The City Attorney will be present at the Planning Commission Meeting to answer additional questions the Planning Commission may have regarding any of the Public Comment letters received on the Mitigation Negative Declaration. Development Agreement: One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to enter into development agreements with developers in the plan area. The purpose of a development agreement is to provide security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time and,on the other hand,provide a mechanism to the City to obtain commitments from the developer the City might not otherwise be able to obtain. The development agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific Plan goal that new development fund the cost of infrastructure and service is met. —4— Development agreements are authorized by statutes(Government Code Section 65864 et seq.). Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code is the City's enabling ordinance and provides the procedure for adoption of a development agreement. On October 10,1994,the City Council approved a Master Development Agreement for use in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Master Development Agreement is to be used as the basis for beginning negotiations with developers within the Specific Plan area. Attached to this Staff Report(Exhibit A)is a Development Agreement(DA)between the City of Dublin,the Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda and Homart Development Co. The DA sets forth the agreements between the three entities in relation to many items,including, but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing,payment of public facilities,noise and traffic impact fees and future creek improvements. The DA becomes effective when it is signed by all the parties for a term of 10 years. The DA runs with the land and the rights thereunder can be assigned. The main points of the DA can be found in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement and are highlighted below: Section 6,Public Facilities Fee. This section sets forth that the City has hired a consultant who has prepared a draft Public Facilities Fee Study. The draft study calculates the amount of the public facilities fee for neighborhood parks,community parks,community facilities,libraries and buildout of the Civic Center. The study concluded that the amount of the public facilities fee for commercial development in Eastern Dublin is$290.00 per 1,000 building square feet. However,as noted,the study is still in draft form and the final fee may be greater than$290.00 per 1,000. The DA is structured to enable the County to pay the fee that is approved up to$362.50,and receive a refund if the$362.50 per 1,000 sq.ft.is paid and the fee is determined to be less than that amount. Section 6,Noise Mitigation Fee. This Section implements Mitigation Measure 3.10/7.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Eastern Dublin. When the City adopts a noise mitigation fee,the Developer will pay the fee,up to $3,000. The fee will be collected at final occupancy of Phase 2 of the Project. If a fee is not established at that time,the Developer will not be obligated to pay such a fee. Section 6,Traffic Impact Fees. The amount of Traffic Impact Fees(TIF)has been calculated based on the Barton Aschman November,1994 traffic study attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Traffic Impact Fee that is presently being considered by the City Council. Public hearings have been held on the proposed TIF by the City Council on December 12th and 27th. It is anticipated that the fee will be adopted at the City Council Meeting of January 9,1995,prior to the City Council's public hearing on the Santa Rita Commercial Centers Project. The DA assumes that the TIF will be approved. If there is a significant change in the TIF that is adopted from what is anticipated,the DA will be brought back before the Planning Commission for further consideration. Since the Developer and/or the County will be oversizing a substantial portion of infrastructure, Subparagraph 5.3.5,allows credit against the TIF amount for the value of the oversizing,as follows: The total value of the oversized improvements and right of way is$4,574,140.00 less $808,870.00 which is the value of that part of the oversized improvements previously constructed by the City of Pleasanton for a net credit of$3,765,270.00. —5— Based on the TIF presently being considered by the City Council,the Project's TIF is $5,162,719.00. Based on the present TIF and agreement due to oversizing the improvements,the net traffic impact fee due for this project is$1,397,449.00 Section 7,Creek Improvements. The County agrees that when the property adjacent to this project to the east develops,the County will comply with all the provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report. Approval Findings for Development Agreement. Section 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code sets forth the findings that must be made in order to approve a development agreement. These findings are contained in the Resolution recommending approval of the Agreement to the City Council(Exhibit E). RECOMMENDATIONS. FORMAT: 1) Hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Question Staff,Applicant and the public. 4) Adopt Exhibit C from the December 19,1994,P.C.Staff Report, Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 5) Adopt Exhibit D from the December 19,1994,P.C.Staff Report, Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezoning. 6) Adopt Exhibit A from the January 3,1995,P.C.Staff Report,Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement. ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,Mitigation Monitoring Program,Rezone to a Planned Development and Development Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Development Agreement between the City of Dublin,Hamad Development Co. and Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda for the Tri-Valley Crossings Project. Exhibit B: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit C: Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit D: Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement —6— • Background Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Homart Development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area dated November 3, 1994, and Memorandum Report on the Combined Fiscal Analyses- Homart Retail Project and Annexation Area prepared by ERA for the City of Dublin. —7— I r Re4ording Requested by: C ty of Dublin When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Space above this line for Recorder's Use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO. AND SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA FOR THE TRI-VALLEY CROSSINGS PROJECT/SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER EXHU3T December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this day of January, 1995, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City") , the SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY of the County of Alameda, a public corporation (hereafter "County") , and HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO., a Delaware Corporation (hereafter "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12. RECITALS A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.12") authorize the CITY to enter into a binding agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property; and B. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is applicable to the Property; and C. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires DEVELOPER to enter into a development agreement; and D. DEVELOPER and COUNTY desire to develop and Developer holds legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 75 acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Property"; and E. COUNTY is the owner of property in the City of Dublin consisting of approximately 600 acres of land, which includes the approximately 75 acres which DEVELOPER has option on rights to acquire; F. DEVELOPER and COUNTY propose the phased development of the Property with a 75-acre retail commercial development (the "Project"); and G. CITY, COUNTY, and DEVELOPER acknowledge that development of the Project is a large scale undertaking, involving major investments by DEVELOPER and COUNTY, with development occurring in phases over several years. DEVELOPER and COUNTY are unwilling to incur the required investment in development of the Project without assurance from CITY that all phases of the Project can be developed in December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 1 accordance with the approvals granted by CITY. CITY, in turn, cannot be assured of realizing the benefits of development of the Project without granting assurance of continuity of CITY'S approvals to DEVELOPER and COUNTY; and H. DEVELOPER and COUNTY have applied for, and CITY has approved, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including a PD District rezoning (Ord. No. ), and intend to process a tentative parcel map and site development review (collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project, the "Project Approvals"); and I. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of said Project; and J. The Master Development Agreement approved by CITY Resolution No. 109-94 was used as the format for negotiating this Agreement; and K. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.12; and ,... L. CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein; and M. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and found that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate for this Agreement; and N. On January , 1995, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement. The ordinance took effect on February , 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER agree as follows: December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\dev1pmn4.agr 2 AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 946-15-1-4, consisting of approximately 75 acres at the southeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin as depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A-1 hereto ("Property"). The parties agree that a legal description of the Property will be attached hereto by CITY as Exhibit A-2 at the time of approval of the tentative map and will become a part hereof without further action. 2. Interest of Developer. The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in that it has an option to purchase the Property in fee simple which may be exercised in two phases. 3. Relationship of City. County and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER and that neither the COUNTY nor the DEVELOPER is an agent of CITY. The CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER joint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date and Term. 4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date when signed by all parties. 4.2 Term. The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the effective date and extend ten (10) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto by amendment of this Agreement. 5. Use of the Property. 5.1 Right to Develop. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 3 any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. 5.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals. 5.3 Additional Conditions. Provisions for the following ("Additional Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5.3.1 Conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions. (These conditions do not affect Developer's responsibility to obtain all other land use approvals required by the ordinances of the City of Dublin.) Not Applicable. 5.3.2 Additional or modified conditions agreed upon by the parties in order to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise relating to development of the Project. See Exhibit B. 5.3.3 Provisions that the Project be constructed in specified phases, that construction shall commence within a specified time, and that the Project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. See Exhibit B. 5.3.4 Financial_plans which identify necessary capital improvements such as streets and utilities and sources of funding. See Exhibit B. December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 4 5.3.5 Terms relating to subsequent reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public facilities. See Exhibit B. 5.3.6 Terms relating to payment of fees. See Exhibit B. 5.3.7. Miscellaneous terms. See Exhibit B. 5.4 Subsequent Approvals. Development of the Property by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is subject to certain future discretionary approvals including, but not necessarily limited to, subdivision and site development review approval. Upon approval and issuance of any such subsequent discretionary approval (including conditions of such approval) each such approval shall automatically become part of the approvals which vest hereunder as each such approval becomes effective following final action by CITY, and DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be entitled to develop in accordance with such approvals as provided in this Agreement as though such approval existed upon the effective date of the Agreement and was initially .-. incorporated herein. 6. Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. 6.1 Rules re Permitted Uses. Notwithstanding any future changes in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinances or any future rules, regulations, or policies adopted by the CITY, including initiatives applicable to the Property, for the term of this Agreement, the CITY's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the effective date of this Agreement. 6.2 Rules re Desiqn and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary Project approval. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 5 governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable permit approval. 6.3 Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. 7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 7.1 New Rules and Regulations. During the term of this Agreement, the CITY may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the CITY only if they were not in force and effect on the effective date of this Agreement, if they are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement and if the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent or materially delay development of the Property as contemplated by this .--, Agreement and the Project Approvals. 7.2 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of CITY, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, CITY agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and Taxes. 8.1 New Fees. The CITY, DEVELOPER, and COUNTY agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development and buildout of the Project for the purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project, and complying with the Specific Plan shall be those set forth in PD Ord. No. or in this Agreement. The CITY shall not impose or require payment of any other fees, December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 6 ,-. dedication of any land, or construction of any public improvements or facilities, in connection with any subsequent discretionary approval for the Property or any portion of it, except as set forth in this Agreement. 8.2 Construction of Off-Site Traffic Improvements. The CITY, DEVELOPER, and COUNTY agree that DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY'S obligation to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project with respect to either constructing or contributing to the cost of any off-site improvements are limited to those set forth in this Agreement. No other off- site improvements, or contributions to off-site improvements, shall be required of DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY at any phase of development of the Project. 8.3 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.4 New Taxes. Except as set forth below, any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such .� taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. No excise tax on the privilege of developing property shall apply to the Project. 8.5 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Property. 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the effective date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.12. December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 7 9.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of State law and Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91. 9.3 Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY as provided in Exhibit B, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. 9.4 Amendments of Protect Approvals. No amendment of Project Approvals shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment automatically shall be deemed to apply to the Project and shall be subject to this Agreement. 9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be cancelled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.12. Any fees paid pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by CITY. Any credit due to COUNTY under paragraph 5.3.6 shall be carried over to future projects on COUNTY's remaining property. Upon completion of Phase 1, the parties may agree in writing to cancellation of this Agreement as to Phase 1 in accordance with the provision of Chapter 8.12. 10. Term of Project Approvals. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the term of the tentative parcel map December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 8 described in Recital H above shall automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement. The term of any other Project Approval shall be extended only if so provided in Exhibit B. 11. Annual Review. 11.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be April 1, 1996, and each April 1 thereafter. 11.2 Initiation of Review. The CITY's Planning Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.12.140 of Chapter 8.12, by giving to COUNTY and DEVELOPER thirty (30) days' written notice that the CITY intends to undertake such review. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall provide evidence to the Planning Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Planning Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY. The review shall be for the purpose set forth in Government Code section 65865.1. 11.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, CITY shall deposit in the mail and fax to COUNTY and DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least three (3) days prior to any annual review. 11.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in connection with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 12. Default. 12.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 12.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by any party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 9 or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 13. Estoppel Certificate. Any party hereto may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other parties hereto requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY and County Administrator shall be authorized to execute any certificate for COUNTY. Failure to execute an estoppel certificate shall not be deemed a default. 14. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 14.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage") . Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all for the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 14.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 10 construction or completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 14.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If CITY receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given DEVELOPER hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to DEVELOPER, any notice given to DEVELOPER with respect to any claim by CITY that DEVELOPER has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to DEVELOPER to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the CITY's notice. 15. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If CITY, COUNTY or DEVELOPER initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. DEVELOPER shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse CITY for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by CITY in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 17. Transfers and Assignments. 17.1 Right to Assign Portions of Phase 1 or Phase 2. Subject to the approval of CITY which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY may assign their respective rights to develop portions of Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 of the Project hereunder to any successor in interest which acquires any legal or December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 11 equitable interest in any portion of the Property and/or Project, which rights shall run with the property on which the Project is constructed. Each permitted successor in interest to the DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions hereof applicable to that portion of the Project acquired by it. 17.2 Right to Assign Project as Whole. In the event that DEVELOPER proposes to assign this Agreement in whole or in part, DEVELOPER shall give CITY and COUNTY ten (10) working days written notice of such proposed assignment and the right to review and comment on the proposed assignment document. DEVELOPER agrees to give all reasonable consideration to CITY's and COUNTY's comments but shall retain the right to assign this Agreement as herein stated without CITY's approval Each successor in interest to the DEVELOPER shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions hereof after the effective deate of the assignment of this Agreement, and DEVELOPER shall be relieved of any obligations, liabilities or the like incurred after the effective date of the assignment. 17.3 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the sale, transfer, or assignment in whole or in part of DEVELOPER'S and/or COUNTY'S rights and interests under this Agreement under subparagraphs 17.1 and 17.2, DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be released from their obligations under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property and/or Project so transferred; provided however,that (i) DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is not then in default under this Agreement; (ii) DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY have provided written notice of such transfer to CITY and (iii) subject to the exceptions stated herein below, the transferee executes and delivers to CITY a written Assumption Agreement in which (a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (b) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the obligations of the DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property and/or Project transferred. 18. Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 12 constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 19. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 20. Indemnification. In addition to the Processing Fee Agreement Form signed by DEVELOPER, which is incorporated herein, DEVELOPER and COUNTY agree to indemnify and hold harmless CITY, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY, or any actions or inactions of DEVELOPER's and/or COUNTY contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to mean that DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify or hold CITY or its elected or appointed representatives, officers, agents and employees harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage arising from or alleged to have arisen from, the maintenance or repair by CITY of improvements that have been offered for dedication and accepted by CITY for maintenance. 21. Insurance. 21.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and a deductible of not more than thousand dollars ($ ) per claim. The policy so maintained by DEVELOPER shall name the CITY and COUNTY as additional insureds and December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 13 shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. 21.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by DEVELOPER for work at the Project site. DEVELOPER shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from DEVELOPER's and/or COUNTY's failure to maintain any such insurance. 21.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall furnish CITY satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 21.1 and 21.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the CITY at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the CITY, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to DEVELOPER and each contractor and subcontractor performing work on the Project. 22. Sewer and Water. DEVELOPER and COUNTY acknowledge that water and sewer permits must be obtained from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency not within the control of CITY. 23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 14 Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed as follows: Homart Development Co. ATTN: Legal Counsel 55 West Monroe, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603 Notices required to be given to COUNTY shall be addressed as follows: County Administrator County of Alameda 1221 Oak Street,Room 555 Oakland, CA 94612 with a copy to: Planning Director Alameda County 399 Elmhurst St. Hayward, CA 94544 A party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other parties and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. 24. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement is executed in three duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement and all Exhibits attached hereto contain the sole and entire agreement between the parties concerning the Project. The parties acknowledge and agree that none of them has made any representations with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except such representations as are specifically set forth herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering into this Agreement. 25. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A-1 Map of Property December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 15 Exhibit A-2 Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Additional Conditions 26. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of each and every covenant and obligation to be performed by the parties hereunder. 27. Recordation. CITY shall record this Agreement when the legal description (Exhibit A-2) is attached, as provided in paragraph 1. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN: HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO. a Delaware Corporation By: By: Mayor Name: Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA By: President APPROVED AS TO FORM: December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 16 ------ -- ----- ;� 1:01evot-Immim P-11 ------------- Ic - --------- Al IZZS 7r EXHIBIT A-2 Legal Description of the Property December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 17 EXHIBIT B Additional Conditions The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above. 1. Subparagraph 5.3.1: None. 2. Subparagraph 5.3.2: Subparagraph a. The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the Project shall require that the following infrastructure be in place at the following times. As used herein, "occupancy" shall mean the receipt from CITY of a "Certificate of Occupancy for Eastern Dublin Development" which shall be issued by CITY when the building is ready to be opened to the public. Roads: Phase 1 Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the following roadway improvements and dedications will be required. These improvements include the project-specific improvements identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis report dated November 1994 prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. as well as certain additional improvements (hereafter "oversized improvements"), collectively referred to below as "full improvements". Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 1, DEVELOPER shall provide a bond or other adequate security to insure that the full improvements will be made. A. Hacienda Drive between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard: Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 94 foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for a minimum of 32 feet (adjacent to the property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Additional right-of-way for turn lanes is required. Full_improvements include median (minimum 14 foot width, 24 feet if two left-turn pockets required) , two 12 foot southbound travel lanes, three 12 foot north-bound travel lanes with 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane), 12 feet of parkway area December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 18 which includes 8 feet of sidewalk, and left-turn pockets as required by the Dublin Public Works Director. Of the full improvements, the project-specific improvements include 10 foot of median improvements if two left-turn pockets are required, one 12 foot northbound travel lane with 8 feet of emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane), and 12 feet of parkway area which includes 8 feet of sidewalk. Of the full improvements, the oversized improvements include full improvements of the median (minimum 14 foot width, 24 foot if two left-turn pockets are required), two 12 foot southbound and two 12 foot northbound travel lanes. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for adequate transition between existing improvements and proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin Public Works Director. B. Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Eastern-Most Protect Entrance: Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 102 foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for a minimum of 40 feet (adjacent to the property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Additional right-of-way for turn lanes is required. Full improvements include median (minimum 14 foot width, 24 feet if two left-turn pockets required) , two 12 foot westbound travel lanes, three 12 foot east-bound travel lanes with 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane), 20 feet of parkway area (adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk (20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when two left- turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn lanes are required), and left-turn pockets as required by Dublin's Public Works Director. Of the full improvements, the project-specific improvements include 10 foot of median improvement if two-left turn pockets are required, one 12 foot eastbound travel lane with an 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane), and 20 feet of parkway area (adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk (20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when two left-turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn lanes are required) . Of the full improvements, the oversized improvements include full improvements of the median (minimum 14 foot width, 24 foot if two left-turn December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 19 pockets are required), two 12 foot southbound and two 12 foot northbound travel lanes. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for adequate transition between existing improvements and proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin Public Works Director. Phase 2 Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 2, the following roadway improvements and dedications will be required. Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 2, DEVELOPER shall provide a bond or other adequate security to insure that these improvements will be made: A. Dublin Boulevard between Eastern-Most Project Entrance and Tassaiara Bridge: Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 102 foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for a minimum of 40 feet (adjacent to the property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Additional right-of-way for turn lanes is required. Full improvements include median (minimum 14 foot width, 24 feet if two left-turn pockets required) , two 12 foot westbound travel lanes, three 12 foot eastbound travel lanes with 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane), 20 feet of parkway area (adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk (20-foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when two left- turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn lanes are required), and left-turn pockets as required by Dublin's Public Works Director. Of the full improvements, the project-specific improvements include 10 foot of median improvement if two-left turn pockets are required, one 12 foot eastbound travel lane with an 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane), and 20 feet of parkway area (adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk (20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when two left-turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn lanes are required). Of the full improvements, the oversized improvements include full improvements of the median (minimum 14 foot width, 24 feet if two left-turn pockets are required), two 12 foot southbound and two 12 foot northbound travel lanes. December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 20 DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for adequate transition between existing improvements and proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin Public Works Director. Signalization As provided in the November 1994 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc, the DEVELOPER and/or the COUNTY shall install signals onto all full-access driveways onto Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. Sewer: Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, trunk line sanitary sewer improvements to serve the property as well as laterals hooked up to the buildings to be occupied shall be complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Water: Prior to combustible construction and/or storage of combustible materials on site, sufficient water storage and pressure shall be available at the site to the satisfaction of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase I, trunk line potable water system components to serve the property as well as laterals hooked up to the buildings to be occupied shall be complete and in working order to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase I, recycled water lines shall be installed on site and within adjacent roadways to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Storm Drainage: Prior to the occupancy of any portion of Phase I, the storm drainage systems to the site as well as on site drainage systems to the areas to be occupied shall be complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department. The site shall also be protected from storm flow from off site and shall have erosion control measures in place to protect downstream facilities and properties from erosion and unclean storm water. December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 21 Other Utilities (e.q. gas, electricity): Prior to occupancy. Subparagraph b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY's Public Works Director may, in his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director that assures completion, allow DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY to defer completion of discrete portions of any of the above public improvements until after occupancy if the Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. 3. Subparagraph 5.3.3: DEVELOPER and COUNTY intend to construct the Project in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of an approximately 50-acre retail center. Phase 2 will consist of approximately 25 acres of retail development which will be constructed to function in harmony with the Phase 1 retail center. This Agreement contains no requirements that DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY must initiate or complete development of either Phase 1 or Phase 2 or any portion of either phase within any period of time set by CITY. It is the intention of this provision that DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY be able to develop the Property in accordance with their own time schedules. 4. Subparagraph 5.3.4: DEVELOPER and COUNTY will provide all infrastructure necessary for the each phase of Project prior to occupancy by any tenant in such Phase of the Project. DEVELOPER and COUNTY intend to install all street improvements necessary for the Project at their own cost (subject to credits for any oversized improvements as provided in subparagraph 5.3.5 below) . Other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer, potable water, and recycled water services to the Project will be made available by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. COUNTY has entered into an "Area Wide Facilities Agreement" with the Dublin San Ramon Services District to pay for the cost of extending such services to the Project. 5. Subparagraph 5.3.5: COUNTY and/or DEVELOPER will construct oversized improvements on Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive fronting the Project as described above. December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 22 DEC-29-34 THU 15:27 P. 02/07 DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be entitled to a credit against Traffic Impact Fees for the Project for construction of the oversized improvements. The total value of the oversized improvements and right-of-way is $4,574,140 less $808,870 (which is the value of that part of the oversized improvements previously constructed by the City of Pleasanton) for a net credit of $3,765,270. The credit shall be given at the time DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY enter into an improvement agreement with CITY for construction of the public facilities. Although DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY currently contemplate constructing all of the oversized improvements as part of Phase 1, it is possible that they may defer construction of a portion of the permanent oversized improvements to Phase 2 . In that event, the amount of the credit for Phase 1 shall be reduced in the following manner. For those oversized improvements not constructed (or right- of-way dedicated) as part of permanent Dublin Boulevard, the net credit of $3,765, 270 shall be reduced by $1,140 per lineal foot not constructed. For those oversized improvements not constructed (or right-of-way dedicated) as part of permanent Hacienda Drive, the net credit of $3 ,765,270 shall be reduced by $942 per lineal foot not constructed. If the net credit of $3,765,270 is so reduced and the permanent oversized improvements are later constructed as part of. Phase 2, DEVELOPER and\or COUNTY shall be entitled to the amount of the reduced credit at that time. 6. subparagraph 5. 3.6: Traffic Impact Fees. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY agree that the Project will ' be subject to Traffic Impact Fees in the amount of $5, 162,719, to be paid by DEVELOPER. This amount is based on the City's Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. , adopted by the Council on January 1995) as follows: December 29, 1994 1I4\memo\S2\devlpmn4.agr 23 DEC-29-34 THU 15:28 P,03/07 Section 1 Fee: $3,665,002 Section 2 Fee: $ 969,111 Section 3 Fee: $ 528,606 Total: $5,162,719 The total Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") of $5,162,719 is reduced, however, by the credit in the amount of $3,765,270 for oversizing improvements provided in Subparagraph 5.3.5 for a net TIF due of $1,397,450 for the Project. For purposes of applying the net credit of $3,765,270, the following shall apply: When a building permit is issued, CITY will calculate the square footage of the building and will calculate the amount of the TIF in accordance with Resolution No. CITY will then calculate the amount of the credit tto be used for such building by multiplying the square footage of the building by $6.4533987 to arrive at the credit for such building. The net credit will be reduced by the amount of the credit for such building. A sample calculation follows for illustrative purposes only: Total Net Credit $3,765,270 Building 1 (10,000 sq.ft.) TIF $ 64,534 Remaining Credit $3,700,736 Building 2 (15,000 sq.ft.) TIF $ 96,801 Remaining Credit $3,603,935 When the net credit of $3,765,270 has been exhausted, thereafter DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY will pay the applicable TIF in accordance with Resolution No. , as adopted January , 1995, plus any increases 1 the TIF attributable to inflationary increases in construction costs and/or interest due on loan repayments to BART and/or Pleasanton which is adopted prior to issuance of a building permit. n Dccembez 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 24 DEC-29-34 THU 15:29 P.04/07 /'1 Possible Traffic Impact Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton for Freeway Interchanges. In addition to the foregoing, if CITY amends the TIP, as adopted by Resolution No. , to include a fee to repay Pleasanton for Eastern Dublin's proportionate share of improvements to the Hacienda and Santa Rita Interchanges constructed by Pleasanton, COUNTY agrees that it will pay any such additional fee attributable to the Property even if building permits have already been pulled prior to the time CITY amends the TIF. COUNTY shall be released from its obligation, as set forth in the preceding sentence, if a lawsuit is filed challenging the Project approvals, this Agreement, the negative declaration prepared for the project, the TIF as adopted by Resolution No. or any other aspect of the development of the Property. Regional Transportation Mitigation, In addition to payment of the above Traffic Impact Fee, COUNTY shall enter into a binding commitment to convey 15 (plus/minus) acres of land adjacent to the Eastern Dublin HART station to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for use as surface parking and related facilities. COUNTY shall also dedicate to CITY up to 2 acres of right-of-way deemed necessary by CITY for access to the BART station from Dublin Boulevard. Public! Facilities Pees. CITY has retained a consultant who prepared a draft report (November 11, 1994 Memorandum to Richard Ambrose from Recht Hausrath & Associates, hereafter the "Draft study„) to calculate the amount of a Public Facilities Fee for funding the cost of new public facilities required for development in the Eastern Dublin area (the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Areas)_ The Draft Study calculates the amount of a Public Facilities Foe for neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities, libraries and buildout of the Civic Center (hereafter "public facilities"). It concludes that the amount of the Public Facilities Fee for retail development is $290 per 1,000 Building Square Feet. Except as provided in the next paragraph, COUNTY agrees that, prior to the issuance of each building permit as part of the Project, it will pay a Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee") in the amount of $362.50 per 1,000 Square Feet of Building. The fee of $362.50 represents $290 per 1,000 Building Square Feet plus a 25% contingency. / December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 25 DEC-29-34 THU 15:29 P,05/07 City intends to retain a consultant to prepare a more com prehensive report to determine the cost of the public facilities and how such cost should be apportioned among properties within the Eastern Dublin area. When CITY approves and adopts the comprehensive report, the amount of the Public Facilities Fee to be paid by COUNTY pursuant to the preceding paragraph shall thereafter be the amount included in such report for retail uses for all such public facilities, provided that in no event shall the Fee be more than $362.50 per 1000 Square Feet of Building. If the Fee paid by COUNTY pursuant to the preceding paragraph is more than the amount included in such report for retail uses for all such public facilities, CITY will refund the difference to COUNTY within 30 days of a request for a refund. COUNTY may, at its option to be exercised prior to the tine the Fee is payable, dedicate land to CITY in fee simple in lieu Of payment of the Fee provided that land may not be dedicated unless it is in excess of the amount of land which COUNTY will be required to dedicate pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 (CITY's "Quimby Act Ordinance") when COUNTY subdivides the remainder of its approximately 600 acres for residential uses. If COUNTY exercises its option to dedicate land in lieu of paying the Fee, the value of the land to be dedicated shall be e'N calculated in the same manner as the value of land was calculated in the Draft Study and in any subsequent study prepared for CITY to calculate the Fee imposed by CITY. CITY shall not be obligated to accept any such land until CITY and COUNTY have agreed on the value of the land to be dedicated and CITY has determined that the land is appropriate for park and/or community facility uses. Noise Mitigation Fee. When CITY adopts a resolution imposing noise mitigation fee pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.10\7.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the purpose of mitigating noise on existing residences along Tassajara Road, DEVELOPER will pay its proportionate fee into the fund established by such resolution, provided that in no event will DEVELOPER be required to pay more than $3,000. For purposes of calculating DEVELOPER's proportionate fee, CITY will use 270 trips per day which is the number of trips on Tassajara Road which are attributable to the Project, as determined by the "Traffic Impact Analysis/Regional Discount Retail Center" Report prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates for Homart Community Centers, dated November 1994. Any fee to be paid by DEVELOPER pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy (or equivalent approval) for the last building in Phase 2. /"i December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.agr 26 DEC-29-34 THU 15:30 P.06/07 c If no fee has been established by such time, no fee shall be payable. School Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fees. Any school impact fees shall be paid by DEVELOPER in accordance with Government Code section 53080. COUNTY and/or DEVELOPER agrees it will pay fire capital impact fees to the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority in advance of issuance of a building permit or permits if requested to do so by CITY provided that CITY gives COUNTY twenty working days, advance written notice. Any fire capital impact fees paid in advance which are not required for the Project may be applied by COUNTY to other projects constructed on its remaining 525 acres. 7. Subparagr ph 5.3.7: Creek Improvements. When development occurs on property to the east of and directly adjacent to the Property, COUNTY will comply with all provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and all mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which relate to improvements of Tassajera Creek. Such provisions include but are not limited to Specific Plan Action Programs 5C, 6A, 6B, Mitigation Measures 3.3\16.0, 3.4\29.0 [reference to trail corridor], 3.4\36.0 [reference to stream corridors] and 3.7\13.0 [reference to dedication of land and improvements along both sides of stream corridors]. Contractor Sub-Permits. DEVELOPER will require its contractor(S) to obtain a sub-permits) from the State Board of Equalization for the jobsite if the construction contract(s) is (are) in excess of $5,000,000. Fire Station Site. COUNTY will dedicate property for;a site for a fire station when requested by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority provided that COUNTY does not waive any claim to compensation for the fair market value of the land so dedicated and provided that the site is mutually agreeable to COUNTY and CITY. December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlpmn4.egr 27 • • DEC-29-34 THU 15:31 P. 07/07 State of California ) ) ss. County of Alameda ) On before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) , and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) , or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC • December 29, 1994 114\memo\52\devlprn4.agr -s10 286 5513 C-ALT ANS PLNG 84 U 002 • STAie OF GUFORNW--vUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGFNCY FETE WILSON,Gown.nr . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -OX 22650 _ .XL ND,CA 946234650 December 23,1994 (so}2=35-s1.44 TOO(510)2$ _ad ALA-580-18.90 SCH=944113020 ALA5804-50 MS.Jeri Ram • City of Dublin . • 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 . • RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR- Santa Rita Commercial Center(rezone 75+acres from Planned Development-Business Park/Industrial to a standard Planned Development. The project will also indude a Site Development Review and Tentative Parcel Map. This project has a Spedllc Plan and • General Plan Designation of General CommerciaL The proposed Planned Development would allow for an 800,000 square foot comnmerdal center which may include retail shops,offices,movie theaters and restaurants • among other uses" • Dear Ms.Ram: Thank you for including the California State Department of Transportation in the review process for this proposal. We have reviewed the above referenced document and forward the following comments_ There are two possible future projects in the vicinity of this proposed development that should be taken into consideration. The first project is the Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART) District extension to Livermore which will utilize the median of I 580. We recommend that the BART District review this proposed development The second project is the reconstruction of the 1580/1-680 Interchange,which is beyond the Measure B project currently in the environmental process. When both of these proposed projects are constructed,the existing Slate's right-of-way may not be adequate and may require acquisition of additional right-of way. A Caltrans'Encroachment Permit will be required for any work done within.the State right-of-way_ Before an encroachment permit cart be issued,a completed application,final environmental documentation and five(5)sets of plans must be submitted to the following contact person: G.J.Battaglini,Chief • Caltrans District 4 R Maintenance Services and Permits Branch EXHIBIT +' P.O.Box 23660 • Oakland,C4 94623-0660 Ram/ALA580450 December 23, 1994- Page 2 Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Noreen Rodriguez of my s f at (510) 286-6312 Sincerely, • TOE BROWNE -ict Director - •,(.1 PIT.T,17 BADAL District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA cc Mike Chiriatt , State Clearinghouse Craig Goldblatt, IviTC Pat-Ida Perry, ABAG Dennis Fay, A!amel..'a County CMA ..R' E Y N O L D S & BROWN c)-/- December 14, 1994 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Dublin Dublin Civic Center 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 RE:Santa Rita Commercial Center(PA 94-001) Ladies and Gentlemen: Reynolds&Brown is the developer and owner of a 60 acre mixed use business park at Hopyard and Interstate 580 in Pleasanton and in addition has purchased some properties in the Hacienda Business Park.We have been actively involved in the master planning of the North Pleasanton area since 1979 and are a participant in the North Pleasanton Improvement District.In the past five years,we have developed a number of promotional/regional shopping centers in the East Bay. Those developers that are local understand the sensitive balance between traffic circulation and a workable environment with the citizens. We understand that the Steering Committee of the North Pleasanton Improvement District is filing an objection to the development approval and negative declaration on this property.We have not been able to review in detail the letter and attachments and therefore felt it appropriate to state our concerns in a separate letter.Our concerns fall under three main areas. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION:We believe that the first criteria of any development is its access points,the number of options allowed for the customer,and the elimination of bottlenecks in the site plan.The site plan that we have reviewed will create significant traffic congestion at the Hacienda interchange and the nearby intersection.There is effectively only one access point to this project In a scale of magnitude,this development will be over five times the size of our Marina Square center in San Leandro. 1200 Concord Avenue Mailing Address EXHIBIT Tele_7.o e Suite 200 P.O.Box 4057 510 614.540P, Concord,CA 94520 Concord,CA Fax 94524-4057 510 989.1515 TO ES,c'd Nilloc_ E•_-045t.71 Sc_ec TE9-0TS Er:IT CtibT/'c%;'-T Honorable Mayor&Members of the City Council December 14, 1994 Page 2 Traffic circulation is a matter OI eRAICCS WY but ultimately is a political,SSuc.Should s development not adequately handle its traffic flow,your jurisdiction and the City of Pleasanton will be affected.The citizens will have the right to ask why did this happen and shouldn't future development be curtailed until the problem is solved.As North Pleasanton properties must fund assessments for the next twenty five years,this is an option which is unacceptable.Our commitment must be for well-planned,multi faceted circulation systems that are in place with the development.Our push for both the Dublin hook ramps into downtown Dublin and the retention of the Hopyard offramp rise above particular projects and to this higher goal. DEVELOPMENT FAIR SHARE:We are very concerned by the expeditious process for putting a traffic fee in place,without thorough study and comment.The only perceived reason is to be able to approve this project and provide a cap for the County properties. While this may be in Dublin's best interest,our concern is that the real cost is not known for the future improvements that will be required or for the reimbursement of existing beneficial improvements that have been installed by Pleasanton.The Heindel study commissioned by your City details an approach to this solution which is apparently not intended to be followed.Our concern is that this development fulfill its full fair share for the improvements necessitated by the project and be part of the solution for the area.Take your time to think about this carefully,as a project of this magnitude will have lasting impacts which may be difficult to mitigate at a later date. REIMBURSEMENT FOR DUBLLN BOULEVARD: The City of Dublin has agreed to reimburse Pleasanton for the extension of Dublin Boulevard.Our understanding is that this payment of series of payments is second in line only to BART.Development will kick off the requirement for repayment.Please carefully study what fees you are collecting and the ability to fulfill your obligations.On the surface the proposed fee is substantially less than surrounding areas on a per square foot of land basis.As we collectively try to work together to pursue regional traffic solutions and potential funding sources,all of the parties will need to adequately handle its share. In a push to conclude the County land agreement and to respond to the desire of the developer to get going,we are very concerned that a fair share is not being paid and Dublin will lose one avenue for its costs in the future. .t B_!td Ni1Ci�E _,iCCM:'..r t S, -- U U \U Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council December 14, 1994 Page 3 Our comments are not directed at the use or the development. Our overriding concern is to continue to see a logical and long range solution for the traffic circulation in this area. The Tri Valley can withstand competition, but not at the expense of the master plan which the citizens have accepted is solving the issues as we go. To come back later and apologize or try to fix the problem later will be unacceptable. We believe that the foregoing impacts should be studied and considered seriously to determine whether or not they may ultimately have a significant effect on the environment. It is conceivable to us that following careful analysis a Negative Declaration could be drafted with appropriate conditions of approval to mitigate the adverse effects of the foregoing impacts. We trust that the City is proceeding accordingly and will carefully review the development in light of these concerns and make the appropriate findings. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, REYNOLDS & BROWN Thomas K. Terrill ^/_.E c " DECEIVED December 22, 1994 DEC 227994 Ci7y DUBIIN The Honorable Mayor and Members of the ,� A / /� City Council and Planning Commission //tS' /�E.(G�(,-L`' 4., City of Dublin Dublin Civic Center 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Santa Rita Commercial Center; Application for Rezoning and Proposed Negative Declaration (PA 94-001) Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned are owners of properties and businesses in the City of Pleasanton. More specifically, we collectively own more than 500 acres of land in North Pleasanton which is part of the North Pleasanton Improvement District ("NPID"). As you probably know, the NPID has funded, among other things, the freeway interchange construction and improvement projects along I-580 at Hopyard/Dougherty, Hacienda and Santa Rita/Tassajara. All of us have been actively involved in land use planning and policy issues in Pleasanton in coonection with the development and operation of our properties and businesses. As such, we have a critical interest in the integrity of the land use regulations in Pleasanton, and that such regulations ensure a viable, liveable and economically successful community. Because of the close proximity of the cities in the Tri-Valley, that interest extends to the impacts of development in adjacent communities, such as Dublin. For this reason, we are keenly interested in the impacts of development projects which will occur under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the implementation of the land use planning policies contained in that Specific Plan. The first project which has been proposed under that Specific Plan is Homart's Santa Rita Commercial Center, which is to be located on approximately 75 acres of land, bounded by I-580, Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. In order to implement this project, Homart proposes to rezone the property from Planned Development - Business Park/Industrial (low coverage) to Planned Development General Commercial. However, as discussed in the attached memorandum prepared by Cassidy and Verges, it is very difficult to conduct a meaningful review of this project because the description of the project contained in the Initial Study/Amended Negative Declaration is inadequate. For instance, we understand that the Homart project will also require other project approvals (such as subdivision/tentative map approval, design review approval and a development agreement) which are not EXHIBIT I - _ r December 22, 1994 Page 2 described in any detail in the Initial Study/Amended Negative Declaration. We believe that the other NPID property owners will share our concern once they better understand the scope of this project, which as previously noted is difficult to ascertain from the materials which are currently available. Naturally, this first project up for approval in Eastern Dublin poses the issue of how Dublin intends to fulfill the planning and policy commitments which it made in its Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In particular, those policies include assurance for the provision of sufficient infrastructure (including transportation, water and sewer) to serve buildout in the Eastern Dublin area under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. We are concerned, however, that the Homart approvals may proceed before these implementation measures are identified and in place to assure that the impacts of development in Eastern Dublin have been adequately handled, both from an environmental standpoint and under the enunciated policies in the Specific Plan. As you know, Pleasanton has made a conscious effort to assure sufficient infrastructure as development occurred in North Pleasanton. For example, as previously mentioned, the NPID has funded the construction or improvement of several interchanges which benefit both Pleasanton and Dublin in order to accommodate development and growth in both Pleasanton and Dublin. Dublin is a beneficiary of that infrastructure. We want to assure that Dublin lives up to these responsibilities as it implements its Specific Plan policies and appropriate mitigation measures for • the impacts of projects developed in Eastern Dublin. In reviewing Homart's application for rezoning and the Initial Study for the project (produced under CEQA), we are very concerned that these responsibilities have not been fulfilled. In order to ensure that you are fully informed on these issues, we have retained the firm of Cassidy & Verges to review these materials and prepare comments on our behalf. We enclose a copy of those comments with this letter. We hope that you will respond to these comments in the spirit in which they are given: to ensure the integrity of the land use approval process in Dublin as we have assured its attainment in Pleasanton. We therefore ask that you review these comments, respond to them, and implement the appropriate solutions through additional environmental review, documentation and conditions of approval to implement required Specific Plan policies and mitigate adverse project impacts, before the Homart project is approved by Homart's rezoning proposal. December 22, 1994 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding our comments or need additional information, you should not hesitate to call Stephen K. Cassidy at the law offices of Cassidy & Verges, at 415-788- 2020. We look forward to the public hearing process on this project. Our representatives will be available at those hearings to respond to your questions and concerns. Respectfully submitted, Callahan Property Company Chawin Property, Inc. East Bay BMW Longs Drugs, Inc. Hacienda Motors Herrera Olds GMC Cadillac Saab Mozart Development Company Prudential Realty Group Rosewood Associates Spieker Properties Taubman Company CASSIDY&VERGES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 20 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94111 TELEPHONE(415)788-2020 FACSIMILE(415)788-2039 MEMORANDUM OF COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY/AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONING APPLICATION FOR THE SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER I. INTRODUCTION This Memorandum sets forth the initial comments of Pleasanton property owners identified in their December 22, 1994, letter to which this Memorandum is attached, on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (dated November 1994) (the "Initial Study") and Amended Negative Declaration (dated November 22, 1994; the Initial Study and Amended Negative Declaration hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Negative Declaration"), and the proposed rezoning for the Santa Rita Commercial Center (the "Project"), prepared by the City of Dublin (the "City") . For the reasons discussed below, we have concluded that the Negative Declaration is both substantively and legally inadequate, and the City should not adopt it, and that the rezoning (and related proposed Project approvals) is inconsistent with the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan") , and the City should not approve it at this time. Because of the voluminous material upon which the Negative Declaration and the proposed rezoning rely, and because we have not yet received all of the information necessary fully to review and critique the Negative Declaration and the Project, we reserve the right to submit additional material enlarging upon the comments contained in this Memorandum. To the extent required, we will do so before the Planning Commission hearing now scheduled for January 3, 1995. In general, we conclude that in preparing the Negative Declaration, the City has failed to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.; "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.; the "CEQA Guidelines") and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines (the "City Environmental Guidelines"). An environmental impact report ("EIR") should be prepared in connection with the Project, because the Project will result in significant environmental impacts that were not specifically analyzed in the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan EIR") .1 At a minimum, the Initial Study is flawed because, although it identifies adverse environmental impacts of the Project, the explanatory text accompanying the Environmental Checklist Form in the Initial Study contains an inadequate explanation and description of those potential adverse impacts and contains no substantial evidence that those adverse impacts are reduced to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. Moreover, the City's files contain no record that revisions in the Project plans, or 1 The documents comprising the Specific Plan EIR are specifically identified 'in the Initial Study. -2- CASSIDY\HOMNEGOE.2\12-22-94 proposals were made by, or agreed to by, the Project applicant, Homart Community Centers ("Homart"), before the proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review, which revisions would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects of the Project to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. Thus, even absent an EIR, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the Project may not have a significant effect on the environment.2 In addition to these deficiencies, the Project is also inconsistent with the goals and policies, and corresponding implementation measures, of the Specific Plan. Because the California Planning and Zoning Law requires that, in order to approve the Project rezoning (and other Project approvals), the rezoning (and those approvals) must be consistent with the Specific Plan, the City cannot approve the rezoning until these inconsistencies are remedied. 2 We note also that, to the extent the Negative Declaration and the City's action on the Project'rezoning (and other subsequent Project approvals) relies on the Specific Plan EIR, the City's Notice of the public hearing on the rezoning application for the Project was required to include a statement that this activity is within the scope of the program approved earlier and that the Specific Plan EIR adequately describes the activity for purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §15168(e)) . The City's notices of public hearing do not contain this required statement and, therefore, fail adequately to apprise the public of the basis upon which the City has concluded that the Project will result in no adverse environmental impacts. -3- CASSIOY\HOMHEGOE.2\12-22-9a II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY A. Purpose, Intent and Application of CEOA 1. Purpose and Intent CEQA was adopted to ensure that public agency decisionmakers document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. See, Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, 21001. Since its enactment in 1970, California courts have required that CEQA be interpreted in such a manner "as to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Ca1.3d 247, 259 (1972); see, also, Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 563-564 (1990) and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Ca1.3d 376, 390 (1988). The purpose of CEQA, and the environmental review process which it prescribes, is to ensure that the public and decisionmakers are fully informed with respect to the environmental effects of their actions. See, e.g., Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Ca1.3d at 390-392. 2. Application CEQA applies to "discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies...." Pub. Res. Code § 21080(a) . "Project" means the "whoIe of an action" which has the potential "for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately,..." and includes the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a) (1); see, Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union High School District, 235 Cal.App.3d 772, 781 (1991). "Approval" is -4- C SSIOY\NOMNEGCE.2\12-22-54 not specifically defined in CEQA, but the CEQA Guidelines (§ 15352(a) and (b)) provide that "approval" encompasses: (a) .. .the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by a person. (b) With private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, ..., lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project. See, Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union High School District, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d 772, 781. B. Necessity for Additional Environmental Review 1. Proper Stage of Planning Process to Conduct Environmental Review; Role of Initial Study Environmental review must be conducted: as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b) .) This requirement has been interpreted to mean that CEQA environmental review should take place at a meaningful point in the planning process, where enough information is known concerning environmental impacts, but where there is enough flexibility remaining to address the issues. Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of the University of California, 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 34 (1978) . The initial study is the starting point of environmental review under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §15063; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 304-305 (1988)). As soon as a local agency determines that an initial study is necessary, it must also consult with any responsible agencies and trustee -5- CNSSIOY\NCMNEGOE.2\12-22-94 agencies regarding those agencies' recommendations as to whether an EIR or negative declaration should be prepared (Pub. Res. Code §21080.3(a); CEQA Guidelines §15063(g); Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 305) . Since an important purpose of the initial study is to document the factual basis for finding that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a negative declaration may be utilized (CEQA Guidelines §15063(c) (5)) , California courts have consistently held that the initial study "must . .. disclose the data or evidence upon which the person(s) conducting the study relied." Citizens Association For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Invo, 172 Ca1.App.3d 151, 171 (1985); Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 305-308. In addition, while an initial study may utilize a checklist to determine the environmental effects of a project, the initial study must contain, at the least, a brief explanation to indicate that there is "some evidence to support the entries." "The brief explanation may be either through a narrative or a reference to another information source (which) should include, where appropriate, a citation to the page or pages where the information is found." (CEQA Guidelines §15063(d)(3) .) "Mere conclusions simply provide no vehicle for judicial review." (Citizens Association For Sensible Development of Bishop Area, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at 171.) Finally, in connection with an initial study (and mitigation measures specified in an initial study and incorporated in a mitigated negative declaration or EIR), neither the required discussion and disclosure of data or evidence nor mitigation -6- CASSIDY\HCMNEGDE.2\12-22-9A measures may entail the performance of a future study to determine the scope of adverse impacts or the content of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce those adverse impacts to a level of insignificance. By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions [of approval for the project] run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. [citations]... A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decision-making. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Ca1.App.3d 296, 307 (1988) [citations omitted]. 2. Use of Program EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration A "program EIR" is an EIR that may be prepared on a "series of actions that can be characterized as one large project." CEQA Guidelines § 15168(a); see, also, City Environmental Guidelines §2.4. Subsequent activities in a program must be reviewed against the program EIR to determine what additional environmental review, if any, is required. CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c) . At that point, an initial study is prepared to determine whether to prepare a negative declaration or an EIR. CEQA Guidelines §15168(c) (4),(d). At a minimum, the lead agency must determine if the later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, and must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. CEQA Guidelines §§15162, 15168(c)(1),(2),(3). -7- CASSIDY\NCMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 • An EIR is required to be prepared where there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(a) ; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(a) (1); Ouail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v City of Encinitas, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602 (1994).3 A program EIR may be used in connection with later parts of the program to determine whether the later activity may have significant environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines § 15168(d) (1) . It also may be used to focus an EIR determined to be required on the later activity to permit discussion of only those new effects not previously considered. CEQA Guidelines § 15168(d)(3). An EIR prepared for the later activity must include an analysis of cumulative impacts resulting from the later activity if those impacts are significant (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a)), and, even if not significant, the EIR should explain upon what basis the conclusion that they are not significant was made (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 432 (1985)). In order to utilize the program EIR in connection with the later activity, any public 3 Under Section 1.2 of the City Environmental Guidelines, an EIR is required to be prepared, in addition to circumstances where an EIR may be required by State-statute, .when "the City determines that there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and which involve discretionary governmental action, ...Determination of significant effect shall be made as provided in § 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines....In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR shall be prepared if there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project. Controversy not related to an environmental issue does not require an EIR." See, also, City Environmental Guidelines, Sections 1.7(f) and 3.1(b) . -8- CASSIOY\HOMMEGOE.2\12-22-94 notice required for the agency to carry out or approve the later activity must include a statement that the activity is within the scope of the earlier approved program and that the program EIR adequately describes the later activity for CEQA purposes. CEQA Guidelines § 15168(e) . A "mitigated negative declaration" may be adopted by a lead agency where an initial study identifies potentially significant environmental effects, but only if revisions to the project have been made and agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the negative declaration for public review that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point "where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,...and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record...that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." Pub. Res. Code §§ 21064.5.4 and 21080(c) (2); Sundstrom, supra, 202 Ca1.App.3d at 306-307. The law does not allow revision of project plans after final adoption of a negative declaration to incorporate needed mitigation measures identified as necessary in or developed through post-project approval studies. Sundstrom, supra, 202 Ca1.App.3d at 306-307. Under Section 2.6 of the City Environmental Guidelines, where an initial study identifies significant environmental impacts, and 4 See, also, Section 1.7 of the City Environmental Guidelines, which provides that a negative declaration shall be prepared where the initial study for a project shows that there is no substantial evidence of a significant environmental effect or where revisions to the project would avoid the significant environmental effects or mitigate these effects to a point where "clearly no significant effects would occur and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment." -9- CASSIOY\HOMNEGOE.2\12-22-94 project modifications are made to lessen the environmental impacts so that a negative declaration may be prepared in lieu of an EIR, the City must prepare a revised Initial Study which reflects changes that have been made to the project to reduce the impacts to less than significant.5 To summarize, when reviewing a later project under a program EIR, the lead agency (here, the City) must either decide to prepare a negative declaration, or if not, to demonstrate with substantial evidence in the record that a fair argument cannot be made that the project may have significant environmental effects. C. Defining "Project" for Purposes of Analysis An initial study must contain, among other items, a { description of the project, including the project's location. State CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d) (1). Appendix D--Part I (Initial Study-Environmental Information Form) to the City Environmental Guidelines requires a project description that includes "site area, uses, size and number of buildings, parking, number of dwelling units, scheduling, and any other information necessary or helpful to understand project." An initial study also must contain information identifying the environmental effects of the project, by use of a matrix or checklist, and a discussion of suggested ways to mitigate the significant effects. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d) . The initial study form that has been developed with the checklists is not sufficient in itself to 5 Under the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study must identify environmental effects that may result from the project, and discuss ways to mitigate those identified significant effects. § 15063(d) (3) and (4) . -10- CASSIDY\MOMMEGDE.2\,2-22-9A satisfy CEQA: There also must be a corresponding disclosure and discussion of the evidence and data relied upon to support the conclusions reached. Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151 (1985) . Where a lead agency relies on an earlier environmental document, the initial study should at least summarize, with supporting citations, the relevant conclusions of the earlier document so that it can be determined whether such reliance is appropriate. Emmington v. Solano County Redevelopment Agency, 195 Cal.App.3d 491, 501-503 (1987). For purposes of a project description, an "accurate, stable and finite project description" is essential to an informative and legally sufficient environmental review under CEQA. County of Ingo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193 (1977). A "project" is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines to include "the whole of an action" (as discussed above), and applies to the overall activity (and not just the particular land use approval(s)), even when a number of discretionary approvals may be required. § 15378. A project may not be "piecemealed" for environmental review purposes. City of Carmel-By-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 241-243 (1986) (EIR should address impacts associated not only with a proposed rezoning, but also the effects of development allowed under the rezoning). On this basis, the court, in Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Ingo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 167 (1985), rejected the County's use of a negative declaration for a general plan amendment and rezoning -11- CASSIDY\HCMNEGDE.2\12-22-93 necessary to carry out a shopping center project, despite the County's argument that it would be "premature" to prepare an EIR before the tentative map for the project was before the County. Such an approach divided the project into two parts (i.e., piecemealed the project) in violation of CEQA. D. Legal Requirements for Specific Plan Consistency It is settled California law that zoning ordinances must be consistent with any applicable specific plan (Gov. Code § 65455) . In addition, development agreements, tentative maps and parcel maps must also be consistent with any applicable specific plan (Id.; Gov. Code § 65867.5). For purposes of these consistency requirements, the same test which applies to consistency of zoning with general plans is the minimum applicable standard: that the various land uses authorized by the rezoning ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the specific plan. (See, Gov. Code § 65860(a) (ii); see, Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, Ca1.3d 531 (1990).) III. INADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The comments in this Section III are based upon the legal requirements for environmental review outlined above. In addition, the comments contained in Section IV below relating to the Project's inconsistency with the Specific Plan are intended to serve as comments on both the Negative Declaration and the rezoning application for the Project. In this connection, we note preliminarily two major defects in the Negative Declaration under the requirements of CEQA. As -12- CASSIDY\HOMNEGDE.2\12-22-93 noted above, if a lead agency determines that a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency can adopt a negative declaration. The negative declaration must be based upon an initial study, which identifies potentially significant effects on the environment and specifies revisions in project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review, which would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. There must also be no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The Negative Declaration is accompanied by a document entitled, "Homart Project Matrix" and dated November 9, 1994 (the "Matrix"), which not only discusses various aspects of the Project, adverse impacts and mitigation measures, but has information not contained or discussed in the Initial Study with respect to both Project adverse impacts and mitigation measures. There is no correlation between the two documents, and often inconsistencies between them. Obviously, for purposes of the informational function to be performed by CEQA, this approach is inadequate and not in compliance with the requirements of CEQA discussed above.6 6 Based on our assumption that the City intended that the Matrix form part of the environmental review under CEQA, we have, in this Memorandum, commented where applicable upon the inadequacies of the analysis and mitigation measures specified in the Matrix. This does not, however, obviate the City's failure to comply with the requirements of CEQA with respect to the Initial Study. -13- CASSIDY\HOMNEGOE.2\12-22-94 In addition to this deficiency, we understand that the City intends to rely on the Negative Declaration with respect to all further approvals necessary to carry out the Project, with no additional environmental review. This includes Site Development Review, that will take place entirely at the Staff level without public presentation to either the Planning Commission or City Council, which means that the most critical issues with respect to the Project will never be publicly considered. Since this is the case, then the impetus for thoroughgoing environmental review at this stage of the Project is more compelling. Since the Project rezoning will be the first step which commits the City to implementation of the Project, and in light of this intention of the City, it is critical that all adverse environmental impacts of the Project are identified at this stage in sufficient detail adequately to apprise the public and decisionmakers of those adverse effects, and the manner in which proposed mitigation measures will in fact "clearly" avoid the effects or mitigate the effects of the Project to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c) (2)) . We turn now to the specific comments on the Negative Declaration in this Section III, followed by comments on the Project's inconsistency with the Specific Plan in Section IV below. A. A Decision to Rely on the Specific Plan EIR Would be Flawed. The City's determination that the Specific Plan EIR adequately analyzed the'.impacts of the Project and that a Project -14- CASSIDY\HDMNEWE.2\12-22-9a specific EIR is not necessary is erroneous. The City recognized in the Specific Plan EIR that site-specific development proposals may require project EIRs to assess project-specific environmental impacts (Draft Specific Plan EIR, p.1-2), and that the program EIR approach "reduces, but does not necessarily eliminate, the need for future environmental analysis." (Draft Specific Plan EIR, p.1-6) . The Specific Plan EIR analyzed impacts resulting from overall development of Eastern Dublin under the Specific Plan, but it did not, nor could it, analyze specific land uses, densities, building siting and land coverage, and the specific infrastructure improvements necessary, for each individual phase of development under the Specific Plan represented by individual projects. As recognized by the San Mateo Superior Court in its March 10, 1994, Memorandum of Decision (the "Decision") in the case of Butler v. City of Dublin (Case No. 385533), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, a program EIR for long range planning and zoning purposes is "necessarily general" (Decision, p.7, lines 19-28, citing Village Laguna of Laguna Beach v. Board of Supervisors of Orange County, 134 Ca1.App.3d 1022 (1982)) . The Superior Court noted that, "The overall Dublin Plan requires that as each step project or development comes before the City, a new EIR will have to be prepared." [citations omitted] (Decision, p.17, lines 3-6). The Negative Declaration evidences precisely this point made by the Superior Court in the Butler proceeding. The Negative Declaration generally contains no greater level of analysis of -15- CaSSIDY\HCMMEGDE.2\12-22-94 the impacts of the Project than that generalized level of analysis of the program represented by the Specific Plan and analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR. In addition, studies called for in the Specific Plan EIR and the Specific Plan prior to development of Eastern Dublin in order to ascertain the full scope of environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid those impacts are simply carried forward in the Negative Declaration. These "mere conclusions" are inappropriate and inadequate and evidence the compelling need to go beyond the program level of analysis contained in the Specific Plan EIR in order to meet the requirements of CEQA and impose appropriate mitigation measures on the Project to avoid or mitigate the effects of the Project to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed in this Section III, an EIR should be prepared for the Project.8 7 In addition to these deficiencies, we have found no evidence in the Initial Study, or otherwise, that the City consulted with other agencies regarding the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or negative declaration should be prepared. 8 Of course, not only should an EIR be prepared, but if it identifies unmitigated adverse impacts (or the City determines not to adopt feasible mitigation measures), the City cannot approve the Project absent "overriding considerations" findings. (Pub. Res. Code § 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§15091, 15092, 15093.) We also question whether the City can make the determination, other than the generalized discussion contained in the Specific Plan EIR, that this Project is within the scope of the project covered by the Specific Plan EIR. (See, CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c) .) It is, presumably, for this reason that the Court in Butler noted that the Specific Plan EIR was "necessarily general" (Decision, p.7, line 27), and that the Specific Plan would require "that as each step project or development comes before the City, a new EIR will have to be prepared." (Decision, p.17, lines 4-6.) 1 -16- CASSIDY\HONNEGDE.2\12-22-9S B. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not the Legally Mandated Vehicle for Environmental Review of the Project. While the City has elected to prepare, based upon the Initial Study for the Project, an Amended Negative Declaration, that determination does not comport with law. A negative declaration (including a mitigated negative declaration) may only be adopted when revisions to the project have been incorporated into and agreed to by the applicant prior to the release of the negative declaration for public review that would avoid or reduce the significant environmental impacts to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and where there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project, as revised, would not have a significant environmental effect. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21064.5, 21080(c) (2); Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 306-307.)9 In the Initial Study checklist for the Project, the City has checked "No" for every category of potentially significant environmental effects, even though the narrative discussion of each category describes adverse impacts which would be caused by the Project. That narrative discussion then generally concludes that Specific Plan mitigation measures and corresponding conditions of approval will "mitigate any impacts in this topic area to a level of insignificance." The legally mandated 9 Of course, if there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Ca1.3d 68, 75 (1974). As detailed in this Memorandum, such a fair,argument exists in addition to.the other legal bases upon which an EIR should be prepared for the Project. -17- CASSIDY\MOMNEGOE.2\12-22-94 analysis requires that, if any aspect of the Project may have a significant adverse effect, the checklist item be answered "yes" or "maybe", with a discussion in the Initial Study in reasonable detail identifying those potentially significant environmental effects, and a discussion regarding whether and how these effects are capable of mitigation. If effective mitigation or project revisions are available, then the City, in order to fulfill the CEQA mandated public disclosure requirement, must discuss how and in what manner the measures and revisions will reduce the impacts so as to provide adequate information to the public and the decisionmakers. This discussion (including the effects of mitigation) must disclose the data or evidence upon which the persons conducting the study relied.10 Mere conclusions provide no vehicle for adequate environmental review (much less judicial review). Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at 171; Sundstrom, supra; see, CEQA Guidelines §15063(d) (3) . These requirements have not been followed by the City. Nor is there any indication in the Negative Declaration (or in the City files) that the applicant has either revised the Project to incorporate, or agreed to, any of the mitigation measures identified in either the Negative Declaration of the Matrix. The City also has failed to follow its own procedures set forth in 10 Indeed, the CEQA Guidelines now mandate not only compliance with these requirements, but also, where appropriate, "a citation to the page or pages where the information is found." (CEQA Guidelines §15063(d).) The Negative Declaration contains little, if any, such citations to the extent it relies on data or evidence outside of the 'Initial Study narrative. -18- CASSIDY\MC"NEGDE.2\12-22-94 Section 2.6 of the City Environmental Guidelines: preparation of a revised Initial Study which reflects changes to the Project that reduce the impacts to less than significant. The City's proposal of studies to identify further Project revisions and mitigation after adoption of the final Negative Declaration also violates the Sundstrom rule. C. The Project Description Has Not Been Sufficiently Developed or Described to Afford Meaningful Environmental Review. Even if a negative declaration would otherwise be appropriate, the Project description is inadequate, precluding meaningful review and analysis of Project impacts. It is not clear whether the Project is proposed to be implemented in two phases (with development of the "east parcel" during a second phase; see, Matrix, p. 14, Mitigation Measure 03.04/29.0). If there are two phases, both comprise the Project and both should be discussed and analyzed now, including the timing of the development of each phase, its relationship to other development under the Specific Plan (including cumulative impacts), the timing of the phasing in relationship to identified adverse impacts and implementation of mitigation measures. Even though the City's Environmental Information Form calls for a description that includes uses, size and number of buildings, parking and other information "necessary" to understand the Project, this form has been filled out in at best a general manner: The Project is a "request to rezone 75+/- acres from Planned Development-Business Park (low coverage) to a standard Planned Development" and will include a "Site. -19- CASSIOY\NOMNEGOE.2\12-22-9A Development Review and Tentative Parcel Map"; the Planned (- Development "would allow for an 800,000 square foot commercial center which may include retail shops, offices, movie theatres and restaurants among other uses." [emphasis added). The Project description in the text of the Negative Declaration is even more general. A review of the Rezoning Application indicates that the applicant may have a more specific proposal, as the application sets forth zoning standards (e.g., parking and loading requirements) which are to apply to the Project that presumably bear some relationship to what is contemplated for the Project site. The Conceptual Site Plan attached to the Negative Declaration shows the location of buildings and parking areas on the Project site. Either this is so conceptual in nature that the City did not want to utilize these standards and plans on which to base its environmental analysis (because the text of the Negative Declaration contains no discussion of these standards or the Conceptual Site Plan or any other Project specific details), or this plan should be incorporated into the Project description, with the various uses and their respective square footage and locations identified.11 11 To further highlight the problem created by these inadequacies in the Project description even though required by the City's own policies, the CEQA Guidelines require that the City must not only incorporate feasible mitigation measures, but also alternatives developed in the Specific Plan EIR, into subsequent actions with respect to the Project (CEQA Guidelines §15168(c) (2)) . Not only is the Negative Declaration devoid of any discussion of feasible alternatives, but any meaningful analysis of those alternatives is precluded by the inadequate Project description contained in the Negative Declaration. -20- CASSIDY\HOMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 Demolition of a portion of the Madigan Building, which constituted part of the old jail facility, is also contemplated as part of the Project (see, Negative Declaration, p. 18). This is not described as part of the Project. This demolition should be included in the Project description, and the impacts of the demolition and asbestos removal analyzed, with imposition of appropriate mitigation measures. Potential adverse impacts associated with this part of the Project might include (but would not necessarily be limited to) air quality impacts, construction- related impacts and impacts related to the handling of hazardous materials. Not only is the Project inadequately described, the Project description does not contain a full accounting of the various land use approvals which are necessary to implement the Project. These include a Tentative Map, Site Development Review, and a Development Agreement, which is discussed in the Initial Study and which is, according to the Initial Study, integral to the implementation of required mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies. The Project description contains no detail whatsoever with respect to the manner in which the Project will be implemented through these subsequent land use approvals or the manner in which the Project will be refined and fleshed out through that process. These flaws aiso make it impossible to conduct a meaningful environmental analysis, and the Project has not been analyzed in connection with these subsequent land use approval applications. These approvals should be analyzed now as part of review of the Project (to avoid "piecemealing" the -21- CASSIDY\MDMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 Project for environmental review purposes in violation of CEQA; see, e.q., Citizens Association, supra), because the Negative Declaration is intended to cover all of these Project approvals. D. The Analysis of Impacts in the Negative Declaration is Insufficient and is not supported by Substantial Evidence. In sum, our overall comments on the Negative Declaration include the following: (i) there is little, if any, Project specific analysis under most of the topic areas, and that analysis is at best conclusory and superficial, without adequate disclosure of the data or evidence relied upon; (ii) the mitigation measures proposed are not tailored to the Project; (iii) in many instances, the Negative Declaration (or the Matrix) calls for a study to provide information on adverse impacts and to develop mitigation measures to respond to those impacts;12 and (iv) there is no discussion or analysis of how the mitigation measures will actually reduce the Project specific impacts. The following specific comments are illustrative of the overall deficiencies of the Negative Declaration. These comments also show why an EIR should be prepared in connection with the Project.13 12 While this "study" approach clearly violates the Sundstrom rule discussed above, at a minimum, the City must, in the Initial Study, determine the extent and nature of the adverse impacts, specify the elements which would be comprised in the mitigation measures implemented through a study, and describe how those elements would avoid the effects, or mitigate the effects, of the Project to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. 13 Even if the City decides to proceed with the Negative Declaration rather than preparing an EIR, these comments should be responded to and a revised Negative Declaration should be prepared and recirculated for public review and comment. See, -22- CASSIDY\HCM"EGDE.2\12-22-94 1. Water The environmental analysis of "Water" in the Negative Declaration should address the specific water demands for the Project. The mitigation measures identified in the Specific Plan EIR and included in the Matrix call for certain water supply and water quality improvements to be made in Zone 7 (see, e.g., Measures 3.5/28.0, 3.5/29.0 on p. 21 of Matrix). Have any of these improvements been made? How does this impact the water supply available for the Project? If these improvements have not been made, how and in what manner are their installation and construction assured? Even though the Negative Declaration states that DSRSD "has indicated that they have water to supply the project" (Negative Declaration, p. 13), the Negative Declaration should discuss the Project's demand for water and what impact that demand has on cumulative water demands for the area. The February 1992 Zone 7 Water Supply Update indicates that the State Water Project (SWP) supplies 70% of the water used in the Zone 7 Area, and that the SWP cannot meet current demands. The Negative Declaration ignores this information and fails to explain what has occurred since the February 1992 Update that now allows adequate water supply for the Project. The Specific Plan EIR (see, Draft EIR at pp. 3.5-20 - 3.5- 21) indicates that the only water service to the planning area is a Zone 7 water connection to Alameda County that serviced the Santa Rita Jail, and that development under the Specific Plan City Environmental Guidelines § 2.6. -23- CASSIOY\NOMNEGOE.2\I2-22-94 will necessitate a water distribution system and storage system (and if this system is not constructed, the impact will be significant) . The "Action Taken" column on p. 23 of the Matrix, relating to Mitigation Measure 03.05/34.0, contains the following statement: "At this time DSRSD states that it does not appear that new storage facilities will be necessary for this development." However, DSRSD's November 3, 1994, comment letter to the City's Planning Director, Mr. Laurence Tong, indicates that DSRSD currently is completely an Engineering Analysis of interim water distribution and storage alternatives to supply the Project (Comment Letter, p.3, Q 6), and DSRSD "will be designing and constructing major potable water, recycled water, and waste- water collection facilities to serve the proposed Homart project." (Comment Letter, p.1.) Clearly, if studies are still ongoing with respect to the Project's water supply and its adequacy and availability, neither the impacts of the Project nor agreed-to, known mitigation measures can be developed now. Rather, this approach violates CEQA and the Sundstrom rule (since, presumably, these studies will result in "[t)he requirement that the applicant adopt mitigation measures recommended in a future study ... in direct conflict with the guidelines implementing CEQA." Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 306) . In sum, the Negative Declaration should address Project water demand (including fire flow capacity) , whether there is in fact adequate water supplies to serve the Project (including emergency needs), DSRSD's plans to supply water to the.Project, -24- CASSIDY\NCMNEGOE.2\12-22-96 whether the Zone 7 connection is sufficient to serve the Project, and whether new water storage facilities will be required (and, if so, what are the corresponding impacts), and why it does not appear at this time that new storage facilities will be necessary. The Negative Declaration also states that a Master Drainage Plan will be prepared that will evaluate any changes in drainage patterns and flooding "to ensure there are no environmental impacts in this topic area." Drainage patterns resulting from the Project (e.g., building coverage, impervious surfaces such as parking areas and associated runoff) must be analyzed at this stage of Project review and approval. In addition, Mitigation Measure 03.05/07.0 (Matrix, p.18) calls for Project specific wastewater capacity investigations. To our knowledge, this has not been completed. The Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Final Report, dated December 1993, prepared by DSRSD, addresses pipeline sizing for wastewater collection, potable water distribution and recycled water in Eastern Dublin, but it does not address specific Project demands and impacts. The rationale and reasoning for the proposed water and sewer facilities for the Project identified in Figure Three to the Initial Study should be discussed and analyzed and agreed-to, known mitigation measures specified and incorporated into the Project. Deferring to a yet to be prepared Master Drainage Plan and yet to be undertaken wastewater capacity investigations again violates CEQA and Sundstrom: It fails to evaluate Project impacts at the earliest feasible time before the City is finally committed to the Project -25- CASSIOY\HCMNEOOE.2\12-22-94 in order fully and adequately to inform the public and decisionmakers regarding potential adverse impacts and feasible mitigation measures, and it results in a requirement that Homart adopt mitigation measures to be identified in a future study in conflict with CEQA. In this connection, we note one particularly acute problem posed by the Project. Development in Eastern Dublin (including the Project) cannot increase the level of peak flows generated by the storm water drainage system. The Project site is, from the standpoint of established drainage patterns and hydrological principles, the best and most obvious location for a retention basis for mitigating peak flows from Eastern Dublin, especially into Pleasanton. Obviously, development of the Project precludes this option, and yet the Negative Declaration neither identifies other potential sites to serve this function, nor whether those other sites would adequately and appropriately mitigate, and what adverse impacts might be associated with these alternative locations for such retention facilities. The Negative Declaration should analyze this issue and alternatives and determine whether and which of these other sites will be as good, both functionally and environmentally, as the Project site for these purposes. 2. Noise The Negative Declaration concludes that the Project would result in increased noise levels, but "would not result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels." How can effective mitigation be assessed when one of the two noise mitigation -26- CASSIDY\HO"NEGDE.2\]2-22-9a measures (Measure 03.10/07.0, Matrix, p. 37) calls for establishment of a noise mitigation monitoring fee, but the ordinance has yet to be prepared? The requirements of the ordinance need to be in place in order to assess whether the fee to be paid for the Project, if any, and the uses to which the fee will be put adequately mitigates the Project noise impacts. 3. Land Use The Negative Declaration does not discuss land use impacts. The environmental analysis should include a discussion of the Project's consistency, or lack thereof, with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan. It is only through this process that the conclusions in the Negative Declaration could be reached. Comments on the Project's inconsistency with the Specific Plan and the implementation requirements are set forth below under Section IV. 4. Risk of Upsets The mitigation measures imposed to reduce potential impacts call for additional public services in the form of additional police and fire personnel, and the acquisition of sites for construction of new fire stations. Have these services been added? Have sites been acquired for this purpose? The Specific Plan requires that the "westernmost site [for fire protection] must be assured prior to the approval-of the first development plans in eastern Dublin." (Specific Plan, p. 125, Action Program 8G) . While these public service mitigation measures were contemplated for the entire development of the GPA area, the Negative Declaration should analyze the Project-created need for -27- CASSIDY\HOMNEGOE.2\12-22-9 additional services and whether those needs can be met by existing public services. The Fire Department indicates that a temporary fire station will be utilized (as we understand it, three options are being considered) to meet the demands of the Project, and that financing for the fire station must be in place before January 1995, in order to meet Homart's schedule for constructing and opening the Project (Fire Issues Related to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan prepared for the Homart Project, 9/13/94 [the "Fire Issues"]) . Provision of a temporary fire station and whether that temporary station will meet the service demands of the Project must be analyzed. In addition, the feasibility of a temporary station in relationship to available financing should also be addressed to determine if this interim mitigation measure is feasible. A wildfire management plan for the East Dublin area is also required to be prepared (Matrix, p. 12, Measure 03.04/12.0) which apparently is to be prepared on a project-by-project basis at the site development review stage (see discussion under "Action Taken" column in the Matrix). The elements of this plan for the Project should be identified, and discussed and analyzed, in the Negative Declaration. 5. Transportation/Circulation The Negative Declaration does not discuss the traffic/transportation/circulation impacts that will result from the Project, nor does it discuss the required Specific Plan measures to mitigate these impacts in this area (see, Specific -28- CASSIDY\HCMHEGDE.2\12-22-94 Plan inconsistency comments in Section III below). If the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Project is intended to address the Project impacts (the Negative Declaration, p. 16, indicates that the transportation and circulation impacts are mitigated by the measures incorporated into the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project, along with Specific Plan mitigation measures), then the Traffic Study and its conclusions, along with the agreed-to, known mitigation measures, should be addressed in detail in the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration should also explain on what basis it is concluded that the Project will not result in traffic hazards due to the design of the Project: The design should be described and the way in which that design would reduce traffic hazards should be discussed. Even if the Project alone will not generate significant traffic impacts, cumulative impacts must be considered. Table 3.3-9, attached to the DKS Associates' December 15, 1992, letter to the City's Planning Director, Mr. Laurence Tong (which we understand is part of the Specific Plan EIR), shows level of service (LOS) on freeways substantially degraded with cumulative development, including under the Specific Plan. The Project's contribution to these effects should be discussed and analyzed in the Negative Declaration. The Project Traffic Impact Study analyzed operating conditions at key intersections under three scenarios: existing conditions; background conditions (existing plus projects with completion dates no later than 1995); and background plus project conditions. The Study did not.adequately -29- CASSIOY\HCMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 analyze cumulative traffic impacts, because it did not take into account foreseeable projects with completion dates beyond 1995, much less buildout under the Specific Plan. To be legally adequate, a cumulative impact analysis should analyze a project over time with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects (which includes unapproved projects undergoing environmental review) , or based on a summary of projections contained in the City's General Plan and Specific Plan. Pub. Res. Code §21083(b); CEQA Guidelines §15130; San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 72-74 (1984). In addition, we understand that the City is in the process of considering a draft Traffic Impact Development Fee Ordinance. The Negative Declaration should discuss what fee will be required for the Project pursuant to that Ordinance (and how the fee is to be assessed, and whether it will provide sufficient mitigation in this case) after the Ordinance is adopted. To do otherwise is to assume the enactment of the Ordinance (which is within the discretionary purview of the City's City Council) before that enactment, a prediction which cannot be made or relied upon for CEQA purposes. Also, the Negative Declaration should include an analysis of freeway and other improvements made in other jurisdictions (such as Pleasanton) that will benefit Eastern Dublin development, along with an allocation of the fair share of the cost of such improvements which should be allocated and borne by Eastern Dublin development, including the Project. -30- CASSIDY\HDMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 Clearly, the Project as a large retail shopping center, will generate substantial additional vehicular movement, will create demand for new parking, will impact upon existing transportation and traffic systems, will alter the present patterns of circulation and movement of people and goods, and increase traffic hazards. All of these must be addressed in the appropriate detail required under CEQA and mitigation measures proposed which would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. 6. Public Services Deferring analysis of Project impacts on public services by stating that services and improvements necessitated by the Project will be determined by studies currently being prepared violates CEQA and Sundstrom. The conclusory statement that, "The Santa Rita Commercial Center will require some of the improvements or service increases that were planned for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan," is unsupported by any analysis and evidence. By definition, the statement itself evidences that adverse impacts on public services will occur as a result of development of the Project. A separate analysis of the demand for increased public services (fire, police, schools, government services and facilities) created by the Project should be contained in the Negative Declaration, with a discussion of the corresponding mitigation measures intended to address each impact and the manner in which the measure will reduce or eliminate the identified impact. -31- CASSIDY\HOMNEGOE.2\12-22-91 By way of example, a statement in the "Action Taken" column on p. 16 of the Matrix under Mitigation Measure 03.04/37.0, says that the Project will not exceed thresholds of the current Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). This statement is part of the analysis of Project impacts, and belongs in the text of the Negative Declaration (not in the "Action Taken" Matrix column) , along with the evidence supporting this conclusion. As another example, as discussed above, the Specific Plan calls for assurance, prior to approval of the first development plans in Eastern Dublin, of the acquisition of a site for the first of two needed additional fire stations to accommodate development in the Specific Plan planning area. Even though the Fire Department has plans for a temporary station, as far as can be ascertained, this temporary station is not so assured, even though the Project is the first development plan in Eastern Dublin. 7. Utilities With respect to supplying the Project with potable water and wastewater services, the routes shown for DSRSD water and sewer facilities for the Project on Figure Three to the Initial Study do not constitute a discussion of the Project demands and impacts for these services. Nor do the conclusory statements in this section of the Initial Study that the Specific Plan EIR considered solid waste, power and natural gas, water, sewer, septic tanks and storm water drainage, and developed mitigation, suffice for an adequate analysis of Project impacts, much less agreed-to, known mitigation measures. -32- CASSIDY\MOMMEGOE.2\12-22-94 '.i Have the DSRSD plans for serving the Project with potable water and wastewater services been completed? If not, how can conclusions be reached in the Negative Declaration regarding servicing the Project and any impacts associated with such service? The Negative Declaration should specify which mitigation measures DSRSD will implement to ensure that no significant environmental effects occur as a result of the Project. In an October 19, 1994, letter to the City Planning Department from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the following concerns were expressed by PG&E regarding the Project: (i) lack of access to the gas main; (ii) close proximity of buildings to major gas and electric facilities parallel to I-580; (iii) lack of right-of-way and property line information on the Project Conceptual Site Plan; and (iv) proposed landscaping near the major gas and electric facilities. These concerns must be addressed in the Negative Declaration, with a corresponding discussion of appropriate agreed-to, known mitigation measures. The statement that the Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures relating to solid waste, power and natural gas, water, sewer, septic tanks and storm water drainage were developed to ensure environmentally sensitive provision of these services does not address the CEQA required analysis of-the impacts in each of these areas. CEQA requires full and complete disclosure of impacts, not environmentally sensitive provision of services, and identification of appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or -33- CA55IDY\MCMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. 8. Human Health Demolition of a portion of the Madigan Building has not been described, but should be described, as part of the Project. This demolition is necessary to construct the commercial center, and has potentially significant environmental effects due to the asbestos contained in the building. This building, and its demolition impacts, do not appear to have been analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, so these impacts must be analyzed now. With respect to underground storage tanks that have been removed, the Negative Declaration should disclose any information known at this time regarding evidence (or lack thereof) of soil or groundwater contamination, even though the monitoring period has not been completed. In other words, the Negative Declaration must at least disclose and analyze information known regarding potential contamination, even though the full extent may not yet have been ascertained. IV. PROJECT INCONSISTENCY WITH SPECIFIC PLAN The Project is inconsistent with, and does not fully address, the following goals/policies and corresponding implementation measures of the Specific Plan.14 We have 14 We note that the Decision in Butler concluded that "in the context of the EIR, and to the extent pertinent to the SP [Specific Plan] and the GPA [General Plan Amendment to implement the Specific Plan], the use of 'should' is synonymous with 'shall' and is mandatory and 'encourage' is the equivalent of 'require'." (Decision, p. 18, lines 18-21.) The Court reiterated this holding with respect to the Specific Plan by noting, "All of the analysis hereinabove set out with regard to 'shall', 'should', 'require', and 'encourage', is applicable to -34- CAS91DY\MCM"EDDE.2\12-22-94 focused only on inconsistencies in areas of greatest concern to our client, although we believe that the Project also is inconsistent with other goals, policies and action programs of the Specific Plan that are not specifically identified in this Memorandum. A. Traffic and Circulation (Specific Plan, Chapter 5.0) 1. Goal (Specific Plan, p. 49): To provide a circulation system for Eastern Dublin that is convenient and efficient, and encourages the use of alternate modes of transportation. 2. Goal (Specific Plan, p. 53): To establish a vehicle circulation system which provides sufficient capacity for projected traffic and allows convenient access to land uses, while maintaining a neighborhood scale to the residential street system. 3. Action Program 5A (Specific Plan, pp. 54-55) requires that detailed development plans be submitted to the City all financing questions under the SP." (Decision, p. 21, lines 4-6.) In this connection, the Court also determined that, Various phasing and implementation aspects of the overall program/project therefor constitute prerequisites which must be met before any specific development plan will be approved and before commencement of any physical activities to carry-out any such development plan. (Decision, p.18, lines 21- 25.) The Butler decision governs the City's actions with respect to the Project. As such, the analysis set forth in this Memorandum is premised in part on the clear requirement that the mandatory policies of the Specific Plan must be in place before the City may commit to the Project through approval of Homart's' application for rezoning. -35- CnSSIDY\MOM"EGDE.2\32-22-9: ♦f in connection with a proposed development that include certain specified standards identified on pages 54-55 of the Specific Plan for major arterial streets, arterial streets, major collector streets, collector streets, local residential streets and industrial roads. The Project plans do not address these standards. The Matrix simply indicates that this will be part of the Site Development Review (Matrix, p. 2). For example, one identified standard requires that full access to major arterial streets shall occur only at signalized intersections. This information should be provided before the City acts on any Project application. 4. Goal (Specific Plan, 55): To maximize opportunities for travel by public transit. The Project application does not specify the ways in which opportunities for travel by public transit will be maximized. Specifically, Policy 5-10 (provide transit service within one quarter mile of 95% of the population in the Specific Plan area in accordance with LAVTA service standards; Specific Plan, p. 55)), and Policy 5-il (provide transit service, at a minimum frequency of 1 bus every 30 minutes during peak hours, to 90% of employment centers with 100 or more employees in accordance with LAVTA service standards; Specific Plan, p. 55)) , do not appear to have been addressed in the Project applications and/or mitigation measures. Further, Policy 5-13 (Specific Plan, p. 55) calls for establishing design guidelines for residential and commercial development so there are clear and safe pedestrian paths between building entrances and transit service stops. In order to implement these policies, -36- CASSIDY\HOMNEGOE.2\12-22-94 Action Program 5B (Specific Plan, p. 56) requires review and approval by the City, as part of conditions of Project approvals, of the following: public transit route and phasing plan, to be prepared in consultation with LAVTA; bus turnouts and transit shelters, in consultation with LAVTA; and pedestrian paths between transit stops and building entrances. Have discussions with LAVTA occurred? Will bus shelters and pedestrian paths be provided in conjunction with LAVTA? These features appear only as a "condition for developers to provide" (Matrix, p. 2) . What does this mean, and how does it comport with the Specific Plan requirement? 5. Goal (Specific Plan, p. 58): To minimize the transportation-related impacts of development in Eastern Dublin. In addition to participation in Transportation Systems Management programs (Policy 5-21 and Action Program 5G), Policy 5-22 (Specific Plan, p. 58) requires the establishment of park-and- ride lots, and Action Program 5H (Specific Plan, p. 58) requires the City to work with developers at the freeway interchanges to provide these lots between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard on the west sides of Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The lots are to provide a minimum of 100 parking spaces and include lighting and landscaping. The Project is located at a freeway interchange. Nevertheless, it is not specified whether a park- and-ride lot is required in connection with the Project, or whether the Project will be required to fund a portion of a planned park-and-ride lot. The Matrix (p. 1) merely states that the park-and-ride lot should be located on the west side of -37- CASSIDY\HOMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 Hacienda. The compliance (or lack thereof) with this Action Program should be analyzed and disclosed. B. Community Services and Facilities (Specific Plan, Chapter 8.0) 1. Goal relating to fire protection (Specific Plan, p. 125) : To ensure that fire protection services are consistent with standards maintained throughout the City. Policy 8-5 (Specific Plan, p. 125) calls for timing the construction of two new stations that will be needed to service new demand. The first station is to be sited and construction completed prior to completion of the initial development. Action Program 8G (Specific Plan, p. 125) requires that the westernmost site (the first fire station) "must be assured prior to the approval of the first development plans in Eastern Dublin." There is no indication that this has been accomplished (even for the temporary station currently contemplated), which is a requirement prior to approval of any Project applications. 2. Goal relating to solid waste (Specific Plan, p. 126) : To reduce the total flow of waste to landfill by promoting waste reduction, source separation, curbside collection, and other recycling alternatives to landfilling. Policy 8-7 (Specific Plan, p. 126) calls for supporting ACWMA efforts to develop alternative disposal facilities for organic waste in the Tri-Valley area. Action Proqram 8K (Specific Plan, p. 126) calls for preparation of a solid waste management plan for Eastern Dublin. The Matrix (p. 16) indicates that an update to the SWMP for Eastern Dublin is needed, but that the Project will not -38- CASSIDY\HOMNEGDE.2\12-22.94 exceed thresholds of current SRRE. Upon what analysis is this conclusion reached? How does it support a decision not to prepare the update for Eastern Dublin? C. Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage (Specific Plan, Chapter 9.0) 1. Goal relating to water (Specific Plan, p. 129) : To provide an adequate water system for the planning area. Policy 9-1 (Specific Plan, p. 130) calls for providing an adequate water supply system and related improvements and storage facilities for all new development in the planning area. Policy 9-2 (Specific Plan, p. 130) calls for coordinating with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to encompass the entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Action Program 9B (Specific Plan, pp. 130- 131) calls for, as a condition of Proiect approval in Eastern Dublin, the construction of a recycled water distribution system, as well as necessary off-site facilities to support recycled water use. Has this been accomplished? The "Action Taken" column of the Matrix (p. 21) merely states that a will-serve letter will be required. 2. Goal relating to wastewater (Specific Plan, p. 131) : To provide adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Policy 9-4 (Specific Plan, p. 132) calls for coordinating with DSRSD to expand its service areas to encompass the entire planning area, and to explore the possible need for a wastewater storage facility in Eastern Dublin. Action Program 9K (Specific Plan, p. 132) requires development within the planning area to fund a recycled water distribution system computer model, -39- CASSIDY\HDMNEGDE.2\12-22-94 reflecting the Specific Plan land uses. Has this been accomplished? How will the system be funded? What facilities will the Project applicant be required to install (see "Action Taken" column, Matrix, p. 19)? The DSRSD indicates that major potable water, recycled water and wastewater collection facilities to serve the Project will be designed and constructed at some point (November 3, 1994, letter to City's Planning Director, Mr. Laurence Tong). Exactly what facilities will be needed? Has a funding source or sources been identified to assure installation of these required facilities? Action Program 9N (Specific Plan, p. 132) requires project applicants to prepare a detailed wastewater capacity investigation to supplement the information in the Specific Plan, which reflects the phased development approach matched against the allocation of sewer permits. This does not appear to have been done in connection with the Project application. The planned land uses at the site must be identified and estimated 11 wastewater flows to be generated based upon these land uses. This must be done prior to approval of the Project. It also appears that this is a prerequisite to DSRSD planning for needed facilities. Table 9-2 on page 136 of the Specific Plan is a matrix of implementation responsibilities for wastewater service. These items, as they relate to developer responsibilities, do not appear to have been accomplished in connection with the Project application. • -40- CASSIDY\HCNNEGOE.2\I2-22-91 3. Goal relating to storm drainage (Specific Plan, p. 133): To provide adequate storm drainage facilities for the planning area. Policy 9-7 (Specific Plan, p. 133) calls for requiring drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for erosion or flooding. The Project application should include information regarding Project drainage and how that will be accommodated. Action Program 9T (Specific Plan, p. 134) requires, prior to development approval, that a master drainage plan must be prepared for each development application. The plan must include hydraulic studies of entire related upstream watersheds, phase approaches and system modeling, documentation of existing conditions, design level analysis of impacts on existing creek channels, detailed analysis of effects of development on water quality, detailed drainage design plans for each phase of the Project, and design features to minimize run off flows within existing creeks. This has not been accomplished for the Project and must be prepared prior to approval of any Project application (Matrix, p. 25, indicates that the County is preparing the plan). D. Financing (Specific Plan, Chapter 10.0) (see also Chapter 11, Implementation) 1. Goals: With respect to financing, the Specific' Plan's goals (Specific Plan, p. 151) include (i) requiring new development to pay for the full cost of infrastructure needed to serve the area and funding the cost of mitigating adverse project impacts on existing infrastructure and services; and (ii) developing a financing plan that provides for reimbursements from -41- C.ISSIDv\MOMNEGDE.2\12-22.93 any other benefiting areas for costs that the Specific Plan area owners are required to advance (and provide a fair allocation of costs among land uses) . The specific policies set forth on page 151 of the Specific Plan to achieve these goals include, among others, policies calling for allocation of costs for the infrastructure and public services improvements on a "benefit received" and "fair share allocation" basis; adoption of an area of benefit ordinance (an area of benefit ordinance covering bridges and streets has been adopted by the City) ; dedication of land for road and other improvements; and the issuance of bonds to fund infrastructure and public services. Specifically, Policy 10-5 calls for requiring development projects to fund the full cost of oversizing of facilities that will serve future development as well as the initial development, subject to future reimbursement from future development benefiting from the oversizing. Policy 10-8 calls for providing for reimbursements from other benefiting areas for costs that the Specific Plan area owners are required to produce. The financing action program set forth on pages 152 - 153 of the Specific Plan calls for the City, in connection with development agreements for individual projects, to spell out the precise financial responsibilities of-the developer. Action Programs also call for adoption of an area of benefit ordinance; creation of special assessment or Mello-Roos districts; Mello- Roos Bond Pooling and citywide developer/builder impact fee -42- CASSIDv\HOMNEGDE.2\I2-22-94 systems. Certain other actions identified are needed to be implemented by other agencies. The City cannot approve the rezoning application for development of the Project without the specific financing responsibilities being identified and tied to necessary infrastructure and public services improvements necessitated by the Project (see, Matrix, p. 39, which indicates that a financing plan is being prepared and that the Development Agreement will address issues specific to the Project). To do otherwise directly conflicts with the spirit and actual requirements of the Specific Plan and to rely on a yet to be approved Development Agreement not only begs the issue and the commitments which Homart will make in connection with the Project, but also relies upon a future action of the City, which is not assured or guaranteed, either with respect to enactment or with respect to the form and content of the Development Agreement.15 As the Fire Department aptly pointed out with respect to developer and building impact fees (Fire Issues, p.2), those fees do not take into account whether adequate funds will be available for the necessary improvements and funding of projects in advance of, and correlated to, development of Eastern Dublin. Moreover, the updated Fiscal Analysis set forth in Attachment 1 to the Staff 15 We have been advised that a draft Development Agreement has been prepared but that it is not yet available for public distribution. While a public hearing on the Development Agreement has been scheduled before the Planning Commission on January 3 and before the City Council on January 9, the financial and other obligations that presumably will be included in the Development Agreement should be identified and analyzed in the Negative Declaration and considered in conjunction with, and not after, the rezoning application. -43- CASSIov\MOMMEGOE.2\12-22-94 Report to the Planning Commission for its December 19, 1994, hearing, does not provide the necessary financial information. In addition to these matters, the Project impacts on the identified major capital improvements listed in Table 10-1 of the Specific Plan should be identified. The Area of Benefit Ordinance addresses only bridges and streets, and does not cover all "public improvements" specified in the Specific Plan (see Specific Plan, p. 153) . Moreover, while the City has preliminary estimates for a public facilities fee (see Recht Hausrath preliminary study incorporated in a Memorandum dated November 11, 1994 to Richard Ambrose from Bob Spencer), these estimates are preliminary and there is no analysis of the fee as it relates to the Project. Nor is there any analysis of the traffic impact fee currently under consideration by the City and its relationship to the Project. Do the proposed fees meet the spirit, intent and requirements of the Specific Plan? Finally, the City of Pleasanton's and the North Pleasanton property owners' contribution toward roadway improvements that will benefit not only development in Pleasanton but also development in Eastern Dublin should be recognized.16 These improvements include construction of the Santa Rita/Tassajara, Hacienda and Hopyard/Dougherty interchanges at I-580 (the "Pleasanton Improvements"). The Specific Plan emphasizes and 16 See, in this connection, the comments of the City of Pleasanton contained in its December 16, 1994, letter from Mr. Randall Lum to Mr. Lee Thompson. We incorporate that letter into this Memorandum in its entirety as part of the comments set forth in this Memorandum. -44- CASSIDY\HOMNEGOE.2\12-22-94 calls for fair share allocation: this allocation should extend to the Pleasanton Improvements: requiring assessment of necessary fees in connection with Eastern Dublin development to fund not only the Specific Plan contemplated improvements but a portion of the Pleasanton Improvements, with reimbursement to the City of Pleasanton/North Pleasanton Improvement District, as applicable and as fairly allocated. Respectfully submitted, CASSID & ERGES h . Cassidy • -45- CASSIDY\HOMHEGDE.2\12-22-94 • 1 (ENDORSED) FILED 2 SAN UATEO COUNTY 3 MAR 1 0 1994 C;ark o'the Suoer{or�, 4 By P.,,RB.RA t LJPuL�` 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal No. 385533 corporation, 11 Alameda County Case No. Petitioner and Plaintiff, No. V-006477-8 VO 12 vs. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION 13 CITY OF DUBLIN, CITY OF DUBLIN CITY 14 COUNCIL and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, 15 Respondents and Defendants. 16 GEORGE BUTLER, DARYL HOON, CAROLYN 17 MORGAN, GREENBELT ALLIANCE, a California non-profit corporation, 18 and PRESERVE AREA RIDGELANDS COMMITTEE, a California non-profit 19 corporation, 20 ' Petitioners, 21 vs. 22 CITY OF DUBLIN, DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL, and DOES 1-100 23 Respondents . 24 25 JENNIFER LIN, and the City of Pleasanton, 26 Intervenors. 27 / 28 EXHIBIT A • 1 INTRODUCTION 2 The captioned matter comes before the Court upon the 3 Petition of Butler, et al. (hereinafter Butler or Petitioners) for 4 a Writ of Mandate pursuant to both CCP S1085 and CCP §1094.5 5 against the City of Dublin (hereinafter Dublin) attacking the 6 validity of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter 7 CEQA) , the General Plan Amendment (hereinafter GPA), and the 8 Specific Plan (hereinafter SP) adopted by Dublin with reference to 9 the East Dublin Planning Area (hereinafter EDPA) pertaining to 10 Dublin's Sphere of Influence (hereinafter SOI) previously 11 established by the Local Agency Formation Commission (hereinafter 12 LAFCO) for the area easterly of Dublin's present eastern city 13 boundaries, north of Interstate Highway I-580 and south of the 14 Alameda Contra Costa County boundary line. 15 The earlier Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by the 16 City of Pleasanton (hereinafter Pleasanton) was heretofore 17 } dismissed with prejudice and is not before the Court. By orders 18 made in the Superior Court of Alameda county prior to the transfer 19 of the case(s) to this Court, Jennifer Lin (hereinafter Lin) and 20 Pleasanton were allowed to intervene in the Butler Action. Lin is 21 a substantial property owner in the EDPA, desires to develop her 22 property and was one of the earliest proponents of development in 23 the EDPA, participated from the beginning as one of the Significant 24 Property Owners (hereinafter SPOs) in the proceedings before the 25 Planning Commission and City Council of Dublin. Her Complaint in 26 Intervention is supportive of the actions of Dublin in adopting the 27 ' Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter the EIR), the GPA and the 28 SP for the area. Any decision hereinafter made which favors Dublin 2 1 will therefore be in favor of Lin and for the purposes of this 2 Court's determination no distinction will be made between the 3 position of Dublin in responding to the Butler Petition and the 4 position of Lin on her Complaint in Intervention. 5 Pleasanton was permitted to intervene by an Order of the 6 Hon. Joseph Carson, Judge of the Superior Court of the County of 7 Alameda, on September 20, 1993. Judge Carson limited Pleasanton's 8 intervention to its status as a property owner within the EDPA 9 (Pleasanton owns a Municipal Water Tank site on a knoll easterly of 10 Tassajara Road and northerly of Gleason drive), thereby eliminating 11 its status as a Municipal Corporation acting on behalf of its 12 citizenry as a whole. Furthermore, Pleasanton by virtue of a 13 written stipulation entered and filed on September 24, 1993, agreed 14 that it would not raise any CEQA issues in its Petition nor 15 argument before the Court. The Court accordingly at the time of 16 hearing herein restricted Pleasanton's participation to those 17 matters involving alleged arbitrary and capricious acts of Dublin 18 in adopting the GPA and the SP. 19 In the pleadings filed herein the standing and status of 20 several of the Butler Petitioners was disputed by Dublin. Prior to 21 the commencement of the hearing, Dublin waived in writing any 22 attack on the status of the Petitioners other than as to Petitioner 23 Hoon. On the day of hearing, the parties further orally stipulated 24 that Hoon does have standing and that there are members of the two 25 non-profit Petitioner organizations who do reside in and/or own 26 property in Dublin. Accordingly, all attacks upon the status or 27 standing of the Butler Petitioners became moot; and it was 28 acknowledged by all parties that Pleasanton did have standing as a 3 • property owner within the EDPA. 2 • Based on all of the foregoing, hearing/trial, oral 3 argument, etc. , were held on February 3 , 1994 . Prior to the 4 hearing the Court was furnished with two Bekin's boxes full of the 5 administrative record, a very large ring binder of "Respondent' s 6 Evidence Book" , a compilation of the CEQA statutes and guidelines, 7 four volumes of Court files and records, together with voluminous 8 and well-prepared Memoranda of Points and Authorities which were 9 reviewed by the Court over a period in excess of five days 10 preceding the hearing. No oral testimony nor other documentary 11 evidence (other than several large and helpful maps of the subject 12 area) was introduced at trial. The matter accordingly proceeded to 13 trial/hearing based upon the administrative record (and various 14 excerpts contained in the Respondent' s Evidence Binder) , various 15 declarations, the pleadings, and the Memoranda of Points and 16 Authorities filed by the parties. Attached hereto and incorporated 17 by reference for ease of understanding the location, etc. , of the 18 eastern Dublin area are Exhibits A and B, being maps of the area on 19 which the boundaries of the General Plan Amendment Area and of the 20 � Specific Plan boundary as well as the General Road Layout within 21 the Specific Plan area are delineated. 22 REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, ETC. 23 Dublin ' s requests for q judicial notice that (1) the 24 referendum on the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan was 25 passed by the voters , and (2) the certification by the Registrar of 26 Voters as to the outcome of that referendum election, are granted. 27 Pleasanton,''s requests for judicial notice of (1) the tax 28 bill on the property owned by Pleasanton within the project area 4 1 and (2) the official records of the Alameda County Office of 2 Treasurer and Tax Collector are granted. • 3 Dublin ' s request to be allowed to amend its Answer is 4 granted. 5 APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW 6 The Butler Petitioner's caption their Petition for Writ 7 of Mandate as being made under and pursuant to: "CCP 51085\1094 . 5; 8 Gov. Code §65302 et seq; Gov.Code §65450 et sea; and Pub.Res.Ccde 9 §21, 000 et seq. " Petitioners are accordingly seeking relief under 10 concepts of "Traditional Mandate" and "Administrative Mandate. " 11 Different standards of review are applicable under the different 12 theories and CEQA itself recognizes these distinctions: 13 "Traditional mandate, as codified in section 1085, is the 14 modern equivalent of the common law prerogative writ of mandamus, and may be issued by any court, except a 15 municipal or justice court, to any inferior tribunal, board or agency "to compel the performance of an act 16 which the law specifically enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or to compel the 17 F admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is 18 unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person. " (55 1084, 1085; 8 Witkin, 19 Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Extraordinary Writs, 54, pp. 643-644) Administrative mandate (51094 .5) , on the other 20 { hand, is the procedure used to obtain judicial review of adjudicatcry decisions (i.e. , decisions determining what 21 the facts are in relation to specific private rights or interests) of state-level or local governmental bodies. 22 (Deering, Cal. Administrative Mandamus (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d. 1989) , §1. 1, p. 2) • 23 CEQA recognizes this inherent distinction. It requires 24 a petition for writ of administrative mandate when an action seeks review of a "determination, finding, or 25 decision of a public agency, made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be 26 given, evidence is required to be taken and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in a public agency, 27 on the grounds of noncompliance" with CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code 521168 . ) Conversely, CEQA requires a 28 5 - 1 petition for a writ of traditional mandate in all other - 2 actions brought "to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public 3 agency on the grounds of noncompliance" with CEQA, in which event "the inquiry shall extend only to whether 4 there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded 5 in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence." 6 (Pub.Resources Code,S21168.5; Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7 712, 729) ." 8 Western States Petroleum Association, v. Superior Court (Air ResourcesBoard, Real Party in Interest) 94 LADJ DAR 9 431, 432 (1/12/94). 10 Accordingly, to the extent Butler attacks the 11 determination, findings, or decisions of the Dublin City Council 12 following evidentiary hearings, this Court must apply the test of 13 whether or not the ultimate conclusions are supported by 14 substantial evidence. 15 To the extent Butler seeks to set aside, void or annul 16 the determinations, findings or decisions of Dublin on procedural 17 noncompliance grounds, this Court's inquiry must extend only to 18 whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. 19 Abuse of discretion is demonstrated in a traditional 20 mandate case if the legislative actions of Dublin were arbitrary 21 and/or capricious. Administrative mandamus pertains to the quasi 22 judicial (evidentiary hearings required) functions of a City 23 Council and the test to be applied by the reviewing Court is 24 whether or not the ultimate conclusions reached by the body politic 25 are supported by substantial evidence. (See No oil, Inc. v. city 26 of Los Angeles, (1974) 13th Ca1.3d 68, 79). 27 CEQA attacks are therefor a hybrid, for as the Second 28 Appellate District, Div. One, said in Western States, supra: 6 • 1 Uneds ern oCt EQmA d d iwvon. 'a bu dwsocnt 2 of environmental review, it means the agency has either 3 ' not proceeded in a manner required by law' or that its ' decision is not supported by substantial evidence. ' 4 (Pub.Res . Code, §21168 . 5. ) " (Ibid 434) . 5 Hopefully, the Court in reaching its decision hereinafter 6 set out has applied the proper standard of review to each of the 7 aspects of the Butler Petition and the Pleasanton Petition in 8 Intervention. 9 CEQA ISSUES 10 In determining CEQA issues it is important to note at the 11 outset that the law presumes CEQA procedures/actions and 12 particularly the determination and adoption of the Final 13 Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter FEIR) to be valid and if 14 the CEQA proceedings are to be attacked, Petitioner Butler, et al. , 15 herein, must be specific in both alleging and proving the contended 16 inadequacies and/or areas of non-compliance (Laurel Heights 17 Imbrovement Assn . v. Recents of the University of California (1988) 18 47 Cal. 3d. 376 , 393 ; [Laurel Heights I] City of Lomita v. City of 19 . Torrance (1983) 148 Cal.App. 3d 1062) . It is equally important in 20 ' considering this aspect of this case to keep in mind that we are 21 here dealing with a "program" EIR being developed and utilized for 22 support of and in conjunction with Dublin' s Zoning and Planning 23 Legislation for an area within its SOI and not yet within its city 24 boundaries , not for a development or project specific analysis 25 pertaining to the construction of public or private structures . 26 Such an EIR for long range planning and zoning purposes is 27 necessarily general (Village Lacuna of Lacuna Beach v. Bd. of 28 Supervisors of Orance County (1982) 134 Cal.App. 3d 1022) . It is a 7 I _ 1 tool in aid of informed soeculation as to where, when and how 2 Dublin will expand into its easterly sphere of influence. over 10, 3 20 or 30 years. 4 The Court also notes and commented at the hearing hereon 5 that Butler in his Petition acknowledges that Petitioners do not 6 object to "any" development in the EDPA; and while the Petition 7 itself alleged a market basket full of purported defects, at 8 hearing Petitioners seemed to settle on just five areas of real 9 concern, namely: (1) water, (2) sewer, (3) traffic, (4) financing, 10 and (5) agriculture open space, plus (6) a failure to re-circulate 11 the DEIR before certifying the FEIR and adopting the GPA and SP 12 .- Resolutions. It is not up to this Court to substitute its own 13 judgment in any of these matters but only to determine if Dublin 14 failed to follow statutory procedures thereby abusing its 15 discretion and if there is substantial evidence supporting Dublin's- 16 ; findings which led to its certification of the FEIR. 17 l• ' The purpose of an EIR is to provide information to the 18 governmental body so that it may make an informed decision as to 19 whether or not a particular program, project or development should 20 ' be adopted or rejected, approved or disapproved. Its purpose is 21 also to make the public aware of what is being contemplated and 22 considered by the body politic so-that the' decision makers may 23 receive input from directly and indirectly involved and interested 24 citizenry (Pub.Res.Cd §21061). To these ends the Public Resources 25 Code:sets out certain procedures to be followed in developing the 26 EIR,. affording all interested parties including the general public 27 the :opportunity to comment thereon, for responses by the body 28 • politic, the weighing by the governmental body of the benefits and 8 1 detriments of the program, project or development, to develop means 2 of mitigating any detrimental impacts, and to the extent impacts 3 cannot be mitigated, to determine whether or not the program 4 project or development should nonetheless go forward because of 5 overwhelming benefits to be derived therefrom. (Pub.Res.Cd. §21000 6 et seq; CEQA Guidelines 515,000 et seq.) 7 The subject project/program to consider long-range 8 planning for the development of Dublin's easterly sphere of 9 influence commenced at the behest of Intervenor Lin in March of 10 1987 and culminated on May 10, 1993, some six years later, when the 11 City Council of Dublin certified the FEIR with addendum and adopted 12 both the GPA and the SP for the EDPA. 13 To reach these determinations, Dublin was required to 14 make at least one of three findings before the project/program 15 could proceed, namely: 16 (a) Mitigation factors have been identified and 17 incorporated into the FEIR; 18 (b) Such mitigating changes or alterations are within 19 the responsibility of another public agency which has, can, or 20 should adopt such mitigating factors; 21 (c) Specific economic, social or other consideration 22 make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. 23 ("Pub.Res.Cd.§ 21081") 24 It is only necessary that the public agency base its 25 findings pursuant to Subdivision (c) above on "substantial evidence 26 in the record." (Pub.Res.Cd. §21081.5). Pub.Res.Cd. §21081.6 27 further requires Dublin to establish a reporting or monitoring 28 program to see to it that the mitigating factors identified are 9 1 complied with during the period of project implementation. . 2 In meeting these requirements it is sufficient that 3 Dublin has received and reviewed consultants' reports, received 4 comments from and discussed those comments with the public from all 5 of which substantial evidence of enough relative information, and 6 reasonable inferences from the information, has been obtained such 7 that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion even 8 though other conclusions might be reached. (CEQA Guidelines 9 §15384) . 10 In the case at bar, Dublin more than amply met all of 11 these requirements. In addition to activities of its own Planning 12 Department, City Engineer, City Attorney, etc., Dublin engaged the 13 services of outside consultants to prepare detailed studies of the 14 entire environmental impact of the program on the SP area, the 15 whole of the EDPA, and surrounding communities. (Admin.Rec. VIIL 16 1660-1661, 1677; XVII: 3369-3598; XVIII: 3719-3751, 3761, 3763, 17 3775-3782 3789-3832, 3833-3862, 3941-3951, 3952-4021). 18 At the outset, Dublin invited all property owners within 19 the EDPA to directly participate in both the CEQA and the planning 20 aspects of the project. Those property owners who responded were 21 formed into an SPO committee and throughout the six years of study 22 effort actively participated in all aspects of the program. (AR 23 VII: 1631-1632, 1641, 1660-1664, 1677). The SPO's also provided 24 significant financing for both private and public studies made with 1 25 regard to the program. 26 Numerous public meetings were held by both the Dublin 27 Planning Commission and the Dublin City Council. (VI: 1427; VII: 28 1718; XVI: 3597-3598; IX: 1908-1935; X: 2026-2028, 2033-2040, 2070, 10 , 1 2074, 2099-2110, 2112-2113, 2116-2123, 2127-2133, 2169-2174, 2188- 2 2197; XI: 2250-2582; XIII: 2583-2736; XV: 2905-2944, 2998-3047). 3 While neither the mere holding of meetings nor the number 4 of meetings is itself determinative of whether or not Dublin abused 5 its discretion in certifying the EIR, the fact that the meetings 6 were held, the public did provide both written and oral comments, 7 there were discussions thereof among staff, consultants, commission 8 and council members and the public, the reaction of Dublin thereto, 9 the incorporation of some of the comments and the rejection of 10 others and the approval or rejection of various suggested 11 mitigation measures, all leading to the adoption of "Alternative 2" 12 with modifications, support the conclusion that Dublin did not 13 abuse its discretion in certifying and adopting the FEIR in May of 14 1993. (XIII: 2694-2695, 2724-2725; XIV: 2805-2817; XV: 2902-2903, 15 2919-2921; VI: 1459, 1460A-1460B, 1464A-1464B, 1465-1610, 1533' 16 1538) . 17 Dublin properly instituted an investigation into how to 18 best plan for the development of the EDPA and its easterly SOI as 19 established by LAFCO. (VI: 1616, 1631-1632, 1660-1661, 1677). It 20 provided proper public notice and notice to all required interested 21 agencies of its intent to prepare an EIR for the GPA and SP. 22 Meetings and comments were held and received.on the scope of the 23 proposed EIR (VI: 1427; VII: 1718; XVI: 3597-3598; XVII: 3618- 24 3695) . 25 Over an approximate two-year study period 450 pages, more 26 or less, of various analyses, reports, etc., were prepared for and 27 reviewed by the City'Council and the Planning Commission. Numerous 28 and extended joint work sessions, study sessions and public 11 - 1 meetings were held with regard to both the EIR, the GPA and the SP. 2 [For a summary of all of these activities see Dublin's Memorandum 3 in Opposition pages 6 through 14 ] . 4 There is no requirement that every conjectural or 5 conceivable alternative to the program, the EIR, and mitigating 6 methods be explored. (Guidelines §15126 (d) (5) ; Citizens of Goleta 7 Valley vs. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1. 3d 553 , 566; Villace 8 Lacuna, supra, 1022 ; Las Viraenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. vs. 9 County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Ca1.App.3d 300, 307-308) . Only 10 that reasonable possibilities have been investigated and 11 determinations made based on substantial evidence of what could 12 likely occur over the next 20 - 40 years. 13 Petitioners argue strongly that Dublin abused its 14 discretion and acted capriciously and arbitrarily by not taking all 15 procedural steps necessary to create a supplemental EIR 16 (hereinafter SEIR) . Petitioners contend that changes which were 17 made in adopting Alternative 2 with modifications constitute 18 "significant new information" in the EIR so as to require its 19 recirculation for public comment before certification pursuant to 20 Pub.Res . Cd. §§21092 . 1, 21166 and Guidelines §515162 and 15163 . 21 Fortunately for this Court the California Supreme Court 22 has very recently provided guidance- in what is now known as "Laurel 23 Heights II" as follows: 24 "We conclude that recirculation is only required when the 25 information added to the EIR changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to 26 comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible project alternative or 27 mitigation measure that would clearly reduce such an effect an that the project's proponents have declined to 28 implement. We further conclude that a decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence . " 12 1 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the 2 University of California (No. SO27252, 12/30/93) 93 LADJ DAR 70, 71 ([1/4/94]). 3 From the foregoing it is clear that before recirculation 4 or issuance of a supplemental EIR draft, its circulation, comment 5 thereon and inclusion within the FEIR is required, the subject 6 change or changes must have "a substantial adverse environmental 7 effect" or propose a "feasible project alternative or mitigation 8 measure that would clearly reduce such an effect". (Laurel Heights 9 II, supra, 71) . 10 In the case at bar, Dublin considered whether or not the 11 changes in reducing the SP area, eliminating the transit spine and 12 adopting Alternative 2 would have a "substantial adverse 13 environmental effect" on the project. (XIII: 2694-2695, 2724-2725; 14 XIV: 2805-2817) . Dublin found that each of these things would have 15 a beneficial rather than an adverse effect upon the project (III: 16 10(14; VI: 1463, 1464A-1464H). There is substantial evidence 17 supporting these findings and conclusions and further supporting 18 the proposition that each of the material items pertaining thereto 191 had already been considered in the DEIR, the comments thereon and 20 responses thereto such that nothing could be gained by preparing 21 and circulating a supplemental EIR or recirculating the DEIR. (III: 22 856; I: 369-370, 378-380; II: 533; 711-712. See for example those 23 portions of the Administrative Record dealing with traffic impacts; 24 I: 136-172, 144-148, 152-154, 369-370, 378-380; I1:533, 711-712; 25 III: 856, 990, 992-993, 997, 998-999, 1000-1001, 1022-23; VI: 1467- 26 1474, 1533-1538. Similar considerations were given to sewer, 27 agricultural, water" and agricultural impacts. Further this Court 28 is required to resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the 13 1 administrative finding and decision not to recirculate the EIR. 2 (Laurel Heights I, 393; Laurel Heights II, 76). • 3 Everyone of the possible changes in the EIR had already 4 been publicly noticed and commented upon in considering the DEIR 5 and the proposed GPA and SP. To recirculate the EIR would have 6, been redundant and meaningless. 7IButler attacks the substance of the EIR on the additional 8 grounds that the analysis of the impact on agriculture is 9 inadequate, that the analysis of transportation impacts, mitigation 10 measures and alternatives is inadequate; that the analysis of water 11 supply impacts, significant effects, and mitigation measures is 12 inadequate, that the analysis of waste-water impacts is inadequate; 13 and that there was inadequate discussion of project alternatives. 14 The administrative record discloses that Dublin 15 considered four project alternatives: (1) no project, (2) no 16 development, (3) reduced planning area, and (4) reduced land use 17 intensity. (I: 340-360). A further alternative of keeping the 18 entire EDPA as a massive green belt was indeed not explored by 19 Dublin. Dublin's failure to do so is not fatal to the EIR as to 201 adopt such an alternative would go even beyond consideration of the 21 alternative of "no project". A rule of reason must prevail in 22 these matters (Las Virgenes,__ supra, 303-308; Guidelines 23 §15216(d) (5)) . 24 The record reflects that Dublin did consider the 25 agriculture impacts of the project, and applied Cortese-Knox 26 Standards as to when prime land can be developed. Dublin concluded 27 that there are only 200 acres of prime land in the area presently 28 devoted to agriculture generating an economically unsound return of 14 only $100-$200/acre/year. (III: 854). In mitigation of the loss 2 of the existing agricultural cum green belt areas, the EIR proposes 3 numerous neighborhood and other parks, green belts along waterways, 4 protection of ridge lines and visual angles, etc. (See Maps) . 5 It is to be further noted that substantial portions of 6, the present agricultural lands are being so utilized pursuant to 7 provisions of the Williamson Act. Absent further administrative 8 proceedings by the owners of these lands, as long as 10 years might 9 still have to elapse before any of these lands could be utilized 10 for urban purposes. (I: 86-87). 11 Petitioners, of course, have the heavy burden of proof to 12 specify each and every area where it is contended that the analysis 13 of any particular impact has been inadequate. (Mann vs. Community 14 Redeveloument Aaencv of City of Hawthorne (1991) 233 Cal.App. 3d 15 1143, 1151; Lomita, supra, 1069-70). Petitioners have failed to 16 sustain this burden. 17 The EIR assesses the significance of traffic impacts 18 based upon a Level of Service (LOS) approach. (I: 138-140). It 19 1 breaks the traffic impacts down into three categories, namely: (1) 20 impacts without the program (I: 157; III: 990), (2) impacts for 21 which mitigation is feasible (III: 992-993, 995-996, 998-999, 1001, 22 1022-1023; (VI: 1467-1474) and (3Z_impacts for which mitigation is 23 not feasible (III: 991, 997, 1000, 1022-1023; VI: 1467-1474, 1533- 24 1538) . Petitioners present no evidence whatsoever to support their 25 contention that any or all of the traffic impact mitigation measure 26 studies were cursory. To the contrary, the record clearly reflects 27 consideration of all.reasonably probable future traffic conditions, 28 roadway improvement, financing and implementation. (I: 136-172, 15 • ,1 144-148, 152-154; II: 711-712; III: 987-1002). All of the 2 requisite Levels of Service (Los) as well as "Transportations 3 Systems Management" (TSM) alternatives were thoroughly considered 4 by the City. (I: 138-140; III: 991, 997, 1000, 1022-1023). 5 It is important to remember that we are here dealing with 6 a long-range planning program, not a specific development EIR. The 7 amendment to the General Plan and the General Plan in essence 8 constitute a constitutional framework under which specific 9 developments can be addressed in due course as they arise over the 10 next 40 years. It is a human, financial, legal, and practical 11 impossibility for us today to predict what the LOS requirements 12 will be at any given intersection 40 years from now. 'Ali that can 13 be done is to say that--as does the Plan here in issue--that 14 certain things are reasonably foreseeable, some of these problems 15 can be mitigated, some cannot, and that changes in the assumptions 16 made will necessarily trigger future CEQA review (Village Laguna, 17 supra, 1029-1030) . 18 Petitioner's contend with regard to almost all of their 19 objections to the EIR, the GPA, and the SP that none of these 20 provide for proper "phasing" of the development of the EDPA. The 21 Court views this as a non-sequitur. Neither the Public Resources 22 Code, the CEQA Guidelines, nor the Government Code, require, nor 23 are there any cases requiring specific parameters for "phasing" the 24 development of the project area. 25 Nonetheless, throughout the EIR and the SP it is implicit 26 that "phasing" will necessarily take place. First, in a general 27 sense, geographical, phasing can only occur as each immediately 28 easterly and/or northerly parcel of land is annexed to Dublin. 16 1 Second, Pub.Res.Cd. §21166 specifically requires re-examination of • 2 this Program EIR as new information becomes available over the next 3 three or four decades. The overall Dublin Plan requires that as 4 each step project or development comes before the City, a new EIR 5 will have to be prepared. (V: 1306; I: 55; V: 1355; Appendix 6 to 6 the SP). 7 Petitioners strenuously contend that the EIR is 8 inadequate in its consideration of water, waste water and sewer 9 impacts. Petitioners are particularly concerned because much of 10 the future problems in this area necessarily involve determinations 11 by at least three other agencies [the Livermore Amador Valley Water 12 District (hereinafter LAVWD), the Dublin San Ramon Water District 13 (hereinafter DSRWD) and the Tri-Valley Water Agency (hereinafter 14 TWA)]. 15 The administrative record is replete with substantial 16 evidence that the Planning Commission and the City Council of 17 Dublin considered in depth the infra-structure problems associated 18 with this Program EIR. Testimony was taken from and input given by 19 each of the associated agencies. The overall plan requires that as 201 each specific development comes along, before approval of a 21 tentative map will be granted, "will serve" letters will be 22 required from each of the associated infra-structure agencies (V: 23 1306; Chapter 11, Implementation Plan of the SP; and various other 24 locations throughout the AR too numerous to list here) . 25 Petitioners argue that certain of the language throughout 26 the documentation is not sufficiently mandatory. For example, the 27 use of the word "should" instead of the word "shall" and the word 28 "encourage" rather than the word "require" with regard to the 17 1 obligations of developers to mitigate adverse environmental impacts 2 relative to specific development projects and the EIR's which will 3 be required pertaining thereto. 4 In the course of oral argument it was pointed out that 5 "should" is defined in at least one dictionary as being an 6: expression of "obligation or duty." (The American Heritage 7 Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, 1134). Further, Black's Law 8 Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1549 defines "should" as "ordinarily 9 implying duty or obligation." Other dictionaries have similar 10 definitions. Similarly, "encourage" is defined as "to instigate or 11 to incite to action" (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. 620) and is 12 deemed synonymous with the word "instigate" (Funk & Wagnalls New 13 Practical Standard Dictionary (1952) 434). Since the Program 14 requires the "will serve" letters from the associated agencies 15 before a specific development EIR will be approved in the future, 16 they net effect is the same as if the word "require" had been used 17 instead of the word "encourage". 18 The Court therefore finds in the context of the EIR, and 191 to the extent pertinent to the SP and the GPA, the use of "should" 20 is synonymous with "shall" and is mandatory and "encourage" is the 21 equivalent of "require". Various phasing and implementation 22 aspects of the overall program/pYoject therefor constitute pre- 23 requisites which must be met before any specific development plan 24 will be approved and before commencement of any physical activities 25 to carry-out any such development plan. 26 None of the associated agencies can obviously provide 27 "will serve" letters unless they are indeed in a position to 28 provide the requisite water, sewage, waste water, etc., infra- 18 ' structure. The needed facilities cannot be constructed without 2 appropriate financing. The "Implementation Plan" set out in 3 Chapter 11 of the SP (V: 1306, et seq) sets up 5 to 10 sub-areas 4 for planned development including all specifics of the infra- 5 structure needs. No particular development can take place until 6 after LAFCO has approved the service plans. Appendix VI to the 7 Implementation Section mandates inter-action of Dublin, the DSRSD 8 and the developer. It makes provision for phasing, funding and 9 construction of the necessary infra-structure (V: 1355, et seq) . 10 Specific financing problems will therefore necessarily be addressed 11 as each particular development project matures. 12 The foregoing demonstrates that Dublin complied with the 13 requirements of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines 14 in promulgating the DEIR. There was no significant impact 15 developed in the course of finalization to require the 16 recircularization of the EIR nor the preparation of a supplemental 17 EIR. The FEIR is supported in all particulars by substantial 18 evidence in the record. 19 PLANNING ISSUES 20 The foregoing CEQA issues are so inter-twined with the 21 planning issues that they are fully incorporated herein and 22 constitute a part of the determination of the Court with regard to 23 the GPA and SP. 24 Philosophically and legally, a General Plan is in effect 25 a constitution or statement of policies for the overall development 26 of a City, etc.,; a Special Plan constitutes a bridge to the zoning 27 of particular areas within the General Plan boundaries; and the 28 Government Code mandates that: 19 1 (a) A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram 2 or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: 3 ( 1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space within the area 4 covered by the plan. 5 (2) The proposed distribution, location and extent and intensity of major components of public and 6 private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential 7 facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land 8 uses described in the plan. 9 (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conversation, 10 development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 11 (4) A program of implementation measures, 12 including regulations, program, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to 13 carry-out Paragraphs (1) , (2) , and (3) . 14 (b) The Specific Plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. 15 (Gov. Cd. §65451) . 16 Petitioners and Petitioner In Intervention first contend 17 that the SP is not consistent with the GP (nor the GPA) since the 18 GP requires that the SP have no 'fiscal impact upon the City of 19i Dublin nor its taxpayers. The SP, however, acknowledges that there 20 will be shortfalls in the first few years of development under the 21 SP until such time as the developments to be created start 22 generating sufficient tax income to fund themselves and any bonded 23 indebtednesses required to create infra-structures. 24 The SP meets these claimed deficiencies by establishing 25 that Dublin has sufficient cash reserves which, if necessary, can 26 be "drawn-down" to fund initial infra-structure creation. (AR: 27 1293 et sea; SP Ch. 10) . The plan provides that no development 28 shall be permitted without (1) infra-structure financing, and (2) 20 1 infra-structure availability. Development agreements with the land ' 2 owners can be required (SP, Chapter 10, Pages 1295, 1296; 3 Admin.Record Page 1309) including detailed financial plans. (SP 4 Page 1308) . All of the analysis hereinabove set out with regard to 5 "shall", "should", "require", and "encourage", is applicable to all 6 financing questions under the SP. When coupled with the 7 representations and promises of the DSRSD, the TWA, and the LAVWD 8 that they will live up to their obligations to supply adequate 9 water, waste and sewage infra-structures (and the financing 10 measures necessary to carry-out these obligations) as each specific 11 development comes along, there has been sufficient compliance with 12 GC Cd.§64541 (4) . 13 The SP encompasses much more than merely residential 14 zoning and development. It makes provision for commercial, 15 industrial, professional, and other substantial income-generating 16 uses. This Court is obligated to accept the interpretation of 17 Dublin's City Council as to the intent, meaning and effectuation of 18 its own Specific Plan (see No Oil, supra) and it is a fundamental 19 proposition of statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguities or 20 doubts in favor of the statute being legal and enforceable if at 21 all possible. (See SP Chapter 10, Financing, AR Pgs.1293-1304; 22 Chapter 11, Implementation, AR Pgs.1309-1310; Appendix 7, Fiscal 23 Analysis, AR Pgs.1399-1407; EIR Comments and Responses, AR Pgs.683, 24 828, 861, 863-864, 880, 901; Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Sec.3.12, 25 Fiscal Considerations, AR Pgs.1608-1610; Memo, 2/19/93, Economics 26 Research Associates, AR Pgs.2707-2710). Pursuant to Garrett vs. 27 Riverside, 2 Cal.App:4 255 and Calavaras, supra, and the foregoing 28 /// 21 , 1 factual recital, the correlation requirements of Gov.Cd.§65451 • 2 appear to have all been met. 3 Petitioners and Petitioner-In-Intervention further attack 4 the GPA and the SP (particularly the SP) on the grounds that it 5 (they) is (are) internally inconsistent. 6 Gov.Cd.§65302 sets out a laundry list of required 7Iprovisions in an SP. Petitioner and Intervenor argue that the SP 8 makes no plan for, or inadequate plans, for (1) zoning for low- 9 income housing, (2) details correlating infra-structure elements of 10 sewage, roads, and water with land use and (3) that the "will 11 serve" letters do not satisfy the SP requirements of specificity 12 set out in the Government Code. 13 While Gov.Cd.§65302 requires that a General Plan shall 14 include a housing element and Gov.Cd.§65580 requires that element 15 to include a low-income housing provision, Gov.Cd.§65451 imposes no 16 such requirement for a specific plan. The subject SP is therefore 17 neither inconsistent with the General Plan housing element 18 containing a low-income housing provision nor is it internally 19 , inconsistent with a non-required element. 20 Similarly, the SP is neither inadequate, incomplete, nor 21 internally inconsistent with regard to water, sewage, etc., insofar 22 as Gov.Cd.§65451 does not require_any specificity with regard to 23 those matters to the extent they are outside of the area covered by 24 the plan. (Gov.Cd.§65451(a) (1),(2),(3),(4)) . 25 Nonetheless, the SP discusses all of those matters in 26 detail in Chapter 8, Table 6, Appendix 6, AR 1212, 1291 and 1260, 27 all as supplemented by various facilities maps in the SP. 28 /// 22 '1 From all of the foregoing the Court finds that there is 2 substantial evidence to support the GPA and the SP, that they are 3 consistent with each other and with the GP, that they are not 4 internally inconsistent and that there is no evidence whatsoever to 5 indicate that Dublin acted arbitrarily nor capriciously in adopting 6 the GPA and the SP. Neither of these are project specific, they 7 .are broad-ranging planning tools which will hopefully be beneficial 8 over a span of 30 to 40 years and all reasonable possibilities were 9 discussed and reasonable solution determined as could be without a 10 crystal ball . 11 CONCLUSION 12 The Court accordingly concludes and states its decision 13 he that the Petition and the Petition-in-Intervention are denied. 14 The foregoing shall constitute the Statement of Decision 15 of the Court unless any party hereto requests further proceedings 16 with regard thereto as provided by law. In the event such request 17 is made, counsel for Respondent City of Dublin shall prepare the 18 Statement of Decision. 19 20 DATED: MAR 1 01994 21 HAS _ VEAL 22 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 • Wet "AU: PM* usaw n m lam --- -- \.\ Figure 3.3-A ` Existing 1992 Daily Traffic Volumes Goon Ho. poyl IIIOMand \14,JC11 HOP or /p4 Ie w+!!Oo' n d c^�Al m ee �, n Omr�rJm�nle Rr^, Ileyr .r��,.•"•• u,mb r•-•--�✓✓ olun l +Plan 0.eo7 ' a 7 I. {j • N '�.... 4 \Y ��•. cl saunas:Celuene �.\ '� cuy of Donn • jai I �4. R DKS Aleoclllel ✓�,. ye as Trelllc County,1000 end 1001 • ,1 l''s , ea CAMP • __ ••`b PAFlKS i. "�1 f•• =e 44.200 u ,ul 0 Norih Cony Nd \\n erw .r�c1 • • • '��_ 590 �•\02.00•+eB O. 142,000 0 131,000 120,000 >pp 127,000 • ACIEO bOUSNE ry I ' Slonalldl' q�'.0 iK F \ys °.n Dlvd 41' h� a Slenla Wy( Yaa _ • Flolnel MO. at QJ SOUFl CE: DNS Aeaocla lae rn I m Ji= co o 1.1 F. 0 -6_, oo o Q- o © z/� a ` ¢ o 0 o 27, n E o CC 0 o i a_ v I r o _ c_ E o rn (j.l v— o or u) U 2 < i ,Lw z� Zsa }— CJ 1;„ u ci U ■ \ (f) y a , o) 0 1 I \ v IF_ Q fl S„- o CT I I ILI Cr) 3 :: - 0 • 1 1E1 1 1\ O • �n I 4 6 Pbl (6) (B) P °d a Fallon Rd. (6) obi'r i a \\c, igN. • i k.6i71ff:1::: , Rd. I 1 \ 4 4 4 t S• • • • fII Qcri M q a �I Dr. / � • IO G g�.r I ,z,2 ri o121 t , 'm AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Case No. 385533 DOCUMENT: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION I declare under penalty of perjury that on the following date I deposited in the United States Post Office mailbox at Redwood City, a true copy of the foregoing document, enclosed in an envelope, with the proper and necessary postage prepaid thereon, and addressed to the following: Owen Byrd, Esq. 112 New Montgomery, Ste. 640 San Francisco, CA 94105 Stuart Flashman, Esq. 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 Elizabeth H. Silver, Esq. Rick W. Jarvis, Esq. Gateway Plaza 777 Davis St. , Ste. 300 San Lenadro, CA 94577 Dennis C. Beougher, Esq. Asst. City Attorney 123 Main Street P. O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Martub W. Inderbitzen, Esq. 5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 400 Pleasanton, CA 94588 MAR i :) 1994 Executed on at Redwood City, California. Ken Torre, Executive Officer/Clerk )R.13A.F a . RCOPU By • Deputy SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS (DRAFT) Prepared by the City of Dublin December, 1994 C ' INTRODUCTION The City completed the amended Negative Declaration for the Santa Rita Commercial Center ("the Project") on November 22, 1994, and circulated it for public review from November 23 through December 23, 1994. The purpose of the Negative Declaration is to document the City's basis for concluding that the Project will have no significant environmental impacts which were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Final EIR ("Program EIR") and that the Project is thus within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment (collectively, "the Eastern Dublin Program") . The Negative Declaration illustrates how the Project will have no impacts not already identified and analyzed in the Program EIR and, further, how all of the Project's impacts will be mitigated by measures already adopted as part of the Program EIR and by certain additional site-specific measures relating to traffic. All measures have been agreed to by the landowner (the County of Alameda) and the developer (Homart Development Co.) The Negative Declaration consists primarily of the Initial Study, which includes a project description, environmental checklist, and a discussion explaining the conclusions reached in the environmental checklist. The Initial Study also includes a 28-page Matrix addressing in detail the applicability to the Project of each mitigation measure of the Program EIR and each Action Program of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Finally, the Initial Study was amended prior to the circulation of the Amended Negative Declaration to incorporate a site-specific traffic study and specific mitigation measures identified therein. During the comment period, three letters of comments were received, one from the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") , one from Reynolds and Brown, and one from a group of property owners in the North Pleasanton Improvement District ("NPID") . This document summarizes and responds to these comments. Comments of Caltrans Caltrans notes that there are two possible future projects in the vicinity of the Project which should be taken into consideration: (1) the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit ("BART") District to Livermore along the median of I-580 and (2) reconstruction of the I-580/I-680 Interchange beyond the Measure B project currently in environmental process. Caltrans also notes that an encroachment permit will be required for all work within Caltrans' right-of-way. The Program EIR already addresses the potential improvements to the I-580/I-680 interchange, including Caltrans' study of reconstruction of the interchange beyond the Measure B Project, 1 (DEIR, p. 3.3-6) and BART's plans to extends its facilities along the I-580 median through Hacienda Drive and, ultimately, to Livermore (FEIR Response to Comment 29-3) . Little has changed with respect to these possible projects since the Program EIR was certified. Neither project has progressed beyond the preliminary study stage. No particular plans have been made, no funding has been committed, and whether either ultimately will be implemented is speculative. If implemented, either would improve traffic circulation conditions in the area. It is acknowledged that an encroachment permit is legally required for all work within Caltrans' right-of-way. Comments of Reynolds and Brown Reynolds and Brown first express concern regarding the Project's impact on traffic circulation, opining that the site plan has only one access point and that it will create significant traffic congestion at the Hacienda interchange and the nearby intersection. As explained in the Traffic Study included in the Negative Declaration, the site plan will have three access points, two of which will be on Dublin Boulevard. The Traffic Study analyzes fifteen key intersections (including nine within the City of Pleasanton) . Freeway impacts are analyzed, including the Hacienda interchange. Based on its analysis, the Traffic Study concludes that the Project as mitigated will not have an adverse impact on traffic circulation. The mitigation measures consist of signalizing Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Drive/Dublin Boulevard, a signalized driveway onto Hacienda Drive, two signalized driveways onto Dublin Boulevard, turn pockets at the driveways, and a fair share contribution to the cost of regional off-site road improvements as required in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Reynolds and Brown's remaining comments concern the calculation of the traffic impact fee for necessary improvements. The traffic fee is based on a regional traffic study that includes all traffic improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts of development within Eastern Dublin, as identified in the Program EIR. These improvements are also listed at pages 26- 28 of the site-specific Traffic Study included in the Negative Declaration. The fee is set so that all development within Eastern Dublin (including the Project) will pay the full estimated cost of improvements within Eastern Dublin and its fair share of the estimated cost of regional and other identified improvements outside Eastern Dublin. Periodically, the estimates will be revisited and the fee revised as more specifics about regional road improvements are determined. In general, the fee has not been calculated to provide reimbursement for the 2 construction of pre-existing facilities whose installation was necessitated by other development. Comments of NPID Property Owners ("NPIDPO") The NPIDPO opine that the Negative Declaration is legally inadequate for numerous reasons and generally claim that an EIR is required. They also comment upon a number of specific topics in the Negative Declaration and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Staff has not had sufficient time to include a written response to each of their comments in this response. Such a response will be prepared in time for the City Council's consideration of the Project. Further, staff will be prepared at the January 3, 1995, Planning Commission hearing to address any specific questions the Commission might have. One basic flaw central to most of NPIDPO's challenges is noted here with respect to the need to prepare a new EIR for the Project. The City need not prepare a new EIR for the Project if it finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that there are no significant environmental impacts or feasible mitigation measures which are both (1) not considered in the Program EIR and (2) the result of changes in the program or other new information which could not reasonably have been known when the Program EIR was certified. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162.)1 Section 15168, subdivision (c) (2) , expressly applies 1Section 15162, subdivision (a), provides in full: "When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified_significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3 section 15162 to subsequent activities in a program for which a program EIR has been prepared. The NPIDPO (at pp. 14-16) ignore this standard and argue that a new EIR must be prepared for the Project because of the "necessarily general" nature of the Program EIR. They cite no legal authority for their position and make no attempt to distinguish the plain language of sections 15162 or 15168. As the NPIDPO correctly note, the Program EIR recognizes that it will reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, the need for future environmental review. Indeed, the Program EIR (DEIR, p. 1-6) summarizes the above-described standard for future environmental review, specifically citing section 15162. This Negative Declaration properly constitutes such "future environmental review" for the Project. The NPIDPO also quote out of context from the Superior Court's decision in the case Butler v. City of Dublin involving an unsuccessful legal challenge to the Eastern Dublin Program stating that "The overall Dublin Plan requires that as each step (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more sever than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 4 project or development comes before the City, a new EIR will have to be prepared. " In fact, the Court specifically cites section 21166 (on which section 15162 is based) and portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Program EIR summarizing section 15162 as being applicable . The Court thus recognized that this section governs the type of future environmental review that is required, and the above-quoted comment must be interpreted in that context .' It should be noted that the NPIDPO incorrectly argue (at p. 17) that an EIR is required unless there is no substantial evidence in the record that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment . This standard applies only when no previous EIR has been prepared. Because an EIR already has been prepared in this case, the only question is whether the Project will have any effects not analyzed in the prior EIR. Further, the City' s decision in this respect will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (even if there is substantial conflicting evidence also supporting a contrary conclusion) . (See, Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal .App. 3d 1065, 1070-1074 . ) 114\memo\52\resp-com.nd2 2In any event, this broadly worded comment by the Court was not part of the judgment and is in no way binding upon the City. 5 RESOLUTION NO.94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PA 94001 SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the proposed Santa Rita Commercial Center is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require that all projects within the Plan Area, enter into a development agreement with the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Homart Development Company and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority have filed an application requesting approval of a Development Agreement for the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project; and WHEREAS, proper notice of a public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 3, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of said Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following determinations regarding said proposed Development Agreement: 1. Said Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that, a) the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for the subject site are General Commercial and this is a Commercial development consistent with those designations; b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and c) the Agreement sets forth the rules the Developers and City will be governed by during the development process which is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. EX HNr D 2. Said Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning adopted specifically for the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project. 3. Said Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice in that the Santa Rita Commercial Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and City of Dublin General Plan which have planned for Commercial development at this location. 4. Said Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the development will proceed in accordance with the project's mitigated negative declaration and mitigation measures; and 5. Said Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values in that the development will be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Dublin City Council approve PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Project Development Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of January, 1995. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director (94001048) Economics Research Associates Affiliated with Drivers Jonas MEMORANDUM REPORT DATE: November 3, 1994 Project# 11247 TO: Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager, City of Dublin FROM: Economics Research Associates (ERA) RE: Combined Fiscal Analyses - Homart Retail Project and Annexation Area This memorandum combines and summarizes two fiscal analyses ERA has conducted for the City of Dublin which are: 1) the fiscal impacts of annexing approximately 1,530 acres in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (with current uses) and 2) the fiscal impacts of the Homart Retail Project. Table 1 presents the combined revenues and expenses projected for the two projects. For more detailed tables and analysis, please refer to the two accompanying memorandum reports. The City of Dublin will accrue revenues from property tax, sales tax and state subventions, with total revenues ranging from $436,000 in FY 1995-96 to $1.37 million in FY 1998-99. The following City service providers will be affected by the proposed annexation: public works, finance department, fire protection and emergency services, police protection, and parks and recreation. One-time expenses amount to $153,000. On-going operating expenses are projected to range from $41,000 in FY 1994-95 to $773,100 in FY 1998-99. The net revenue and cost balance indicates that the two projects will generate an initial shortfall of$41,000 in FY 1994-95 and $216,000 in FY 1995-96. In subsequent years, projected revenues will cover costs with an estimated annual surplus of$329,000 to $773,000. ATTACHMENT 388 Market Street, Suite 1580.San Francisco,California 94111 •(41. 956-8152 Telex:340890(ECCN P.ES SFO) 'cL 55-5-'7 Los Angeles•San Francisco•San Diego•Chicago•Washington. D.C.•L onccn i t Table 1 _SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES,FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 TO 1998-99 iastem Dublin Annexation Area and 1-lomart Retail Project Revenue/Expense Items FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 Property Tax Revenue S - S 17,434 S 170,539 $ 209,209 S 213,393 State Subventions or Sales Tax Revenue $ - S 418.275 $ 956.421 $ 1.184.571 S 1.421.496 Total On-going Revenues S - S 435,709 $ 1,126,960 S 1,393,779 S 1,634,888 Public Works S - S 39,092 $ 52,123 $ 52,123 S 52,123 Finance Dept. S - S 9,300 $ 12,400 S 12,400 S 12,400 Fire Services S 40,917 S 175,534 $ 197,454 S 205,248 S 211,515 Police Services S - S 289.634 S 520.951 S 573.674 S 585.448 Total On-going Expenses $ 40,917 S 513,560 S 782,928 $ 843,445 S 861,486 Net On-going Revenue(Expense) S (40,917) S (77,851) S 344,032 $ 550,334 S 773,402 Less One-Time Cost S - S (138,290) S (15,000) $ - S - Total Revenue(Expense) $ (40,917) $ (216,141) $ 329,032 $ 550,334 S 773,402 Source:City of Dublin;ERA Ell73 Economics Research Associates Affiliated with Drivers Jonas Los Angeles San Francisco San Diego Chicago Washington.D.C. London p v, FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED HOMART DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Prepared for The City of Dublin 3 November 1994 ERA Project No. 11288 388 Market Street,Suite 1580,San Francisco,California 94111 (415)956-8152 Telex:340890(ECON RES SFO) Fax:(415)956-52'4 . 31 Economics Research Associates bur Affiliated with Drivers Jonas MEMORANDUM REPORT DATE: November 3,1994 ERA Project No.: 11288 TO: Richard C.Ambrose,City Manager,City of Dublin FROM: Economics Research Associates RE: Fiscal Impact of the Homart(Tri-Valley Crossings)Project SUMMARY Homart Community Centers has proposed development of an 800,000 square foot retail"power center,"Tri-Valley Crossings,in the Eastern Dublin Specif Plan Area. The first phase of 500,000 square feet would be open in the fall 0 9 wi the remaining 300,000 square feet opening 12 to 14 months later. Anal ito oo al impacts of this project on the City of Dublin requires two steps. First, •�+ teristics of the retail market must be reviewed in order to project the net increase in sales revenues in the city resulting from the new retail center. And second,the costs of providing municipal services to the new development must be compared with the new retail sales taxes and other revenues accruing to the City. In the Tri-Valley market area(Dublin,Pleasanton,Livermore and San Ramon),Dublin has been the most successful city over the last decade at capturing retail sales. Dublin is centrally located within the market area and has had more than its share of retail centers and freestanding stores. With only 14 percent of the market area population in 1993, Dublin managed to capture 25 percent of the market area retail sales.Dublin's share of the market area sales has been declining,however. Ten years earlier,in 1983,Dublin had been capturing over 37 percent of the market. Pleasanton, with its more rapid growth in population, and especially its more rapid development of new retail facilities,has been increasing its share of the market capture at the expense of the other three cities in the region. The geographic redistribution of retail sales also is being strongly influenced by the recent revolution in the retail industry,as traditional regional and community retail centers are finding new competition from power centers,big box retailers,factory outlet malls,category 388 Market Street.Suite 1580.San Francisco,California 94t1t•(415,956-8152 Telex:340890;SOON RE3 SFC: Fsx: -,5.256-5274 Los Angeles•San Francisco•San Diego•Chicago•Washington.D.C.•London. ,.v t killers and other new format retail facilities. The indications for the future are that Dublin is vulnerable to a continued erosion of its retail sales tax base. Not counting the Tri-Valley Crossings project, there are 900,000 square feet of new retail facilities(most of them new format facilities) planned to be open by the end of 1995 in the Tri-Valley market area. Without any new development,Dublin will continue to lose market share,and will most likely suffer some absolute decline in the amount of retail sales which will occur within City limits. Future residential development in Eastern Dublin will mean more spending power will be present in the city, but new retail facilities must be present as well to ensure new Dublin residents will be able to find the retail services they need within their own city. The capacity of the new stores in the Tri-Valley Crossings project to capture regional retail sales dollars has been estimated at an average of approximately$300 per square foot per year. The detailed analysis in this report has forecast that even if the new stores could average this capture rate,not all of these sales would be new to the City of Dublin. ERA's forecasts of net new retail sales for Dublin are equivalent to an annual capture of$200 per square foot in the initial nine months that the first phase of the Tri-Valley Crossings project would be open (FY 1995-96). The net new capture would increase only to$225 per foot in FY 1996-97 when the second phase would be opening. Net new sales are then expected to grow to$250 per foot in FY 1997-98, the first complete year of full operation, and to $300 per foot in subsequent years. The implications of these retail capture forecasts are presented along with other municipal revenues and service costs in Summary Table 1. As can be seen, Dublin's 65 percent share of the local sales tax (35 percent flows to the County under the annexation agreement) is the largest contributor to revenues from the project. Property taxes are a significant,but minor,contributor to Dublin revenues. On the cost side,the most significant expenses will be for public protection services to the Tri-Valley Crossings project(police and fire). Due to the need for start-up fire protection services while the project is still under construction, a minor operating deficit is forecast for the City in Fiscal Year 1994-95. As soon as the retail project opens, however, revenues will be more than adequate to cover operating expenses,as well as additional one-time purchase of equipment for expanding police services. Over the long run, the Tri-Valley Crossings project is expected to produce a substantial fiscal surplus for the City of Dublin,creating the revenue and service capacity to allow residential uses and other development to occur in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. Economics Research Associates II Summary Table 1 SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES,FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 TO 1998-99 Homan Retail Project Revenue/Expense Items FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 Property Tax Revenue $ - $ 17,434 $ 109,825 5 146,327 S 149,253 Sales Tax Revenue $ - $ 418,275 $ 955.175 $ 1.183,325 S 1.420.250 Total On-going Revenues $ - $ 435,709 $ 1,065,000 $ 1,329,652 S 1,569,503 Public Works $ - $ 26,462 $ 35,282 $ 35,282 S 35,282 Finance Dept. S - $ 9,300 $ 12,400 $ 12,400 $ 12,400 Fire Services $ 40,917 $ 175,534 $ 197,454 $ 205,248 S 211,515 Police Services $ - S 191.126 $ 370.627 $ 413.803 $ 420.289 Total On-going Expenses $ 40,917 $ 402,422 $ 615,763 $ 666,733 S 679,486 Net On-going Revenue(Expense) $ (40,917) $ 33,287 $ 449,237 $ 662,919 S 890,017 Less One-Time Cost S - $ (27,700) $ (11,340) $ - S - Total Revenue(Expense) $ (40,917) $ 5,587 $ 460,577 $ 662,919 S 890,017 Source:City of Dublin;ERA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED HOMART DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA INTRODUCTION Economics Research Associates(ERA)has been retained by the City of Dublin to evaluate the fiscal impacts of a proposed regional serving retail project to be developed by Homart Community Centers. The project, known as Tri-Valley Crossings, would be located on 75 acres northeast of the interchange of I-580 with Hacienda Drive. The development proposed by Homart would be a two-phased 800,000 square foot regional power center with eight value-oriented anchor tenants featuring electronics, sporting goods,arts and crafts,men's and women's apparel and outerwear,videos,books, and a state-of-the-art movie/entertainment theater complex. The single level, open air retail center also will include 25,000 square feet of small shops and seven retail/restaurant pads. The first phase of the project would include approximately 50 acres of the site, and 500,000 square feet of developed space. Phase II would encompass the remaining 25 acres and include approximately 300,000 square feet of retail space. In order to assess the fiscal impacts of the Homart development, a two-part analysis is required. The goal is to estimate the cost and revenue balance for the City of Dublin in the second part. In order to estimate fiscal revenues,however,the first part of the analysis must consider the market performance of the proposed retail facilities The problem is more difficult than simply determining how much taxable retail sales volume is likely to occur in the project stores,because the distribution of sales dollars is also shifting within the Tri-Valley market. Without the new project,other sites within the Tri-Valley area will develop as retail space (and will lease up more rapidly),and sales dollars will migrate away from existing Dublin stores. Thus,the more global issue for Dublin's fiscal impact is to estimate what is the amount of retail sales captured by Tri-Valley Crossings which would not have occurred in Dublin without the project. Economics Research Associates 1 PROJECTED MARKET PERFORMANCE OF THE HOMART POWER CENTER ERA evaluated the market performance of Homart's proposed project by first documenting historical and projected population and average household income in the Tri- Valley, followed by a review of historical retail sales trends. This is followed by an overview of existing retail space in Dublin,competitive stores in other Tri-Valley cities, and of new competitive projects expected to be built in the near future. Regional Demographics As shown in Table 1, the Tri-Valley region, defined as the cities of Dublin, Livermore,Pleasanton,and San Ramon,is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 15 years. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),population in the Tri-Valley is projected to increase from about 190,400 in 1995 to 290,600 in 2010,or by nearly three percent a year. About 40 percent of this growth is attributed to Dublin which is expected to add approximately 39,300 new residents over the next 15 years. Dublin will continue to become a focal point of the Tri-Valley market as its share of the regional population increases. In 1980,Dublin's share of Tri-Valley residents was about 13 percent and by 2010 it is expected to account for over one-fifth of the region's total population. Following national trends, the average household size in Dublin and other Tri- Valley cities is expected to continue to decline gradually over the next 15 years. As such, the number of households in the region is expected to grow at a slightly faster pace than total population. By 2010,the Tri-Valley will have about 103,700 households of which nearly 21,000 will be in Dublin. The Tri-Valley is one of the more affluent regions in Alameda County,as shown in Table 2. Over the next 15 years,all of the Tri-Valley cities are expected to have a higher average household incomes compared to the County. Average household income in Dublin is projected to increase,in constant 1990 dollars,from about$59,400 in 1995 to approximately$83,000 in 2010. Regional Sales Volumes and Capture by City Table 3 presents a comparison of 1993 per capita retail sales in the Tri-Valley, Alameda County,and California. The Tri-Valley region can be identified as being a strong Economics Research Associates 2 retail market based on per capita sales of about$9,300,compared to Alameda County and the State as a whole which have per capita sales of about$6,000. Most of the strength of this market can be attributed to the higher incomes noted above,although the Tri-Valley area is well situated to capture some spending from residents of more distant communities, such as Tracy,Manteca,Danville,and Castro Valley. As shown in Table 4,a comparison of taxable sales by category and Tri-Valley city on a per capita basis reveals even greater disparities in retail sales capture within the Tri-Valley market area. Based on the per capita sales of each city,Dublin is the most successful retail city in the market,attracting resident spending from other Tri-Valley communities in every store type. Overall,Dublin per capita sales at$16,500 are nearly 80 percent higher than the Tri-Valley average and almost three times the state average. Much of the growth in retail sales in the Tri-Valley can be attributed to strong population growth, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 5. Between 1984 and 1993, population in the region increased at an average annual rate of slightly over four percent. Real retail sales were growing faster than population in the late 1980s,but the recession had a dramatic impact on slowing,and then reversing,the growth in sales starting in 1990. Retail sales over the last couple of years appear to again be tracking the growth in Tri- Valley population. Figure 1 Tri-Valley Population and Taxable Retail Sales Annual Comparison of Indices 1,1984-1993 160 I50— 91 30— 120— 1001924 1955 1.6 1669 1966 16. 19. 1.1 1992 1991 --- Year ann,.i........a.n ia9•aau.. .9n —Poptlatian —0—Taxable Stela5 Sakti aevu..e....a K,.... a....a 6.....u.. Economics Research Associates 3 As shown in Figure 2 and Tables 6 and 7, taxable retail sales in Dublin have remained relatively flat compared to the Tri-Valley region as a whole. Over the last decade, retail sales (in constant 1994 dollars) in Dublin reached a high of about $480 million in 1988 and have since then declined to a pre-1985 level of about $434 million in 1993. In comparison, Pleasanton and the Tri-Valley region as a whole experienced significant growth in taxable retail sales over the last nine years. Between 1984 and 1993, retail sales in the region increased at an annual average of five percent. In 1993, taxable retail sales region-wide totaled approximately$1.7 billion. Figure 2 Taxable Retail Sales Tri-Valley Cities, 1983 - 1993 1 $1,800,000 $1.60o.000 :: _ S - - 1 a00'000 sn S1,200,000 - r. a S1,000.000 - - `d S80o,000 _ :c;;.:;:.. _ _ 5 5600,000 $400.000 $200 -- - ...�- .. :...... .:�. n.. ........... eatJV 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Year Caber Ma-V upe,cities iedodes Sousa:Swe of Califon...,Board d Ew rirno Lrdermons,a.."..o...a au x,em.. n Dublin ©Otter Tri-Valley Cities "d A Because Dublin's sales have remained relatively flat while taxable retail sales in the Tri-Valley have experienced strong growth between 1984 and 1993, the portion generated Economics Research Associates 4 • i in Dublin has steadily declined, as shown in Figure 3 and Table 7. In 1983, Dublin's share of Tri-Valley taxable retail sales amounted to about 37 percent and in 1993 the City's share had declined to about one-fourth of the region's retail sales. As shown in Figure 3 Dublin Share of Tri-Valley Taxable Retail Sales, 1983- 1993 1 40% 35% - - - 3096 - a 20% 10% 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Year Omer rh-v,lky a;lal lOCketl Source:Sure aaerann Bard xz - uoa L..,......Mean aim.W S u Rama. and Erman.P�w.ccaea Figure 4 and Table 8, between 1984 and 1993, Dublin's share of Tri-Valley retail sales have declined in all sectors, with the exception of home furnishings and appliances. Economics Research Associates 5 Figure 4 City of Dublin Share of Tri-Valley Taxable Retail Sales,1984 and 19931 0mae1 MataM _. Food . .... .... aYS, &ling and Drink g ....,.. Oiha Rani)Slur r -....' 1 ToW -..._ .,.... 0% 10'% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% PeromtSbare $ State of Calderon Bead e rvw,.aw:Suns dobra,ac...,nara Bubb.u+Aa.Rama,and s,Ramo. p1984■1993 ofRom,2.1e.0.0111.Rea n..o.� Survey of Existing Competitive Retail Facilities Figure 5 and Table 9 present a map and listing of existing shopping centers and major retail stores in the City of Dublin. As shown, many of the larger retail stores currently in Dublin serve similar markets to the proposed tenant mix at Tri-Valley Crossings, including, to name a few, Montgomery Wards, Target, Mervyns, Strouds, Super Crown,Home Express,and Ross. With the development of Homart's proposed project as well as other new centers in the Tri-Valley region,sales at some of these older facilities will likely continue to decline as consumers are able to choose from a greater variety of shopping opportunities. Table 10 lists retail stores in San Ramon,Pleasanton, and Livermore which would also likely offer goods and services similar to those from the proposed tenant mix at Tri-Valley Crossings. Survey of Planned and Proposed New Retail in the Tri-Valley Planned,approved and under construction competitive retail projects in the Tri- Valley are listed in Table 11. As shown, a total of about 900,000 square feet of Economics Research Associates 6 r Figure 5 EXISTING AND PLANNED,APPROVED,AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION COMPETITIVE RETAIL PROJECTS IN THE TRI-VALLEY 1 -tY G o TABAAJA rf Tassaiara v \ , 49- 2.• 7 3.1 wlFq.±P. u Fn 1 �"°‘San a a RD o '" 1. j 11 x yo �O t / 19 • I s 32 BnNvr.o . 'LF B r5 I k' 9O eo. x.• CVR, 'y PD &H° J 00 4.3"t04-0 RD. - b. e sN 9.9 OPEN• s.` N1 u s : A R 4.5 s° PANJ(9 ft a t'�� I v e IE NHL ANN 6.6 ,�1�M1�.r I 5.6 < E ' ,23 OHO at"�'NE9E1WE oh* 14 MAY SCHOOL RD. g p NAao4N Nal e` r ' u `RRAAVNoxD DO o ° ., i TRAM ` sr.iro: 2 tl our9 �, o, . y :,,,�rr•' :q ',,I. \ g xARLMAR R4 xARnox° 'AV. o - c .� SJ" 1 S „rr qy rv" i 1.5 ` ANTA RrrA� & '' ' j �9 x RaN� sr 00 AJN PO/NI *Dublin®O O ©• «.r ® 4.5 ® rD« 1 ' L. 11 1 Dun-� , G EL.MS �r 8 ,, 0 . .,tV • PWA w a f a _ . / 4. ROB R0. —aa O — EuuA+crr.r.r. 'WE �1.2 /// rK u N PP E ♦ & O,Ny° E 9 c "' wrr wAxuo,..r,LAt FORMS rAs '°4 t..,- �• v 3.1 N 3ui BL f RVNc y'-' IB 2 f L/VERMORE VALLEY '�•'��E[.LIB -" OEJ',ita� ��� JI 4$ j0'yt'� Livermore ri w 1 .. 1 A1.3 N. -..._ .5 Av[. YAMEfY ' 11 \\\ ( .., BIACR AY 1.1♦p,•b ux '[•s vD l f.• H 2�. e. \ I 26 1,.,.., __v' Sy Avw @ t' er.aec I io r ^� a —., i A ' uno .LEA ni .3 O ssx[rAAO J. ,W y. ,1 -b. o I MA • 12 1.2 'See'tables 9,10,and 11 for Map Key. Source:California State Automobile Association and Economics Research Associates. competitive retail space is expected to be built by the Fall of 1995. Of most significance to Tri-Valley Crossings is the Wal-Mart and Metro 580 projects in Pleasanton which have a combined square footage of about 310,000 square feet. Both projects will be oriented to the value conscious shopper and will be located directly across I-580 from Tri-Valley Crossings. Retail Sales Capacity at a Power Center Table 12 presents a profile of possible tenants for Tri-Valley Crossings which would be desirable to the applicant,Homart Community Centers. Each tenant type has a different typical experience with retail productivity (sales per square foot), but the projected average in Table 12 is approximately$300 per square foot, not including a planned 75,000 square foot cinema complex. ERA has compared a number of these tenant productivity factors with current data and from market area leasing agents and has found them to be high in some cases and low in others. The$300 per foot factor is used frequently by other leasing agents in forecasting sales for power center types of retailers, and$300 per foot was the factor used by the County's consultants in 1991 to project the amount of space which would be supportable on the Santa Rita site. ERA will use this recognized industry standard factor of $300 per foot to represent the potential sales capturing capacity of new comparison retail facilities in the Tri-Valley market. Estimated Sales Performance at the Homart Power Center From the foregoing data, several important findings and conclusions can be gleaned: • Dublin currently is an overachiever in the capture of regional retail sales(i.e., per capita capture is almost 3 times the state average, and 2.7 times the Alameda County average). • Although Dublin has been an overachiever for many years (i.e., capturing spending from residents from other Tri-Valley cities,and even some from the Central Valley and other Bay Area communities),Dublin's share of the Tri- Valley market has been eroding over the last decade. • Dublin's share of Tri-Valley population is about to begin increasing due to the substantial inventory of developable residential land in Eastem Dublin. Economics Research Associates 7 • Even so,Dublin is vulnerable to rapid loss of retail market share if it does not keep up with changes occurring in the retail industry (e.g., a massive shift towards conveniently located big box,power center,deep discount and factory outlet centers). • Not counting the Homart"Tri-Valley Crossings"project,900,000 square feet of new-format retail concepts are planned or approved or under construction at freeway interchanges in the Tri-Valley market,most along the I-580 corridor. • Without a large new-concept retail project of its own, Dublin will suffer a significant loss of retail sales volume starting in the fall of 1995. • Including the 500,000 square feet in the first phase of the Tri-Valley Crossings project, 1,400,000 square feet of new retail space is scheduled to be open in the Tri-Valley market in approximately the fall of 1995 (Wal-Mart in Pleasanton and Target in San Ramon may have been open for 6 months or more at that time,but Mervyns in San Ramon may still be under construction). With Phase II of Tri-Valley Crossings open in fall of 1996,the new inventory in the market will climb to 1,700,000 due to just the known new projects. • The types of new retail stores proposed in the region have a capacity to capture an average of$300 per square foot. Figure 6 presents the historical and projected trend in total retail sales in the Tri- Valley market area. Growth occurred from 1984 to 1993 as a function of population growth and a real increase in per capita capture of 1.0 percent per year on the average. This real increase was faster in the 1980s,but was offset by the recession years since 1990. Future growth through the year 2000 has been projected by ERA based on anticipated population and a 1.0 percent per year real increase in per capita capture (see Table 13). By the end of 1995, the Tri-Valley market is expected to be capturing approximately$2.0 billion per year in retail sales. At an average of$300 per square foot,the new retail opening near the end of 1995 has a sales capture capacity of$420 million. This would increase to$510 million a year later with the addition of Phase II. These capacity additions to the market area are illustrated in Figure 6 by the boxed in area,and reflect an"absolute maximum"scenario where everything that is currently planned opens on time. There is no chance that this full capture could be achieved without affecting existing retail stores in the Tri-Valley region. Economics Research Associates 8 t � The spending power simply does not exist yet in the market,and it is not at all likely that a redistribution away from the Central Valley or other Bay Area of that scale would take place. Figure 6 Historic and Projected Tri-Valley Total Retail Sales,1984-20001 S3,070,003 Capadry tl4ef In 1996(300,000 W) :::: eNet ie1995(l.4 09illial � • t V $1,500,000_ _ 51,8 5.000— $500,000— S. . 1934 1985 1936 1937 1988 1939 1990 1991 1992 1993 1991 1995 19% 1993 1993 1999 2000 Year %tee:8uea05m,e Bo.of T,i-vaky.SBml„ee sisaa W01ia 9 100K Bee YC484,a DP.ma Lna.�,p 88..ml Sao a9 49k0:,m EPA Several things are likely to happen to accommodate this new retail capacity. Most likely,the new retail stores will not achieve their full capacity immediately. This can take several forms. New stores may be occupied, but experience somewhat lower sales per foot than they had hoped for. Second,some spaces may be developed but remain vacant for a year or more waiting for tenant retailers. Third, the development process may proceed somewhat slower than planned,leaving one or more retail pads undeveloped for a number of months. This slow down in sales rate and absorption of development will most likely be spread over most or all of the new development projects. Another way the market will accommodate this boom in retail capacity offered, will be to redistribute shopping patterns away from existing stores and towards the new ones. As noted above, Dublin is vulnerable to loss of existing sales volumes to new Economics Research Associates 9 — centers. Without the Tri-Valley Crossings project, a significant reduction in the sales volume in the City of Dublin is likely to occur. With the Tri-Valley Crossings project,the City of Dublin should be able to maintain most of its market share,although there is likely to be a minor portion of previous Dublin customers who will now patronize the new centers being developed in Pleasanton,Livermore and San Ramon. And while citywide Dublin should be able to maintain most of its market share,older stores are likely to suffer volume losses to all of the new retail centers. In order to account for these various mechanisms of market accommodation to the new retail facilities,ERA has projected the net new sales capture to the City of Dublin in terms of the equivalent of net new sales per square foot in just the new space in the Tri- Valley Crossings project. This sales volume is projected to increase over time with population and income growth, but is not expected to grow dramatically on a per foot basis in the initial years because the supply of space will be expanding with the development of Phase II. Specific projections are as follows: FY 1995-96: The net new sales in the City would be equivalent to$200 per foot within the 425,000 square feet of stores in Phase I (not counting the 75,000 square foot cinema complex). The space would only be open for three-quarters of the year,however,and the annualized capture would be $150 per foot. FY 1996-97: The net capture would increase,but would be limited somewhat by the absorption of the next 300,000 square feet in Phase II,assumed to be open for three-quarters of the year. The net new equivalent sales volume is estimated for that year to be$225 per foot. FY 1997-98: In the first full year of operation,a net new sales productivity factor of$250 per square foot is forecast. FY 1998-99: By this time the population of Eastern Dublin should be growing substantially,and the net new retail yroductivity should increase to a full $300 per foot,and remain there for future years. Cinemas typically generate lower sales per foot than do retail stores. Furthermore, only the portion spent on food,beverage and other concession sales is taxable. Taxable concession sales is usually equivalent to about 25 percent of ticket sales, or about 20 percent of total cinema revenue. Thus,the cinema complex will be only a minor revenue Economics Research Associates 10 source for the City of Dublin. For projection purposes, ERA has estimated net new taxable sales at$600,000 in the opening year, ranging up to $1.0 million per year in FY1998-99. The implications of these new sales for stores and cinemas are presented in the fiscal analysis below. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section estimates the cost and revenue balance for the City of Dublin. It incorporates the findings from the market analysis ERA conducted to arrive at the net new sales tax revenue impact. Estimated Revenues The City of Dublin will accrue revenues from two sources: property tax revenue and sales tax revenue (Table 14). Property tax revenue generation for the 75-acre project is estimated to range from$19,000 in FY 1994-95 to$166,000 in FY 1998-99. This assumes that Homart will acquire the property in FY 1994-95 for approximately$7 per square foot of land. Construction of the first phase of the project(500,000 square feet)is expected to be completed in FY 1995-96,with the second phase(300,000 square feet)completed in FY 1996-97. Construction cost estimates are based on$50 per square foot for the building shell and finish,landscaping and tenant improvements. Based on the market analysis conducted in the previous section,ERA estimates that the project will generate total annual sales ranging from$64 million in FY 1995-96, the first year of project operation,to$204 million in FY 1998-99. This estimate includes 425,000 square feet of retail space in Phase I with annual sales rate ranging from$150 per square foot during the first year of operation to $300 per square foot in FY 1998-99. Phase II will add another 300,000 square feet which is projected to generate annual sales rate of$225 for three-quarters of the year in FY 1996-97 to$300 per square foot in FY 1998-99. The cinemas(75,000 square feet)are also projected to add between$600,000 to $1 million in taxable sales. With a 65-35 percent split of the 1 percent sales tax between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda,the City of Dublin is projected to accrue revenues ranging from$418,000 in FY 1995-96 to$1.32 million in FY 1998-99. Economics Research Associates 11 Total projected revenues from property and sales tax generation range from $436,000 in FY 1995-96 to$1.57 million in FY 1998-99. Estimates of Ongoing Service Costs and Operating Capital Estimates of ongoing service costs have been provided by the City's service providers and are attached as appendices to this report. The total estimated cost of public service provision range from$41,000 in FY 1994-95 to$680,000 in FY 1998-99(Table 15). The cost components are briefly described below: • The City Public Works Department estimates an annual cost of $35,300 (expressed in 1994 dollars)for services not covered by fees or assessments. Note that costs for FY 1995-96 are pro-rated to reflect the estimated development date of October 1,1995. • The City Finance Department anticipates annual cost ranging from$9,300 to $12,400 during the period analyzed for additional property tax analysis, monitoring,review,and report generation. • The City of Dublin, City of San Ramon, and the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority have determined the need for an additional fire station to serve the Santa Rita property and the annexation area with current uses and the proposed Homart project. The DFRA proposes an interim fire station located in the Santa Rita jail complex which would be modified at a cost of$120,000. This cost would be funded by Fire Impact Fees generated by the project.The Lin property project proponents are expected to provide the additional cost of acquiring a Type 3 Engine required to serve the annexation area. No additional fire service operating costs were projected for the annexation area under current uses(without the Homart project). With the project,additional operating cost ranging from$41,000 in FY 1994-95 to$212,000 in FY 1998- 99 would be required to cover the cost of four firefighters and a paramedic program. • Estimates of police service provision to the annexation area and the Homart project represent a phased approach to the establishment of a beat system in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.Police service provision would require the following: Economics Research Associates 12 - Addition of 5 patrol officers - Purchase of 2 patrol cars&radio equipment(one time cost) - Additional vehicle maintenance&dispatch costs - Addition of one clerical position - Addition of one detective position The Homart project would require 3.78 new patrol officers and the annexation area 1.22 patrol officers. Based on the ratio of new officers in each area to total new officers required, the costs for clerical and investigations assume a split of 75.6 percent of the cost to the Homart project and 24.4 percent of the cost for the annexation area.Total annual police cost attributable to Homart ranges from$191,000 in FY 1995 to$420,000 in FY 1998-99. • Finally, the Parks and Recreation Department is projecting additional costs which are currently unquantified but qualitatively described in the department's memo. In the analyses summarized above,and presented in the appendix,the top Dublin city staff have estimated the marginal costs of extending municipal services to the Specific Plan Area in such a way that these costs will not impact the residents in the existing developed areas of the city at all. If the Homart retail center were located in the middle of an already urbanized area,the average cost of providing the same services would be less than the marginal costs of extending them today. Stated in the converse,once the services are extended to encompass the Homart project and the annexation area, there will be sufficient capacity present to also serve additional future development in the Specific Plan Area. Net Cost Revenue Balance Table 16 summarizes the revenue and expense balance over the next five years. The one time cost of$24,300 plus an initial year operating loss will produce a minor net deficit of$41,000 in FY 1994-95. In subsequent_years,projected revenues will cover costs with an estimated annual surplus starting at$5,600 and ranging up to a substantial $890,000. Economics Research Associates 13 i Table 1 HISTORIC AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS IN THE TRI-VALLEY, 1980-2010 1980- 1990 1990- 1995 1995-2000 2000-2010 Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Annual Growth Annual Growth Annual Growth Annual Growth Subregional Area ' 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Change Rate Change Rate Change Rate Change Rate Total Population Dublin 15,299 23,308 26,700 37,200 51,800 66,000 801 4.3% 678 2.8% 2,100 6.9% 2,880 5.9% Livermore 49,612 57,711 66,600 77,000 87,600 98,200 810 1.5% 1,778 2.9% 2,080 2.9% 2,120 2.5% Pleasanton 35,519 51,538 56,500 63,200 71,6(X) 79,900 1,602 3.8% 992 1.9% 1,340 2.3% 1,670 2.4% San Ramon 20,245 35,403 40,600 41,900 43,800 46,500 1,516 5.7% 1,039 2.8% 260 0.6% 460 1.0% Total Tri-Valley 120,675 167,960 190,400 219,300 .254,800 290,600 4,729 3.4% 4,488: 2.5% 5,780 2.9% 7,130 2.9% Dublin Share 12.7% 13.9% 14.0% 17.0% 20.3% 22.7% Total Households Dublin 4,039 6,834 7,630 11,030 16,080 20,880 280 5.4% 159 2.2% 680 7.6% 985 6.6% Livermore 16,768 20,998 23,000 26,690 30,780 35,100 423 2.3% 400 1.8% 738 3.0% 841 2.8% Pleasanton 11,392 18,960 20,360 22,880 26,620 30,150 757 5.2% 280 1.4% 504 2.4% 727 2.8% San Ramon 6,393 12,895 14,690 15,670 16,580 17,830 650 7.3% 359 2.6% 196 1.3% 216 1.3% Total Tr -Valley 38,592.' 59,687 : `65,68Q 76 270 90,060 103,960 2,110 4.5% 1,199 1 9% 2,118 3.0% 2,769 3.1% Dublin Share 10.5% 114% 11.6% • 14.5% 17.9% 20.1% l'ersons per Household Dublin 3.41 2.86 2.96 2.91 2.88 2.87 Livermore 2.95 2.74 2.88 2.87 2.83 2.78 Pleasanton 3.09 2.71 2.77 2.75 2.68 2.64 San Ramon 3.16 2.74 2.76 2.67 2.66 2.61 1 Subregional areas correspond to the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAM())city spheres of influence. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments(A13AG),Projections 04,December 1993;and Economics Research Associates. Table 2 HISTORIC AND PROJECTED AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1'HL TRI-VALLEY,1980-2010 In Constant 1990 Dollars Subregional Area 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Dublin $ 50,418 $ 60175 ;$ 59,400 $ 68,600 ;$ 75,100 $ i83,100 Livermore 47,132 56,518 54,800 59,400 63,900 69,300 Pleasanton 54,577 70,670 69,300 73,900 78,700 86,300 San Ramon 62,365 76,584 71,300 76,700 82,400 89,400 Alameda County $ 39,949 S 48,993 S 46,600 $ 51,400 $ 55,600 $ 61,400 ' Subregional areas correspond to the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO) city spheres of influence. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG),Projections 94,December 1993; and Economics Research Associates. Table 3 - TAXABLE RETAIL SALES COMPARISON OF THE TRI-VALLEY,ALAMEDA COUNTY,AND CALIFORNIA, 1993 Taxable Sales in Per Capita Sales 2 Per Capita Sales Ratio Millions of Constant 1994 Dollars in Constant 1994 Dollars (Tri-Valle or Alameda County/CA Tri- Alameda Tri- Alameda Tri- Alameda Business Type Valley 1 County California Valley 1 County California Valley 1 County California Apparel $ 92 $ 396 $ 10,523 $ 497 $ 294 $ 329 1.51 0.89 1.00 General Merchandise 291 1,120 27,699 1,582 831 867 1.83 0.96 1.00 Drug 30 273 4,961 164 203 155 1.05 1.31 1.00 Food 105 549 14,777 570 408 462 1.23 0.88 1.00 Packaged Liquor 9 104 1,796 49 77 56 0.87 1.37 1.00 Eating and Drinking 182 1,024 24,007 988 760 751 1.32 1.01 1.00 Home Furn/Appliances , 109 428 8,633 594 318 270 2.20 1.18 1.00 Bldg Materials/Farm Implmts 143 713 14,103 778 529 441 1.76 1.20 1.00 Auto Dealers/Supplies 309 1,397 29,310 1,678 1,036 917 1.83 1.13 1.00 Service Stations 130 671 16,715 708 498 523 1.35 0.95 1.00 Other Retail Stores 309 1,530 28,551 1,679 1,135 893 1.88 1.27 1.00 TOTAL $' 1,710 $ 8,206 $ 181,076 $ ,2,137 1.$ 6,088 $: 5,666 i1.64 1,07 1.00 Total Tri Valley is defined as the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton,and San Ramon. For the Tri Valley data, amounts shown for the General Merchandise and Drug categories do not include San Ramon and the amount shown for the Packaged Liquor category does not include Dublin. Sales for these categories are included with Other Retail Stores. 2 Based January 1, 1994 population estimates by the State of California Department of Finance. Estimates are as follows: Tri-Valley 184,150; Alameda County 1,347,900;and California 31,961,000. Source: State of California Board of Equalization; State of California Department of Finance;and Economics Research Associates. • Table 4 - TAXABLE RETAIL SALES COMPARISON OF'1'RI-VALLEY CITIES,1993 Taxable Sales in Per Capita Sales 2 Millions of Constant 1994 Dollars in Constant 1994 Dollars Per Capita Sales Ratio(City/Tri-Valley) Total Total Total Liver- Plea- San Tri- Liver- Plea- San Tri- Liver- Plea- San Tri- Business Type Dublin more santon Ramon Valley r Dublin more santon Ramon Valley r Dublin more santon Ramon Valley' Apparel $ 18 $ 9 $ 53 $ 12 $ 92 $ 678 $ 137 $ 958 $ 306 $ 497 1.36 0.27 1.93 0.62 1.00 General Merchandise 72 54 165 # $ 291 2,742 863 2,978 # 1,582 1.73 0.55 1.88 # 1.00 Drug 8 12 10 It $ 30 286 194 188 # 164 1.75 1.18 1.15 # 1.00 Food 18 31 36 21 $ 105 686 485 646 520 570 1.20 0.85 1.13 0.91 1.00 Packaged Liquor # 4 3 3 $ 9 # 62 46 66 49 # 1.25 0.94 1.34 1.00 Eating and Drinking 30 38 75 39 $ 182 1,158 596 1,357 981 988 1.17 0.60 1.37 0.99 1.00 Home Purn/Appliances 54 10 36 9 $ 109 2,071 162 652 221 594 3.48 0.27 1.10 0.37 1.00 Bldg Materials/Farm Implmts 29 ' 26 75 13 $ 143 1,122 418 1,345 328 778 1.44 0.54 1.73 0.42 1.00 Auto Dealers/Supplies 119 65 120 5 $ 309 4,522 1,036 2,168 125 1,678 2.70 0.62 1.29 0.07 1.00 Service Stations 24 47 35 25 $ 130 914 741 629 633 708 1.29 1.05 0,89 0.89 1.00 Other Retail Stores 62 68 98 81 $ 309 2,350 1,087 1,769 2,047 1,679 1.40 0.65 1.05 1.22 1.00 TOTAL $ 434, $ 364 $ 706 $ 207; $ 1,710 $ 16,530 $ 5,781 $ 12,738 $ 5,227 $ 9,287 • 1.78 0 62 1 37 0,56 1.00 It Sales omitted because their publication would result in the disclosure of confidential information. Sales for these categories arc included with Other Retail Stores. Total Tri-Valley is defined as the cities of Dublin,Livermore,Pleasanton,and San Ramon. For the Tri-Valley data,amounts shown for the General Merchandise and Drug categories do not include San Ramon and the amount shown for the Packaged Liquor category does not include Dublin. Sales for these categories are included with Other Retail Stores. 2 Based January 1, 1994 population estimates by the State of California Department of Finance. Estimates are as follows: Dublin 26,250;Livermore 62,900;Pleasanton 55,400; San Ramon 39,600;and Tri-Valley(sum of four cities) 184,150. Source: State of California Board of Equalization;State of California Department of Finance;and Economics Research Associates. a � ' Table 5 COMPARISON OF POPULATION AND TAXABLE RETAIL SALES IN THE TRI-VALLEY,1984-1993' Taxable Retail Sales Population 2 Thousands of Constant 1994 Dollars Annual Change Annual Change Per Capita Year Persons Absolute I Percent Amount Absolute I Percent Sales' 1984 125,250 1,104,026 -- S 8,502 1985 129,850 4,600 3.7% 1,212,681 108,655 9.8% 8,826 1986 137,400 7,550 5.8% 1,263,123 50,442 4.2% 8,839 1987 142,900 5,500 4.0% 1,389,771 126,648 10.0% 9,324 1988 149,050 6,150 4.3% 1,489,137 99,366 7.1% 9,458 1989 157,450 8,400 5.6% 1,628,408 139,271 9.4% 9,836 1990 165,550 8,100 5.1% 1,659,604 31,197 1.9% 9,803 1991 169,300 3,750 2.3% 1,608,011 (51,593) -3.1% 9,231 1992 174,200 4,900 2.9% 1,644,053 36,041 2.2% 9,108 1993 180,500 6,300 3.6% 1,710,209 66,156 4.0% 9,287 1984-1993 Average Annual Growth Rate 4.1% 5.0% 1.0% 1 'Tri-Valley consists of the cities of Dublin,San Ramon,Pleasanton,and Livermore. 2 January 1 estimates. 'Annual taxable sales divided by the January 1 population estimate for the following year. Source:State of California Board of Equalization;State of California Department of Finance; and Economics Research Associates. Table 6 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN BY BUSINESS TYPE, 1983- 1993 Change Change Taxable Sales in Millions of Constant 1994 Dollars 1983- 1988 1988- 1993 Business Type 19831 19841 1985 1 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991. 1992 1993 Amount Percent Amount Percent Apparel $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 16 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 20 $ 19 $ 20 $ 18 $ 6 52.7% $ (1) -3.7% General Merchandise 62 58 55 54 56 70 74 77 78 81 72 8 12.4% 2 3.6% Drug --. # 9 9 10 11 it it # 8 8 8 # # it # Food 28 38 46 44 21 19 19 17 20 21 18 (8) -30.6% (1) -5.9% Packaged Liquor # # # # # # # 4 4 1 # # # # # Eating and Drinking 32 34 35 33 34 37 33 30 29 29 30 6 18.3% (7) -18.9% ILome Furn/Appliances 15 29 31 32 37 54 57 57 53 54 54 38 247.9% 1 1.5% Bldg Materials/Farm Implmts 26 30 35 37 35 39 43 37 27 26 29 13 50.5% (9) -24.1% Auto Dealers/Supplies 107 112 130 173 156 145 135 136 117 113 119 38 35.7% (26) -18.0% Service Stations 32 31 30 20 20 21 21 22 21 24 24 (11) -35.6% 3 15.5% Other Retail Stores 49 46 56 52 54 77 75 76 56 55 62 29 58.8% (16) -20.1% TOTAL. ( $ 362 $ 400 $ 440:1 $ 470 $ ;i 442. $ 484!. $• 475 $ 475 $ • 433. $ 433 $ ;!•434 1.$ 118 32 5%a $ (46) 9 5% it Sales omitted because their publication would result in the disclosure of confidential information. Sales for these categories are included with Other Retail Stores. Source: State of California Board of Equalization and Economics Research Associates. Table 7 DISTRIBUTION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SALES IN THETRL-VALLEY,1983-1993 Taxable Sales in Thousands of Constant 1994 Dollars Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Share of Share of Share of Share of Tri-Valley Tri-Valley Tri-Valley Tri-Valley Tri-Valley Year Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Total 1983 $ 361,904 37.2% $ 235,649 24.2% $ 265,875 27.3% $ 109,952 11.3% $ 973,381 1984 400,036 36.2% 274,462 24.9% 310,604 28.1% 118,925 10.8% 1,104,026 1985 439,985 36.3% 282,093 23.3% 333,338 27.5% 157,265 13.0% 1,212,681 1986 470,410 37.2% 274,500 21.7% 369,947 29.3% 148,266 11.7% 1,263,123 1987 441,905 31.8% 286,564 20.6% 500,299 36.0% 161,002 11.6% 1,389,771 1988 479,683 32.2% 312,535 21.0% 510,972 34.3% 185,948 12.5% 1,489,137 1989 474,647 29.1% 324,692 19.9% 597,495 36.7% 231,574 14.2% 1,628,408 1990 474,774 28.6% 310,990 18.7% 627,610 37.8% 246,229 14.8% 1,659,604 1991 433,060 26.9% 301,640 18.8% 651,220 40.5% 222,092 13.8% 1,608,011 1992 432,758 26.3% 316,793 19.3% 684,523 41.6% 209,979 12.8% 1,644,053 1993 433,903 25.4% 363,639 21.3% 705,662 41.3% 207,006 12.1% 1,710,209 I • Source:State of California Board of Equalization and Economics Research Associates. • Table 8 CITY OF DUBLIN SHARE OF TRI-VALLEY TAXABLE RETAIL SALES BY BUSINESS TYPE, 1984 AND 1993 1984 1993 Taxable Sales in Taxable Sales in Thousands of Constant Thousands of Constant 1994 Dollars 1994 Dollars Dublin Dublin City of Total Share of City of Total Share of Business Type Dublin Tri-Valley' Tri-Valley Dublin Tri-Valley' Tri-Valley Apparel $ 12,670 $ 55,667 22.8% $ 17,808 $ 91,601 19.4% General Merchandise 57,803 180,452 32.0% 71,983 291,300 24.7% Drug 9,321 33,497 27.8% 7,520 30,150 24.9% Food 37,928 109,533 34.6% 18,007 104,885 17.2% Packaged Liquor # 14,605 NA # 9,056 NA Eating and Drinking 34,184 126,516 27.0% 30,388 181,920 16.7% Home Furn/Appliances 28,927 65,793 44.0% 54,373 109,453 49.7% Bldg Materials/Farm Implmts 30,384 69,416 43.8% 29,457 143,291 20.6% Auto Dealers/Supplies 112,100 213,100 52.6% 118,691 308,931 38.4% Service Stations 30,900 114,774 26.9% 23,980 130,470 18.4% Other Retail Stores 45,819 120,675 38.0% 61,696 309,153 20.0% TOTAL $ 400 036 $1;1,104,026 36.2% $ 433903 $ 1710,209 25:4% #Sales omitted because their publication would result in the disclosure of confidential information. Sales for these categories are included with Other Retail Stores. 'Total Tri-Valley is defined as the cities of Dublin,Livermore,Pleasanton,and San Ramon. For the 1984 Tri-Valley data, amounts shown for the General Merchandise category does not include San Ramon and the amount shown for the Packaged Liquor category does not include Dublin. For 1993 Tri-Valley data,amounts shown for the General Merchandise and Drug categories do not include San Ramon and the amount shown for the Packaged Liquor category does not include Dublin. Sales for these categories are included with Other Retail Stores. Source: State of California Board of Equalization and Economics Research Associates. Table 9 INVENTORY OF EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS AND MAJOR RETAIL STORES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN Total Year Gross Total Major Tenants Map Name of Shopping Center/Store First Leasable Number Approx Key 1 and Location Opened Area of Stores Tenant Sq Ft 1 Shamrock Village 1960 72,000 22 NA NA Amador Valley Blvd and San Ramon Rd San Ramon Rd 2 Valley Center 1966 13,000 14 NA NA Amador Valley Blvd and Village Pkwy 1 Dublin Place 1971 NA NA Montgomery Wards 130,000 Dublin Blvd and San Ramon Rd Target 100,000 Mervyn 85,000 Toys R Us NA Copeland Sports NA Cinema 6 NA Payless Drugs 69,000 Albertson's 20,000 3 San Ramon Village Center 1975 48,388 13 NA NA Alcosta Blvd and San Ramon Rd 4 Dublin Village 1976 32,500 9 Kragea Auto 4,972 Dublin Blvd and Village Pkwy 1 Strouds Plaza 1986 52,115 NA Strouds NA Amador Valley Blvd and San Ramon Rd 1 Enea Plaza 1992 NA 9 Super Crown NA Dublin Blvd and Amador Plaza Rd Good Guys NA Mattress Discounters NA 1 Unnamed Center NA NA 6 Orchard Supply Hardware 40,000 Dublin Blvd and San Ramon Rd Home Express NA Best Buy Furniture NA Ross 30,000 1 Amador Plaza NA NA NA Circuit City 50,000 Amador Plaza Rd and Amador Valley Blvd TO Maxx 30,000 5 Pak'N Save Center NA 100,000 15 Pak N Save 35,000 Dublin Blvd and Dougherty Rd 2 Village Square NA 62,000 18 NA NA Amador Valley Blvd and Village Pkwy 5 Office Depot NA NA NA NA NA Dublin Ct and Dublin Blvd r See Figure 5 for map. Source:National Research Bureau,Shopping Center Directorv.1994;Keyser Marston Associates,Inc.; and Economics Research Associates. • , Table 10 INVENTORY OF EXISTING COMPETITIVE RETAIL STORES IN OTHER TRI-VALLEY CITIES Gross Map Leasable Name of Shopping Center Key' Name of Store Area and/or Location SAN RAMON 6 Loehmann's 15,000 Crow Canyon Commons Big 5 Sporting Goods NA Crow Canyon Rd and Camino Ramon 7 Super Crown NA Magnolia Square San Ramon Valley Blvd and Crow Canyon Rd PLEASANTON 8 Best 67,000 Best Plaza Springdale Ave 9 Macy's Home Furnishings 2 48,000 Rose Pavilion Santa Rita Rd and Rosewood Dr 10 Fry's Pro Shop NA Trader Joe's Plaza Trader Joe's NA Pimlico Dr and Santa Rita Rd 8 Emporium 179,000 Stoneridge Shopping Center JC Penney 147,000 Foothill Rd,west of I-580 and I-680 Interchange Macy's 190,000 Nordstrom 180,000 LIVERMORE 9 Big 5 Sporting Goods NA Plaza 580 Mervyns 75,000 Las Positas Rd and 1st St Ross NA Target 112,000 Payless Shoe Source NA Total of Center 320,000 11 K-Mart 68,377 The Village at Livermore Payless Shoe Source NA E.Stanley Blvd and S St 12 Wal-Mart 112,000 I-580 and N.Livermore Ave 13 Price/Costco 120,000 I-580 and Airway Blvd r See Figure 5 for map. 2 To move into vacated Cost Less Foods space.Tenant improvements currently being done. Source:National Research Bureau,Shoppin!Center Directory.1994;and Economics Research Associates. Table I I PLANNED,APPROVED,AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION COMPETITIVE RETAIL PROJECTS IN THE TRI-VALLEY Map Developer/ Square Key r Name of Project Applicant Location Feet Comments DUBLIN Approved A PetSmart NA 6920 Amador Valley Blvd 25,000 Building permit needed. Construction expected and Regional St to start soon. SAN RAMON Under Construction B Plaza at Bishop Ranch Dayton-Hudson , t , I Bishop 220,500 Includes Target at 130,000 square feet,Mervyns at and Sunset Dr 78,000 square feet,and two small pads totaling 12500 square feet.Target is currently under construction and is expected to open in March of 1995. There is no date set for the construction or opening of Mervyns. �PLEASANTON Approved C Wal-Mart Wal-Mart Rosewood Dr and Owens Dr 126,000 The project site totals 15 acres and Is situated immediately south of the planned Metro 580 project. Project approval was received in December of 1993. Construction is expected to begin in October of this year. Anticipated completion date is March of 1995. In addition to the 126,000 square feet,Wal-Mart • also has approval for a 30,000 square foot expansion. Planned D Metro 580 Spieker Properties I-580 and Ilacienda Dr 184,400 The project site totals 17 acres and is situated immediately north of the approved Wal-Mart project. The project Is comprised of three separate buildings with square footages as follows: Table 11(continued) PLANNED,APPROVED,AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION COMPETITIVE RETAIL PROJECTS IN THE TRI-VALLEY Map Developer/ Square Key t Name of Project Applicant Lorrtion Feet Comments Metro 580(continued) Building#1: 18,000 Building#2: 13,600 Building#3• Tenant A 42,000 Tenant B 40,000 Tenant C 33,800 Tenant D 18.000 Buildings#1 and#2 are expected to be divided up into smaller retail spaces.The project will most likely be a value oriented center. It will go before the City Council In mid November of this year and Is expected to receive approval.The project has a targeted completion date of October 1995. LIVERMORE Under Construction E Vineyard Factory Outlet Farallon RE Services I-580 and Greenville Rd 170,000 Phase I of project totals 100,000 square feet and Is currently under construction.Targeted date for com- pletion is Spring 1995. Phase II of project totals 70,000 square feet.Original schedule called for construction to begin Fall 1994. However,the applicant has requested that construction be delayed to,at the latest,July of 1995. According to the applicant,construction schedule Approved of Phase II will depend on the level of leasing activity. F Super K-Mart K-Mart Las Positas lid and N.Liver- 178,000 Building permit and design review needed. Will be more Ave,adjacent to I-580 adjacent to the existing Wal-Mart. Targeted date for completion is November 1995. r See Figure S for map. Source: Planning Departments for the Cities of Dublin,San Ramon,Pleasanton,and Livermore;CB Commercial;and Economics Research Associates. Table 12 TRI-VALLEY CROSSINGS PHASE I-TENANTS AND ESTIMATED SALES Estimated Annual Sales per Square Sales Square Retailer Feet ($000) Foot Barnes&Noble 30,000 $ 9,000 $ 300 T.J. Maxx 30,000 7,500 250 Marshalls 30,000 7,500 250 Linen'N Things 35,000 8,000 229 Comp USA 25,000 15,000 600 SportMart 42,000 9,000 214 Best Buy 58,000 23,000 397 Sears Home Life 34,000 10,000 294 Beverages&More! 18,000 5,000 278 Old Navy Clothing 18,000 6,000 333 Krause's Sofa Factory 18,000 4,500 250 Office Supply Store 25,000 7,500 300 Theatre Complex 75,000 NA NA Shop Space 40,000 10,000 250 Restaurants 25.000 6.500 260 Total with Theatre 503,000 NA NA Total without Theatre 428,000 $ 128,500 $ 300 Source: Homart Community Centers and Economics Research Associates. • Table 13 PROJECTED RETAIL SALES IN THE TRI-VALLEY MARKET,1995-20001 Dollar Amounts in Constant 1994 Dollars 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Tri-Valley Market Population 190,400 195,858 201,472 207,248 213,189 219,300 Per Capita Expenditures 2 Apparel $ 507 $ 512 $ 518 $ 523 S 528 S 533 General Merchandise 1,614 1,630 1,646 1,663 1,679 1,696 Drug 167 169 170 172 174 176 Food 581 587 593 599 605 611 Packaged Liquor 50 51 51 52 52 53 Eating and Drinking 1,008 1,018 1,028 1,038 1,049 1,059 Home Furn/Appliances 606 612 619 625 631 637 Bldg Materials/Farm Implmts 794 802 810 818 826 834 Auto Dealers/Supplies 1,711 1,728 1,746 1,763 1,781 1,799 Service Stations 723 730 737 745 752 760 Other Retail Stores 1,713 1,730 1,747 1,764 1,782 1,800 Tri-Valley Market Resident Generated Sales($0001 Apparel $ 96,613 $ 100,376 $ 104,286 $ 108,349 S 112,569 $ 116,954 General Merchandise 307,241 319,209 331,643 344,561 357,983 371,927 Drug 31,800 33,039 34,326 35,663 37,052 38,495 Food3 335,225 348,283 361,849 375,944 390,588 405,803 Packaged Liquor 9,552 9,924 10,310 10,712 11,129 11,563 Eating and Drinking 191,875 199,349 207,114 215,181 223,563 232,271 Home Furn/Appliances 115,442 119,939 124,611 129,465 134,508 139,747 Bldg Materials/Farm Implmts 151,132 157,019 163,135 169,490 176,092 182,951 Auto Dealers/Supplies 325,836 338,529 351,715 365,415 379,649 394,438 Service Stations 137,610 142,970 148,539 154,325 160,336 166,582 Other Retail Stores 326.070 338.771 351.967 365.677 379.921 394.720 Total $2,028,396 $2,107,407 $2,189,496 $2,274,782 $2,363,391 $2,455,451 1 Retail sales in Dublin are assumed to be generated from residents of the Tri-Valley market which consists of the cities of Dublin,San Ramon,Pleasanton,and Livermore. 2 Based on per capita spending in 1993 in the Tri-Valley market(see Table 7). Spending projected to rise 1.0%annually based on observed real growth from 1984 to 1993(see Table 4). 3 Assumes that 33%of total sales are taxable. -- Source:Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG),Projections 94,December 1993;State of California Board of Equalization;and Economics Research Associates. I i ? : I Table 14 , i ESTIMATE OF FISCAL REVENUES,FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 to 1998-1999 Ilomart Retail Project F Property Tax Revenue Estimate FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 Property Assessed Valuation in(A.V.)/1 Land value @$7/sgft,75 acres/2 $ 7,623,000 $ 23,021,460 $ 23,481,889 $ 23,951,527 $ 24,430,558 Construction cost value @$50/sgft,800,000 sqft total $ - $ 25,000,000 $ 40,500,000 $ 41,310,000 $ 42,136,200 Total Property Assessed Valuation $ 7,623,000 $ 48,021,460 $ 63,981,889 $ 65,261,527 $ 66,566,758 Property Tax @ 1%of Previous Years A.V. $ - $ 76,230 $ 480,215 $ 639,819 $ 652,615 Property Tax Revenue to the City of Dublin @ 22.9% $ - $ 17,434 $ 109,825 $ 146,327 $ 149,253 Sales Tax Revenue Estimate FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 Phase I: Square feet developed(less cinemas) - 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 Annualized sales rate $ - $ 150 $ 225 $ 250 $ 300 Phase II:Square feet developed - - 300,000 300,000 300,000 Annualized sales rate $ - $ - $ 169 $ 250 $ 300 Cinema(75,000 at)Taxable Food&Beverage Sales $ - $ 600,000 $ 700,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,000,000 t Total Annual Sales(Phase I and II) $ - $ 64,350,000 $ 146,950,000 $ 182,050,000 $ 218,500,000 Local Sales Tax Revenue @ 1% $ - $ 643,500 $ 1,469,500 $ 1,820,500 $ 2,185,000 City of Dublin's Share @ 65%of Sales Tax Revenue $ - $ 418,275 $ 955,175 $ 1,183,325 $ 1,420,250 Total Projected Revenues to the City of Dublin $ - $ 435,709 $ 1,065,000 $ 1,329,652 $ 1,569,503 /1 Assessed valuation inflated at 2%per year per Prop.13. /2 Assumes 50 acres of land will be bought on Jan I,1995. The remaining acres would be bought by July 1995. Source:Ilomarl;ERA • Table 15 ESTIMATE OF FISCAL EXPENSES,FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 TO 1998-99 IIomart Retail Project Public Services FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 Public Works/1 Annual Cost: See attachments. $ - $ 26,462 $ 35,282 $ 35,282 $ 35,282 City Finance Dept./1 Consultant services-Property tax analysis $ - $ 8,100 $ 10,800 $ 10,800 $ 10,800 Staff cost $ - $ 1,200 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 Fire Services/1 One-time cost: interim fire station/2 $ - Annual Cost: 4 personnel¶medic program $ 40,917 $ 175,534 $ 197,454 $ 205,248 $ 211,515 Police Cost for both annex&Homart $ 289,600 $ 519,350 $ 571,500 $ 583,200 Police Services/1 One-time cost: 1-vehicle $ - $ 27,700 $ 11,340 Annual Cost: See attachments./3 $ - $ 191.126 $ 370.627 $ 413.8Q3 $ 420.289 Total One-time Cost $ - $ 27,700 $ 11,340 $ - $ - Total Annual Cost $ 40,917 $ 402,422 $ 615,763 $ 666,733 $ 679,486 Total Cost $ 40,917 $ 430,122 $ 627,103 $ 666,733 $ 679,486 /1 See attachments. Cost in FY 1995-96 pro-rated to reflect official annexation date of Oct 1995. /2 Modification for the existing Santa Rita fire station is an estimated cost of$120,000. This would be funded from Fire Impact Fees generated by the project. /3 Police expenses are derived from an Oct. 25 Memo from James Rose,Chief of Police,to Richard Ambrose. Source: City of Dublin Police Services; Dougherty Regional Fire Authority; City of Dublin Police Services;ERA. Table 16 ' SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES,FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 to 1998-99 Ilomart Retail Project Revenue/Expense Items FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 Property Tax Revenue $ - $ 17,434 $ 109,825 $ 146,327 $ 149,253 Sales Tax Revenue $ - $ 418.275 $ 955.175 $ 1,183.325 $ 1.420.250 Total On-going Revenues $ - $ 435,709 $ 1,065,000 $ 1,329,652 $ 1,569,503 Public Works $ - $ 26,462 $ 35,282 $ 35,282 $ 35,282 Finance Department $ - $ 9,300 $ 12,400 $ 12,400 $ 12,400 Fire Services $ 40,917 $ 175,534 $ 197,454 $ 205,248 $ 211,515 Police Services $ - $ 191.126 $ 370.627 $ 413.803 $ 420.289 Total On-going Expenses $ 40,917 $ 402,422 $ 615,763 $ 666,733 $ 679,486 Net On-going Revenue(Expense) $ (40,917) $ 33,287 $ 449,237 $ 662,919 $ 890,017 Less One-Time Cost $ - $ (27,700) $ (11,340) $ - $ - Total Revenue(Expense) $ (40,917) $ 5,587 $ 460,577 $ 662,919 $ 890,017 Source: City of Dublin;ERA CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 1994 TO: Jeri Ram, Associate Planner FROM: Lee Thompson,Public Works Director SUBJECT: Homart Fiscal Analysis Listed are Public Works/Engineering cost impacts for the Homart project. We have assumed that one half of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard will be improved fronting the project,as well as median landscaping, street lights,and traffic signals at 5 intersections(Dublin/Tassajara,Dublin/Hacienda, two entrances on Dublin Blvd.,and one entrance on Hacienda Drive). The following are costs which are recovered by fees and assessment districts and are not considered fiscal impacts: 1) Street Lighting(assessment district) 36 lights Annual cost: $3,320.00 Annual revenue: $7,150.00 2) NPDES Expenses(paid by NPDES fees) a) Street Sweeping $ 703.00 b) Additional staff cost $ * c) Additional program cost $ * d) Catch basin cleaning $ 56.00 Total annual cost: NPDES Fees: $8,775.00* *Cost of NPDES expenses offset by annual NPDES fee charged to property owner. Following are annual costs which are not recovered by direct fees or acsPcsment districts: 1) Annual maintenance/energy cost,traffic signals: $23,565 2) Annual slurry seal($12,000 in 5 years) $ 2,400 3) Traffic safety studies $ 1,500 4) Annual landscape maintenance cost,including utilities: $ 4,101 5) Annual tree maintenance cost $ 1,254 6) Annual sign repair cost $ 194 7) Annual curb/gutter/concrete repair cost $ 50 8) Annual striping and marking maintenance cost(annualized cost based on$75.00 per year for marker replacement and$15,000 in 7 years for striping replacement) $ 2,218 Total annual cost: $35,282 If you need any backup,please see Ginger. a19495J luptember 121 homrs 2 City of Dublin Public Works•100 Civic Plaza,Dublin CA 94568•(510)833-6630 - OCT-18-'94 TUE 17:48 ID:DUBLIN CITY MGR OFFC TEL NO:513 83.E 6151 1388G F05 C27r1( C7F DL7B1:.=N 24E24OL2ANDIJ14 TO: Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager FROM:0 Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager 11 - RE: Revised Analysis Of Estimated Finance Expenses Attributable To HOMART Development: Alameda County Santa Rita Proper-:y DATE: October 10, 1994 As requested I have reviewed additional costs generated Dy the HOMART project. This is the first project on the County Property, which will trigger additional work to comply with the Alameda County/('it, of Dublin Agreement. The following is a rough analysis of the costs involving the City's Finance Department: Consultant Services: $10,800.00 Specialized Property Tax Analysis will need to be con0.,.ct4.d to track both the sales tax and the property tax attributable t,) the specific property. The additional cost of obtaining Property Tax Sato is $10,800 on an annual basis. Staff Costs: $1,600 The nature of the City/County Agreement will require cl: er monitoring of the taxes generated from this property. On a quarteoy basis it is estimated that 3 hours of the Finance Director time will he required to review the data and prepare interim reports. On an Annual basis an annual report will be prepared, which is estimated to t.ike 8 hours of Finance Director Time. In addition, 10 Hours of Financ! Tech II time and 10 hours of OFFICE ASSISTANT II. FINANCE DIR / ASSISTANT CITY MGR 20hrs @ $56.67 ,133.40 FINANCE TECHNICIAN II 10hrs @ $25.70 257.00 OFFICE ASSISTANT II 10hrs @ $18.07 180.70 SUB-TOTAL 1,571.10 Please advise in the event that additional information is required. CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM TO: Jeri Ram, Associate Planner FROM:W ichard C. Ambrose, City Manager RE: Fire Service Cost for Homart Project DATE: October 10, 1994 I have had extensive discussions with the Fire Chief and the City Manager of San Ramon regarding the provision of fire service to the Santa Rita property and proposed annexation area by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. These discussions have included the identification of a site and funding Fire Station No. 3, the level of fire service and the allocation of cost for providing fire services. The following report outlines our collective thoughts regarding this service. Fire Station No. 3 The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority Station Location Study and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated the location of a new Fire Station in the vicinity of the Alameda County property. Currently the Fire Authority provides limited service to the Alameda County Jail from Fire Station No. 1. With the development at the Homart Project, a more immediate fire/medical presence will be required, and thus necessitates the development of Fire Station No. 3. Since the street network is not completely developed on the Santa Rita property, Authority Staff believe it would be unwise to commit substantial capital funds to the construction of a permanent new station and they are proposing the development of a interim fire station. DRFA and Alameda County have entered into discussions regarding DRFA's utilization of an existing Alameda County Fire Station within the Santa Rita Jail complex. It is anticipated that the cost of modifying this facility to accommodate use by DRFA Fire Personnel would not exceed $120,000. Funding for these costs would come from the Fire Capital Fees generated by the Homart Project as shown below. Homart Phase I 400,000 sq ft $600/2,000 sq ft $120,000 Homart Phase II 400,000 sq ft $600/2,000 sq ft $120,000 $240,000 • The balance of the Homart Capital Impact Fee would go toward equipment and the construction of a permanent Fire Station No. 3 in the future. Equipment Cost In addition to Capital Costs associated with Fire Station No. 3, the following equipment will be required to make service to the Santa Rita property and the Lin Annexation Area possible. ■ Type 3 Engine $250,000 ■ Paramedic Equipment 60,000 $310,000 Approximately $80,590 represents the incremental cost of upgrading an existing fire patrol unit to a type 3 engine in order to provide adequate equipment to serve the area. The Fire Patrol Unit is scheduled to be replaced in FY 1995-96. The cost of this unit will be funded by $169,410 from DRFA existing Fire Capital Replacement Fund and $80,590 annexation fee (advanced fire capital fees) from the proponents of the Lin Annexation. The Paramedic Equipment Cost will come from the Fire Capital Impact Fund. Operational Cost DRFA Management is concurrently proposing the relocation of one engine company from Fire Station No 2 to Fire Station No 3, the hiring of four additional personnel for Fire Station No 2 (San Ramon) and the implementation of a Firefighter Paramedic Program. The cost of this proposal is less than one half of the cost of funding a new engine company for Fire Station No 3, while at the same time accomplishing the following. 1. Maintain the level of fire service in South San Ramon 2. Improve fire response times to underserved areas along Dougherty Road and the future Eastern Dublin BART Station. • 3. Provide fire service response times at current DRFA standards to the Santa Rita property and a good portion of the proposed Lin Annexation Area. 4. Improve the level of emergency medical case to the entire DRFA Service Area. This proposal will provide adequate fire service until substantial residential and commercial development necessitate funding a full fifth engine company for the Fire Authority Service Area. Operational Costs include the following ■ Annual operating expense Station No 3 -2- • • 3 new Firefighter II & 1 new Fire Captain • Paramedic Program Manager (3 months start-up) • Paramedic Incentive Pay ■ Annual Paramedic Operating Costs If Fire Station No. 3 becomes operational on March 1, 1995, these operational costs will be as follows. FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY99/2000 $212,193 $368,731 $370,570 $384,023 $394,842 $404,913 Cost Allocation DRFA current method of allocating operational costs between Dublin and San Ramon is based upon each agencies share of total assessed valuation of the DRFA Service Area. The DRFA Management Committee will be proposing that this method be utilized for funding the above proposal for staffing Fire Station No 3 for the following reasons. 1 . A portion of the area to be served by Station No 3 is already within DRFA Service Area boundaries. 2. Although the implementation of a Firefighter paramedic program is necessary to implement the opening of Fire Station No 3 without hiring another full engine company, there are Authority wide benefits to this proposal. It's important to note that the DRFA Board of Directors have not yet reviewed and approved this proposal and therefore, these costs could fluctuate. Based upon the current Assessed Valuation Data, the cost which would be assumed by Dublin and San Ramon would be as follows. FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY99/000 Dublin $56,872 $175,534 $197,454 $205,248 $211,515 $217,349 San Ramon 41,301 127,477 143,396 149,055 153,607 157,844 It would seem reasonable that Dublin's share of the cost should be allocated to the Homart/Lin Annexation Area Operating Costs, since this area will increase Dublin's Assessed Valuation; and the Fire Service Proposal is a threshold level of service to the project area. If you have any questions, please advise. _ cc: Karl Diekman a:1010fire.rca611 • -3- STATION 3 AND PARAMEDIC PROGRAM VERSION 2 A H I SQE.T�EQEENIAIG AND OPERATING FIBEETATION 3 INCLi1RES PAB9A1,DicpR4GF4M 1 59 60 ITEM FY94-95 FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 IFY98-99 FY99-00 ?1 FOR ANNEXATION I 62 TYPE 3 ENGINE $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 63 SUB-TOTAL $01 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 64 FOR STATION 3 I - 65 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT $30,0001 $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 66 FURNISHINGS ETC. $30,000 I $0 $0 $0 $0 - $0 - 67 RENOVATIONS $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 68 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $25,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 69 PROJECT CONTINGENCY $11,062 $0 $0 $0I $0 $0 70 ANNUAL OPERATINGEXPENSE $12,480 $24,960_ $24,960 $24,960 $24,960 $24,960 71 SUBTOTAL $134,162I $24,960 $24,960 $24,960 $24,960 $24,960 72 FOR PARAMEDIC PROGRAM I 73 EQUIPMENT(5 UNITS) $24,000 I $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 74 PROJECT MANAGER $19,571 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0J 75 TRAIN 9 MEMBERS $27,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0I 76 STAFF(3 FF2&1 CAPT) $112,966 I $255,949 $268,757 $282,210 $293,029 $303,099 77 PARAMEDIC INCENTIVE(I) $7,969 I $35,343 $54,053 $54,053 $54,053 $54,053 78 ANNUAL OPERATING COST(2) $8,207 $16,480 $22,800 $22,800 $22,800 $22,800I 79 SUB-TOTAL $199,713 $343,771 $345,610 $359,063 $369,882 $379,953 - 80 .TOTAL • - :z=$333,875 .- .1618,731.4370,570 $384,023I-$394,842 $404,913 81 I I 82 AVAILABLE REVENUES&UNEXPENDED FUNDS 83 EQUIP.REPLACEMENT RESERVES $0 $169,410 $0 $0 $0 $0 84 ANNEXATION FEES $0 $80,590 $0 $0 $0 $0 85 FIRE STATION 3 PROJECT(3) $30,000 $184,000 $246,000 $0 $0 SO I 36 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE(4) $0 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 I I 87 UNANTICIPATED REVENUE(HOMAR $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO 88 AMBULANCE REPLACEMENT $90,020 $25,720 $25,720 $25,720 $25,720 $25,720 89 TOTAL $240,020 -- $463,720 '$275,720 - $29,720 $29,720 $29,720 90 91 1.FY94.99 3FF 9 MONTHS,ICAPT.2 MONTHS:FY9S99 3FF 12 MNOTHS 1.APT.12 MONTHS,9 FP 9 MOMS,FY969T AND BEYONO 12 FF AN0 I CAPT 12 MONTHS 92 2.FY949S 1 UNIT B MONTHS:FY95.99 1 UNIT 12 MONTHS&2 ADDITIONAL UNITS 9 MONTHS:FY99'913 UNITS 12 MONTHS - 93 3-DEVELOPER FEES ALLOCATED TO THE PRO ECT I 94 4.SURPLUS 2 AMBULANCE 95 I I 96 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES AND AVAILABLE REVENUES 97 ITEM FY94-95 IFY95-96 FY96-97 FY 97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00 98 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPFNDITURPT $145,682 I $286,000 $0 $0 $0 $O 99 TO TALCAPITALREVENUES I $150,000 $434,000 $246,000 $0 $0 $0 - 100 QpER(UNDER) I :•$4,318 $148,000 $246,000 - -$0 $0 $0 101 102 TOTAL OPERATINGFXPFNSFS $141,622 $332,731 $370,570 $384,023 $394,842 $404,913 - 103 TOTAL OPFRATING_BFVFNUEHI $43,449 $29,720 $29,720 $29,720 $29,720 $29,720 104 nvwR UNDER) , - ($98,173) ($303,011) ($340,850) ($354,303) ($365,122)I ($375,193) 105 __ 106 TOTAL START-UP FXPENSF $46,571 $0 $0 $0 $0 I SO 107 START-UPREVENUE(II $46,571 $0 $0 $0 $0I $0 108 OVER(UNDFR) ($0). $0 $0 $0 SO $0 109 1.AVAILABLE FROM AMBULANCE REPALCEMENT I ( I - 110 ADDITIONAL OPERATING E)(PENSE DISTRIBUTION(BASED ON FY 94-951 111 DUBLIN SHARE , : :,.-'$56,872 :-- $175,534.,;$197,454.;$205,248 $211,515 $217,349 112 SAN RAMON SHARE-. - --.-- $41,301 - ;$127,477 -$143,396 .>$149,055 $153,607 $157,844 113 THIS VERSION ASSUMES THE PURCI-IASE OF 2 UNITS Of{PARAMEDIC EQUIPMENT IN FY94-95 8 3 UNITS IN FY35-95 I I • C:PARA2 A POLICE SERVICES - lit 1 DATE: October 25, 1994 FROM: James W. Rose, Chie'�' Police Services • r TO: Richard Ambrose, City Manager Jeri Ram, Associate Planner • SUBJ: HOMART PROJECT - POLICE SERVICES The proposed "Santa Rita Commercial Center - Tri-Valley Crossing" a (Homart Project) is the first proposed development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that is being assessed for impact on police • services. This area and the proposed adjoining annexation prompted police services to consider how this growth would affect how we do business. To properly identify the staffing needs for this area now and within the next two years will take a great deal of research, consideration and development. The approach we use with the Homart Project and annexation to the east today, will affect police services in the entire City for years to come. As previously mentioned, this project is part of the recently annexed property and adjacent to the proposed annexation east of Tassajara Road. Considering current and near future conditions, it works well for the patrol function to consider these areas as one section. There have been 1.22 patrol positions identified to accommodate the anticipated needs of the proposed annexation; including these patrol positions in this staffing pattern makes sense for patrol and is cost effective. A similar assessment prepared for the Homart Project, showed that the workload generated by construction, can be absorbed on a short- term basis. However, experience with construction projects within the City and County have shown that having a private security company on the construction site during. off hours greatly reduces problems and reduces calls for service. It is recommended that the contractor be required to have security on the site from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. during work days and 24 hours a day during non-work days. Immediately upon Tri-Valley Crossing tenants assuming occupancy and opening for business, the center and surrounding area, will require increased patrol services 24 hours a day. The recent staffing assessment that was completed for the proposed annexation showed that our existing patrol staff was insufficient to accommodate growth in the east annexation without significantly impacting services in the developed portion of town. Additional patrol positions were identified to address this shortfall on an interim basis. The Homart Project will also impact police services. An assessment has shown that more patrol officers would be required to accommodate the workload this project will generate, anticipating that as residential and commercial development proceed, corresponding calls for police services will increase. The annexation and building of the Homart Project is the beginning of this scenario. Without the requested increase in staffing levels there will be a significant impact on the level of service to the existing residential/commercial areas of Dublin. Manpower for emergency calls for service require two or more officers. Calls such as "in progress crimes", alarms, suspicious persons or vehicles, etc. require two or more officers to respond due to officer and public safety concerns. The remoteness of the Homart project and the proposed annexation with regard to the existing residential/commercial boundaries, create response time and coverage problems, if staffing levels are not increased. Currently, officers are able to provide cover timely due to their proximity to any call within the current boundaries, however, response time will increase as we expand to the proposed annexed area and the Homart project, causing safety problems for both officers and the public. In addition, cover calls to Homart will decrease the current ability of patrol to conduct normal patrol functions within the existing area, resulting in a drop in the overall level of service. To avoid this it will be necessary for police services to convert from our current distribution of patrol to a beat system. This will be needed to accommodate the increase in time and geographical requirements due to the size and development to eastern Dublin. Any staffing level less than this creates a decrease in the existing level of service and jeopardizing the safety of both citizens and officers. It is important to note that the patrol force has 24 hour responsibility. Patrol officers must be assigned in a manner that facilitates constant coverage of the jurisdiction. The request of five new officers for the area amounts to ONE NEW OFFICER working in the area during a complete 24 hour period of time. Attached is the staffing and equipment analysis, as well as, a cost analysis. JWR:mop cc: Charles C. Plummer, Sheriff .Curtis L. Watson, Undersheriff H O MART PRO S E C T POLICE SERVICES Prepared by: James W. Rose INDEX ITEM PAGE Patrol Officer Costs 1 Dispatch Costs 2 Clerical Costs 4 Detective Costs 5 Equipment Costs (Start-up) 6 Equipment Costs (Reoccurring) 6 Overview of Cost/Phased Approach 7 PATROL OFFICER ACTIVITIES 1. Determine the additional staffing necessary to provide police services to the Eastern Dublin Annexations, including the proposed Homart Project, without undermining the level of service provided to the currently developed portion of the city. 2. Staffing: a. One semi-fixed posted position. 3. Project duty hours (#2 above) a. 1 position X 365 days X 24 hours = 8,760 hours DUTY TIME AVAILABILITY SEMI-FIXED POSTED PATROL DEPUTY BASED ON 1993 CALENDAR YEAR STATISTICS 1. PROJECT WORKLOAD: 8,760 hours 2. Total annual work hours per person (40 X 52) 2,080 hours 3. Annual leave time lost per person: Vacation 20 days or 160 hours Sick Leave 6.8 days or 54 hours Military Leave 0 days or 0 hours Training 5.5 days or 44.3 hours Administrative Leave 0 days or 0 hours Industrial Injury Leave 0.6 days or 4.8 hours TOTAL LEAVE TIME LOST PER PERSON: 32.9 DAYS OR 263.1 HOURS TOTAL ANNUAL TIME AVAILABLE PER PERSON (2-3): 1,816.9 HOURS 4. PERSONNEL REQUIRED FOR PROJECT WORKLOAD (1 / 3) 8,760 hours / 1,816.9 hours = 4.82 = 5 FTE patrol persons 5. PERSONNEL ASSESSMENT: 5 ADDITIONAL PATROL PERSONS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT WORKLOAD PATROL OFFICER COSTS $77,500 EACH OFFICER X 5 = $387,500 Annex 1.22 = 24.4% = $ 94,550 Homart 3.78 = 75.6% = $292,950 TOTAL = $387,500 HOMART PROJECT- DISPATCH RELATED ACTIVITIES -1- DISPATCH COSTS Dublin Police Services contracts with Alameda County Sheriff's Department for dispatch services. Dispatch costs are based upon Dublin's Pro-Rata share of radio contacts as compared to the total number of law enforcement radio contacts handled by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department Dispatch Center. Dublin's cost per radio contact based upon the City's current number of radio contacts (46,683) is projected by the County Sheriff's Department to increase as follows: Year Cost/Contact FY 94/95 $4.72 FY 95/96 5.66 FY 96/97 6.80 FY 97/98 8.16 FY 98/99 9.77 Annexation Area Dublin Police has estimated that the workload of the annexation area prior to development will result in 3,285 radio contacts per year. Dispatch costs for the annexation area are calculated as follows: FY 94/95 No service provided $ 0 FY 95/96 3,285 contact x .75 of a full year = 2,463.75 contacts $5.66/contact 13,945 FY 96/97 3,285 x $6.80/contact 22,338 FY 97/98 3,285 x $8.16/contact 26,806 FY 98/99 3,285 x $9.77/contact 32,094 Homart Dublin Police has calculated the number of contacts for the Homart Project to be 4,028 per year. This calculation is based on retail space in downtown Dublin. Since the Homart Retail Project will be phased beginning October 1, 1995, radio dispatch costs far Homart are calculated as follows: YEAR CALCULATION COST FY 94/95 No services provided $ 0 FY 95/96 4,028 x 500.000 (Phase I retail) 800,000 2,518 radio contact x .75 of a year = 1,888 contacts -2- _ S YEAR CALCULATION COST FY 95/96 1,888 x $5.66/contact = $10,689 (cont'd) FY 96/97 2,517 contact for 500,000 sq ft 1,132 contacts for 300,000 sq ft 3,649 x $6.80/contact 24,813 FY 97/98 4,028 x $8.16/contact 32,868 FY 98/99 4,028 x $9.77/contact 39,354 SUMMARY OF DISPATCH COSTS ANNEXATION Homart AREA TOTAL FY 94/95 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 FY 95/96 10,689 13,945 24,600 FY 96/97 24,813 22,338 47,200 FY 97/98 32,868 26,806 59,700 FY 98/99 39,354 32,094 71,400 ANTICIPATED WORKLOAD The proposed Homart Project is comparable in size and floor area to the area bordered by Dublin Boulevard on the south; Amador Valley Boulevard on the north; Regional Street on the west and I-680 on the east. This area includes Mervyn's, Albertsons, Toys R' Us, Target, Circuit City, Dublin Honda, Shamrock Ford and numerous smaller establishments. Excluding the car dealerships, the types of establishments in the downtown area are similar to those proposed in the Homart Project. Although there are differences between the two business areas they are close enough in character for the sake of comparison, if the differences are kept in mind. Based on the comparison area described, 4,028 logged police activities a year are projected for the Homart Project. -3- CLERICAL RELATED COSTS There are currently three clerical positions, one Secretary I and two Specialist Clerks, assigned to Dublin Police Services. These three clerical personnel support twenty-nine sworn staff members; which equals 10. 3% of each clerk's time is required per each sworn staff member. This means that the addition of five patrol officers will generate 51 . 5% of one clerk's workload; which will require the addition of one Specialist Clerk position. CURRENT STAFFING 29 = Current sworn positions 3 = Current clerical positions 10. 3 = % of a clerk's time per officer (3 / 29) PROJECTED STAFFING 5 = Proposed additional patrol officers 10. 3 = % of a clerk's time per officer 51 . 5 = % of a clerk's workload increase 1 = Specialist Clerk position for increased workload INCREASED CLERICAL COST BREAKDOWN $39 ,009 = Specialist Clerk per annum x 51.5% = % of clerk's workload increase $20,090 = Annual cost of clerk's workload increase = Annex 1 . 22 = 24. 4% x 20, 090 = $ 4,902 = Homart 3 . 78 = 75.6% x 20,000 = $15,188 AREA TOTAL ANNEX HOMART $20,090 $4 , 902 $15,188 -4- DETECTIVE RELATED COSTS There are currently 2.5 detectives assigned to support the patrol section totalling twenty personnel; 5 watch commanders and 15 patrol officers. This equates to 12.5% of a detective's time is required per patrol staff member (2.5 / 20). This means that the addition of five patrol officers will generate 62.5% of one detective's workload; which will require an additional detective position. CURRENT STAFFING 20 = Current patrol staff 2.5 = Current detective's positions 12.5 = % of a detective's time per patrol staff (2.5 / 20) PROJECTED STAFFING 5 = Proposed additional patrol officers 12.5 = % of a detective's time per patrol staff member 62.5 = % of a detective's workload increase 1 = Detective position for increased workload INCREASED DETECTIVE COST BREAKDOWN $81,056 = Sergeant/Detective cost per annum = Annex 1.22% = 24.4% x 81,056 = $19,778 = Homart 3.78% = 75.6% x 81,056 = $61,278 AREA TOTAL ANNEX HOMART $81,056 $19,778 $61,278 -5- EQUIPMENT RELATED COSTS ONE TIME/START-UP COSTS SECTOR ANNEX HOMART ITEM TOTAL GENERATED GENERATED TWO PATROL VEHICLES $ 48,632(2) $ 24,326(1) $ 24,326(1) $24,326 each ONE UNMARKED VEHICLE (Detectives) $ 15,000 $ 3,660 $ 11,340 PORTABLE 800 MHZ RADIO $1,700 each 5,100(3) 1,700(1) 3,400(2) TOTAL ONE TIME COSTS $ 68,700 $ 29,660 $ 39,066 REOCCURRING COSTS SECTOR ANNEX HOMART ITEM TOTAL GENERATED GENERATED VEHICLE MAINTENANCE $ 25,400 $ 13,835 $ 11,588 TOTAL REOCCURRING COST $ 25,400 $ 13,835 $ 11,588 Vehicle maintenance and operation costs are based upon anticipated mileage driven and the city's current patrol mileage charge. Annexation estimated miles: Patrol - 30,222 Investigations - 1,220 Total Miles 31,442 x .44 = $13,835 Homart estimated miles: Patrol - 22,557 Investigations - 3,780 Total Miles 26,337 x .44 = $11,588 -6- OVERVIEW OF COST PHASED APPROACH The costs represent a phased approach to the establishment of a beat system in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area that includes the Santa Rita property with current uses and the proposed 800,000 square feet Homart Shopping Center and the 1,538 acre annexation area with current uses. These costs include the provision of following services: * Addition of 4 patrol officers 10/1/95 * Purchase of 2 patrol cars & radio equipment 10/1/95 (one time cost) * Additional Vehicle Maintenance & Dispatch Costs 10/1/95 * Addition of one-half clerical position 10/1/95 * Addition of one Detective position 10/1/96 * Purchase of one unmarked vehicle & radio equipment (Detective position) 10/1/96 * Addition of one patrol officer 10/1/96 Total Police costs for the annexation area and the Homart Project: FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 Patrol $0 $232,500 $368,100 $387,500 $387,500 Clerical 0 15,100 20,100 20,100 20,100 nvestigations 0 0 60,750 81,000 81,000 Dispatch 0 24,634 47,151 59,674 71,448 Vehicle Usage 0 17,400 24.850 25,400 25,400 TOTAL OPERATIONS $0 $289,634 $520,951 $573,674 $585,448 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS SO 53,700 15.000 0 0 TOTAL ALL POLICE COSTS $0 $343,334 $535,951 $573,674 $585,448 -7- Totals for the Specific Plan area between Annexation Area #1 and Homart: ANNEXATION PROJECT POLICE SERVICE COSTS (REVISED)* FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 Patrol $0 $ 70 ,913 $ 94,550 $ 94,550 $ 94 , 550 Clerical 0 3 ,676 4,902 4,902 4,902 Investigations 0 0 14 ,833 19,778 19, 778 Dispatch 0 13 ,945 22,338 26,806 32 ,094 Vehicle Usage 0 9 ,974 13 ,701 13 ,835 1.3 , 835 TOTAL OPERATIONS 0 $ 98,508 $150,324 $159,871 $165, 159 TOTAL CAPITAL 0 26 ,000 3 ,660 0 0 TOTAL ALL POLICE COSTS 0 $124,508 $153 ,984 $159,871 $165,159 HOMART PROJECT POLICE SERVICE COSTS* FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 Patrol $0 $161 ,587 $273 ,550 $292,950 $292,950 Clerical 0 11, 424 15, 198 15,198 15, 198 Investigations 0 0 45,917 61,222 61, 222 Dispatch 0 10,689 24, 813 32,868 39 , 354 Vehicle 0 7, 426 11 , 149 11,565 11 , 565 TOTAL OPERATIONS 0 $191,126 $370,627 $413,803 $420, 289 TOTAL CAPITAL 0 27 ,700 11 , 340 0 0 TOTAL ALL POLICE COSTS $0 $218, 826 $381 ,967 $413,803 $420, 289 `Unadjusted for inflation The above costs for clerical and investigations assume split of 24 .4% of the cost for the Annexation Area and 75 . 6% of the cost for the Homart Project based upon the ratio of new officers in each area to the total new officers required. Annexation Area 1 . 22 = 24 .4% 5 Homart 3 .78 = 75.6% 5 -8- • CITY OF DUBLIN ' MEMORANDUM RECEIVED O CT - 5 1994 TO Jeri Ram, Associate Planner ',IRLIN PLANNING FROM : Diane Lowart, Recreation Director SUBJECT Fiscal Analysis of Homart Project on Parks & Community Services Department - REVISED DATE October 4, 1994 1. Will this project create any impact on the services your Department provides? YES a) Will your Department incur any additional costs or expenditures as a result of this project? YES b) What are these costs? At this time the actual costs associated with this development are undetermined. However, based on past experience, Staff has identified the following potential impacts on City parks & recreational facilities and City recreation programs. 1. Increased use of future City Park by employees who work for businesses located -in the Homart Project. The future City Park is sited across Tassajara Creek and is in walking distance from the Homart Project. Planned amenities at the City Park include a Community Center, an Aquatic Center, lighted softball fields and tennis courts, outdoor basketball and volleyball courts, individual and group picnic areas, tot and children's play areas, jogging trails and possibly a lake and outdoor amphitheater. a) increased participation in City sponsored softball leagues by project employees; currently close to 50% of participating teams in City sponsored leagues are sponsored by local businesses. b) increased use of outdoor basketball, volleyball and tennis courts, as well as jogging trail by project employees; given the proximity of the Park to the Project it is reasonable to assume that project employees will take advantage of the park amenities on lunch hours and after work. c) increased use of both individual and group picnic areas by project employees; individual picnic areas could be used on a daily basis for lunch while group picnic areas may be used for large business/company picnics. d) increased participation in recreation programs and classes at community center by project employees. • i • Fiscal Analysis - Homart Project Page Two e) increased use of Aquatic Center by project employees; project employees may take advantage of noon time and evening lap swim and water exercise programs and may enroll children in instructional programs at the Aquatic Center. f) increased use of Community Center by busi„..... located within the Homart project either for meetings or social events. h) increased participation by children of project employees in City sponsored afterschool and summer "day-care" programs; often times project employees may choose to have their children attend school in Dublin (even if they don't live here) and they may take advantage of the City's low cost afterschool and summer activities located at the schools. 2. Increased use of future City Park by customers who shop at the Homart Project. The City Park is presently conceived as "a memorable 21st century social hub and landmark public destination which would be a source of pride for the City". High quality and innovative play structures are planned as well as a water feature specifically designed for children's play. Additionally an Aquatic Center and Community Center are planned for the site as well as athletic facilities. It is conceivable that people will choose to take advantage of the park amenities either before or after shopping at the Homart Project. 3. Increased use of proposed Tassajara Creek Trail to the Homart Development by both employees of businesses located in the project and by customers coming to shop or take advantage of the services offered at the project. Should you have any questions or need further information, please give me a call at X6647. cc: City Manager