Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8.1 SummerHill Homes GP
OF t'� , - &2 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL File #420 -30 DATE: May 20, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager J SUBJECT: Dublin Land Company (SummerHill Homes /DiManto): 1) Update to the General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Parcels 3 & 4; and 2) General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request for Parcel 2. Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner & Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Dublin Land Company Parcels 3 and 4 on December 3, 2013. The Study would allow a medium density project with up to 161 residential units. The City Council directed Staff to analyze the request and return with a report on certain key issues. Staff has completed that analysis and will provide a report to the City Council. The applicant has also submitted a request to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designations for Parcel 2 (30.26 acres) to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial from the existing land use designations of Medium -High Density Residential, High Density Residential, General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. The proposal for Parcel 2 would include up to 246 residential units and 69,000 square feet of retail. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All costs associated with preparing the General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study would be borne by the Project Proponent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Deliberate; and 3) Take the following actions regarding Parcels 3 and 4: • Direct staff to continue with the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Parcels 3 and 4; or • Direct Staff to conclude the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Parcels 3 and 4; AND 4) Take the following actions regarding Parcel 2: • Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designations to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial; or Page 1 of 10 ITEM NO. 8.1 • Adopt a Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designations to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial. Submitted By Community Development Director DESCRIPTION: 'Reviewed By Assistant City Manager The 80.1 -acre Dublin Land Company property is located north of 1 -580 between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street and extends north of Gleason Drive. The property is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. The property has Planned Development Zoning adopted with the EDSP and no development plans have been approved for the property. The Project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary. At one time, the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant for the past number of years (except for temporary seasonal uses) with low lying native and non - native grasses turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading for development purposes has occurred to date. Page 2 of 10 Central Pkwy. Tassajara Rd. Dublin Blvd Background o •� _ � Parcel1 �iE • !Q. 'y h I -580 p 10 Brannigan Street. On December 3, 2013, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company Parcels 3 and 4 (23.77 acres) for a request by SummerHill Homes (Attachment 1). The Study evaluates the proposal to change the land use designations from Medium Density, Medium -High Density, High Density, General Commercial and Public /Semi - Public to Medium Density Residential (6.1 — 14 du /acre). The City Council directed Staff to return at a future meeting with an analysis of the following issues: 1. Fiscal impacts of the proposed land use changes-, 2. Circulation as it relates to the functionality of the project site-, 3. Project interface with the surrounding neighborhoods and appropriate buffering-, 4. Impacts to the Housing Element-, 5. Concerns, if any, raised by the Dublin Unified School District-, and 6. Update on Parcel 2 of the Dublin Land Company property. Staff has completed the analysis regarding the above items and this Staff Report provides an update to the City Council. The City Council is being asked to provide Staff with direction on whether or not to continue with the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Parcels 3 and 4. The Applicant is also requesting the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for Parcel 2 of the Dublin Land Company property. Page 3 of 10 Vicinity Map Parcel 4 J � .. ► +��'� -�' } Parcel 3 0 CT Parcel 2 (PORT yIY o •� _ � Parcel1 �iE • !Q. 'y h I -580 p 10 Brannigan Street. On December 3, 2013, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company Parcels 3 and 4 (23.77 acres) for a request by SummerHill Homes (Attachment 1). The Study evaluates the proposal to change the land use designations from Medium Density, Medium -High Density, High Density, General Commercial and Public /Semi - Public to Medium Density Residential (6.1 — 14 du /acre). The City Council directed Staff to return at a future meeting with an analysis of the following issues: 1. Fiscal impacts of the proposed land use changes-, 2. Circulation as it relates to the functionality of the project site-, 3. Project interface with the surrounding neighborhoods and appropriate buffering-, 4. Impacts to the Housing Element-, 5. Concerns, if any, raised by the Dublin Unified School District-, and 6. Update on Parcel 2 of the Dublin Land Company property. Staff has completed the analysis regarding the above items and this Staff Report provides an update to the City Council. The City Council is being asked to provide Staff with direction on whether or not to continue with the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Parcels 3 and 4. The Applicant is also requesting the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for Parcel 2 of the Dublin Land Company property. Page 3 of 10 ANALYSIS: Parcels 3 & 4 Staff has worked with SummerHill Homes to refine the project proposal for Parcels 3 and 4. The following is an analysis of the items the City Council directed Staff to evaluate and report to the City Council. 1. Fiscal impacts of the proposed land use changes Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) completed a Fiscal Impact Analysis of alternative development scenarios for the 23.77 -acre portion of the Dublin Land Company Property (Attachment 2). KMA analyzed three alternatives, which include: • Alternative 1a — Current General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land uses, using the high end of the density range (158 units) and 170,000 square feet of retail; • Alternative lb — Current General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land uses, using the mid -point of the density range (125 units) and 170,000 square feet of retail; and • Alternative 2 — SummerHill Homes' proposal (161 medium density residential units). The fiscal analysis indicates that all three alternatives would have a positive fiscal impact. The alternatives with the commercial component (Alternative la & 1b) would likely generate an annual surplus to the City, exceeding $500,000 /year. SummerHill Homes' proposal (Alternative 2) is estimated to generate an annual surplus of approximately $100,000 /year. For Alternatives 1a and 1b, the most significant sources of General Fund revenues are property taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes in lieu of motor vehicle taxes. For the retail alternatives (Alternative 1a & 1b), sales taxes are the largest source of revenues, accounting for over 50% of all tax revenue. For the SummerHill Homes proposal (Alternative 2), property tax revenues are the largest single source of revenue, accounting for approximately 65% of total revenue to the City. The most significant expense components for all there alternatives are police and fire department services, and culture and leisure services. These three service categories account for over 85% of City expenditures. 2. Circulation as it relates to the functionality of the project site: As part of the project, the Applicant will be required to make street improvements to the surrounding streets (Tassajara, Brannigan, Central and Gleason). These improvements include full build -out of the roadways, sidewalks, bike lanes, street trees and landscaping. Parcel 3 includes two access points (Central Parkway and Brannigan Street) and Parcel 4 includes one access point (Gleason Drive). The Applicant is proposing resident and guest parking throughout the project site that is consistent with Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant has made changes to the original site plan to improve the on -site circulation. The on -site circulation includes a ring road through the development and motor courts. 3. Project interface with the surrounding neighborhoods and appropriate buffering: The Applicant has made several modifications to the original plan to address concerns raised by the City Council and Staff. The original proposal included a wall along Tassajara Road that, in places, was as tall as 10 feet. As currently proposed, the wall has been eliminated in most sections of Tassajara Road, and where it is essential for grading purposes, it has been reduced Page 4 of 10 to two or three feet in height. The Site Plan has been revised to include a single - loaded street adjacent to Tassajara Road. This approach is similar to the Standard Pacific neighborhoods M1, M2 and M3 (Laurels, Arbors and Courtyards), which are located further north on Tassajara Road. The single - loaded street creates a more open feeling, a visual connection to the neighborhood, and includes front doors that face the street rather than rear elevations, and eliminates the need for a community wall along Tassajara Road. The re- designed project includes a 23,000 square foot open space on the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway and the continuation of the Tassajara streetscape established northerly of the proposed project. The Applicant is proposing a 13,000 square foot neighborhood open space that fronts Brannigan Street. This area, in addition to the open space at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway, will be used to treat the storm water runoff from Parcel 3 (as required by Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit). The modifications made to the original site plan resulted in a loss of 5 residential units on Parcels 3 and 4. The original site plan included 161 single family homes and the revised site plan includes 156 single family homes (140 on Parcel 3 and 16 on Parcel 4) as shown in the site plan below. Page 5 of 10 4. Impacts to the Housing Element: The current Housing Element (2009 -2014) anticipated Medium, Medium -High, and High Density residential units on Parcels 3 and 4 to satisfy a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The current project proposal is to change the land use designations on Parcels 3 and 4 entirely to Medium Density Residential. This would eliminate the ability to construct the 92 Medium -High and 55 High Density units on this site as anticipated in the Housing Element. State law requires that an alternative site be identified to accommodate these Medium -High and High Density units. The City Council recently amended the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to increase the number of residential units in the Downtown. The units in the Downtown can be used to offset the Medium -High and High Density units that were anticipated on Parcels 3 and 4. 5. Concerns, if any, raised by the DUSD: City Staff provided the Dublin Unified School District with information regarding the proposed project on March 17, 2014. On May 7, 2014, the school district responded with a letter stating "there will not be any adverse impact to the district from the potential General Plan Amendments that Summerhill Homes is proposing." See Attachment 3. 6. Update on Parcel 2 of the Dublin Land Company property SummerHill Homes is in contract with the Dublin Land Company to purchase Parcel 2. SummerHill Homes has partnered with Regency Centers to develop a mixed use (commercial and residential) project proposal for Parcel 2. The conceptual site plan for Parcel 2 includes a mixture of residential units (246 units) and a 69,000 square foot commercial center. The City Council is being asked to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate this proposal. Additional information on this proposal is provided below. At this time, the City Council is being requested to direct Staff to continue the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment study for Parcels 3 and 4 or to conclude the Study. If the City Council decides to continue with the Amendment Study, Staff would then: 1. Evaluate the proposed land plan and associated application materials; 2. Evaluate any associated environmental impacts from the land use change such as traffic, noise, or view impacts, and prepare the appropriate environmental documents; 3. Perform any additional studies that may be required; and 4. Prepare a project analysis for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Parcel 2: General Plan Initiation Request: Parcel 2: SummerHill Homes has submitted a letter (Attachment 4) requesting that the City Council initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate the change of land use designation within Parcel 2 (the proposed Study Area). The proposal is to change the existing various land use designations shown on Table 1 to Medium Density Residential (defined as 6.1 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre), Medium —High Density Residential (defined as 14.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre) and General Commercial. The proposal includes up to 246 residential units (approximately 56 single - family detached homes and 190 townhomes) and approximately 69,000 square feet of commercial space. Page 6 of 10 Table 1: Existing & Proposed Land Use — Parcel 2 (acreage is approximate) It is the City Council's practice to initiate all General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Studies prior to Staff accepting an application and beginning work on such a request. Any development of the site would also require a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review Permit. The preliminary site plan for Parcel 2 is shown below. The residential units are currently proposed to be located on the northern and eastern portions of the project site with the commercial located in the southwestern portion of the site adjacent to the Dublin Boulevard /Tassajara Road intersection. The residential units will be a mixture of single - family detached homes and townhomes. The goal of the commercial area is to create a main street feel that is walkable to the surrounding residents. Regency Centers is a joint Applicant on Parcel 2 and will be developing the commercial component of the project. The proposed site plan and unit mix has not yet been evaluated by Staff and would occur, if authorized by the City Council, as part of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study. Page 7 of 10 EXISTING PROPOSED Acres Units Acres Units General Commercial 22.4 -- 10.93 -- Neighborhood Commercial 2.9 -- -- -- High- Density Residential 3.2 80+ -- -- Medium Density Residential -- -- 7.96 49 -111 Medium High Density Residential 2.0 28-50 11.61 164-290 Total 30.5 78 -130+ 30.5 213 -401 It is the City Council's practice to initiate all General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Studies prior to Staff accepting an application and beginning work on such a request. Any development of the site would also require a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review Permit. The preliminary site plan for Parcel 2 is shown below. The residential units are currently proposed to be located on the northern and eastern portions of the project site with the commercial located in the southwestern portion of the site adjacent to the Dublin Boulevard /Tassajara Road intersection. The residential units will be a mixture of single - family detached homes and townhomes. The goal of the commercial area is to create a main street feel that is walkable to the surrounding residents. Regency Centers is a joint Applicant on Parcel 2 and will be developing the commercial component of the project. The proposed site plan and unit mix has not yet been evaluated by Staff and would occur, if authorized by the City Council, as part of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study. Page 7 of 10 The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently anticipates up to 261 residential units and 900,000 square feet of commercial (non - residential) development across the entire Dublin Land Company property (i.e. Parcels 1 -4). The Applicant's proposal would result in a net increase of 141 residential units on the Dublin Land Company property and reduce the commercial development potential by up to 467,606 square feet. Refer to Table 2 below for a summary of the currently proposed uses, units and commercial for Parcels 1 -4. Table 2: Proposed Uses. Units & Commercial (acreaae is aaaroximate) If the City Council determines that a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study should be initiated for Parcel 2, Staff will prepare a study and return to the City Council with an analysis of the following: Page 8 of 10 Acres (approx.) Residential Units Commercial SF Parcel 1 (no change) 26.07 N/A 363,394 Parcel 30.26 246 69,000 Parcel 3 18.1 140 N/A Parcel 2.2 16 N/A Total 76.63 ac 402 units 432,394 sf If the City Council determines that a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study should be initiated for Parcel 2, Staff will prepare a study and return to the City Council with an analysis of the following: Page 8 of 10 1. Fiscal impacts of the proposed land use changes; 2. Circulation as it relates to the functionality of the project site; 3. Project interface with the surrounding neighborhoods and appropriate buffering; 4. Impacts to the Housing Elements; and 5. Concerns, if any, raised by the Dublin Unified School District. Based on the May 7th letter received from DUSD, there will be no adverse impact to the district. See Attachment 3. The City Council would then have the opportunity to direct Staff to further process the Amendment Study or conclude the study at that time. If the City Council decides to proceed with the Amendment Study, Staff would then: 1. Evaluate the proposed land plan; 2. Evaluate any associated environmental impacts from the land use change such as traffic, noise, or view impacts, and prepare the appropriate environmental documents; 3. Perform any additional studies that may be required; and 4. Prepare a project analysis for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If these tasks result in a recommendation to amend the existing land uses, Staff would then present the Planning Commission with the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use amendments for recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then could take action on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Any development on the site would require application materials which would be presented concurrently with the requested land use amendments, including: a) the Planned Development Rezone consistent with the proposed land use amendment, b) Site Development Review, c) Vesting Tentative Map, and d) any required environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff has prepared draft resolutions for both approval and denial to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the 30.26 -acre study area to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial. The draft resolutions are included as Attachments 5 and 6. CONCLUSION: The City Council is requested to provide Staff with direction regarding the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Parcels 3 and 4. The City Council is further requested to consider initiating a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Parcel 2. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required to review a request to update the City Council on the status of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study or to review a request to initiate a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment Study. However, the City mailed in excess of 2,000 notices to residents and businesses in the following neighboring communities: The Terraces, The Cottages, The Villas, The Courtyards, Sorrento West, Sonata, Page 9 of 10 a portion of Tassajara Meadows, and the Waterford residential and commercial developments. Also, as is practice, notices were sent to an expanded list of potentially interested parties. A public notice was published in the Tri- Valley Times and posted in the designated posting places. A copy of this Staff Report was distributed to the Project Proponent and made available on the City's website. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study status update and initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Information Collection). ATTACHMENT: 1. City Council Staff Report dated December 3, 3013 without attachments. 2. Fiscal Analysis Memo prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, dated April 17, 2014. 3. Dublin Unified School District response letter of May 7, 2014. 4. Project Proponent's Letter of Request dated April 10, 2014 from Marshall Torre. 5. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designations to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial. 6. Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designations to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial. 7. General Plan Amendment Study Status Report. Page 10 of 10 111 111 or 19 82 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL December 3, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager'" CITY CLERK File #420 -30 SUBJECT: Summerhill Homes Residential (Dublin Land Company /Summerhill Homes) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider a request to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designations on the northern 23.77 acres of the overall 80.1 acre Dublin Land Company property. The project Study Area is located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, including the property along the north side of Gleason Drive. The Study would evaluate a proposal to change the land use designation to Medium Density Residential (6.1 -14 du /acre) from the existing land use designations of General Commercial, Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 -25 du /acre), High Density Residential (25+ du /acre), and Public /Semi - Public. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact to the City. All costs associated with preparing the General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study would be borne by the Project Proponent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council either adopt Resolution Approving the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designation of a 23.77 acre area located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street to Medium Density Residential; or adopt Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designation of a 23.77 acre area located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street to Medium Density Residential. rh, Submitted By Director of Community Development Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 7.1 DESCRIPTION: Background At their meeting of March 5, 2013, the City Council received a Staff Report (Attachment 1) regarding a request by Summerhill Homes to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designations on the northern 38.9 acres of the overall 80.1 acre Dublin Land Company property. The City Council tabled the decision and directed Staff to bring back a report on the development assumptions and the status of actual development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The City Council received that information at their meeting of April 16, 2013, at which time the City Council directed Staff to return with Summerhill's initiation request for consideration (Attachments 2 and 3). On May 21, 2013, the City Council further considered the request by Summerhill Homes to initiate a General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the northern 38.9 acres of the Dublin Land Company property (Attachment 4). The City Council discussed the proposal and ultimately denied the Applicant's request. Current Request Summerhill Homes has revised their previous request to include a reduced area that encompasses the northern 23.77 acres of the overall 80.1 acre Dublin Land Company property (Attachment 5). The request now includes Parcels 3 and 4 which are located north of Central Parkway and Gleason Drive respectively as shown in figure 1 below. Figure 1 — Proposed Study Area Page 2 of 5 The Study would evaluate a proposal to change the land use designation for the Study Area to Medium Density Residential (6.1 -14 du /acre) from the existing land use designations of General Commercial, Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 -25 du /acre), High Density Residential (25+ du /acre), and Public /Semi - Public. ANALYSIS: It is the City Council's practice to initiate all General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Studies prior to Staff accepting an application and beginning work on such a request. The Applicant's letter of request to initiate a GPA/EDSPA Study is included as Attachment 5. Any development of the site would also require a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Review and a CEQA analysis. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated 261 residential units spread among Medium, Medium -High, and High Density Residential land uses, and up to 900,000 square feet of commercial development on land designated General Commercial across the entirety of the Dublin Land Company property. The EDSP assigned the units and square footage based on gross acreages and mid -point densities. The development area for Parcels 3 and 4 includes approximately 23.77 acres. The development potential within the existing land use designations is approximately 158 residential units and up to approximately 170,000 square feet of commercial development. Please refer to Figure 2 for a map showing the existing land use designations. Figure 2 — Existing Land Use Designations Table 1 below shows a break -down of units by land use designation. Table 1 — Land Use Desianations Land Use Designations Acres Units GC - General Commercial 15.64 -- MDR — Medium Density Residential 1.54 9-22 MHDR — Medium High Density Residential 4.00 56-100 HDR — High- Density Residential 1.06 27-37 P /SP - Public /Semi - Public 1.53 -- Total 23.77 92-158 Page 3 of 5 The Applicant has requested a Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of these areas entirely to Medium Density Residential, thus eliminating the commercial component on Parcels 3 and the Public /Semi - Public land use on Parcel 4. The Applicant's proposal to change the existing land use designation to Medium Density Residential could result in up to 161 residential units on Parcels 3 and 4. This would leave 100 residential units and approximately 706,000 square feet of General Commercial Land Uses to be developed on the remainder of the Dublin Land Company property. The Applicant is proposing to develop single - family detached homes on lots that range in size from approximately 2,500 square feet to approximately 3,300 square feet. All units are proposed to have full driveway aprons allowing for two car parking as well as guest parking stall for each unit. If the City Council initiates the GPA/EDSPA Study, Staff will fully evaluate the proposed project as further described below. If the City Council determines that a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study should be initiated, Staff will prepare a study and return to the City Council with an analysis of the following: 1. Fiscal impacts of the proposed land use changes; 2. Circulation as it relates to the functionality of the project site; 3. Project interface with the surrounding neighborhoods and appropriate buffering; 4. Impacts to the Housing Element; and 5. Concerns, if any, raised by the DUSD. The City Council would then have the opportunity to direct Staff to further process the Amendment Study or conclude the study at that time. If the City Council decides to proceed with the Amendment Study, Staff would then: 1. Evaluate the proposed land plan; 2. Evaluate any associated environmental impacts from the land use change such as traffic, noise, or view impacts, and prepare the appropriate environmental documents; 3. Perform any additional studies that may be required; and 4. Prepare a project analysis for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If these tasks result in a recommendation to amend the existing land uses, Staff would then present the Planning Commission with the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use amendments for recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then could take action on the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment. Any development on the site would require additional entitlements which would be presented concurrently with the requested land use amendments, including: a) the Planned Development Rezone consistent with the proposed land use amendment; b) Site Development Review for the proposed housing units and related site and landscape improvements; c) Tentative (Tract) Map; and d) any required environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Page 4 of 5 Staff has prepared Draft Resolutions for both approval and denial to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the 23.77 acre study area to Medium Density Residential. The draft resolutions are included as Attachments 6 and 7. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Although a public notice is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment Study, the City mailed in excess of 2,000 notices to residents and businesses in the following neighboring communities: The Terraces, The Cottages, The Villas, The Courtyards, Sorrento West, Sonata, a portion of Tassajara Meadows, and the Waterford residential and commercial developments. Notices were also sent to an expanded list of potentially interested parties. A public notice was published in the Valley Times and posted in the designated posting places. A copy of this Staff Report was distributed to the Project Proponent and is available on the City's website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated March 5, 2013, without attachments 2. City Council Staff Report dated April 16, 2013 without attachments 3. Development Assumptions by land use designation 4. City Council Staff Report dated May 21, 2013 without attachments 5. Summerhill Letter of request, dated October 31, 2013 6. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designation of a 23.77 acre area located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street to Medium Density Residential 7. Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the land use designation of a 23.77 acre area located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street to Medium Density Residential 8. General Plan Amendment Study Status Report Page 5 of 5 ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTATE. DEVELOPMENT ' MEMORANDUM ! BE VOTP STIJO;I To: Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator SFBMFTUBUFI SFE FVAFNPQN FOUL City of Dublin BGGPSEBCNF!I PVTJOHI FD P O P N JD! E FMW CN FO U I I From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. TBo 1GSBO DJTDP I B/ Ws S Z, L FZTFS I UJN PUI z!D /!L FWZI Date: April 17, 2014 L BU F!FBS w, Gi O L! E FCCJF!N /!L FSO I SFFE!U /LBX BI BSBI Subject: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of Alternative Development Scenarios for E BME!E P F[ FN BI 23.77 -acre portion of Dublin Land Company property NP T! BO H FNFTI L BUI 1vFF01I /I FBE I ItsN FT!B /!SBCFI In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has evaluated HSFHPSz!E /!TPP.I PPI the recurring annual fiscal impacts on the City of Dublin (City) General Fund and Gas L FVWO ! F/! FO H TUS P N I KIWF!NI!SPNFZI Tax Fund to be generated by alternative land use scenarios for a 23.77 -acer portion of I the Dublin Land Company property, located north of Central Parkway between TBo ! E JFH P I Q3vmD/!N BSSBII Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. Summerhill Housing Group has submitted a proposal to change the site's land use designations to Medium Density Residential from an existing combination of General Commercial, Medium -High Density Residential, High Density Residential and Public /Semi- Public. The proposed changes would impact the type of development permitted on the property, specifically replacing commercial development with lower- density residential development. The purpose of the subject analysis is to provide information regarding the potential fiscal implications of the proposed changes. The following chart summarizes the alternative development programs that have been evaluated for the site. Alternatives 1 a and 1 b are permitted under existing land use designations, with Alternative 1 a having a higher residential count at 158 units than Alternative 1b (125 units). The existing zoning would permit a range of commercial land uses, including both office and retail uses. At the direction of City staff, this analysis assumes that the commercial space is developed as a 170,000 square foot community shopping center. Alternative 2 reflects the Summerhill proposal. Under this proposal, the entire site would be developed with medium density homes, totaling 161 units. 271!Cbdjgjd!Bwfovf- !TVJUF! 315! ,�!Tbo!Csbodjtdp- !DB MCP S0JB!!: 5222! ,�!0 POF;! 526!4:9!4161! ,�!CBY;!526!4:8!6176! 001 -001; jf X X X /L FZTFS N BS TUP O /D P N! 11982.007 To: Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator April 17, 2014 Subject: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of Alternative Development Scenarios for 23.77 -acre portion of Dublin Land Company property Page 2 Approach and Key Assumptions Given that the development programs for Alternatives 1 a and 1 b are generic programs based on permitted land uses rather than actual development proposals, this fiscal analysis is intended to provide order of magnitude estimates of the impacts of the development alternatives upon build -out. All impacts are expressed in current, 2014 dollars. Similar to the analysis that KMA prepared of the Dublin Crossing project, the major revenue sources, such as property and sales taxes, have been estimated based on regional home prices and construction costs and sales productivity levels required to support new construction. Other revenues and all service costs have been estimated by applying per capita budget factors derived from the City's budget forecast for FY 2013/14 to each alternative development program. Retail sales tax revenues are a key driver of the positive fiscal impact estimates for the retail- focused alternatives (Alternatives 1 a and 1 b). It is important to note that this analysis examines only rg oss taxable sales to be generated upon completion and stabilization. The analysis does not examine the degree to which the sales will be generated by a transfer of sales from existing Dublin retailers. While transfer sales are new sales to the specific retail tenants, they do not reflect an increase in total sales tax revenues to the City. The analysis does not include one -time revenues or revenues that are sized and restricted to off -set service costs or impacts, such as building permit revenues or impact fees. Medium - density permits a density range of 5.84 to 14.19 dwelling units per acre. 2 Medium -high density permits a density range of 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre. 3 High density permits a density range of 25 to 35 dwelling units per acre. 001 -001; jf 11982.007 Existing Land Use Designations Proposed Land Use Alternative 1 a— Alternative 1 b— Alternative 2- New Development 158 units and 125 units and 161 Medium Density 170,000 sf of retail 170,000 sf of retail Residential Units Residential Units Medium - Density' 22 17 161 Medium -High Density2 100 80 0 High Density3 36 28 0 Total Units 158 125 161 Community Shopping 170,000 sf 170,000 sf None Center Approach and Key Assumptions Given that the development programs for Alternatives 1 a and 1 b are generic programs based on permitted land uses rather than actual development proposals, this fiscal analysis is intended to provide order of magnitude estimates of the impacts of the development alternatives upon build -out. All impacts are expressed in current, 2014 dollars. Similar to the analysis that KMA prepared of the Dublin Crossing project, the major revenue sources, such as property and sales taxes, have been estimated based on regional home prices and construction costs and sales productivity levels required to support new construction. Other revenues and all service costs have been estimated by applying per capita budget factors derived from the City's budget forecast for FY 2013/14 to each alternative development program. Retail sales tax revenues are a key driver of the positive fiscal impact estimates for the retail- focused alternatives (Alternatives 1 a and 1 b). It is important to note that this analysis examines only rg oss taxable sales to be generated upon completion and stabilization. The analysis does not examine the degree to which the sales will be generated by a transfer of sales from existing Dublin retailers. While transfer sales are new sales to the specific retail tenants, they do not reflect an increase in total sales tax revenues to the City. The analysis does not include one -time revenues or revenues that are sized and restricted to off -set service costs or impacts, such as building permit revenues or impact fees. Medium - density permits a density range of 5.84 to 14.19 dwelling units per acre. 2 Medium -high density permits a density range of 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre. 3 High density permits a density range of 25 to 35 dwelling units per acre. 001 -001; jf 11982.007 To: Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator April 17, 2014 Subject: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of Alternative Development Scenarios for 23.77 -acre portion of Dublin Land Company property Page 3 Key assumptions incorporated into the analysis are as follows: ■ Each alternative will be successful and well- received by the marketplace. There may be significant differences in the degree to which the alternatives are feasible from both a market and a financial perspective. The analysis does not address any such differences in feasibility or any differences in the time frame in which the concepts could be supported by the marketplace and built. Home prices, which drive the amount of property tax revenues to be generated by each alternative, are based on the prices being achieved by similar projects in Dublin. Summerhill provided pricing estimates for its proposed homes, with target prices being approximately 5% higher than other competing projects. The price estimates for the medium density residential units reflected in this analysis, including the 161 units of Alternative 2, reflect average market prices, which are approximately 5% less than Summerhill's targets. ■ The community shopping center would generate a level of sales consistent with standard industry hurdles to support the cost of new construction. ■ Police and fire service cost estimates reflect citywide per capita averages for employees and residents, and do not include the costs of calls generated by retail customers (relevant to Alternatives 1 a and 1 b). ■ The cost to maintain new public infrastructure associated with developing the property (streets /traffic signals /street lights /curbs and gutters, etc.) has been estimated by City staff. It is assumed that the new public infrastructure required by Alternative 2 would also be required by Alternatives 1 a and 1 b. Two maintenance scenarios have been analyzed: 1) all in -tract streets are private streets; and 2) the in -tract `ring road' is assumed to be a public street but all other in -tract `motor courts' will be private streets. Per City staff, it is assumed that any project- specific improvements, such as street furniture, parks, plazas, art, or decorative pavement would be maintained by property owners and would not be the responsibility of the City of Dublin. The technical analysis is presented in the attached detail tables. Order of Magnitude Findings 1. Annual General Fund and Gas Tax Fund Impacts Upon Build -out The analysis indicates that all three alternatives would likely be, at a minimum, fiscally neutral to the City of Dublin. The alternatives with the community shopping center (Alternatives 1 a and 1 b) would likely generate a significant annual surplus to the City of 001 -001; jf 11982.007 To: Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator April 17, 2014 Subject: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of Alternative Development Scenarios for 23.77 -acre portion of Dublin Land Company property Page 4 Dublin 4, exceeding $500,000 per year. Assuming that the project is well- received by the marketplace, it is estimated that the Summerhill project would generate an annual surplus of approximately $100,000 per year. 2. Major Revenue Sources and Expense Categories As detailed on Table 1, the most significant sources of General Fund revenues are property taxes, sales taxes (for Alternatives 1 a and 1 b), and property taxes in lieu of motor vehicle fees. For the Summerhill Proposal (Alternative 2), property tax revenues are the largest single source of revenue, accounting for approximately 65% of total revenue to the City. For the retail alternatives, sales taxes are the largest source of revenues, accounting for over 50% of all tax revenue. The most significant expense components are police and fire department services, and culture and leisure services. These three service categories account for over 85% of City expenditures. Public works department expenses are typically a significant expense category, but are not anticipated to be for this property as it is assumed tht most of the streets would be privately owned and maintained. 4 The analysis evaluates only gross taxable sales, not net new taxable sales after deducting any sales that are being transferred from existing Dublin retailers to the new retailers on the subject sites. 001 -001; jf 11982.007 Proposed Land Existing LU Designations Use Change Annual Recurring Alternative 1 a: Alternative 1 b: Alternative 2: Fiscal Impacts 158 du / 170,000 125 du / 170,000 Summerhill sf retail sf retail Proposal: 161 du General Fund Revenues $999,000 $928,000 $473,000 Expenditures W /Public Ring Road $500,000 $428,000 $389,000 W /Private Ring Road $483,000 $411,000 $372,000 Net Annual GF Impact Public Ring Road $499,000 $500,000 $84,000 Private Ring Road $516,000 $517,000 $101,000 Gas Tax Revenue $14,000 $11,000 $14,000 Net Annual Combined City Surplus W /Public Ring Road $513,000 $511,000 $98,000 W /Private Ring Road $530,000 $528,000 $115,000 2. Major Revenue Sources and Expense Categories As detailed on Table 1, the most significant sources of General Fund revenues are property taxes, sales taxes (for Alternatives 1 a and 1 b), and property taxes in lieu of motor vehicle fees. For the Summerhill Proposal (Alternative 2), property tax revenues are the largest single source of revenue, accounting for approximately 65% of total revenue to the City. For the retail alternatives, sales taxes are the largest source of revenues, accounting for over 50% of all tax revenue. The most significant expense components are police and fire department services, and culture and leisure services. These three service categories account for over 85% of City expenditures. Public works department expenses are typically a significant expense category, but are not anticipated to be for this property as it is assumed tht most of the streets would be privately owned and maintained. 4 The analysis evaluates only gross taxable sales, not net new taxable sales after deducting any sales that are being transferred from existing Dublin retailers to the new retailers on the subject sites. 001 -001; jf 11982.007 To: Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator April 17, 2014 Subject: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of Alternative Development Scenarios for 23.77 -acre portion of Dublin Land Company property Page 5 Technical Tables A series of technical tables are attached Summary Tables Table 1 Annual Revenue and Expenditure Summary at Build -out Table 2 Alternative Programs Table 3 Estimated Annual City Revenue — General and Gas Tax Funds Table 4 Estimated Annual City General Fund Expenditures Table 5 Demographics Table 6 Estimated Assessed Value Table 7 Existing Demographic Data — City of Dublin Table 8 Estimated Household Income Table 9 Estimated Annual Infrastructure Maintenance Costs Appendix Tables Appendix 1 Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources — City of Dublin 2013/14 Budget Appendix 2 Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures — City of Dublin 2013/14 001 -001; jf 11982.007 Budget Appendix 3 Commercial Construction Cost/ Valuation Estimates Appendix 4a Revenue Source Assumptions — Alternative 1 a and 1 b Appendix 4b Revenue Source Assumptions — Alternative 2 Appendix 5 Operating Expense Assumptions Appendix 6 Summerhill Proposal Pricing vs. Comparable Sales in Dublin Appendix 7 Dublin Area Residential Projects and Pricing 001 -001; jf 11982.007 Table 1 Annual Revenue and Expenditure Summary at Buildout Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 General Fund Exoenditures` Police Bdsting Land Use Designations Proposed Land Use ($168,000) Alternative 1 a Alternative 1 b Alternative 2 ($140,000) 158 du/ 170k SF 125 du/ 170k SF 161 du; General Fund Revenues' 30.2% O ilture and Leisure Services ($61,000) 13.2% ($52,000) 13.3% Property Taxes $359,000 35.9% $313,000 33.7% $308,000 65.1% Sales Tax $503,000 50.4% $494,000 53.2% $62,000 13.1% Property Tax In -Lieu of MVLF $64,000 6.4% $56,000 6.0% $55,000 11.6% Franchise Fees $37,000 3.7% $31,000 3.3% $28,000 5.9% Property Transfer Tax $14,000 1.4% $12,000 1.3% $15,000 3.2% Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $3,000 0.3% $3,000 0.3% $2,000 0.4% Prop. 172 Sales Tax $15,000 1.5% $15,000 1.6% $2,000 0.4% Licenses, Permits, and Fees $2,000 0.2% $2,000 0.2% $1,000 0.2% Business License Tax $2,000 0.2% $2,000 0.2% $0 0.0% Total GFRevenues $999,000 100.0% $928,000 100.0% $473,000 100.0% General Fund Exoenditures` Police ($199,000) 43.1% ($168,000) 43.1% ($151,000) 43.0% Fire ($140,000) 30.3% ($118,000) 30.3% ($106,000) 30.2% O ilture and Leisure Services ($61,000) 13.2% ($52,000) 13.3% ($47,000) 13.4% General Government ($24,000) 5.2% ($20,000) 5.1% ($18,000) 5.1% Community Development ($15,000) 3.2% ($12,000) 3.1% ($11,000) 3.1% Transportation ($14,000) 3.0% ($12,000) 3.1% ($11,000) 3.1% Other Public Safety ($9,000) 1.9% ($8,000) 2.1% ($7,000) 2.0% Subtotal ($462,000) 100.0% ($390,000) 100.0% ($351,000) 100.0% Public Infrastructure Maint. W/ Public Ring Fbad ($38,000) ($38,000) ($38,000) W/ Private Ring Fbad ($21,000) ($21,000) ($21,000) Total GF Expenditures W/ Public Ring Fbad ($500,000) ($428,000) ($389,000) W/ Private Ring Fbad ($483,000) ($411,000) ($372,000) Net General Fund Impacts W/ Public Ring Fbad $499,000 $500,000 $84,000 W/ Private Ring Fbad $516,000 $517,000 $101,000 Additional Other Revenues' Gas Tax Fund $14,000 $11,000 $14,000 Net General and Gas Tax Fund Revenue, W/ Public Ring Fbad $513,000 $511,000 $98,000 W/ Private Ring Fbad $530,000 $528,000 $115,000 Table 3. 2 Table 4. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 1 summa 4/17/2014; jj Table 2 Alternative Development Programs Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 6dsting Land Use Proposed Land Designations Use Designation Alt. la Alt. lb Medium Density 158 du 125 du Alt. 2 170 k S= 170 k S= 161 DU Development Program Comm Comm 1,675 Residential Units' avq unit size Medium Density 2,297 22 17 161 Medium - High Density 1,675 100 80 0 High Density 1,200 36 28 0 158 125 161 Commercial Square Feet' Fbtai I Community Slopping Center 170,000 170,000 0 Total Commercial 170,000 170,000 0 Ste Acres 23.77 23.77 23.77 Commercial FAR 0.16 0.16 0.00 Dwelling Units per Acre 6.90 5.46 7.03 Medium density sizes reflect 3immerhill Homes proposal. Medium -High density and High density unit sizes reflect competitive projects in the market area. See Appendix 7. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 2 program; 4/17/2014; jj Table 3 Estimated Annual City Ievenue - General and Gas Tax Funds Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA 1% prop. tax April 15, 2014 $312,553 Bdsting Land Use Proposed Land Designation Use $54,993 Alt. 1a Alt. 1b 20% per year $10,637 158 du 125 du $14,742 $0.55 /$1,000AV 170 k SF 170 k SF Alt. 2 Ievenue Source Estimating Factor Comm Comm 161 DU Measure $13,910 $11,687 Total Assessed Value ($1,0005) 2 $156,204 $135,999 $134,016 FbSdential Assessed Value ($1,0005) 2 $96,704 $76,499 $134,016 Commercial Assessed Value ($1,0005) 2 $59,500 $59,500 $0 9ngle Family Households 3 158 125 161 Petail Employees 3 486 486 0 Community9iopping Center 9luare Feet 3 170,000 170,000 0 Total FbSdent Equivalents 3 642 542 489 Total FbSdents 3 480 380 489 General Fund Property Taxes Property Tax I n-Lieu of M VLF Property Transfer Tax P--sidential Commercial Sales Tax Spendi ng Measures Non -Proj. F;bsidential Spend Non -Proj. F;btail Empl. Spend Project Community 9ioppi ng C:enter Sales Taxable Sales Non -Proj. P-esidential Epend Non -Proj. P--tail Empl. Epend Project Community 9ioppi ng C:enter 9bles Total 9bI es Tax General Fund, continued Business License Tax Community 9iopping Center P--tai I Prop. 172 Sales Tax Taxable Sales Tax Franchise Fees Licenses, Permits, and Fees Fines / Forfeitures / Penalties Total General Fund Ievenue Gas Tax Fund Total General and Gas Tax Fund 1 9=e Appendix 4a & 4b. 2 9=e Table 6. 22.98% share of 1% prop. tax $358,988 $312,553 $307,997 $0.41 /$1,000AV $64,098 $55,807 $54,993 $0.55 /$1,000AV 20% per year $10,637 $8,415 $14,742 $0.55 /$1,000AV 10% per year $3,273 $3,273 $0 $13,910 $11,687 $14,742 per household 4 $25,876 $25,876 $39,080 per employee 4 $700 $700 $0 per square foot 4 $270 $270 $0 98.3% occupied 3 $4,018,850 $3,179,470 $6,184,969 $340,200 $340,200 $0 $45,900,000 $45,900,000 $0 $ 50,259,050 $49,419,670 $6,184,969 1.00% salestax $502,591 $494,197 $61,850 3,500 sf per bus $50 per bus $2,429 $2,429 $0 see salestax calculations, above $50.259.050 $49,419,67 $6,184,96 9 0.30 /$1,000 $15,078 $14,826 $1,855 $57.66 per res eq $37,018 $31,252 $28,196 $2.77 per reseq $1,779 $1,502 $1,355 $5.03 per reseq $3,231 $2,727 $2,461 $999,120 $926,979 $473,449 $29.46 per resident $14,143 $11,196 $14,408 $1,013,263 $938,176 $487,857 3 9=e Table 5. 4 9=e Appendix 4a and 4b. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007\fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 3 rev; 4/17/2014; jj Table 4 Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Net General Fund Expenditures IF Public In -Tract Streets IF Private In -Tract Streets S�e Table 5. 2 S�e Appendix Table 5. 3 S�e Table 9. $498,898 $427,065 $388,993 $481,784 $409,950 $371,878 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 4 exp; 4/17/2014; jj 6dsting Land Use Proposed Land Designations Use Alt. la Alt. lb 158 du 125 du 170 k SF 170 k SF Alt. 2 Expenditure Comm Comm 161 DU resident equivalents' 642 542 489 Estimating Factor 2 General Government $36.99 per reseq $23,749 $20,050 $18,089 Police $309.80 per reseq $198,890 $167,910 $151,491 Fi re $217.57 per reseq $139,679 $117,922 $106,391 Other PublicSafety $14.08 per reseq $9,038 $7,631 $6,884 Transportation $22.06 per reseq $14,160 $11,954 $10,785 Culture and Leisure Services $95.16 per reseq $61,095 $51,579 $46,535 Community Development $22.68 per reseq $14,563 $12,295 $11,092 General Fund Expenditures Before Infrastructure $461,174 $389,340 $351,268 Public Infrastructure Maintenance IF Public In-Tract areets3 $37,725 $37,725 $37,725 IFPrivate In -Tract areets3 $20,610 $20,610 $20,610 Net General Fund Expenditures IF Public In -Tract Streets IF Private In -Tract Streets S�e Table 5. 2 S�e Appendix Table 5. 3 S�e Table 9. $498,898 $427,065 $388,993 $481,784 $409,950 $371,878 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 4 exp; 4/17/2014; jj Table 5 Demographics Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 6dsting Land Use Proposed Land Designations Use Alt. la Alt. lb Medium - High Density 158 du 125 du 304 170 k SF 170 k SF Alt. 2 Demographic M easure Comm Comm 161 DU Residential Population Medium Density 3.09 per HH ' 1.7% vacant 67 52 489 Medium - High Density 3.09 per HH 1.7% vacant 304 243 0 High Density 3.09 per HH ' 1.7% vacant 109 85 0 480 380 489 Commercial Employment Retail Community 9iopping Ceni 350 sf / empl 2 486 486 0 486 486 0 Resident Equivalents Fbddents 1.00 per resident 480 380 489 Employees 0.33 per empl 162 162 0 642 542 489 U.S Census2007 -2011 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates. 2 KMA estimate based on past experience. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 5 demos; 4/17/2014; jj Table 6 Estimated Assessed Value Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Proposed Land Bdsting Land Use Designations Use Alt. la Alt. lb 158 du 125 du Alt. 2 Assessed Value 170 k SF Comm 170 k SF Comm 161 DU Total Assessed Value $156,203,810 $135,998,808 $134,016,472 Based on a weighted average of price per unit as estimated by 3immerHill Homes, reduced by 5 %based on sales price averages from comperable sales. S�e Appendix 6 and 7. 2 Medium density sizes reflect 3immerhill Homes proposal. Medium -High density and High density unit sizes reflect competitive projects in the market area. S�e Appendix 6 and 7. 3 Appendix 3. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 6 AV; 4/17/2014; J unit price Residential Medium Density $832,400 /du ' $18,312,810 $14,150,808 $134,016,472 Medium - High Density $619,750 /du 2 $61,975,000 $49,580,000 $0 High Density $456,000 /du 2 $16,416,000 $12,768,000 $0 $96,703,810 $76,498,808 $134,016,472 Avg Unit Price $612,049 $611,990 $832,400 Commercial Fbtail con. costs +land 3 Community chopping Dente $350 psf $59,500,000 $59,500,000 $0 $59,500,000 $59,500,000 $0 Total Assessed Value $156,203,810 $135,998,808 $134,016,472 Based on a weighted average of price per unit as estimated by 3immerHill Homes, reduced by 5 %based on sales price averages from comperable sales. S�e Appendix 6 and 7. 2 Medium density sizes reflect 3immerhill Homes proposal. Medium -High density and High density unit sizes reflect competitive projects in the market area. S�e Appendix 6 and 7. 3 Appendix 3. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 6 AV; 4/17/2014; J Table 7 6dsting Demographic Data - City of Dublin Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 City of Demographic M easure Dublin Population' 44,208 Employment 2 20,540 Fbsident Equivalents 0.33 per employee 51,055 1 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Fbpulation Estimates for / Jgg� / of ■CAt Prf dls {65a C}d-! ■ ■j Pmi s,H,' ■C/ HAW{s \A A-T9fi s$ss and 2013. Sacramento, California, May 2013. Adjusted based on U.S Census2010 Croup Quarter/ Correctional Facility population: Correctional Facility Population 2 The Nielsen Company, 2012. 5,682 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 7 extg demos; 4/17/2014; J Table 8 Estimated Household Income Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Bdsting Land Use Designation Proposed Land Use Alt. 1a Alt. 1b 158 du 125 du Alt. 2 Housing Expenditure Factor 170 k SF Comm 170 k SF Comm 161 DU Unit Value' $612,049 $611,990 $832,400 Mortgage Term 2 30 years 30 years 30 years Interest Rate 2 5.5% /year 5.5% /year 5.5% /year Down Payment 2 20% down 20% down 20% down Annual Housing Payment $33,400 /year $33,400 /year $45,400 /year Housing Expenditure %of Income 2 25% income 25% income 25% income Annual Household Income $133,600 $133,600 $181,600 Table 6. 2 Based on typical mortgage terms and housing expenditures in the Bay Area with additional interest margin to allow for growth in interest rates above current rates, which are at historically low levels. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 8 HH inc; 4/17/2014; jj Table 9 Estimated Annual Infrastructure Maintenance Costs Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Mai ntenance Category PublicRing Road Private Rng Road Quantity $5,673 $5,673 greet Lights (ea) 42 22 Landscaping - Median (SF) 9,700 9,700 Landscaping - Trees (ea) 15 15 Fbadway Pavement (8F) 325,100 148,002 Curb and Gutter - greet Sweeping (miles) 2 1 Curb and Gutter (LF) 9,705 4,175 gorm Drain & Utilities- Inlet Cleaning (ea) 28 12 Traffic 9gnals 0 0 Street Furniture 0 0 Decorative Pavement 0 0 Art, Parks, Plazas, etc. 0 0 Costs Standard Items Street Lights $5,264 $2,757 Landscaping $5,673 $5,673 Fbadway Pavement $26,189 $11,922 Curb and Gutter $179 $77 gorm Drain & Utilities $420 $180 Traffic 9gnals $00 $00 $37,725 $20,610 Project Specific greet Furniture $0 $0 Decorative Pavement $0 $0 Art, Parks, Plazas, etc. $0 $0 Total Annual Maintenance Cost $37,725 $20,610 Data provided byCltystaff. Estimatesassume that In-tract 'ring road' isapublicstreet and that all in -tract motor courtswill be private streets. 2 Data provided by0ty3aff. Estimates assume that all in -tract streets (including the ring road will be private streets. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 9 maint; 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 1 Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Forecast FY 2013 -2014 Revenue Category Budget Basis of WA Projections Included in the Analvsis Taxes Oarrent Property Taxes Sacured Unsecured -Supplemental Prior Property Taxes Sacured Unsecured In Lieu Property Tax Property Tax Penalties Property Transfer Tax Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel) Sales Tax Sales and Use Tax In Lieu Sales Tax Franchise Taxes 9,i1'N -0-�a1' LLVP DAe -0-�a1' 4s DArtA{s -0-�a1' 4s / ALA -0-�G1' 4s Intergovernmental Revenues Property Tax Relief (HOPTF� Licenses, Permits, Franchises Business Licenses Business License Penalties Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Other (hurt Fines Parking Citations Total Revenue Included $18,203,730 $1,164,000 $450,000 $19,817,730 $280,000 $5,000 $285,000 $3,667,000 $118,800 $451,500 $875,000 $11,475,000 $3,825,000 $15,300,000 -:,sfi &T $2,943,800 $183,620 $183,620 $139,000 $2,500 $141,500 $60,000 $52,910 $256,910 $44,040,860 estimated development value, Otysh. of 1 %tax MVLF share from SOC est. devel. value and turnover rate, Oty tax rate est. project room nights and rates, Otytax rat e est. project sales, empl. and resid. spending resident equivalents included in the propertytaxes City business license schedule (originally under Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties) resident equivalents Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: A \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A -1 budget rev; 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 1 Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Police Charges for Services Forecast deduct from Police Services Fire Charges for Services FY 2013 -2014 deduct from Fire Services Revenue Category Budget Basis of MA Projections Deducted from Service Costs $3,700 deduct from Administrative Services Licenses, Permits, Franchises $1,727,160 deduct from Parksand Community Services Programs Police Licenses $19,380 deduct from Police Services Animal Licences $5,600 deduct from Animal Control Fire Permits $52,980 deduct from Fire Services Planning Permits $52,740 deduct from Community Development Department Building Permits $2,215,280 deduct from Community Development Department Construction and Demo Permits $56,400 deduct from Community Development Department Newspaper Pack Permits $3,240 deduct from Community Development Department Encroachment / Transportation Permits $49,120 deduct from Engineering Grading $3,280 deduct from Engineering $2,458,020 Charges for Services Police Charges for Services $60,730 deduct from Police Services Fire Charges for Services $126,310 deduct from Fire Services Waste Management Administration Fee $670,000 deduct from Waste Management Sale of Documents $3,700 deduct from Administrative Services Recreation & Community Services $1,727,160 deduct from Parksand Community Services Programs Heritage & Cultural Arts $276,440 deduct from Heritage and Cultural Arts Programs [ ol'�Wj uArs t s' -Q 1 'rf U44 Drss■ . j -641� $720 deduct from Community Development Department Zoning/ Planning $852,550 deduct from Community Development Department t J. / L1 114;6+' — j i64,� rsrj I' / clill r 5sos� s�C5s s�C t is/ $1,123,020 deduct from Engineering [ ol'A4 uArs t s' -Qj 'rf LIA- sf -uoms - {a U $10,900 deduct from Community Development Department $4,854,130 Use of Money & Property Field & Court Rentals $190,690 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs Facility Rentals $275,260 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs $465,950 Total Deducted from Service Costs $7,778,100 Excluded from the Analysis Charges for Services Building Use Insurance $16,000 Santa Rita Services $820,000 $836,000 Use of Money & Property independent of project Interest $652,160 Leased Property $64,800 $716,960 Other Revenues Reimbursement, General $24,570 Reimbursement, Damage $19,370 Community Benefit Payments $1,488,050 Cbntributions/ Donations/ Eponsorships $67,650 Miscellaneous Pevenue $53,080 $1,652,720 Total Excluded $3,205,680 C hQ [ - D9b9wl [ COb5 !4J4JJu -4 1 For funding City departmental services Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: A \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A -1 budget rev; 4/17/2014; jj �+ • • ' • I Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Expenditure Category Forecast FY2013 -2014 Budget General Government ($52,980) City Council $382,900 City Manager / City Clerk $1,372,890 B ecti ons $3,120 Central cervices/ Human Services $511,230 Insurance $1,018,660 Legal cervices $715,930 Administrative Services $2,228,520 (Less) Sale of Documents ($3,700) Traffic9gnalsand Greet Lighting $2,224,820 Building Management $853,130 Non - Departmental $471,880 Total General Government $7,558,260 Net General Government $7,554,560 Public Safety Police cervices $15,896,720 (Less) Police Licenses ($19,380) (Less) Pbl ice Charges for Services ($60,730) ($80,110) $15,816,610 Fire cervices $11,287,150 (Less) Fire Permits ($52,980) (Less) Fire Charges for cervices ($126,310) ($179,290) $11,107,860 Disaster Preparedness $171,950 Crossing Guards $111,890 Animal Control $416,410 (Less) Animal Licenses ($5,600) $410,810 Traffic9gnalsand Greet Lighting $24,120 Total Public93fety $27,908,240 Net Public93fety $27,643,240 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A -2 budget exp; 4/17/2014; D �+ • • ' • I Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Expenditure Category Forecast FY2013 -2014 Budget Transportation ($670,000) Public Works Administration $958,870 Greet Maintenance $20,770 Greet Sweeping $162,470 Greet Landscape Maintenance $980,130 Greet Tree Maintenance $129,820 Total Transportation $2,252,060 Net Transportation $2,252,060 Health and Welfare Waste Management $159,840 (Less) Waste Management Administration Fee ($670,000) ($510,160) Environmental Programs $233,940 ocial cervices $196,480 Housing Programs $210 Total Health and Welfare $590,470 Net Health and Welfare ($79,530) Culture and Leisure Services Community Cable Television $87,150 Library cervices $579,420 Park Maintenance $2,775,830 Heritage and Cultural Arts Programs $1,003,310 (Less) Heritage & Cultural Arts ($276,440) $726,870 Parks and Community S�rvicesPrograms $4,138,060 (Less) Recreation & Community cervices ($1,727,160) (Less) Feld & Court Rentals ($190,690) (Less) Facility Rentals ($275,260) ($2,193,110) $1,944,950 Park and Facility Development $363,850 Total Culture and Leisure Services $8,947,620 Net Culture and Leisure Services $6,478,070 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A -2 budget exp; 4/17/2014; D Appendix 2 Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Expenditure Category Forecast FY2013 -2014 Budget Community Development ($49,120) Community Development Department $4,150,790 (Less) Panning Permits ($52,740) (Less) Building Permits ($2,215,280) (Less) Construction and Demo Permits ($56,400) (Less) Newspaper Rack Permits ($3,240) JsU4 ol'Anj HArs t s' -Q 'rf uA* -less■ . J -6-6+ _„ (Less) Zoning/ Panning ($852,550) NEA us1,411+ -. j -6 JsU4 ol'Anj UArs t s' -(J 'rf UAri t - uo ■s a Lt ($3,194,430) $956,360 Engineering $1,892,540 (Less) Encroachment / Transportation Permits ($49,120) (Less) Grading ($3,280) �Sii��/ ushi�- 9■}�iSS'n4i -� �9fi99c�$9$� ($1,175,420) $717,120 Economic Development and Public Information $642,740 Total Community Development $6,686,070 Net Community Development $2,316,220 Total Operating Expenditures $53,942,720 Appropriations to Fbserves $58,289 Total General Fund Expenditures $54,001,009 Expenditures Net of Off - Setting laevenues $46,222,909 Cost recovery items (negative amounts) are from revenue items listed on Appendix 1. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A -2 budget exp; 4/17/2014; D Appendix 3 Commercial Construction Cost / Assessed Valuation Estimate Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Community Commercial Cost Bement Shopping Center' Construction Costs Land Cost $200.00 Gust per Square Foot of Land 3 $30.00 Roor Area Ratio 0.20 Land Cost per Building Square Foot $150.00 Est. Assessed Valuation, Per GBA $350.00 ODrnmunity Sopping Center based on General Pletail. 2 Marshall & Snrift Valuation Service. 3 KMAestimate. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A3 comm cost; 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 4A Revenue Source Assumptions - Bdsting Land Use Alternatives 1 a and 1 b Dublin Land (bmpany Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 General Rind Property Tax 1 % property tax assessment 22.98% City share of property tax allocation post -EF?AF 1 Property Tax In -Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004 -05 2,3 $5,553,452,954 2004 -05 Dublin gross AV 2,3 $0.41 per $1,000 in AVgrowth Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4 20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5 10.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5 Sales Tax 1.00% of taxable sales Fbsident Retail Epending $133,600 estimated household income 6 26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7 80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8 10.0% Dublin spending within the project 5 $25,876 annual other Dublin spending per owner household Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5 50 weeks at work per year 5 $1,250 annual spending per employee 80% Dublin capture 5 30% employee Dublin spending within the project 5 $700 annual other Dublin spending per employee General Rind, continued 3lleSTax, continued General Retail $375 total sales P5F5 80% taxable sales 5 10% vacany rate 5 $270 total taxable general retail sales P5F Grocery Retail $854 total sales P5F 10 40% percent taxable 5 $342 total taxable grocery sales P5F Festaurant $550 total sales P5F5 100% taxable sales 5 10% vacany rate 5 $495 total taxable sales, restaurant space P5F Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 4a rev assump (alt1a and 1b); 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 4A Revenue Source Assumptions - Bdsting Land Use Alternatives 1 a and 1 b Dublin Land ODmpany Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Business License Tax $50 per business 4 1 grocery store 3,500 sf per business for general retail 5 10,000 sf per business for office building 5 Prop. 172 SaIesTax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax" 6% average allocation to cities 11 $0.300 Dublin revenue per $1,000 spent Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY2013/ 1412 51,055 resident equivalents 13 $57.66 per resident equivalent Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY2013/1412 51,055 resident equivalents 13 $2.77 per resident equivalent Fines/ Fbrfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY2013 /1412 51,055 resident equivalents 13 $5.03 per resident equivalent Other Revenue Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY2013/ 1414 44,208 residents 13 $29.46 per resident Notes. 1 Alameda County Auditor-C bntrollerAgencyTaxAnalydsPropertyReports ,51322AAB8CalculationofRevenue Percentages in Tax Pate Areas (Cbuntywebsite). 2 Per 531096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AVsince 2004 /05. Before 2004 /05, VLF wasdistributed in proportion to population. 3 2004 /05 VLFdistribution per the California Efate Cbnt roller's Office. 4 Per Dublin Municipal Code. 5 KMAassumption. 6 See Table 8. Sate Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Fbport by Type of Business for Otiesand Counties, 2011; US Oansus, American Community- %rvey, 2007 -2011 5 -Year Estimates. 8 Estimate based on O4 Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential. 9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office, as reported in the IC9Creport, "Office- Worker Petail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012), for suburban workers. 10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data - by U.S Business Reporter FY2011. Data used are for similar storesto those anticipated at the site. 11 Per California Oty Finance website - The Proposition 1721/2 Cant Sales Tax: Background for League of California Oties 2005 Annual Conference Resolution #7. 12 See Appendix 1. 13 See Table 7. 14 Per Otyof Dublin 2013 -2014 Operating Budget. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 4a rev assump (alt1a and 1b); 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 4B Revenue Source Assumptions- Proposed Land Use Alternative 2 Dublin Land (bmpany Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 General Rind Property Tax 1 % property tax assessment 22.98% City share of property tax allocation post -EF?AF 1 Property Tax In -Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004 -05 2,3 $5,553,452,954 2004 -05 Dublin grossAV2,3 $0.41 per $1,000 in AVgrowth Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4 20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5 10.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5 Sales Tax 1.00% of taxable sales Fbsident Retail Epending $181,600 estimated household income 26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7 80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8 0.0% Dublin spending within the project 5 $39,080 annual other Dublin spending per owner household Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5 50 weeks at work per year 5 $1,250 annual spending per employee 0% Dublin capture 5 0% employee Dublin spending within the project 5 $0 annual other Dublin spending per employee General Rind, continued 3lleSTax, continued General Retail $0 total sales P5F5 80% taxable sales 5 10% vacany rate 5 $0 total taxable general retail sales P5F Grocery Retail $854 total sales P5F10 40% percent taxable 5 $342 total taxable grocery sales P5F Festaurant $550 total sales P5F5 100% taxable sales 5 10% vacany rate 5 $495 total taxable sales, restaurant space P5F Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 4b rev assumpt alt 2; 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 4B Revenue Source Assumptions- Proposed Land Use Alternative 2 Dublin Land ODmpany Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 Business License Tax $50 per business 4 1 grocery store 3,500 sf per business for general retail 5 10,000 sf per business for office building 5 Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax" 6% average allocation to cities 11 $0.300 Dublin revenue per $1,000 spent Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY2013/ 1412 51,055 resident equivalents 13 $57.66 per resident equivalent Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY2013/1412 51,055 resident equivalents 13 $2.77 per resident equivalent Fines/ Fbrfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY2013 /1412 51,055 resident equivalents 13 $5.03 per resident equivalent Other Revenue Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY2013/ 1414 44,208 residents 13 $29.46 per resident Notes. 1 Alameda County Auditor-C bntrollerAgencyTaxAnalydsPropertyReports ,51322AAB8CalculationofRevenue Percentages in Tax Pate Areas (Cbuntywebsite). 2 Per 531096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AVsince 2004 /05. Before 2004 /05, VLF wasdistributed in proportion to population. 3 2004 /05 VLFdistribution per the California Efate Cbnt roller's Office. 4 Per Dublin Municipal Code. 5 KMAassumption. 6 See Table 8. Sate Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Fbport by Type of Business for Otiesand Counties, 2011; US Oansus, American Community- %rvey, 2007 -2011 5 -Year Estimates. 8 Estimate based on O4 Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential. 9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office, as reported in the IC9Creport, "Office- Worker Pbetail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012), for suburban workers. 10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data - by U.S Business Reporter FY2011. Data used are for similar storesto those anticipated at the site. 11 Per California Oty Finance website - The Proposition 1721/2 Cant Sales Tax: Background for League of California Oties 2005 Annual Conference Resolution #7. 12 See Appendix 1. 13 See Table 7. 14 Per Otyof Dublin 2013 -2014 Operating Budget. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; 4b rev assumpt alt 2; 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 5 General Fund Operating Expense Assumptions Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 General Government $7,554,560 net expenses in FY2013/ 14' 25% percent variable costs 2 51,055 resident equivalent S3 $36.99 average cost per resident equivalent Police $15,816,610 net expenses in FY 2013/ 14' 51,055 resident equivalent S3 $309.80 average cost per resident equivalent Fi re $11,107,860 net expenses in FY 2013/14' 51,055 resident equivalent S3 $217.57 average cost per resident equivalent Other Public Safety $718,770 net expenses in FY2013/ 14' 51,055 resident equivalent S3 $14.08 average cost per resident equivalent Transportation $2,252,060 net expenses in FY2013/ 14' 50% percent variable costs 2 51,055 resident equivalent S3 $22.06 average cost per resident equivalent Health and Welfare This department is operated on a cost recovery basis and generates no net expenditures. Oilture and Leisure Services $6,478,070 net expenses in FY 2013/ 14' 75% percent variable costs 2 51,055 resident equivalent S3 $95.16 average cost per resident equivalent Community Development $2,316,220 net expenses in FY2013/ 14' 50% percent variable costs 2 51,055 resident equivalent S3 $22.68 average cost per resident equivalent Project - Specific Infrastructure cadulated on Appendix 3. 1 See Appendix 2 2 A portion of these General Fund expense categories is fixed, and does not vary regardless of the amount of development. The estimated percent of variable costs is based on the experiences of other cities. See Table 7. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; a5 exp assume; 4/17/2014; jj c O 3 M d d V o` O Ln c S! 3 0 c d m N y m •> i m m c IZ EE +. O V V M IZ u; £ > tw c �V N O. LL c 0 C 0 CL IZ E O O O. V o = � X L R G J L c £ c ! a E . S Q- 3 O a LA in c I * C t S e v a v I* E C I * I * t d EE EE 7 N o o a 00 m " m rn rn OI o o � m -Zt m d m m rn rn > {n {n L Q zt Q o Z m z o J v_ m o m c O LL NI Q o Q N Z to Z i m co H 7I Q Q o z m z s V m Il M o 0 V M M m I0 3 � � Ol 00 m co J O o Ln 0 C O a M 0 O Ol 3 4A 4A O c OI Ln M o 0 0 en d a m 0 N v), v O V mI v). o a o N M Z oo Z ! rn a dl M Z io Z rn C7 o L c N i i f0 N Z E_ E E 3 3 O O rl '✓3 '✓3 U cn N N 1LL n T W O M M d V). V). V v n 0 a o a` i ui > N Ln a vi u^i a o to aN N O O N N co oa M N M YIY ca O CL 2 � L C1 m Uh 'a L p �n L_ O V N N V a 7 ca eM' ry _ n M. C.� W y' eA cw m vy a tRa ca Ica di, ' ca ca Ra Fa Ra Fa Ra ca ca Fa Fa "° YIY ca O CL 2 � L C1 m Uh 'a L p �n L_ O V N N V a 7 ca eM' ry _ n M. C.� W y' eA cw m vy a tRa ca Ica ca ca ca ca Ra Fa Ra Fa Ra ca ca Fa Fa "° n CL CV ""•• U UJ N E N O SZ N Q c O N r V Q N U a d' V N U o � O u w m w O r No N O a� C � O � m Q N 3 Y ,) d E C a ii Appendix 7 Dublin Area Residential Projects and Pricing Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 All Sales Since 2013; Highlighted cells have a similar average unit size to the proposed project options. High Density Ban 1 1 6 944 $364,093 $386 DRHorton 2 2 14 1,269 $407,143 $321 2006-2007 3 2 4 1,345 $437,500 $325 Total 24 1,186 $402,912 $340 Terraces IB Homes 4 1,085 $426,667 $393 Toll Brothers 1,246 $467,500 $375 2004 1,246 $475,000 $381 1,066 $412,500 $387 1,246 $470,000 $377 1,066 $415,000 $389 1,066 $410,000 $385 1,248 $465,500 $373 1,159 $442,771 $382 Medium High Density Crossroads 3 2.5 6 1,776 $488,167 $275 IB Homes 4 3.5 1 2,150 $682,500 $317 2012 Total 7 1,963 $585,333 $298 Ravel to 3 2.5 1 2,337 $865,000 $370 -Shea Homes 4 2.5 1 2,485 $880,000 $354 2012 4 3 1 2,601 $875,000 $336 1,950 $725,000 $372 2,000 $895,000 $448 2,100 $745,000 $355 2,150 $700,000 $326 2,450 $760,000 $310 Total 2,259 $805,625 $357 Courtyards 2 2 1 2,337 $865,000 $370 Toll Brothers 2 2.5 1 2,485 $880,000 $354 2003-2006 3 2.5 1 2,601 $875,000 $336 3 3 6 1,967 $508,000 $258 Total 9 2,348 $782,000 $333 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Prepared by: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A7; 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 7 Dublin Area Residential Projects and Pricing Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 All Sales Since 2013; Highlighted cells have a similar average unit size to the proposed project options w :atn zalles Avg--*- Avg--vill "ice Nice el: =m ier / 'tear juin Medium High Density (Continued) $800,000 $386 gandard Pacific 2,275 Cottages $376 2,475 $870,000 $352 2,300 1 2 1 1,320 $485,000 $367 Toll Brothers 2 2 1 1,320 $340,000 $258 2003-2005 2 2.5 0 - - - 3 2 1 2,158 $607,000 $281 3 2.5 2 2,181 $585,500 $268 Total 5 1,745 $504,375 $289 Medium Density Piazza 2,070 $780,000 $377 gandard Pacific 1,975 $805,000 $408 2012 2,075 $800,000 $386 gandard Pacific 2,275 $855,000 $376 2,475 $870,000 $352 Total 2,174 $822,000 $378 Tralee $775,000 $330 1,829 $587,500 $321 -Shea Homes 1,450 $610,000 $421 2008-2009 2,050 $705,000 $344 Sihae Homes 2,300 $755,000 $328 Total 1,907 $664,375 $348 Lucca 2,100 $770,000 $367 Taylor Morrison 2,350 $775,000 $330 2,450 $800,000 $327 2,550 $800,000 $314 2,600 $810,000 $312 3,075 $840,000 $273 Total 2,521 $799,167 $317 Castello 2,050 $830,000 $405 gandard Pacific 2,175 $848,000 $390 2,250 $855,000 $380 2,350 $860,000 $366 2,550 $870,000 $341 2,700 $877,000 $325 Total 2,346 $856,667 $365 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Prepared by: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A7; 4/17/2014; jj Appendix 7 Dublin Area Residential Projects and Pricing Dublin Land Company Fiscal Impact Analysis Dublin, CA April 15, 2014 All Sales Since 2013; Highlighted cells have a similar average unit size to the proposed project options. Medium Density (Continued) La SiDlara 2,350 $805,000 $343 Taylor Morrison 2,475 $820,000 $331 2,500 $825,000 $330 2,550 $825,000 $324 2,650 $865,000 $326 2,950 $880,000 $298 Total 2,579 $836,667 $324 Larger SF Lots Chateau 3,000 $1,000,000 $333 Etandard Pacific 2,700 $948,000 $351 2,500 $945,000 $378 1,575 $715,000 $454 1,350 $675,000 $500 Total 2,225 $856,600 $385 Wi nwood 2,250 $910,000 $404 Brookfield 2,450 $925,000 $378 2,650 $948,000 $358 Total 2,450 $927,667 $379 Fallon Fudge 2,050 $855,000 $417 IB Home 2,300 $890,000 $387 2,350 $880,000 $374 2,700 $930,000 $344 Total 2,350 $888,750 $378 Di manto 2,580Si=Lots 95 2,057 $821,474 $399 3immerHillHomes 3,400 Si= Lots 66 2,642 $955,000 $361 Proposed Total 161 2,297 $876,211 $382 As reported by 3%mmerhill, without a price reduction. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Prepared by: \ \Sf- fs2 \wp \11 \11982 \007 \fiscal 04 15 14 - Reduced Value; A7; 4/17/2014; jj All Dublin Students w11 Become Lifelong Learners SUPERINTENDENT Stephen Henke, Ed. D. (925) 828 -2551 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Sean Kenney President (650) 465 -9851 Amy Miller Vice President (925) 577 -5866 Dan Cunningham (925) 640.8330 Megan Rouse (925) 785 -7862 Greg Tomlinson (925) 361 -5055 May 7, 2014 Mr. Chris Foss, City Manager, City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Chris: This letter is to summarize the essence of multiple conversations that the school district has had with Wendi Baker, Vice President of Development, and Marshall Torres, consultant for SummerHill Homes. On March 25, 2014, Beverly Heironimus, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services and I met with Ms. Baker and Mr. Torres to review planned development for certain plots of land bordered by Gleason Drive in the north, Dublin Boulevard in the south, Tassajara Road on the west and Brannigan Street on the east. Here -to -fore these plots shall be called sections 2, 3 & 4, the DiManto property. In our meeting, we reviewed the proposed developments and discussed potential General Plan Amendments that SummerHill Homes has submitted to the City for consideration. The proposed changes alter the product to be built and hence change student generation rates. They do not, however, increase the number of anticipated students that will be generated. In fact, the proposed adjustments may result in a slight reduction in numbers from 189 to 181students for sections 2, 3 & 4. It is likely that Kolb Elementary School will be the elementary school for students in these developments. Today, Kolb Elementary School is impacted with more than 1,000 students attending the school. In the fall of 2015, J.M. Amador Elementary School will open, providing additional elementary school capacity to the region. Our understanding is that when the DiManto property is developed, the first students generated from sections 2, 3 & 4 will not arrive until sometime after Amador Elementary School opens. As we see it, there will not be any adverse impact to the district from the potential General Plan Amendments that SummerHill Homes is proposing. A Boundary Committee has been formed to establish the boundaries for Amador Elementary School. It is anticipated that this will include a shift in significant numbers of students who currently attend Kolb Elementary School, thus providing space for students from other developments in the area, including the DiManto property (Sections 2,3,and 4). RECEIVED MAY 13 ?014 CITY OF DUBLIN CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE The District remains supportive of growth throughout the community and is committed to serving students from wherever they are generated. Ongoing communication regarding these and any other potential General Plan Amendments is important. We greatly appreciate the City's efforts to keep us informed as well as the ongoing partnership between the City and the School District. If you have any questions regarding the dialogue with SummerHill Homes or the impact of the proposed General Plan Amendments, please don't hesitate to contact me at 925.828.2551 ext. 8002. Regards, x � H(W- Steve Hanke Superintendent cc: Dublin USD Board of Trustees Beverly Heironimus, Asst. Supt., Business Services Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes 2 c r� « I r OF Luke Sims Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 RE: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Request Parcel 2 Dublin Land Company Property Dear Mr. Sims SummerHill Homes has been authorized by Dublin Land Company, the owners of the following described property, to request the City Council authorize Staff to consider revisions to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designations as follows: Parcel 2 of the Dublin Land Company property, APN 985- 51 -06, 30.26 acres from High Density Residential, General Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential and Medium High Density Residential pursuant to attached Exhibit A The proposed land use designations and project would accomplish the following: (1) Permit the construction of approximately 70,000 square feet of walkable retail commercial by Regency Centers including retail sales, formal and informal social gathering places, restaurants and surface parking on an approximately 8.5 acres (2) Remove all High Density Residential land use designations from Parcel 2 (3) Include a total of 246 Medium Density Residential, two story single family detached homes and Medium High Density Residential, three -story townhomes including 5 on -site parking spaces per single family home and 3 on -site spaces per townhome (4) Complete all of the frontage improvements including the fourth leg of the Tassajara Road signalized intersection, which currently serves the Waterford Shops, on the periphery of the strategically located Parcel 2 of the Dublin Land Company property thereby facilitating vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access along Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, Dublin Blvd and Brannigan St. (5) Significantly decrease traffic compared to existing General and Specific Plan permitted land uses . . . . , (7) Generate significant park related fees that may be used to facilitate improvements to Emerald Park (8) Significantly increase the City's tax base from Parcel 2 (9) Significantly increase the property values of Parcel 2 (10) Several million dollar contribution to the City's affordable housing fund (11) In addition to the GPA /SPA, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map applications along with analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project (CEQA) would be processed for Parcel 2 incorporating a master commercial and residential planned development to be constructed concurrently. SummerHill Homes and Regency Centers respectfully request City Council authorization to proceed with the requested entitlements for this exciting project. We are collectively committed to take the steps necessary to work with the City to diligently move the process forward. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank You, Wendi Baker Vice President Peter Knoedler Senior Vice President SummerHill Homes Regency Centers Attachment: Exhibit A- General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Exhibit am VD'PUBIXBO A g 'm ooz sine -.Is puoo9s oog , suluumm-mom4mv RE@ '*Ul Wawa ADIN 001 es a SNOINNDISIO 3Sn ONV1 9NIISIX3 Z jo I - V I!q!4x] OM'M as mts vo •www U.9 096 -MS'A-,I-d -0-3 0009 SUIMM"03 �,Mq 9 ME, MUTLulow costs vo,plispeo ooz em"S"Is Pu—s 099 ouluuuld Zrq*•N4wV *ujnwU AGj3j OR DOR us SHOUNDISM 3SO aNV1 03SOdOil z jo I - V I!q!qx3 0091'"E MS eum VO .—.m u.e 096 "ng 'ASM*Dd W41MOX3 OWC .0113—SW A. s3111NnW— RESOLUTION NO. XX — 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR DUBLIN LAND COMPANY PARCEL 2 TO EVALUATE A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (APN 985 - 0051 -006) WHEREAS, the City has received a request from SummerHill Homes ( "Project Proponent ") to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the land use designations of a 30.26 -acre project area (comprised of "Parcel 2" located along the east side of Tassajara Road generally north of Dublin Blvd. and south of Central Parkway and west of Brannigan Street ( "Study Area "); and WHEREAS, the land uses on the parcel in the Study Area is currently designated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 -25 du /acre), High Density Residential (25+ du /acre), General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the land use designation requested by the Project Proponent is Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre), Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 -25 du /acre) and General Commercial for the 30.26 -acre Study Area; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the existing land use designation of the Study Area (APN 985 - 0051 -006) to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 20th day of May 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:IPA #120131PLPA- 2013 -00005 Summerhill Homes - DiMantolCC Mtg 5.20.141Staff Report AttachmentslAtt 4.CCReso APPROVING -GP Initition parcel 2. doc O a) N R CL N 'O N C N E C TO EN Q W C - (0 N a � R � y O C Y N 6 > i0 0 a CL Q D O O O r N r O C T N In N N In ^ r Q Q) N > O h W h U h N LL p U M co co co M M r N r N r N r N C C C In N N C In N N In N N In N N c6 C c6 C c6 C c6 C c6 C M ^ c0 � C r N c6 C c6 C c6 C c6 C c6 C c6 C N cu N N T Y N N N C Q E U O_ Q E cu E U o ❑ LL D ❑ J ❑ N N co / Z Z O h N D N W N N O h cOO ❑ '6 N c c o o a O cri N N c o N -6 �_ o c N O c U .- o O ; c 0 •- d N '> aJ C O c d O a Q E '06 OQ d N O d d E O N E '6 N Lo E O d c0 't' 0 N E '6 d O NJ d H❑ C '� "' O E O m o O d 09 Y (o O d.� O - o E E c E E N Q u d N d O❑ Q) Q '6 W L U O W 6 0 c (° E O 70 O 9 '6 OU O) E O '6 Q O Q) O O N U O N c o 0 Q p .C. C d ^ p_ O .Y o O 0 0 '6 �. ) d E c cu Q c d Q) E 3 0 .� o E� o a0 a Q) O) C ti 0 0 E .T T D 0 0 c0 d d O O p "6 c d O i U .0 O i0 d O .� i O) i0 "6 Q Q.- o a Q d a d .- N �. Q d N d w 9 c0 .0 .• U c N U E C .0 O U Q LU N N Q N 'Q) d C J) Q O cu o d d N a ? 9 d C O U ❑ J a T Q c0 d O O Q O O Y �' c0 .- d �, co L S' (o C " Q 2 c0 d a W d i p O . N O O W C O d O E U O O 0 o Q '6 0' r� N o U O -p >> a' 0 U p L T cu �. m >i d 0 E p Q E c a W C E T (`! a 2 0 0 �' 0 E d y U N ❑ In W N N O d >O Q N Y - c c U C Q E O N p r U N d N •-- co (o > U U -6 2 0 c 0 E '6 W N .N '7 O J C d Q 0 Q N� O c0 c0 0 Q V U U^ U- U T 9 0 O d Q) N a❑ O c c0 c O) p r O p O c d W (YJ O c O T (D ai c0 d OQ d .0 W O Q o U N T O Q❑ ` N N O Q a N c U d U O O O d o� C in 'y d -6 N E p) c Y_ U c0 C C T c6 a U a C c0 N C-❑ C O C Q— '6 I C Y p d N d a _� O (%! O p C d N❑ N 2 0 d O ❑ N — U Q) E '6 U E p m Q w U (� O N c" Y N >i d L d N C 1p '6 p p M c0 O) d 0 9 E C O O c0 O Q •-- Q p Q C E U Z Z p Q p❑ Y U'6U c" EL U cu L6 LL UU c0 2 LL oW 2(.7� U2 U'06� ��'6dU2 0 (o -0. O U c0 a E 0 c O '6 '6 ❑ -6 C (� -- 0 m 9 a) .0 N .6 d m 0 E s — 'J cu d p T > m o O a T c -j g[L N T a) E E H E 0 126 '0 '6 O O Y m W io -- in C Q) O d 0 9 'C 9 N 9 .L-. c o _O c d T. O d, > d U d '6 H a OQ C O Q 0 d m Q `� 0 °� O d °) o o d L O t6 a 0 0 Q E m o d d o; E ❑ �_' O J E L6 C p 0 a U Q) cL c 8o cu .� c m N U c d o U E cl 0 o oo d cu d N E cu o x cu 0 'N' O N d d c c W d d W o _� o N a d c c d Q) cn E x0 .N N N o d aEE9° c i0 —'6 O c 0 O>iE c N'dQ�00�dcu Q a o N d N E Q WQQ Q W�Q =26O 9 N -6 o N O c0 Q N N O C— d U c 9❑ 'C Q p L o d Q) U O O U O cL 9 cu d d N d E 6 d d N 0 'a6 O A Q) d o .O p 0 d d d d cu a SIG- LO 6 p (3 Q c co) U' C7 [L Q❑ _O U W (.7 U 0 Z 2❑ Q co C7 0 C7 � co O C7 2 N Q U U � c0 d N O_ C 6 iD d U p U cu cL Q) _cu d d c c O d c � cu 9 E ❑ -a 0 2) m Y m Y E 0 c0 9 J c d O (W(�� d Lu O o- p E c Q >> C O U O \l C N o_E Q) Y 3c 0Q) 2 - 0 QU Lb Od LLW W (.7 2 2 N M In (D n co > > /LL LL FZ $ ar a r ) CO ) co \ cq 2-5- /j2{ co : \0 /' ®� z - )\k\a\ \ \ 2 () oi ` ©^ �� CL �k \E cz, / =Ge° ._/ 6 } -- _ /E \J{ /: \. \) %! g cu \uu = =eA�r �2CLCL = �e=f= ±g 4a ±affaa _ /ez4a w= § § § § \{ Cc) C \ / ©� CU _ \ \�° %2 »)Q) _ \$ cu :- ' k /.2 2 /\ - - ��0 �\»\\ �� �0 0� /)&a \g {e $!\/ /gage /\ ± @0E- - /f5 S- @J©s/ e := o#. ±E0 E 2oef -__ $ ± % _� o2 °4w : e cu 0 Q) )) -® (� -CL c) }fƒ X00 \ %wƒ§ \ {;!) \) // % - f5f {{ =0 {f»\ \ \$g)fe\\ . / \}$: \ \ } \\ \ \[§ } \)/ \%)ioG o CL0 »o] E0 � \ \ \\ 2 U) =- f2f s =` 0 2 / \\) ///, §/± \\ [ } \{ [/\ N -6 ( \U §\ 2{ 2} 2=» !§. }\ j\)\ /\ \J /#u U) a»% U) °af` }) IL }x`= /_ z»G o% 0»4/ oe o=%= $ ! E \ ( \ ) ) \/ ar J : ( §u \ / 2� © RESOLUTION NO. XX — 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR DUBLIN LAND COMPANY PARCEL 2 TO EVALUATE A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (APN 985 - 0051 -006) WHEREAS, the City has received a request from SummerHill Homes ( "Project Proponent ") to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the land use designations of a 30.26 -acre project area (comprised of "Parcel 2" located along the east side of Tassajara Road generally north of Dublin Blvd. and south of Central Parkway and west of Brannigan Street ( "Study Area "); and WHEREAS, the land uses on the parcel in the Study Area is currently designated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 -25 du /acre), High Density Residential (25+ du /acre), General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the land use designation requested by the Project Proponent is Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre), Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 -25 du /acre) and General Commercial for the 30.26 -acre Study Area; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby deny the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the existing land use designation of the Study Area (APN 985 - 0051 -006) to Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density Residential and General Commercial. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 20th day of May 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:IPA #120131PLPA- 2013 -00005 Summerhill Homes - DiMantolCC Mtg 5.20.141Att 6 CCReso DENYING -GP Initiation Parcel 2.doc