HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 CaCreeksidePDAgmt
: ,;,:,'~;';'?;:~';;;I~:~~i...,..." ."
~._'"'w,l~
'0 ,.,..y CLERK
.: FHe #n~fOlf0-r01f2Jl
. .,i.;..' ,..,
'.
. .AGENDA STATe"eNT.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 14, 1996 .
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
:.
. Public Hearing: P A 95;'048. CalifomiaCreeksid~ Plfumed
Development and Development f\greem.int .'
tti- (R~rt Prepared by Dennis ~. Sr.;P~er).
/ Exhibit A: Project Plans",
/ Exhibit B: MitigationM()nitoring:Pro~ (;notattached, in
Planning , Departtnentfiles)
/ Exhibit C: Planning Comtnission,MlltJ.Jtcs:D:01l1, April 16, 1996
/ Exhibit D:PlanningCommissiQ~$~~.from April 16, 1996,
(withoutattacfuttent$) '.
/Exhibit E: Resolu~on ,A~vin,g and'~9Jisbiug Findings and
. ,,(Jcmeral Ptovisions ,an4.Condltionsof Approval fOJ: a
'PD,Pl~ De\1elo~:a..orUng
/Exhibit F: OrdinanCe A:Q1~ the Umna Otdinance to permit
Rezoning . . '
/ Exhibit G: Ordinan(;e .pproving t~evelopment Agreem.entand
Development A1PWment(.Attac~rnent.1. to ExQibit G)
__ Exhibit H:. Fiscal Analysis dated,OC<<thet..lS, 1992. ..
., ',',. '.
RECOl\fMENDATION:~ 1) OpeJ)public,luming, andrcceivestatfPresentatic>.n
" '\ 2) Take ~ony fronlAppli_,_~lic
3) ClosePublic.Hearitig , '.." ::>. ,':. '
4) Deliberate .. . .' : . ,
-5) Waive R~nll1gandlntrodUce O~~ "PPl'Ovmg PDRezone
(ExhibitF) .,'.
. 6) . Waive R,eadingand IntrodueeOrdin,en~ apprOving
DeVelopm~~.Agreemem.t(Exbi~~~G) .
t ,~
The Eastern DUblin specific Plm requires~t *'VelopIDent in the
area pay for its .needed ~ttuct'tWe.The responsibility to provide
capital improveJpODt$'falls totQe devdopet;.. A~. analysis
. performed at the time .tl1eSp.clfic Plari ._~ indicates that,
'after several initial YW'S ot:shortfall~~;DublinWi11 provide
more revenues ~ itwillroqQirbin~~ for public
services. The. means qffinar1cins,~~t~ce of lighting
and landscapms is.119t Yet determine4,d~ to a potential ballot
measure this Fall. t:'ot at ~~ qet1li1Q(f~~~ see Fiscal
An,alysis section of Agenda StateJnent. . ,. . . . .
. , '.. , ., . ,/.. " .
. ---~~--~------~---------~~.~-~--~~-~-~-~-~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~-~~--~--
~. . " .COPIES TO: .' P.t~bQl~ .. .....1. ....,
'._~ . . Matt,Ko'art".. ·
ha BoJUe Dinriblltioa ....
..rsEMNO.U
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
i<~;~~':':~..'.;\X.::.\,; 'r:.; './,lj!
DESCRIPTION:
.,:..-
Kaufman and Broad of Northern California and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority are
requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone of approximately 35.4 gross acres of land
(Assessor's Parcel Number 946..15..1-10) designated Planned Development Business Park Industrial
District to 26;8 gross acres zoned Planned Development Single Family Residential District (l54 dwelling
units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) fronting on Dublin Boulevard, and to 8.6 gross acres zoned Planned
Development Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per
acre) fronting on the Transit Spine and the unnamed collector street.
The proposed Planned Development would allow for a 277 dwelling unit residential project consisting of
1 S4 single family homes and 123 townhouses. A Development Agreement between Kaufman and Broad
of Northern California, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin is part of the
project. The Developl11ent Agreement includes traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees, phasing of
infrastructure construction and future creek improvements among other items. A Mitigation Monitoring
Program has been prepared for this project.
ANALYSIS
Planned DevelQp111ent RezoniUi
The Applicants are'requesting approval of a Planned Development' (PD) Rezoning to establish the General I::
Provisions and Development Regulations that would implement the retail/office land use designation for
the approximately 3S.4 acre project area. The Project P1ans{Exhibit A) contain a Land Use and
Development Plan represented by the Tentative Map dated received Aprill 0, 1996, Site Plan and
Preliminary Landscape Plan dated received April 2, 1996, and the written statements provided by the
Applicant dated received Aprill; 1996, and on file.
The General Provisions and Development Regulations and Conditions of Approval, as recommended by
the Planning Commission, are set forth in full in Exhibit E; Except as specifically modified by the
provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general requirements and proqedures of the
Dublin Zoning Oniinanee R..l District will be applied to the PD Single Family Residential designated
lands, and of the Roo) District will be applied to the PD Medium-High Density Residential designated
lands in tbisPD District. Single Family detached houses are allowed in the PD Single Family portion of
the project and Multifamily Townhouse units and Multifamily condominium units are permitted in the PD
Multifamily portion of the project. Prohibited uses include field crops, orchards, plant nurseries,
greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant matetiws for sale, and hospitals. Conditional uses are those
allowed by the R..l aridR..3 districts unless 'otherwise prohibited by,the PD Rezone. For a more detailed
analysis of the Planned Development proposal,scc the April 16, 1996, Planning Commission Staff Report
(Exhibit D) .
This project has been reviewed by other City Departments and affected agencies. Their comments have
been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit E).
'.:.
..,',-
2
"".-~.
.~
.;
i..'.'~.;:'"
;,,;"
DevelQpment ~~reement:
One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific'Plin'eal1sJor1be'City to enter into
development agreements with developers in the plan area. The purpose afa development a~ent is to
provide security to the developer thatthe City will not chaDgeitszoning 'andotJ'ter laws applicable to the
project for a'specified. periQdof time and, on the other han~provide a mecbanitm to the City to obtain
commitments from the developer the City might not. otherwise be able_obtain.. Thedevelopment
agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific Plan. goal that new devc10pntent fund the
cost Qf infrastructure is met.
Development agreements are authorized by statutes (Government Code ~()n 6$8~ eI.'Stq.). Chapter
8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code is the City's enabling, ordinance anc;l provides the; procedure for
adoption of a'development'agreement.
Attached to this Staff Report is a Development Agreement (Attachrnentl to Exhibit G) between the City
of Dublin, the Swplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda and Kau1hian'and Broad of North em
California. The Development Agreement sets forth the agreements:betwcen the ibtee entities in relation
to many items, including, but not limited to, infrastructureconstruCtioo and ph~cijng,paYl1lent of public
facilities, noise, and traffic impact fees and, future ~k im.prov:emtmts~ The peveJ~ent Agreement
contains provisions relating to ongoing maintenance of lighting and<J.d~apib.g...~tbroush1;he .
provision of either a Lighting and Landspape Ma~ce:Di$1rlotor'an.meorporatea Master.Property
Owner's. Association. If the use ofLightingandLandscaping~temmce'Districts,iS no longer.available
due to a decision by the Voters, another mechanism. for ongoml main~ ofUghtiug and landscaping
must be found. A Master ~roperty Owner's Association (MP<}A)'CoUldbandle this. In general an MPOA
would be ~ incorporated ,entity that would assess prOperty<Qwn<<$ and use th~:'Amdsto,main~ lighting
and ~capingwithin the' Santa Rita properties. Dttailed <provisiOns, itfthe,,~loprlientAgreement
relating to the MPOA were not available at the timeofthe'l'reparationof.~<;it8ff~"butwill be
included iri:tbeMay 28, 1996, staff report for yourco~C>n. ' .
, '
The Development Agreen1entbecomes effectiv:efor.a tennaffiveye.fitm1thcdate it is recorded. The
DovolopmentA:greememt runs with the land,and the rights. thFel:U1Ciercanbe;8ssiPikt;:The'maiB.jK)ints of
the Development Agreement relating to road, signals, fees,: ~'~ improveD1~~andmaintenance can
be found in the April 16, 1996, Planning CommisSion Sta1fl.eport(ExbibitD) .
C~ae~ to'~.:OevelQp~@J1t Aareement:
Several minOI' changes have been made to the 'Development A~ent ~cc the ~lstn"i~ Commission
recommended its approval. State Statutes and the City' B i.mPl~ oI'dillalloed,Q;I)c>t\require that these
changes be,referred back to the Planning Commission. Theehaigesthatluwebee'lmadeare1I1.h1or and
:~~$1i~ve.Alt:changes, with the exception to.those re1adng,tothe~ P,roperty Owner's
Assoclation.tbat have been madesiuce. the PlanniilgCcnmnission~ are Shown on Attachment 1 to
Exhibit G. They are indicated.by italicizing andboldiDraddjtionsand~I;Out'deIeti9ns. .TheJanguage
relating to the Master Property Owner's Association, will be ihc1udediri'_'Sttffi~:fOr.May 28,
1996. There is a possibility that additional minor changes Dl&Y be made subsoqqeattdp!epatationQftbis
Agenda Statement and prior to the City Council~. Iftbat ~ ~~~,~distri~
at tbetp.eeting and' the changes explained'by the City Attomey ~ <. . ,
3
'Jti'> ""
Fiscal Analysis:
Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require that development in the area pays for its needed
infrastructure. The Applicants have not requested City financing assistance for their on-site infrastructure ..:
needs. Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval of this project require that Applicants enter into
a Development Agreement with the City and pay traffic and public facilities impact fees. These
requirements insure that the Applicants are paying their fair share of off-site public infrastructure needed
in Eastern Dublin without using General Fund moneys. In addition, provisions have been made in the
Development Agreement relating to ongoing maintenance of lighting and landscaping areas through the
provision of either a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District or an incorporated Master Property
Owner's Association as mentioned above.
This project, like others in Eastern Dublin, will require provision of public services. Moneys for
provision of these public services will come from the City's General Fund. A detailed Fiscal Impact
Analysis was prepared for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. That Analysis examined the impacts of
development in Eastern Dublin in relation to use of General Fund moneys for provision of public services.
The Analysis found that after several years of shortfall, Eastern Dublin would provide more revenues than
it would require in expenditures for public services.
In addition to the original fiscal analysis for the Specific Plan, an updated fiscal analysis for the Specific
Plan area presently within the City and proposed to be included in the City as part of the City's first
Eastern Dublin Annexation has been prepared. This fiscal analysis also included the direct fiscal impacts
of the California Creekside Project.
The fiscal analysis (Exhibit H) of the Coturty-Approved Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange ..:.
Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Alameda County for Development of the Santa Rita Property,
dated October 15, 1992, prepared by Economic ResW'Ch Associates, analyzed revenues and expenditures
for the Eastern Dublin area. That report predicted shortfalls for Fiscal Years 96-97, 97-98, 98-99, 1999..
2000,2000..2001 of$33,000, $140,000, $250,000, $439,000 and $370,000 respectively. Beginning in
Fiscal Year 2001-2002, revenues will exceed expenditures and that year will show a surplus of ...
$1,102,000. Surpluses will rise dramatically after that to a predicted $24,815,000 in Fiscal Year 20 If>>
2011.
Therefore, it can be concluded that this project is consistent with the fiscal policies in relation to provision
of infrastructure and public services of the City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION Pl~UC HEARINGS:
The Planning.Contmissionheld a public hearing on the project, on April 15, 1996, unanimously approved
the Tentative Map and Site Development Review, and recommended that the City Council approve the
Planned Development Rezone and the Development Agreement The Agenda Statement for that meeting
is attached as Exhibit D to this report. The minutes for April 16, 1996, are attached as Exhibit C.
.
RijCOMMENDA nON:
Staff recommends thatthe City Council: waive reading and introduce the Ordinance approving the PD
Rezone (Exhibit E), and waive reading and introduce the Ordinance approving the Development
4
.'
".
, ,
"
'" ' ''1k , ", "', ,
, ~:\and 9Qntinl,le the public hearingtOiMay i8,1996~ at 7':00 p:iliJtoconmder
adoption 0' . '. coo ordinances and to allowdiscussionQ(potentiaH1Qienamentsto the
Development Agreement. ., ' .. g:pa9s048\ccagstmt
i~
.
,...,....
"
..
,~, '
t' , )"
'.. . ~
.".':'
.,.,," ,'l "
~ '.: .
"'<
s
- ::",
.1
..
"
..
D
. i
i
\ ..
6 21 /1/ ,.
~I
::
~!
15 0'
o ul
<( '"
o ;~
0: zJ
co ~l
~ ii
~ ~I
:E !!1i
~ EI
<( 11/.
~ ~I
r
~ j
I ~
@2) ~ -.
~~
lJ. c::::::J Do
~
,~d
~
r:::;-J t:;'\ ~
~a
@@
E::::J
CS2)
/
f;
ci
~ ~
>
_ N
III
U a:::
IU CL.
at <
/,
(/
.Regular Meeting April 16, 1996*
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, in the
Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner
Jennings.
.
**.* * *****
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson and Lockhart; Eddie Peabody, Community Development
Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording
Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Zika
**** * *****
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
**** * *"'**'"
ADDmONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 1996 and Special Study Session of March 19, 1996 were
approved as submitted.
.:
***'" '" *****
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
**** * "'.***
WRI'ITEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
*"'** '" "'''''''**
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 P A 95-048 California Creekside Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Tentative
Map and Site Development Review. The applicant is requesting a Planned Development Rezone,
Development Agreement, Tentative Map and Site Development Review to place 154 single family dwellings
and 123 townhomes on approximately 35.4 gross acres. The property is located north of Dublin Boulevard,
west ofTassajara Creek and south of the transit spine.
em. Jennings asked for the staffreport.
Mr. Peabody, Community Development Director gave a brief description of the project He stated this is the :first
~roject to combine a PJ? ~ezo~g, Tentative ~ and Sit~ Development Review in to one set of hearings at the sam.
time. He stated that this Item will go on to the City Council for approval. '. " ' .'
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
32
AprI 16, 1996
EXHIBIT C
:?
.:,
. ~ .
Dennis Carrington, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. He stated this project would be located West of Tassajara
Creek and North of Dublin Boulevard. The project would be rezoning.35.4 acres of land designated Planned
Development Business Park and Industrial to 26.8 acres of Planned Development Single Family Residential. He
stated there were two changes on the PD Resolutions. One on page 41 of 129 of the staffreport to the PD Rezone
Resolution, "Comer Lot," side yard set backs, should say "Street" side yard set backs. The other change was on page
43 of 129, of the staff report, the top sentence, "Comer Lot" side yard set backs should be deleted.
Matt Koart, Vice President of Kaufman and Broad, gave a description on how they got to the Planning Commission
meeting. He stated that the County of Alameda owned a large area in Eastern Dublin. He stated that Alameda
County issued requests for proposals from developers including Kaufman & Broad. He stated how the project was
laid out, and pointed out various key points of the project, including how the townhomes would be placed on the lots,
and where landscaping would be located on the project site.
Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the public and Planning Commission. Hearing none, she closed the public
hearing on the Planned Development portion of the project. There was consensus to pass this item on to the City
Council.
Mr. Canington gave a report on the tentative map. He stated that the proposal would subdivide 813 acres. He
indicated there were issues of concern regarding flooding along Tassajara Creek, and stated the City recommended
the finished floor of the units be one foot above the 100 year flood line. He stated there would be a requirement that
the developers work together on utilities. He indicated the staffreport outlined the street improvements to Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and the transit spine. He stated the County of Alameda had an agreement with Dublin
San Ramon Services District on utilities. He also stated the schools would be available and serviced by Dublin
Unified School District and the Fire service would be available if the conditions were met.
.,:"
em. Jennings asked for testimony from the Applicant
Matt Koart introduced some of his staff in the audience available to answer questions. He commended his staff and
thanked them for their hard work.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the end of the cul-de-sacs would become part of the property?
~ Mr. Koart stated that what they preferred was for the landscaped ends of the cul-de-sacs to be maintained by the City.
to provide access to the creek. They want a creek plan to be approved quickly, so that the creek could be vegetated
and maintained. He stated that initially the area was to become part of a landscape district. He stated that Kaufman
& Broad thought the area should be maintained by the City. If the City did not want to maintain the area. he felt the
property lines should be divided so they would be split and maintained by the homeowners. He stated Kaufman &
Broad would provide the irrigation.
em. Lockhart asked if the area could be maintained by a homeowners association?
Mr. Koart stated that there would be an association for the townhomes, but not the single family dwellings.
em. Johnson asked what the set backs were from the creek?
Mr. Koart stated about 150-200 square feet.
.~
Mr. Peabody stated regarding the issue of allowing access to the creek or shutting off access to the creek, the City
Council needs to make the decision on maintenance in Eastern Dublin of improvements along Dublin Boulevard and
the transit spine. He stated it could be done 3 ways; 1) the City assumes the responsibility for the trail and all the
landscaping along Dublin Boulevard; 2) it could be part of a Lighting and Landscaping District or; 3) a
homeowners association.
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
33
Aprl16, 1996
if
Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the public. She asked about the City assuming the responsibility for the trail,
the Lighting and Landscaping District or the homeowners association. Would it hold up the project from going to.,
City Council? .'
Mr. Peabody stated that the project would be addressed by City Council as scheduled.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the City had considered placing a district for the landscaping area along the creek?
Mr. Peabody stated that Cm. Lockhart's question would have to be addressed by the City Council.
Cm. Jennings stated they reached consensus to approve the tentative map. She opened the public hearing for the Site
Development Review.
Mr. Carrington gave the staff report for the Site Development Review portion of the project. He stated the site
development review would regulate the design with regard to architecture. He indicated they would have front
porches, provide trim on the comers of the homes and belly boards that define the stories of the structures. He stated
this project would require plot plans for each lot showing where the homes sit on the lots in comparison to
neighboring lots. He stated there would be a requirement for a final landscaping and irrigation plan. He stated that
there were many conditions of approval that relate to development and design. He felt this would be an attractive
project for the community.
Mr. Peabody added that the applicant had done an excellent job in providing a variety of designs, and providing extra
touches that would improve the overall image of the project
Matt Koart indicated they went to great lengths to abide by the intent of the Specific Plan. He stated they were proud
of this project.
Cm. Jennings asked about underground garages on the two story units.
.:
Mr. Koart explained there would be the appearance of an underground garage, but they would not be grading and
actually placing the garages underground.
em. Jennings asked about the incline of the garages.
Mr. Koart stated the garages would be at a grade. The townhome owners would not be driving through the single
family dwelling area. They have direct access to their townhomes.' He explained how they would walk up a flight of
stairs from the inside of their garage into their units. He stated it was a two story design from a building code
perspective.
Cm. Geist asked where the garage entrance would be and if there was landscaping in the area.
Mr. Koart said the garages would be in the rear of the structure. He showed where the landscaping would be along
the garage area. He explained how the structure was designed and that every unit had a covered two story garage.
Cm. Lockhart asked if there was parking in the driveways of the garages.
Mr. Koart stated no, there were no driveways for parking but there was guest parking on site and some street parking.
Cm. Jennings asked if the plants that were chosen were drought tolerant?
Mr. Koart stated yes, the City had a Drought Ordinance covering that issue.
em. Jennings asked if there were any questions from the public or from stafi? With no response, she stated there Me
consensus on the Site Development Review. She opened the public hearing on the Development Agreement ",.,
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
34
Apr116, 1996
~
.
Mr. Carrington gave a staff report on the Development Agreement. He stated that the Development Agreement was a
3 party agreement with the City of Dublin, County of Alameda Swplus Property Authority, and Kaufman and Broad.
He pointed out the Development Agreement would required the County to prepare a stream management program.
Mr. Carrington stated the development agreement was required by the Specific Plan for each development within
Eastern Dublin and would last for 5 years from the date of recording. It would require road improvements to the
surrounding roads. He pointed out the many fees addressed in the Development Agreement and that one important
issue would be the creek improvements and maintenance for Tassajara Creek that nms along the east side of the
project. He stated the County must prepare a stream restoration plan and make creek improvements within 36
months from the time the Development Agreement was recorded. He stated the ownership and maintenance will be
determined. by the City Council at a future date.
Mr. Koart had no comments on the Development Agreement
Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the public and the Planning Conunission. Hearing none, there was
consensus on the Development Agreement to pass it on to the City Council. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing
on the Development Agreement. She requested a motion on Exhibit B the draft Resolution recommending the City
Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone and Development Agreement and Exhibit C the draft
Resolutions approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review.
On motion by Cm. Geist, with the modification to pages 41 and 44, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, and
with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
Resolution No. 95-10
."
APPROVING PA 95-48
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH
FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A
PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE ClTY
COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
P A 95~48 CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE
Resolution No. 95-11
APPROVING PA 95-48
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR
PA 95~48 CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE
There was a 5 minute recess to set up for the next project
8.2 P A 95~29 . Trumark Homes General Plan Amendment. A General Plan Amendment Study for a 8.9 !
acre site along the Southern Pacific right~f-way. west of Dougherty Road; changing the General Plan
Designation for the site from "Transportation Corridor" to "Medium Density Residential" (6.1 - 14.0 units
per acre). The medium density residential designation would permit single family residential development at
approximately 12 units to the acre. em Jennings opened the public hearing.
.:.
Cm. Jennings stated she had met with a representative from Trumark Homes.
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
35
Aprl16, 1996
~
em. Lockhart stated he had also met with a representative from Trurnark Homes prior to the meeting.
em. Jennings asked for the staff report.
.
Jeri R.am, Associate Planner, gave a history of the project. She stated the project was a 92 lot residential project
which included a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map and Site
Development Review. She stated that the City Council had approved the initiation of the General Plan Amendment
Study in July, 1995. The process of the General Plan Amendment was in two parts. The first was to determine if the
General Plan Amendment would be feasible for the site and the second was the preparation of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. She stated that issues addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration included land use compatibility,
and transportation and standards. One issue that was monitored closely was hazards and risks of upset. There were
three potential hazards. One potential hazard was the presence of a pressured petroleum pipeline north of the site, the
second potential hazard was the presence of a water treatment facility operated by Dublin San Ramon Services
District immediately southeast of the site and the third was the presence of large number of industrial users south of
the site within the Sierra Business park. She stated that they did a study on noise in the area and had an acoustical
analysis prepared. She indicated that the public agencies contacted were able to service the project with the exception
of the Dublin Unified School District but the Environmental Impact Report addressed alternatives to that concern.
The Mitigated Declaration was submitted for public review which the City received comments on and the comments
are in the packets. She indicated that two letters with comments on the project were received today and are not in the
packets. She went over the comments received and stated staff's response to the comments. She stated the applicant
requested the third access area along the creek be eliminated. Staff recommended the third access be left in at this
time. The applicant also requested that the requirement for the landscaping along Dougherty Road be reduced to 5
feet, instead of 10 feet Staff recommended it be changed to 8 feet. Another letter of concern was received from MCE
Corporation. They had a concern that their equipment would start early in the morning and cause a potential noise
problem for the residents of the project. She stated mitigation measure 17 be revised to require disclosure of
industrial uses adjacent to the subdivision at the time of sale and it be written into the CC&R's The Alameda County
Public Works Agency notified the City that they had policies to provide a light rail system along the Iron Horse T~
Also, they requested to the project was to construct a sound wall to provide for future noise that would be associated ."
with the light rail. Staff did not feel that it should be a requirement of the project. There was not a request or ' , : '
proposal for light rail at this time, and, therefore, felt it should not be made a requirement of the project. Staff
recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as revised this evening.
Cm. Lockhart asked if Attachment 1 was an old design of the site plan?
Ms. Ram stated this was the plan the applicant was working with. but while working with the En*onmental Impact
Report, they have had to make some changes to the plan.
Cm. Jennings asked about the White Paper going to the Department of Real Estate, would there be any specifications
to the size of type for the disclosure regarding industrial uses.
Mr. Peabody stated that they would require the developer to put information in their sales office. There were ways of
getting the information out and they would work with the applicant to see that the information was made available.
Cm. Johnson asked about any restrictions from the City regarding the hOUTS of production to eliminate the noise
levels after certain hOUTS.
Ms. Ram stated that 75 decibels for industrial zoning was the maximum noise at the property line, 60 decibels in the
external yards of the residence and 45 decibels inside the units.
Cm. Geist asked what sound would be equivalent to 75 decibels?
Jeffrey Pack, President of Edward Pack and Associates in Sunnyvale was the acoustical consultant for the project. He.
stated the 75 decibel is based on a 24 hour average, and there was a complicated formula to arrive at that number. :'.,
Mr. Pack indicated that 75 decibel is fairly noisy and that is the limit that is allowable for an industrial use at the . . ' .
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
36
Aprl16, 1996
'l
..,
property line. If you stand at the building setbacks of the Kaufman & Broad project along Dublin Boulevard nex1 to
the freeway, that was about 75 decibel. Although the freeway was 24 hours of noise. this area would only produce
that type of noise during the day. At nighttime, it would produce less noise.
Cm. Jennings asked if the 45 decibels for the interior included the windows?
Mr. Pack stated that it did include the windows.
Cm. Johnson asked if there was anything in the Noise Ordinance regarding hours of operation for the industrial area?
Ms. Ram stated there was nothing in the Noise Ordinance that says anything about hours of operation, however, there
may be something in the specific approvals of each project that may address that. The Ordinance does state that if it
were annoying, it would be considered a nuisance.
Cm. Johnson stated it was the responsibility of the builder to make sure potential buyers of these units were aware
that the industrial area was there first, and they could not come back to the City and complain about someone
pounding fenders at 6:00 am.
Mr. Pack stated that they have proposed the intensive mitigation to address the decibel levels for the project.
Cm. Lockhart asked the decibel level for a light rail train.
Mr. Pack stated a BART train was about 75 decibels at 50 feet from the tracks.
,.. ~.
..'.::.
'.
Mike Maples, Trumark Homes, stated they were excited about this project. He felt it was a great place for an in-fill
project. He stated when you have an in-fill site, you do tend to have issues that staff needed to mitigate because of the
surrounding uses. He stated the noise issue was looked at and felt they bad arrived to an acceptable noise level. He
stated they had met with the commercial users in the area, and most were glad to have the project there. He asked
that the sound wall be the minimum of 5 feet with an average of 8 feet along Dougherty Road.
Cm. Lockhart asked if they had a concern on the number of units for the project.
Mr. Maples stated the number of units were no longer a concern.
Cm. Jennings asked for any comments from the public.
Pricilla Brown, Attorney for the Dublin Unified School District, was appreciative that Jeri Ram, Associate Planner
took a good look at the comments on the Negative Declaration and included them in the packets. Dublin Unified
School District stated they were not clear if the recommendation to City Council would also include approval of the
General Plan Amendment. She wanted to clarify that the need for school facilities would have to be considered as
approval of the General Plan Amendment regardless of the CEQA issues.
em. Lockhart asked if the issues addressed by the School District were resolved.
Ms. Ram stated that the School District was concerned that the City was not looking at schools in relation to the
General Plan Amendment The City looks at that as public services when the CEQA analysis is done.
em. Jennings closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Lockhart. seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the
Planning COnmllssion unanimously adopted:
..
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
37
Aprl16, 1996
r
\
Resolution No. 95-12
APPROVING PA 95-29 .'
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PA 95-029, THE TRUMARK HOMES PROJECT
8.3 PA 95-39 Valley Christian Center PJayfieJd Expansion An Application for Site
Development Review for Valley Christian Center, 10800 Dublin Boulevard, to expand its
playfield facilities by approximately 3.8 acres.
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated one of the condition of approval would be the
request to amend the Hansen Ranch Development Agreement. There would be a lot line adjustment to transfer a
piece ofland that belongs to Hansen Ranch over to Valley Christian Center. She showed the grading plan and where
they would be cutting into the slope. She stated staff looked at the aesthetic impacts when the Negative Declaration
was done and there weren't any significant impacts to the area. The use was consistent with the General Plan Land
Use designation of open space as well as the Hansen Ranch Planned Development zoning of open space. She stated
that to mitigate safety concerns, the applicant agreed to put a fence aroWld the playfield. Ms. Ram indicated that staff
recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and for the Site Development Review for the project
Cm. Lockhart asked if it affected the Hansen Ranch Project General Plan Amendment. ' .
Ms. Ram stated. no, the only change would be to remove the portion of the property that is currently part of Hansen .
Ranch. The zoning would remain the same.
Roger Mahany, Valley Christian Center, had a comment, he stated they had been blessed with good neighbors and the
neighbors were willing to work with them.
Cm. Jennings closed the public he3ring.
On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Geist, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
Resolution No. 95-13
APPROVING PA 95-39
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FOR PA 95-039 VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER
SCHOOL PLAYFIELD EXPANSION
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Cm. Jennings stated the trucks were still parking at the old Lucky's shopping center and the furniture was getting .'
bigger at the Oak Warehouse.
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
38
Aprl16, 1996
.'
.-..'.'
"
.
-,
Mr. Peabody stated that a letter was sent to the property owner but the owner was out of town.
Cm. Johnson asked if anyone from the City was taking a look at A-frame signs. He felt that the number of A-frame
signs had increased and wanted to know if anything was being done.
Mr. Peabody stated the City responds to A.frame signs only on a complaint basis. He stated that the City had not
received any complaints on that issue.
Cm. Johnson stated he was making a complaint regarding the A-frames throughout Dublin and some of the other not
so appealing signs. He felt the vinyl signs tend to look sloppy if they are up between two trees and sag which makes
them hard to read.
Mr. Peabody stated that the City operates on a complaint basis only. The issue needs to be brought to the attention of
the City Council.
Mr. Peabody congratulated the Commission on getting through the first big meeting. The next Planning Commission
meeting will include the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and the implementation measures regarding East Dublin.
We have received a letter from San Ramon inviting the Planning Commission to a seminar on land use issues. He
asked if anyone would be interested in attending the half day session in June. He stated that he would bring the
information on the seminar to the next Planning Commission meeting;
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjowned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
I
~~
Regular Meeting
[4-16pcmi]
Aprl16, 1996
39
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDASTATEMENTffiTAFFREPORT
Meeting Date: April 16, 1996
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff
~ Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
PA 95-048, California Creekside
RECOMMEND A TJON:
Adopt Draft Resolution (Exhibit B) for PA 95-048, California Creekside recommending City Council approval of
the Planned Development Rezone, and Development Agreement (Exhibit D); and Adopt Draft Resolution approving
the Tentative Map and Site Development Review, (Exhibit C) for PA 95-048, as recommended by Staff;
or: Direct Staff to revise the Draft Resolutions as amended;
or: Continue these matters until a date certain, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Request for a Tentative Map, Site Development Review, PD Planned Development, and
Development Agreement to allow a residential development consisting of 154 single-family dwellings (one and two
story homes ranging in size from 1346 square feet to 1986 square feet) and 123 townhouses (two story units with
underground garage ranging in size from 1,162 square feet to 1,549 square feet) on approximately 35.4 gross acres
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
APPLICANT:
Matthew Koart
Kaufinan & Broad of Northern California
3130 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 300
San Ramon, CA 94583
PROPERTY OWNER:
Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 151
Havward, CA 94544
LOCATION:
On the North side of Dublin Boulevard, West ofTassajara Creek, South of the Transit
Spine/Central Parkway, and East of a collector street.
ASSESSOR PARCEL:
946-15-1-4 (por)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Low Density (0-6.0 du/ac), Medium Density (6.1-14.0 du/ac), and Medium High Density
Residential (14.1-25.0 du/ac).
ITEM NO~
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
PA File
r""r-.r f Or: /2 ~
__r:'_.........../.--. ,~
EXHIBIT
If)
.
."'
.' '
'"!I.I'
',gJ-
.
D
..
...-.
e"
.
/I
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNA TION:
Single Family (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Medium Density (6.1-14.0 du/ac), and Medium High
Density Residential (14.1-25.0 du/ac).
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial
Land Use: Vacant, site of old Animal Shelter.
SURROUNDING GENERAL
PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN
ZONING, AND
LAND USE: North: General Plan: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac), Public/Semi-
Public (elementary school);
Specific Plan: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac), Public/Semi-
Public (elementary school);
Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial;
Land Use: Vacant.
South: General Plan: General Commercial;
Specific Plan: General Commercial;
Zoning: PD General Commercial;
Land Use: Proposed Developer's Diversified Shopping Center.
East: General Plan: Low Density Residential (0-6.0 du/ac),and Medium Density
Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac);
Specific Plan: Single Family (0-6.0 du/ac), and Medium Density Residential
(6.1-14.0 du/ac);
Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial;
Land Use: Vacant (current site of vacant Naval Hospitals).
West: General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial;
Specific Plan: Neighborhood Commercial;
Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial;
Land Use: Vacant.
SITE mSTORY:
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were approved by the City Council on
May 10, 1993. At that time, the site was designated Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and
Medium High Density Residential on the General Plan. Prior to that time, the site had been used for agricultural
and storage purposes by the U. S. Anny, and as the site of the old County Animal Shelter.
The property to the south is the site of the proposed Developer's Diversified Shopping Center, which
proposes 800,000 square feet of retail space. The Planned Development Rezone for this project was approved by
the City Council on January 31, 1995. The Site Development Review was approved by the City Council on August
22, 1995, and revised on March 26, 1996.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An analysis by staff of the project found that the project is exempt according to Section 15182 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. That analysis showed that the proposed residential project is within the scope of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment which was certified by the
City Council by Resolution No. 51-93, and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994. The analysis
indicated that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the California
2
.'f,,",::- :")-(.;: /zq
l ...\...:~:... _iZ..__ ti: .t. ...~!""~
Ji
Creekside project that were not addressed in the FEIR. Further, that analysis found that the project is in confonnity
with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
."
CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN
An analysis of the project in light ofal\ of the elements of the City General Plan detennined that the project
is consistent with the General Plan. An analysis of the project in light of al\ of the Action Programs and Policies of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan detennined that the project is consistent with the Specific Plan. For a more
detailed explanation, please see Exhibit E.
ANALYSIS:
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that "Planned Development Plans" be prepared
in greater detail than the Specific Plan, in keeping with Zoning Ordinance requirements (Sections 8-31.0 to 8-31.19
and Section 8-57.0). The plan must show the location and arrangement of all proposed uses, specifY the circulation
system, define parcels, refme the development standards, specify the infrastructure requirements and their
sequencing, reflect the applicable mitigation measures of the FEIR, and include master neighborhood landscape
plans. Planned Development plans must be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as amended by the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
For the purposes of this project the Land Use and Development Plan required by the Ordinance is
represented by the Tentative Map, the Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan and the written statement supplied
by the Applicant.
The PD Planned Development General Provisions and Development Standards, and Conditions of
Approval relating to the Planned Development are included in the Draft Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt the Planned Development Rezone and the Development Agreement (Exhibit C). The Planned
Development District is to be established to provide for and regulate the development of the California Creekside
Subdivision. Development is required to be generally consistent with the Land Use Development Plan. This
approval changes 35.4 gross acres of the old zoning category (pD Business Park Industrial) to PD zones which will
be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirements. The new PD zoning would be 26.8 gross acres
zoned PD Single Family Residential District (154 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) and 8.6 gross acres
zoned PD Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per acre), for a total
maximum of277 dwelling units.
.'.
The proposed Planned Development Rezone would establish the following general provisions and
development standards for this project:
Except as specifically modified in the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance R-I District will be applied to the PD Single Family designated lands,
and of the R-3 District will be applied to the PD Medium-High Density Residential designated lands in the PD
District.
.
3
PM'~;: ~ r.-:; JZ,D
~_ r.-.......___ \~: -n_l_
(.;
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SETBACK STANDARDS
"
.', SETBACKS SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
FRONT YARD
Property line to garage face 18 feet I 0 feet
Property line to habitable space .15 feet 10 feet
Property line to porch face NA 4 feet
From common area parcel lines NA o feet
From adjacent buildings NA 15 feet
SIDE YARD
To property line 5 feet 5 feet
From common area parcel lines NA o feet
From adjacent buildings NA 15 feet
STREET SIDE YARD
To property line 1 0 feet 10 feet
REAR YARD
To property line 12 feet 12 feet
From common area parcel lines NA o feet
From garage face to garage face NA 30 feet
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
To property line 5 feet 5 feet
MAIN BUILDING HEIGHT 30 feet/Two Stories 35 feet/Two StorieslUnderground
Garage
ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT 15 feet 15 feet
PARKING Two enclosed spaces and two on Two enclosed spaces and 51 guest
. driveway apron
- .~ spaces
PD Single Family Residential
Permitted uses: Residential development limited to single-family detached houses
Prohibited uses: Field crops, orchards, plant nurseries, greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant
materials for sale, and hospitals
Conditional uses: All conditional uses in the R~1 District are conditional uses in the PD Single Family
Residential District with the exception of prohibited uses listed above
Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows:
Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and frreplaces) may
encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or side yard setback and
decks may encroach a maximum of five (5) feet into a required rear yard setback.
PD Multi~Family Residential
Permitted Uses: Multifamily Townhouse units and Multifamily Condominium units
Prohibited Structures: Accessory Structures are not permitted
Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-3 District are conditional uses in the PD Multi-Family
. Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above.
4 P ,-''' i r.-I z. 9
2''::,;'; - ,- 'F ___
, , "
11
Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Multi-Family district are as follows.
Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows:
.
Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and fireplaces) may
encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or side yard setback and
decks may encroach a maximum offive (5) feet into a required rear yard setback.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to enter into
development agreements with developers in the plan area. The purpose of a development agreement is to provide
security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a
specified period of time and, on the other hand, provide a mechanism to the City to obtain commitments from the
developer the City might not otherwise be able to obtain. The development agreement is one means the City has to
assure that the Specific Plan goal that new development fund the costs of infrastructure and service is met.
Attached to this Staff Report is a Development Agreement (Exhibit D) between the City of Dublin, the
Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda and Kaufman and Broad of Northern California. The
Development Agreement sets forth the agreements between the three entities in relation to many items, including,
but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing, payment of public facilities, noise and traffic impact fees
and future creek improvements.
The Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five years from the date it is recorded. The
Development Agreement runs with the land and the rights thereunder can be assigned. The main points of the
Development Agreement can be found in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement and are highlighted below:
Roads:
,:.
The Developer and/or Alameda County have agreed to construct road improvements along Dublin
Boulevard, the Transit Spine, the collector street on the west side of the project, and to Tassajara Road.
Dublin Boulevard. The ultimate north half of Dublin Boulevard must be constructed along the project
boundary. The improvements will consist of three travel lanes, a bike lane, a landscaped median island, curb,
gutter, a sidewalk, a regional trail and landscaping. Dublin Boulevard from the BART station to Hacienda Drive
will be realigned and improved by the Developer and/or Alameda County to four lanes if the project begins
construction after the Tri-Valley Crossings project and the Dublin Ranch Phase 1 project have been constructed.
Transit Spine. The Transit Spine on the north side of the project will be constructed with a travel lane, bike
lane, parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side. The north side of the Transit Spine will be
constructed to include a travel lane. A landscaped median island will be constructed along the right-of-way.
Collector Street. The Collector Street will be paved forty feet wide from curb to curb, with sidewalk,
landscaping and curb and gutter on the west side of the street.
Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 will be widened by Alameda County to
four lanes at the time the average daily traffic (ADD on this segment exceeds 15,000 vehicles unless it has been
widened by another Eastern Dublin Developer.
The Developer will construct improvements to Dublin Boulevard and the Transit Spine and make other
improvements beyond twenty feet from the curb. The Development Agreement describes these as "oversized
improvements" and provides the County will receive a credit against the Traffic Impact Fee if these improvements
are constructed.
:.
5
!:": ~:;: b r,~/l y
i r.:...,~ ___ ..J. _..
.'
.
.
I?
Signals:
The Developer and/or Alameda County will install traffic signals at the intersection of Tassajara Road and
Dublin Boulevard with a left turn lane, and at the intersection of DubIin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive with a left
turn lane unless they have already been installed by the developer of the Tri-Valley Crossings project. The
Developer and/or Alameda County will install traffic signals at the two main access roads into the project from
Dublin Boulevard opposite the Tri-Valley Crossings project.
Traffic Impact Fees.
The Developer will pay a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) for each residential unit in the project in the amount set
forth in the City's Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin in effect a the time the fee is payable. The TIF for a single.
family residential unit in property designated for one to fourteen units is $4,182 and for units designated 14.1 units
to 25 units per acre (as are these townhouse units) is $2,928, and is payable not later than the date of the final
inspection of the unit.
Traffic Impact Fee to reimburse Pleasanton for freeway interchanges.
The Developer and/or Alameda County will pay the Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee established by
the City if it is effective at the time of inspection of the fmal inspection of the first residence. The current fee is
$214.60 per single family dwelling in this project and $150.22 per townhouse unit in this project payable at fmal
inspection of the first unit.
Public Facilities Fee.
The public facilities fee for neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities, libraries and
buildout of the Civic Center will be paid by the Developer and/or Alameda County. Resolution No. 11-96 adopted
by the City Council on March 26, 1996, requires a fee of $4,029 per single family dwelling in this project and
$2518 per townhouse unit in this project payable at the time of fmal inspection of the dwelling unit.
The County is also required to dedicate 3.69 acres of land to the City for the City Park located east of
Tassajara Creek. This dedication will satisfy the Developer's obligation under the City's "Quimby Act Ordinance"
for community park land and neighborhood park land and Jhall be a credit against the portion of the Public
Facilities Fee for the project for community parks land and neighborhood parks land.
Noise Mitigation Fee.
The Developer will pay a Noise Mitigation Fee as set forth is City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, adopted
by the City Council on March 26, 1996. The fee is $4.74 per single-family unit and $3.32 per townhouse unit. This
Section implements Mitigation Measure 3.1017.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Eastern Dublin.
School Impact Fee
The Developer and/or Alameda County will pay school impact fees in accordance with the "Agreement to
Provide School Facilities Mitigation" between the Alameda County and the Dublin Unified School District. The fee
is currently $4.44 per square foot for single family/low density homes in this development and $1.73 per square foot
for the townhouses in this development.
Regional Transportation Impact Fee.
In the event that the City Council adopts a Regional Transportation Impact Fee to pay for regional
transportation improvements in the Tri.Valley area, the Developer will pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance
of building permits.
6
N. ,'~ Je r.:- /" ~
. c.'. ... v 1
_,. }~~i- _ ,.I~ ....___
I
Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees.
The Developer will pay the Rental Availability In-lieu fee of $986.24 per rental unit not provided, as
required by the Rental Availability Ordinance (RAO). The City Council has directed Staff to prepare an ordinance
repealing the RAO and to amend the Housing Element of the General Plan to remove reference to the RAO. The
Rental In-Lieu Fee will be charged until the time the ordinance repealing the RAO becomes effective and the
General Plan is amended. When and if the RAO is removed, the fee will be returned with interest.
..':
The project will be subject to the proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, provided that the Developer
will have the right, in-lieu of providing the required percentage of affordable units required by the ordinance, to pay
a fee of not more than $1.00 per square foot for single-family homes and $.75 per square foot for attached homes.
Specific Plan Implementation Fee.
The Developer will pay a Specific Plan Implementation Fee prior to approval of the fmal map for the
project. The amount of the fee will be the project's pro rata share on an acreage basis of the City's then current
costs for implementation of the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures of the fmal Environmental Impact Report
for the Specific Plan.
Creek Improvements and maintenance.
The County is required to prepare a Stream Restoration Plan in accordance with the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, and the Drainage Plan for the County property, for the portion of
Tassajara Creek under the ownership of the County. The plan will be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and
will include landscaping. The County must make the creek improvements within 36 months of the date the
Development Agreement is recorded. Within that same period of time the County will also dedicate property on
both sides of the creek to the appropriate entity, as determined by the City Council, which will own and maintain it.
.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the Planned Development Rezone and Development Agreement, for P A 96-048, California
Creekside.
TENTATIVE MAP
The developer has submitted Tentative Map 6822 proposing to subdivide an existing 813 gross acre
remainder parcel created by Tentative Parcel Map 6879 into 154 single-family lots and 48 parcels containing 123
airspace condominium townhouses. The 48 parcels and Parcel A will be held in common by the owners of the 123
townhouses. The developer is also proposing that three open space lots at the end of cuI de sac streets be dedicated
to the City. If the City accepts dedication of these lots, the City would be responsible for maintenance of the lots
and liable for potential litigation with regard to them. Staff has included a condition of approval that the developer
submit a replacement map showing the three lots as being made part of the adjacent residential lots. The
maintenance of these areas would be the responsibility of the owner of the residential lot of which they are a part.
The approved Tentative Map must conform generally to the Tentative Map prepared by Ruggieri-Jensen and
Associates dated received by the Planning Department on April 10, 1996.
The project consists of conventional single-family homes on 50 foot by 80 foot lots. The primary access to the
single family homes will be from Dublin Boulevard. Single-family homes will back up onto Dublin Boulevard and
will be protected from Dublin Boulevard by a sound wall. The townhouse units will have an internal circulation
system and be located in 37 buildings offout or six units each.
Project issues and associated conditions of approval are as follows:
.
7
;'!:"'c '7 r:7' Ie 9
:.....~.I~::-.... ...(..,-. .'; 4~____..
....
.",. ...
e:
.
{I
Flooding
Tassajara Creek flows along the east side of the project. A condition of approval has been included
requiring the developer to prove to the City that this subdivision is protected from a 1 DO-year stonn event. The pad
elevations must be one foot above the 1 OO~year flood.
Relationship to Developer's Diversified Shopping Center
Conditions of approval require that the two streets within the project along Dublin Boulevard align with the
two entrances into the shopping center along Dublin Boulevard and that the developer work with the developer of
the shopping center to provide adequate access and utility cOlUlections. Further, the developer is responsible for
widening the existing, or extending the new alignment for, Dublin Boulevard from the BART easterly access road to
Hacienda Drive (at Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Tri-Valley Crossings Shopping Center) to four lanes if this
project develops after the Tri- Valley Crossings and Dublin Ranch projects have been completed.
Street Improvements
Street improvements for Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine, the Collector Street and Tassajara
Road are as described in the section on the Development Agreement above.
Regional Trail
A condition of approval requires that a trail (part of the regional trail system) be incorporated into and as
part of the sidewalk system along the Dublin Boulevard frontage. This trail will connect to the eventual Iron Horse
Trail located on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission right-of-way adjacent to the Southern Pacific right-of-
way.
Utilities/Fire/Schools
Required fire and water service will be provided to the subdivision pursuant to letters dated March 27,
1996, from DRF A, and March 14, 1996, from DSRSD if conditions are met and fees paid. Sewer service for this
subdivision will be provided pursuant to an agreement between Alameda County and DSRSD. The developer has
entered into an agreement to provide school facilities mitigation with the Dublin Unified School District assuring
school capacity.
Phased Occupancy Plan
A condition of approval requires that, if occupancy is requested to occur in phases, then all physical
improvements within each phase will be required to be completed prior to occupancy of units within that phase
except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor work items approved by the
Planing Department. This will ensure that homeowners have adequate vehicular access and that no units are
occupied until the adjoining area is fmished, safe, provided with all reasonably expected services and amenities, and
completely separated from remaining additional construction activity.
Noise Mitigation
An acoustical analysis perfonned for this project included several requirements to ensure that residences in
the project meet City noise standards. These requirements have been incorporated into conditions of approval.
They include airtight patio fencing for townhouse units closest to Dublin Boulevard; that glass sections of buildings
facing Dublin Boulevard meet sound insulating criteria; and that air conditioning be provided for dwellings along
the west and south sides of the development.
8
".~~ I) --/29
.:f.:..;;i: ~.Q..-.. ~~<~. ..~...
(c
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that Site Development Review occur at the subdivision map
stage. the purpose of the site development review process is to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and
structural development. It addresses building location, architectural and landscape design and theme, vehicular and
pedestrian access, on-site circulation, parking and traffic impacts.
.
Architecture
The single-family residential dwelIing units wiII confonn to architectural plans prepared by Kaufman &
Broad dated Received April 9, 1996, by the City of Dublin Planning Department. The one and two story homes wi\l
be in the Craftsman style, will have attractive architectural detailing, porches, front facade trim carried around the
comer of the structure, horizontal belly-boards defming stories, and trim-outs around windows and vents. The
townhouses will confonn to architectural plans prepared by Kaufman & Broad dated Received December 18, 1996,
by the City of Dublin Planning Department. The townhouses will also be in the Craftsman style. The four and six
unit, two-story buildings, with underground garages will have attractive architectural detailing similar to that of the
single-family homes. Staffhas reviewed the design of the dwellings with the developer and feels that the designs
incorporate design features that will make this development an attractive community.
Plotting Plan
The developer submitted a plotting plan for phase I of the development showing the single-family
dwelling unit models and orientation (left or right) on a plotting plan dated received AprillO, 1996. A condition of
approval requires that plotting for units in Phase I confonn to that plan in order to ensure privacy, ensure that
homes are well sited on each lot, that there is a good mix of one and two-story homes, and provide a variety of
architectural design, Additionally, plotting plans for each phase must be submitted to the Community Development
Director for approval prior to submitting for building permits.
.
Landscaping
The Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan provides for a wide variety of street trees, shrubs, vines,
perennials and ground covers. Pop-out tree planters have been incorporated into the plan to provide variety to the
street scene. A condition of approval requires the submittal of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan prior to the
issuance of building pennits. Street trees must be of a mirihnum 15 gallon size. Exact tree locations and varieties
and shrub, vine, espalier, and groundcover varieties wiII be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director. The Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan must confonn to the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
Design Features
The Site Development Review contains conditions relating to design. Automatic garage door openers are
required for the townhouses. The homes must have a back-lighted illuminated house number. Front yards of
single-family dwellings must be landscaped. All common areas of the townhouse portion of the project must be
landscaped. All mail-box units must be at the back of the curb. No three car garages will be located on a comer lot.
Exterior lighting will be provided for stairwells, and dwelling entrances, and must be of a design and placement to
not cause glare onto adjoining properties. Reflective glass will not be allowed on east facing windows in order to
control the effects of glare.
Maintenance of Open Space/Landscaping
The City is responsible for maintenance of landscaping within the rights-of-way of streets that it accepts for
dedication. Outside the right-of. way, the Developer will be responsible for maintenance. At the time the City
Council considers the Planned Development and Development Agreement for this project, it will detennine the
.
9
il.CE _'1_ (;:: .l2?
~..
.:
..~.
."""
"
.
/1
most appropriate means of provision of maintenance, whether it be a Homeowner's Association; Lighting,
Landscaping and Maintenance District; or other means.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution adopting the Tentative Map
and Site Development (Exhibit B) Review for PA 96-048, California Creekside.
RECOMMENDA TIONS:
FORMAT:
1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation,
2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public,
3) Close public hearing and deliberate,
4) Adopt Draft Resolution (Exhibit B) for PA 95-048, California Creekside
recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone, and
Development Agreement (Exhibit D); and Adopt Draft Resolution approving the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review, (Exhibit C) for PA 95M048, as
recommended by Staff;
or: Direct Staff to revise the Draft Resolutions as amended;
or: Continue these matters until a date certain, or give Staff and Applicant direction
and continue the matter.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Project Plans
Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development
Rezone and Development Agreement for P A 95-048, California Creekside
Draft Resolution approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review for
PA 95M048, California Creekside
Draft Development Agreement
General Plan Conformity and Specific Plan Confonnity for PA 95-048, California
Creekside
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
BacklP'ound Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Applicant's Written Statement
Typical Public Works Conditions of Approval for CommerciaVIndustrial Site
Development Review or Conditional Use Permit Development
Site Development Review Standard Conditions
Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement
Typical Parking Striping Detail
City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
g:pa95-048\pcstfrpt
10
~'{';',::,A'F'\ r.,..I?~
. d, &'. " '-
-,' .
.. - .......--.. 4JI ...........-..;., III:
J
RESOLUTION NO. -96
A RESOLUTION OF mE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
e:
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING
P A 95-048, CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE
WHEREAS, Kaufman & Broad of Northern California have requested approval of a Planned
Development Rezoning to establish General Provisions and Development Regulations for a residential
development consisting of 154 single family dwellings and 123 townhouses on approximately 35.4 gross
acres (APN 946-15-1-10 (por)) in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for a Planned Development Rezoning is available and on
file in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City has found,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, that the proposed residential project is within the scope of
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93, and the Addenda dated May 4,
1993, and August 22, 1994 (the "EIR"), and has further found that the proposed project is consistent with
the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on April
16, 1996 and did adopt Resolution 96-10 recommending that the City Council approve and establish
findings, general provisions, and development standards for a Planned Development Rezoning, and
recommending that the City Council adopt a Development Agreement for P A 95-048 California
Creekside; and
.co
and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submined recommending that the City Council approve the
Planned Development Rezone subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Rezone:
1. The Planned Development Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general
provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD District Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance, the General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development Rezone will be appropriate for the
subject property in terms of providing General Provisions which set forth the purpose, applicable
provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of pennined and conditionally pennined uses, and
Development Standards; which will be compatible with existing vacant and proposed commercial, office
and residential uses in the immediate vicinity, and which enhance development of the Specific Plan area;
and
2. The Planned Development Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse affect on health
or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public .
improvement as all applicable regulations will be met; and
1
EXHIBIT E
J.t
.'.
3. The Planned Development Rezoning will not overburden public services as the Dublin
San Ramon Services District has stated that public services are available; and
4. The Planned Development Rezoning will be consistent with the policies of the Dublin
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation of Single Family Residential, Low Density
Residential, Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential; and
5. The Planned Development Rezoning will provide efficient use of the land pursuant to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that includes preservation of significant open areas and natural and
topographic landscape features along Tassajara Creek with minimum alteration of natural land fooos; and
6. The Planned Development Rezoning will provide an environment that will encourage the
use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities through
Conditions of Approval; and
7. The Planned Development Rezoning will create an attractive, efficient and safe
environment through Conditions of Approval; and
8.' The Planned Development Rezoning will benefit the public necessity, convenience and
general welfare and is in confoooance with Sections 8.31.0 to 8-31.19 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance;
and
9. The Planned Development Rezoning will be compatible with and enhance the general
development of the area because it will be developed pursuant to Conditions of Approval and site
development review; and
...':..
:.>
10. The Planned Development Rezoning will create attractive, efficient and safe
development because it will be developed pursuant to Conditions of Approval and site development
review.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby approve a Planned Development Rezoning including the following General Provisions and
Development Standards for P A 95-048, California Creekside, which constitute regulations for the use,
improvement and maintenance of the 35.4::1: acre parcel 946-15-1-10 (por) subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Pull'ose
This approval is for a Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning for PA 95-048, California
Creekside. This PD District Rezone includes a Land Use and Development Plan which is represented by
the Tentative Map dated received April 10, 1996, Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan dated received
April 2, 1996 (Both Labeled Exhibit A), and the written statements provided by the Applicant dated
received April 1, 1996 and on file. The PD District Rezone allows the flexibility needed to encourage
innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies and action programs of the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More particularly, the PD District Rezone is intended to ensure
the following policies are met:
.:
1.
The approval of this Planned Development Rezone shall be pursuant to the teoo set forth in the
Development Agreement approved by the City of Dublin on , 1996, and recorded on
2
I'
1
, 1996. In the event of conflict between the terms of the Development Agreement and the
following conditions, the terms of the Development Agreement shall prevail. [PW, PL].
e:
2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to create a
range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the community.
3. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
4. Dev'elop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open areas for
neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
5. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
B. Dublin Zonin~ Ordinance - Applicable Requirements
Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and
general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance R.I District shall be applied to the
PD Single Family Residential designated lands, and of the R-3 District shall be applied to the PD Medium-
High Density Residential designated lands in this PD District.
C. General Provisions and Development Standards
1.
Intent: This Planned Development District is to be established to provide for and
regulate the development of the California Creekside Subdivision. Development shall be
generally consistent with the Land Use Development Plan. This approval rezones 35.4
gross acres currently.zoned Business Park Industrial to 26.8 gross acres zoned PD Single
Family Residential District (154 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) and 8.6
gross acres zoned PD Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at
14.3 dwelling units per acre), for a total maximum of277 dwelling units.
e.'
2.. PD Single Family Residential
Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted in the PD Single Family
Residential district:.
A. Residential development limited to:
I. Single Family Detached houses
Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the PD Single Family Residential
district:
1. Field Crops
2. Orchards
3. Plant Nurseries
4. Greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant materials for sale
5. Hospital
Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-l District are conditional uses in the PD
Single Family Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above.
e
3
?-"
.'
Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Single Family district
are as follows.
SETBACKS AND YARDS
A. Minimum Sin~le Family Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for single family
detached houses and accessory structures shall be as follows:
Front Setbacks:
Eighteen (18) foot minimum from the property line
to the garage face
Fifteen (15) foot minimum from the property line to
the habitable portion of the house
Sideyard Setbacks:
Five (5) foot minimum from the property line
Street Sideyard Setbacks: Ten (10) foot minimum from the property line.
Rear Yard Setbacks:
Twelve (12) foot minimum from the property line
Accessory Structures:
Five (5) foot minimum from the property line
B. Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows:
..:
Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and
fIreplaces) may encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or
side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum of fIve (5) feet into a required
rear yard setback.
C. BuiJdin~ Hei~ht Restrictions:
Buildings are to be limited to a maximum of two (2) stories and a height of
thirty (30) feet measured at the topmost point of the structure. This height limitation
shall not apply to chimneys.
Accessory structures are limited to a maximum height of fIfteen (15) feet.
D. Parkin~:
The number of parking spaces required for each single family detached house
shall be two (2) garage spaces and two (2) spaces in the driveway apron.
2. PD Multi-Family Residential
Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are pennitted in the PD Multi-Family
Residential district:
A. Residential development limited to:
1. Multifamily Townhouse units
2. Multifamily Condominium units
.,:
4
'Jr
Prohibited Structures: Accessory Structures are not pennitted except for common area
facilities such as pool equipment, restroom buildings, trash enclosures, and similar
structures.
.
Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the PD Multi~Family Residential
district:
I. Field Crops
2. Orchards
3. Plant Nurseries
4. Greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant materials for sale
5. Hospital
Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-3 District are conditional uses in the PD
Multi-Family Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above.
Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Multi-Family district
are as follows.
SETBACKS AND YARDS
A. Minimum Multi-Family Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for multi-family
attached houses and accessory structures shall be as follows:
Front Setbacks:
Sideyard Setbacks:
Rear Yard Setbacks:
Accessory Structures:
Ten (10) foot minimum from the public street right-
of way to the garage face
Ten (10) foot minimum from the public street right-
of way to the habitable portion of the house
Four (4) foot minimum from the public street right~of
way to the porch face
Zero (0) foot minimum from common area parcel
lines
Fifteen (IS) foot minimum from adjacent buildings
.
Five (5) foot minimum from the public street right~of
way
Zero (0) foot minimum from common area parcel
lines
Fifteen (15) foot minimum from adjacent buildings
Twelve (12) foot minimum from the public street
right~ofway
Zero (0) foot minimum from common area parcel
lines
Thirty (30) foot minimum from garage face to garage
face
Five (5) foot minimum from the public street right-of
way when permitted
.
5
~s
B. Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows:
.
Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and
fireplaces) may encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or
side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum of five (5) feet into a required
rear yard setback.
C. Building Height Restrictions:
Buildings are to be limited to a maximwn of two (2) habitable stories and
underground garage, and a height ofthirty~five (35) feet measured at the topmost point
of the structure. This height limitation shall not apply to chimneys.
D. Parking:
The nwnber of parking spaces required for each multi-family detached house
shall be two (2) garage spaces. Fifty-one (51) guest parking spaces shall be provided as
shown in Exhibit A.
PLANNED E>EYELOPMENT REZONE CONDITIONS OF APPROY AL:
.---.,...
"
-.:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancv of any
building. and shall be subject to Plannin~ Department review and &pproval. The following codes represent
those departments/a~encies responsible for monitoring compliance of the Conditions of Approval. (PL)
Planning. [BJ Building. [PO] Police. rpWl Public Work~ [ADMl Administration/City Attorney. [FIN]
Finance. [F] Dougherty Re~ional Fire Authority. [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO]
Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Zone 7),
1. The Land Use and Development Plan is conceptual in nature. No fonnal amendment of this PD
Rezone will be required as long as the materials submitted for the Tentative Map and Site
Development Review are in substantial confonnance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The Community Development Director shall detennine confonnance or non-
confonnance and appropriate processing procedures for modifYing this PD Rezone (i.e. staff
approval, Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Pennit, or City Council approval of
new PD Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not found to be in substantial confonnance
with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A subsequent PD rezone may address all or
a portion of the area covered ~y this PD Rezone. [PL]
2. Additions to residences in this project are prohibited. [PL]
3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable grading guidelines as indicated on page 103 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [PW, PL]
4. All project construction shall confonn to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building pennit. [B]
5.
The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e.g. Applicant shall submit a
preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verifY the
presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the
Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be
completed by a :)iologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application. (222, 230) [PL]
."
6
).
6.
Applicant shall comply with all DRFA fire standards, including minimum standards for
emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees, including a Fire Capital Impact Fee. (74,
77)[F]
.'
7. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, stonn drain, recycled water, and potable
water system infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. (39, 40)[PL, PW]
8. Any proposed modifications or alterations to Tassajara Creek shall be approved by the City of
Dublin and any required pennitting agencies and shall be consistent with the policies of Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and FEIR the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program
and the Master Drainage Plan. (41)[PW, PL]
9. The garbage service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to
accommodate collection and sorting ofpetrucible solid waste as well as source-separated
recyclable materials generated by the residents within this project. (279)[PL]
10. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements.
[ADM]
II. The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area will be restricted to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director to reduce potential impacts to wildlife. A written
statement from the developer shall be submitted to the Community Development Director to that
effect prior to issuance of the Grading Pennit. (221 ) [PL]
12.
The applicant shall comply wtth the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements.
(103,279)[ADM]
e:
13.
The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Envirorunental
Impact Report (FEIR), respectively, that have not been made specific Conditions of Approval of
this PD Rezone. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
G;\P A95-048\ccpdres
e
7
;1'
ORDINANCE NO. -96
.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD, WEST OF
TASSAJARA CREEK, SOUTH OF THE TRANSIT SPINE AND EAST OF AN UNNAMED
COLLECTOR STREET (APN 946-15-1-10(POR))
..-...-..............------.....--..........------...--.....-........-----...-........--...-...-----..........------...------.............--...----......---....---------..-..-..--..........----------
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner:
Approximately 35.4 gross acres generally located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of Tassajara
Creek, south of the Transit Spine, and east of an unnamed collector street, more specifically described as
Assessor's Parcel Number 946-15-1-10 (por), are hereby rezoned from Planned Development Business
Park Industrifll to 26.8 gross acres zoned Planned Development Single Family Residential District (154
dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) fronting on Dublin Boulevard, and to 8.6 gross acres zoned
Planned Development Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units
per acre) fronting on the Transit Spine and the unnamed collector street; and P A 95-048, California
Creekside, as shown and described on Exhibit A (Rezone Application), and Exhibit E (Resolution
Approving and Establishing Findings, General Provisions and Conditions of Approval), on file with the
City of Dublin Department of Community Development, and hereby adopted as the regulations for the
future use, improvement, and maintenance of the property within this District.
A map of the rezoning area is outlined below:
,-
~~-
~.......;;;>i"
-' ---
.'"C'..,:.
"
-
Ext~ Plannlne A....
.~
EXHIBIT F
Section 2
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once, with the names of the
Councilmembers voting for and against same, in a local newspaper published in Alameda County and
available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 28th day of May,
1996, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
A TrEST:
City Clerk
g:pa95048\ordl
,-Cf,
.
:,.
.-.
.-
.'.'.--..
..
.,.,.,.
"
.
)1
ORDINANCE NO. -96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING TIlE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR PA 95-048, CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section], REClI ALS
A. The proposed California Creekside Planned Development (P A 95-048) ("project") is
located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") in an area which is
designated on the General Plan Land Use Element Map as "Low Density Residential", "Medium Density
Residential", and "Medium-High Density Residential" and in an area which is designated on the Specific
Plan as "Single Family Residential", "Medium Density Residential", and "Medium-High Density
Residential" .
B. A Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the Specific Plan and
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93.
C. Implementing actions of the Specific Plan, including Chapter II thereof, require that all
projects within the Specific Plan area enter into development agreements with the City,
D. Kaufman and Broad of Northern California and the Surplus Property Authority of the
County of Alameda have filed an application requesting approval of a development agreement for the
California Creekside project.
E. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, Kaufman and Broad of Northern
California, and the Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda ("Development Agreement") has
been presented to the City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment].
F. A public hearing on the Proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning
commission on April 16, 1996, for which public notice was given as provided by law.
G. , The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for approval
of the Development Agreement, which. recommendation includes the Planning Commission's
determinations with respect to the matters set forth in Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
H. A number of minor modifications to the Development Agreement have been made since
the Planning Commission made its recommendation, which modifications the Council finds need not be
referred back to the Planning Commission.
I. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City
Council on May 14, 1996, for which public notice was given as provided by law.
J. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning commission
(planning Commission Resolution 96-10), including the Planning commission's reasons for its
recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the
public hearing.
K. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an analysis by staff found that the
project is exempt according to Section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. That analysis showed that the
proposed residential project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FErn.) for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-
EXHIBIT ~
,0
93, and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994. The analysis indicated that no new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the California Creekside project that
were not addressed in the FEIR. Further, that analysis found that the project is in conformity with the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
e>
Section 2.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINA TIONS
Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of
Dublin's General Plan, (c) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, (d) the Specific Plan, (e) the EIR,
(f) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council
finds and determines that:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses
and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, as amended by the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment, and in the Specific Plan in that (a) the General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designations for the site are "Low Density Residential", "Single Family Residential", "Medium Density
Residential", and "Medium~High Density Residential", and the project is a residential development
consistent with the "Low Density Residential", "Single Family Residential", "Medium Density
Residential", and "Medium-High Density Residential" designations, (b) the project is consistent with the
fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to provision of infrastructure and public
services, and (c) the Development Agreement includes provisions relating to fmancing, construction and
maintenance of public facilities, reimbursement for oversizing infrastructure and similar provisions set
forth in the Specific Plan.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use. districts in which the real property is located in that the project
approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning adopted specifically for the California Creekside
project.
e
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare
and good land use policies in that the California Creekside project will implement land use guidelines set
forth in the Specific Plan and the General Plan which have planned for residential development at this
location.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare in that the project will proceed in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring program for the
project prepared by Staff and will comply with all programs and policies of the Specific Plan.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan
and with the Specific Plan.
Section 3. APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Attachment 1) and authorizes the
Mayor to sign it.
Section 4. RECORDA nON
Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is executed by the Mayor, the City Clerk
shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation.
e
;(
.:':
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State
of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 28th
day of May, 1996, by vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
A TrEST:
CITY CLERK
...
, '
.:
G:pa95048ord2
Recording Requested by:
City of Dublin
When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Space above this line for Recorder's Use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
THE SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
AND
KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
For the East Dublin Residential Project
[California Creekside]
I
April 4, 1996
J:t
.
.
'.
.'..,
"
..,
.:
., .~
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of
Dublin on this day of _, 1996, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a
Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORlTY OF
THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a Public Corporation (hereafter "COUNTY"), and
KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California
corporation (hereafter "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of ~~ 65864 et seq. of
the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12.
RECITALS
A. California Government Code ~~ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.12 of
the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.12") authorize the CITY to enter
into an Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a
legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development
rights in such property; and
B. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by
Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is applicable to the Property; and
C. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires DEVELOPER to enter
into a development agreement; and
D. DEVELOPER desires to develop and holds legal interest in certain
real property consisting of approximately 35.4 acres of land, located in the City of
Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which
real property is hereafter called the "Property"; and
E. COUNTY is the owner of real property in the City consisting of
approximately 620 acres, which includes the Property described in Exhibit A;
F. DEVELOPER proposes the development of the Property with 154
single-family detac~ed homes and 123 townhomes; (the "Project"); and
G. DEVELOPER has applied for, and CITY has approved, various land
use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including a PD
District rezoning and Land Use and Development Plan (Ord. No. _), tentative
map (Res. No._), site development review, (Res. No. _)] (collectively, together
2
April 4, 1996
~1
\vith any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued v\rith respect to the Project, the
"Project Approvals"); and .
H. Development of the Property by DEVELOPER may be subject to
certain future discretionary approvals, which, if granted, shall automatically become
part of the Project Approvals as each such approval becomes effective; and
1. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development
of said Project; and
J. The Master Development Agreement approved by CITY Resolution
No. 144-95 was used as the format for negotiating this Agreement; and
K. The City Council has found that, among other things, this
Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.12;
and
1. CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER have reached agreement and
desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of
the Project subject to conditions set forth herein; and
'..
M. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the
City has found, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15182, that the Project is
within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which was certified by the Council by
Resolution No. 51-93, and the Addenda dated May 4, ,1993 and August 22, 1994
(the "EIR") and found that the EIR was adequate for this Agreement; and
N.
Ordinance No.
effect on
On [date], the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted
approving this Development Agreement. The ordinance took
[ date].
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in
consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained,
CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER agree as follows:
3
April 4, 1996
;'.
.'
.>
.~
-;~
AGREEMENT
1.
Description of Property.
The Property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is
described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property").
2. Interest of Developer.
The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in
that it has a contract or option to purchase the Property from COUNTY in fee
simple. DEVELOPER shall have no obligation hereunder unless and until it
purchases the Property and takes title to the Property or any portion thereof.
3. Relationship of City. Count~ and Developer.
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been
negotiated and voluntarily entered into by CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER and
that neither the COUNTY nor DEVELOPER is an agent of CITY. CITY, COUNTY
and DEVELOPER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or
partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any
document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making CITY,
COUNTY and/or DEVELOPER joint venturers or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term.
4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall
be the date upon which this Agreement is recorded in the Office of the Alameda
County Recorder.
4.2 Term. The term of this Development Agreement shall
commence on the effective date and extend five (5) years thereafter, unless said term
is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement.
5. Use of the Property.
5.1 Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to
develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to
4
April 4. 1996
?k
any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement.
.'
5.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the
density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed
buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and
location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public
utilities and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property,
shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any
amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals.
5.3 Additional Conditions. Provisions for the following
("Additional Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
5.3.1 Subsequent Discretionary Approvals.
Conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent
discretionary actions. (These conditions do not affect Developer's
responsibility to obtain all other land use approvals required by the
ordinances of the City of Dublin.)
Not Applicable
5.3.2 Mitigation Conditions. Additional or modified ..
conditions agreed upon by the parties in order to eliminate or
mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise
relating to development of the Project.
See Exhibit B
5.3.3 Phasing. Timing. Provisions that the Project be
constructed in specified phases, that construction shall commence
within a specified time, and that the Project or any phase thereof be
completed within a specified time.
See Exhibit B
5.3.4 Financing Plan. Financial plans which identify
necessary capital improvements such as streets and utilities and
sources of funding.
See Exhibit B
5.3.5 Reimbursement. Terms relating to subsequent
5
April 4, 1996
.
e'::
.':
.:
/'
reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public facilities.
See Exhibit B
5.3.6 Fees. Dedications. Terms relating to payment of
fees or dedication of property.
See Exhibit B
5.3.7. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous terms.
See Exhibit B
6. Applicable Rules. Regulations and Official Policies.
6.1 Rules re Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement,
the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the
permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property
and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force
and effect on the effective date of this Agreement. .
6.2 Rules re Design and Construction. Unless otherwise
expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions,
rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and
construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in
force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary Project Approval.
Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design,
improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public
improvements to be constructed by DEVELOPER shall be those in force and effect at
the time of the app~icable permit approval.
6.3 Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in
Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with
the provisions of the California Building Codes (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and
Electrical) and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building
Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or
other construction permits for the Project.
7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations.
7.1 New Rules and RegJ1lations. During the term of this
Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force
6
April 4, 1996
"
and effect on the effective date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with
those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if the application of .':
such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies
would not prevent or materially delay development of the Property as contemplated
by this Agreement and the Project Approvals.
7.2 Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall
prevent the CITY from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use
permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent
actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements
expressly set forth herein.
7.3 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure
is enacted, whether by action of CITY, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that
imposes a building moratorium which affects the Project on all or any part of the
Property, CITY agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not
apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the
building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state
of emergency as defined in Government Code ~ 8558.
8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees. Assessments and Taxes.
..
8.1 Fees. Exactions. Dedications. CITY and DEVELOPER
agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the
development -bf the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other
impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project and complying with
the Specific Plan shall be those set forth in PD Ordinance Number , TM Res.
No. _, SDR Res. No. , and in this Agreement. CITY shall not impose or
require payment of any other fees, dedications of land, or construction of any public
improvements or facilities, in connection with any subsequent discretionary approval
for the Property, except as set forth in those approvals and this Agreement.
8.2 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application,
processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement
shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2)
the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of
such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement.
7
April 4, 1996
.
.
-:;
.'
~ I
8.3 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes
shall apply to the Project provided that: (I) the application of such taxes to the
Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent
developmen( in accordance with this Agreement.
8.4 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve
the Property from assessments levied against it by City pursuant to any statutory
procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services
which benefit the Property.
9. Amendment or Cancellation.
9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal
Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the effective
date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions
of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City,
the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this
Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such
amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in
accordance with Chapter 8.12.
9.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be
amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in
accordance with the procedures of State law and Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91.
9.3 Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the
provisions of the preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which
do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the
pennitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for
reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B; (d) conditions, terms,
restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or
intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings;
or (g) monetary contributions by DEVELOPER as provided in this Agreement, shall
not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing
before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may
execute an amendment hereto.
9.4 Amendment of Project Approvals. Any amendment of
Project Approvals relating to: (a) the permitted use of the Property; (b) provision for
8
April 4. 1996
Lf&
reservation or dedication ofland; (c) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements
for subsequent discretionary actions; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; e:
(e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (f) monetary contributions by
the DEVELOPER; or (g) public improvements to be constructed by DEVELOPER
shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Any other amendment of the Project
Approvals, or any of them, shall not require amendment of this Agreement unless the
amendment of the Project Approval(s) relates specifically to some provision of this
Agreement.
9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise
permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the
mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 8.12. Any fees paid pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B
of this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by CITY.
10. Term of Project Approvals.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the,
term of the tentative map described in Recital G above shall automatically be
extended for the term of this Agreement. The term of any other Project Approval
shall be extended only if so provided in Exhibit B.
II. Annual Review.
e.
11.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement
shall be June I, 1997, and each June 1, thereafter.
11.2 Initiation of Review. The CITYs Community
Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under
Section 8.12.140 of Chapter 8.12, by giving to DEVELOPER thirty (30) days'
written notice that the CITY intends to undertake such review. DEVELOPER shall
provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on
the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community
Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of
the Development Agreement for the purposes stated in Government Code Section
65865.1. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the
DEVELOPER.
11.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, CITY shall deposit
9
April 4, 1996
e
..".
.'
...".
.,i
e:
~I
in the mail and fax to COUNTY and DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports, and
related exhibits concerning contract performance at least three (3) days prior to any
annual review.
11.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in connection
with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER in accordance with the City's
schedule of fees in effect at the time of review.
12. Default.
12.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an
event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which
are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in CITY's regulations governing
development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of
this Agreement.
12.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of
default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such
default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party
within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party
may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this
Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty
(30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable
action so .long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty
(30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice
shall not constitute a waiver of any d~fault.
12.3 No Damages Against CITY. In no event sh311 damages be
awarded against CITY upon an event of default or upon tennination of this
Agreement.
13. Estoppel Certificate.
Any party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written
notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the
knowledge of the certifying party, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a
binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or
modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments,
and (c) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations
10
April 4, 1996
VI/
under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of
any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return .
such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer
period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of City shall be
authorized to execute any certificate requested by COUNTY or DEVELOPER upon
payment of CITYs costs. Failure to execute an estoppel certificate shall not be
deemed a default.
14. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure.
14.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior
and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date
of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage
("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render
invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for
value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding
upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust
beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any
portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
14.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 14.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this .
Agreement to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to
guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or
completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the
Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses
or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this
Agreement.
14.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to
Cure. If CITY receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of
default given DEVELOPER hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof,
then CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to
DEVELOPER, any notice given to DEVELOPER with respect to any claim by CITY
that DEVELOPER has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have
the right during the same period available to DEVELOPER to cure or remedy, or to
commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the CITY's
notice. CITY, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period
provided in paragraph 12.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon
11
April 4, 1996
.~'
.~'
.'.,
-:i
.::
~';
request of DEVELOPER or a Mortgagee.
15. Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions,
covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions
unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
If CITY, COUNTY or DEVELOPER initiates any action at law or in
equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in
addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or
entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to
challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the
parties shall cooperate in defending such action. DEVELOPER shall bear its own
costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse
CITY for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by CITY in defense
of any such action or other proceeding.
17. Transfers and Assignments.
17.1 Right to Assign. DEVELOPER'S rights hereunder may be
transferred, sold or assigned in conjunction with the transfer, sale, or assignment of
all or a portion of the Property subject hereto at any time during the term of this
Agreement, provided that no transfer, sale or assignment of DEVELOPER's rights
hereunder shall occur without the prior written notice to CITY and approval by the
City Council, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The
City Council shall consider the matter within 30 days after DEVELOPER's notice.
17.2 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or
assignment of DEVELOPER's rights and interests hereunder pursuant to the
preceding subparagraph of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released from the
obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or
assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Council approval of such transfer,
sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee
approved by the City Council expressly assumes the obligations of DEVELOPER
under this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released with respect to all such
12
April 4, 1996
q~
assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be
subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, e:,
certifications and other necessary information prior to City Council approval.
17.3 Termination of Agreement Upon Sale of Individual Lots to
Public. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the
burdens of this Agreement shall terminate ,as to any lot which has been finally
subdivided and individually (and not in "bulle") leased (for a period of longer than
one year) or sold to the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon and without the
execution or recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be
released from and no longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this
Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue to
run as to any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the
termination of this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement shall
terminate as to such lot.
18. Agreement Runs with the Land.
.All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations
contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons e
acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by .,. .
operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. .All of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants
running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to,
Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or
refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned
property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such
properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each
successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and
shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and
each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties.
19. Bankruptcy.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in
bankruptcy.
13
April 4. 1996
.
.--
-
e",
"
, "
e::,
tit?
20. Indemnification.
DEVELOPER and COUNTY agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless CITY, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers,
agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal
fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may
arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the-DEVELOPER
or COUNTY, respectively, or any actions or inactions of DEVELOPER's their
respective!'contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the
construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project. Nothing in
this paragraph shall be construed to mean that DEVELOPER or COUNTY[shall
defend, indemnify or hold CITY or its elected and appointed councils, boards,
commissions, officers, agents and employees and representatives harmless from any
claims of personal injury, death or property damage arising from or alleged to have
arisen from, the maintenance or repair by CITY of improvements that have been
offered for dedication and accepted by CITY for maintenance.
21. Insurance.
21.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During
the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall maintain in effect a policy of
comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit
of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and a deductible of not more than
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per claim. The policy so maintained by
DEVELOPER shall name the CITY as an additional insured and shall include either a
severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement.
21.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this
Agreement DEVELOPER shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all
persons employed by DEVELOPER for work at the Project site. DEVELOPER shall
require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's
Compensation insurance for its respective employees. DEVELOPER agrees to
indemnify the City for any damage resulting from DEVELOPER's failure to maintain
any such insurance.
21.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of
this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall furnish CITY satisfactory evidence of the
insurance required in Sections 21.1 and 21.2 and evidence that the carrier is required
to give the CITY at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or
14
April 4, 1996
~(p
reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the CITY, its elective
and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives .
and to DEVELOPER and each contractor and subcontractor performing work on the
Project.
22. Sewer and Water
DEVELOPER acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer
permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another
public agency not within the control of CITY.
23. Notices.
All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in
writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices
required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
.
Notices required to be given to COUNTY shall be addressed as follows:
County Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street, Room 555
Alameda, CA 94612
and
Patrick Cashman
Project Director
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
225 W. Winton Avenue, Room 151
Hayward, California 9454
and
Adolph Martinelli
Director of Planning
County of Alameda
399 Elmhurst Street
15
April 4, 1996
.
-,
.'.
--
.
.:
'1 '
Hayward, CA 94544
Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed as follows:
Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc.
Attn: Matthew Koart, Vice President
3130 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 300
San Ramon, CA 94583
A party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other party and
thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices
shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the
expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail.
25. Agreement is Entire Understanding.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement
of the parties.
26. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement
and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
Exhibit A Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B Additional Conditions
Exhibit C Offsite Street Improvements
27. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in 3 duplicate originals,
each of which is deemed to be an original.
28. Recordation. CITY shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten
days following execution by all parties.
29. Meaning of "DEVELOPER" and/or "COUNTY'
DEVELOPER and COUNTY will provide CITY with memorandum
signed by both parties spedfying which party will be obligated to perform the
obligations herein. This memorandum will be provided prior to issuance of the first
16
April 4, 1996
qY>
grading permit for the ProJ'ect, and will be incorporated into this Agreement at such
time. .'
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF DUBLIN:
By:
Mayor
Date:
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
By:
Date:
Its:
KAUFMAN & BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.:
By:
Date:
.
Name:
Its:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date:
City Attorney
Date:
County Counsel
EH$:rja
17
April 4. 1 996
.
.
.'.
.:
J :\WPD\MNR$W\114\AGREE\DEVELOPM.K&B
(NOTARlZATION ATTACHED)
18
April 4, 1996
41
State of California
) ss.
County of Alameda
On
before me, a Notary Public,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
7[J
.
.'
.
51
.~".
, .
EXHIBIT A
Description of the Property
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
..
.
,
EXHIBIT B
Additional Conditions
.
The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to
Paragraph 5.3 above.
Subparagraph 5.3.1 -- Subsequent Discretionary Approvals
None.
Subparagraph 5.3.2 -- Mitigation Conditions
Subsection a.
Infrastructure Sequencing Program
The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the Project is set forth below.
Offsite improvements are depicted in Exhibit C.
(i) Roads:
The following improvements shall be constructed by DEVELOPER prior
to final inspection for the first building permit for the Project. .'
Certain of the improvements are required for the Project. Other
improvements which are not required by the Project (hereafter "Oversized
Improvements") shall be constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY as provided
~below. COUNTY shall be entitled to credits for the Oversized Improvements, as set
forth below.
A. Project Specific Improvements
Prior to final inspection for the first building permit for the
Project, the project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of dedication)
identified in the Traffic Study for the California Creekside Proposed Residential
Development, dated February 1996 prepared for Kaufman & Broad by TJKM
Transportation Consultants shall be completed by DEVELOPER.
B. Dublin Boulevard between West and East Edges of
Proj ect:
/ i'
(it
j
Dublin Boulevard is currently a two lane roadway lying along the
.
April 4, 1996
.
.;
.
,4;
south boundary of the Property. The ultimate north half of the street shall be
constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY along the Project boundary,
consisting generally of three 12' travel lanes, one 8' bike lane, a 24' wide landscaped
median island (with curbs) and a minimum 30' wide setback area which shall include
curb, gutter, a 12' wide trail and landscaping. Transitions shall be provided at the
west and east ends of the project from the new roadway section to existing Dublin
Boulevard. Two of the 12' travel lanes and the median improvements are Oversized
Improvements for which COUNTY shall receive a credit pursuant to in Subparagraph
5.3.5.
C. Transit Spine
The Transit Spine is a new street that is planned to ultimately
extend from Hacienda Drive east to Tassajara Road. The following portions of the
Transit Spine shall be constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY:
Along the north boundary of the Project, the south half of the
Transit Spine shall be constructed to include a 14' travel lane, 6' bike lane, and 8'
parking lane. The north half of the Transit Spine shall be constructed to include a
20' travel lane. A 30' landscaped median island (with curbs) shall be constructed
along the centerline of the right of way. The south half improvements shall include
curb, gutter, landscaping and sidewalk. The north half improvements shall include
headerboard and earth drainage ditch. COUNTY shall receive credit for dedication
of 38' of right-of-way, 16' of road improvements and 14' of landscaped median (as
shown on Exhibit C) pursuant to Subparagraph 5.3.5.
D. Collector Street
A collector street shall be constructed with the Project along the
west boundary of the Project between Dublin Boulevard and the Transit Spine. The
collector street shall generally include a paved area 40' from face of curb (east side) to
face of headerboard (west side), with sidewalk, landscaping and curb and gutter on
the east side of the street and headerboard and earth drainage ditch on the west side
of the street.
E. Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580
The COUNTY shall widen Tassajara Road from Dublin
Boulevard to 1-580 to four lanes at the time average daily traffic (ADT) on this
segment of Tassajara Road exceeds 15,000 vehicles unless Tassajara Road has already
11
April 4, 1996
5'1
been widened by another Eastern Dublin developer. If constructed by COUNTY,
COUNTY shall receive credit against the Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin
("Traffic Impact Fee") for the foregoing improvements pursuant to Subparagraph
5.3.5.
.'
, '
F. Traffic Signals ~. Tassajara Road and Dublin
Boulevard
The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall install traffic signals at
the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard together with left-turn lane
unless the signals have already been installed by the developer of the Tri-Valley
Crossings Project/Santa Rita Commercial Center (PA 95-013 [TM], PA 95-026
[SDR] and PA 96-026 [SDR] ["Tri-Valley Crossings Project"].). If constructed by
DEVELOPER, COUNTY shall receive credit against the Traffic Impact Fee for the
foregoing improvements pursuant to Subparagraph 5.3.5.
G. Traffic Signals ~- Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda
Drive
The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall install traffic signals at
the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard together with a left turn .:,
lane unless the signals have already been installed by the developer of the Tri-Valley
Crossings Project. If constructed as part of this Project, COUNTY shall receive credit
against the Traffic Impact Fee for the foregoing improvements pursuant to
Subparagraph 5.3.5.
H. Dublin Boulevard West of the Project
The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall widen existing Dublin
Boulevard or extend the new alignment for Dublin Boulevard from the BART easterly
access road to Hacienda Drive (at Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Tri-Valley
Crossings Project) to four lanes if the Project begins construction after the Tri-Valley
Crossings Project (or any phase of it) and the Dublin Ranch Phase I Project (P A 95-
030) have been constructed. If constructed as part of this Project, COUNTY shall
receive credit against the Traffic Impact Fee for the foregoing improvements pursuant
to Subparagraph 5.3.5.
I. Traffic Signals at Project's Two Main Entrances
The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall install traffic ~ignals at
Hi
April 4, 1996
..
.'
.::
...
7?
the two main access roads into the Project from Dublin Boulevard opposite the Tri-
Valley Crossings Project's entrances to accommodate the traffic to the Project. The
traffic signal at the Collector Street shall be constructed at the ultimate location on the
Collector Street to accommodate twelve (12) feet of widening to the west.
(ii) Sewer
The Dublin San Ramon Services District has prepared a report ("Eastern
Dublin Facilities Plan Final Report" dated December, 1993, prepared by G. S.
Do~son &Associates [the "DSRSD Report"]) which determines the sizes and
approximate locations of pipelines to provide potable water facilities, wastewater
collection facilities and recycled water facilities within the Eastern Dublin area at
ultimate buildout. All references hereinafter to the DSRSD Report shall be to the
report as it is periodically updated and in effect at the time of the applicable
improvements and as such report is interpreted and applied by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, all sanitary
sewer improvements to serve all building sites in the Project (or any recorded phase
of the Project) shall be complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin
San Ramon Services District.
(Hi) Water
Prior to combustible construction and/or storage of combustible
materials on site, sufficient water storage and pressure shall be available at the site to
the satisfaction and requirements of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
Prior to issuance of the first building pennit for the Project, all potable
water system components to serve all building sites in the Project (or any recorded
phase of the Project) shall be complete and in working order to the satisfaction and
requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Prior to occupancy of any portion of the Project, recycled water lines
shall be installed on site and within adjacent roadways to the satisfaction and
requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District consistent with the DSRSD
policy for recycled water and all recycled water connection fees shall be paid.
IV
April 4, 1996
7b
(iv) Storm Drainage
.
COUNTY has retained a consultant (Brian Kangas Foulk) to prepare a
master drainage plan (the "Drainage Plan") showing the routes and sizes of major
storm drainage facilities for all of COUNTYs approximate 620 acres. All references
hereinafter to the Drainage Plan shall be to the plan as periodically updated and in
effect at the time of the applicable improvements and as such report is interpreted
and applied by CITY.
Prior to final inspection of the first building permit for the Project, the
storm drainage systems to the site as well as on site drainage systems to the areas to
be occupied shall be complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin
Public Works Department applying CITYs and Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7) standards and policies which are
in force and effect at the time of issuance ,of the permit for the proposed
improvements and shall be consistent with the Drainage Plan. The site shall also be
protected from storm flow from off site and shall have erosion control measures in
place to protect downstream facilities and properties from erosion and unclean storm
water consistent with the Drainage Plan.
(v) Other Utilities (e.g. gas. electricity)
.
Construction shall be complete prior to final inspection of the first
building permit.
Subsection b.
Miscellaneous
(i) Completion May be Deferred.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY's Public Works Director may, in
his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to
the Public Works Director that assures completion, allow DEVELOPER to defer
completion of discrete portions of any of the above public improvements until after
final inspection of the first building permit for the Project if the Public Works
Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or
welfare.
(ii) Improvement Agreement
Prior to constructing the Improvements described in Subparagraph
v
April 4, 1996
.
e::
?I
5.3.2(a) above, DEVELOPER shall submit plans and specifications to CITY's Public
Works Director for review and approval and shall enter into an improvement
agreement with CITY for construction and dedication of the public facilities. All
such improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City's standards and
policies which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the permit for the
proposed improvements.
(iii) Bonds
Prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement, DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY shall provide a performance bond and labor and materials bond or other
adequate security to insure that the Improvements described in Subparagraph 5.3.2
above will be constructed prior to final inspection of the first unit. The performance
bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimate
of the cost to construct the improvements (including design, engineering,
administration, and inspection) and the labor and materials bond shall be in an
amount equal to 50% of the engineer's estimate. The bonds shall be written by a
surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by CITIs
City Manager.
.,' Subparagraph 5.3.3 -- Phasing. Timing
.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY intend to construct the Project in phases.
Each succeeding phase will be constructed to function in harmony with the previous
phase(s).
With the exception of the road improvements descrioed in Subparagraph
5.3.2(a)(i), this Agreement contains no requirements that DEVELOPER must initiate
or complete development of any phase within any period of time set by CITY. It is
the intention of this provision that DEVELOPER be able to develop the Property in
accordance with its own time schedules.
Subparagraph 5.3.4 -- Financing Plan
Except as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.2(b)(i) (Completion May Be
Deferred), DEVELOPER will provide all infrastructure described in Subparagraph
5.3.2(a)(i) of this Agreement prior to final inspection of the first building permit for
the Project.
VI
April 4, 1996
7~
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY intends to install all street improvements
necessary for the Project at its own cost (subject to credits for any Oversized .
Improvements as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.5 below).
Other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer, potable water, and recycled
water services to the Project will be made available by the Dublin San Ramon
Services District. COUNTY has entered into an "Area Wide Facilities Agreement"
with the Dublin San Ramon Services District to pay for the cost of extending such
services to the Project. Such services shall be provided as set forth in Subparagraph
5.3.2(a)(ii) and (iii) above.
Subpar~graph 5.3.5 -- Reimbursement
Subsection a.
Credits for Oversized Improvements.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall construct certain Oversized
Improvements in addition to the Project Specific Improvements. DEVELOPER and
COUNTY are parties to an agreement that provides that COUNTY will get credit
against Traffic Impact Fees for construction of any Oversized Roadway
Improvements.
COUNTY shall be entitled to a credit against Traffic Impact Fees for the .,:'
Project for construction of any such Oversized Improvements as provided below.
The Credits shall be given at the time DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY enters into an
improvement agreement with CITY for construction of the applicable Improvements.
The amount of the credits shall be determined at such time by the Public Works
Director using the costs of construction and right-of-way values used by the CITY in
calculating and establishing the Traffic Impact Fee. The amount of the Credit, once
established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on the
amount of the Credit. No Credit shall be given unless the improvement constructed
is one of the improvements described in the resolution establishing the Traffic Impact
Fee and is constructed in its ultimate location.
(i) Credit for Dublin Boulevard Fronting the Project
, Credit shall be given for two of the 12' travel lanes and the median
improvements, together with the right-of-way for the two travel lanes and the median
(for a total of 48' of right-of-way) unless the roadway has already been improved and
dedicated as a part of other development.
Vll
April 4, 1996
.
..
.':
.~
..,
, '
tjtt
(ii) Credit for Transit Spine
Credit shall be given for dedication of 38' of right-of-way along the
north boundary of the Project, for 16' of road improvements and for 14' of
landscaped median (second paragraph of Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(i)(C)) as shown on
Exhibit C.
(iii) Credit for Tassajara Road. Traffic Signals and Dublin
Boulevard West of the Project
Credit shall be given for the improvements described in Subparagraph
5.3.2(a)(i)(E), (F), (G) and (H), if constructed.
Subparagraph 5.3.6 -- Fees. Dedications
Subsection a.
Traffic Impact Fees.
DEVELOPER shall pay a Traffic Impact Fee for each residential unit in the
Project in the amount set forth in the City's Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin as
in effect at the time such Fee is payable pursuant to the resolution establishing the
amount of the Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin. For example, pursuant to City
of Dublin Resolution No. 41-96, the fee for a single-family residential unit on
property designated for one to 14 units per acre is $4,182 and is payable not later
than the date of final inspection of the unit. Likewise, the fee for a single-family
residential unit on property designated for 14 to 25 units per acre is $2,928, and for
a unit on property designated for over 25 units per acre is $2,509.
The total Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") shall be reduced, however, by the Credits
for Oversized Improvements provided in Subparagraph 5.3.5 when the Oversized
Improvements are constructed or guaranteed.
When the Credits have been exhausted, thereafter DEVELOPER will pay the
applicable TIF in accordance with the Resolution No. 1-95, as adopted January 9,
1995, or any subsequent resolution which revises the amount of the TIF.
If the amount of the Credits exceeds the amount of the TIF, COUNTY shall
be entitled to use the unused Credits in the manner provided by separate agreement
between the COUNTY and CITY to be entered into within one year of the effective
date of this Agreement. '
viii
April 4, 1996
bD
Subsection b.
Traffic Impact Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton for
Freeway Interchanges.
.::
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall pay the Eastern Dublin 1-580
Interchange Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 11-96 if such Fee is
effective at the time of final inspection of the first unit. DEVELOPER and COUNTY
shall be released from its obligation, as set forth in the preceding sentence, if a
lawsuit is filed challenging the Project approvals, this Agreement, the City's
compliance with CEQA for the project, the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee or any
other aspect of the development of the Property.
Subsection c. . Public Facilities Fees.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the
amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 32-96, adopted
by the City Council on March 26, 1996, or in the amounts and at the times set forth
in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee.
Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, not later than 12 months of the
effective date of this Agreement COUNTY shall dedicate to CITY in fee simple 3.69 ..
acres of land for the City Park located east of Tassajara Creek. The exact location of
the land to be dedicated shall be determined by CITY. The land to be dedicated and
underlying groundwater shall be free of hazardous substances. The dedication of
3.69 acres by COUNTY shall satisfy DEVELOPER's obligation under Dublin
Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 (CITY's "Quimby Act Ordinance") for community park
land and neighborhood park land and shall be a credit against the portion of the
Public Facilities Fee for the Project for "Community Parks, Land" and "Neighborhood
Parks, Land."
Subsection d.
Noise Mitigation Fee.
DEVELOPER shall pay a Noise Mitigation Fee in the amounts and at the
times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, adopted by the City Council
on March 26, 1996.
Subsection e.
School Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fees.
School impact fees shall be paid by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY in
accordance with Government Code section 53080 and the "Agreement to Provide
School Facilities Mitigation" between COUNTY and the Dublin Unified School
District, as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the School District on March 20,
.:;
. '
IX
April 4, 1996
.';
.-
.
{PI
1996.
Any fire capital impact fees shall be paid by DEVELOPER in accordance
with applicable requirements of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority or its
successors.
Subsection f.
Regional Transportation Impact Fee.
In the event that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council recommends and the
City Council adopts a Regional Transportation Impact Fee to pay for regional
transportation improvements in the Tri-Valley area, DEVELOPER will pay any such
fee in effect at the time of issuance of any building permits for the Project.
Subsection g.
Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees
CITY currently has a Rental Availability Ordinance (RAO) and is in the
process of preparing and adopting an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) pursuant
to CIITs Housing Element. Both the RAO and IZO are authorized by the General
Plan.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY will pay the Rental Availability In-Lieu Fee in
effect at the time of final inspection of each unit if DEVELOPER elects not to malce
rental units available for rental pursuant to the Rental Availability Ordinance, unless
the RAG has been repealed prior to such time. If DEVELOPER is required to pay
the In-Lieu Fee and CITY later repeals the General Plan requirement which the RAO
implements (General Plan ~ 6.3 (III)(E)), CITY will refund any In-Lieu Fees paid by
DEVELOPER.
The Project will be subject to the proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance,
provided that'DEVELOPER shall have the right in lieu of providing the required
percentage of affordable units required by such ordinance to pay a fee in the amounts
set forth in such ordinance, and provided further that the in lieu fee for the Project
shall not exceed $1.00 per square foot for single-family detached homes and $.75 per
square foot for attached homes.
Subsection h.
Specific Plan Implementation Fee
Prior to approval of its final map, DEVELOPER shall pay a "Specific Plan
Implementation Fee". The amount of the fee shall be the Project's pro rata share on
an acreage basis of CITY's then current costs for implementation of the Specific Plan
and the mitigation measures of the final Environmental Impact Report for the
x
Apri14,1996
b~
Specific Plan.
.'.
.'
Subsection i.
Dedications
DEVELOPER agrees to dedicate the property required for road improvements
described in Subparagraph 5.3.2 above to CITY in fee simple free and both the land
and groundwater shall be free of hazardous substances.
Subparagraph 5.3.7 -- Miscellaneous
Subsection a.
Creek Improvements.
, COUNTY shall prepare a Stream Restoration Plan in accordance with the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program and the Drainage Plan
for the portion of Tassajara Creek under COUNTY ownership. Such Plan shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of CITY and shall include landscaping. COUNTY shall
make the improvements to Tassajara Creek identified in the Plan within 36 months
of the effective date of this Agreement, unless CITY agrees in writing to a later date.
Not later than 36 months of the effective date of the Agreement, COUNTY shall
dedicate property on both sides of Tassajara Creek pursuant to the requirements of e.:
the Plan and Program, to the appropriate entity (as determined by the City Council)
which will own and maintain such areas pursuant to the Plan and Program. The
amount of land to be dedicated shall be determined by CITY consistent with the
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program.
Subsection b.
Waiver of Protest.
COUNTY and DEVELOPER waive any right to protest the inclusion of the
Property or any portion of it in a Landscape and Lighting Assessment District or
similar assessment district for maintenance of trails and/or landscaping areas along
Tassajara Creek, Dublin Boulevard, the 2-lane collector street running north/south on
the westerly edge of the Property and the Transit Spine and further waive any right
to protest the annual assessment for such maintenance.
Subsection c.
Dedication of Additional Park Land
COUNTY may dedicate to CITY in fee simple all or a portion of the land
required for the City Park located on COUNTY's remaining land. If COUNTY
exercises this option, the value of the land to be dedicated shall be determined by .
agreement between COUNTY and CITY but in no event shall such value per acre be . .
greater than the per acre value assumed by CITY in calculating the amount of its
Xl
April 4, 1996
.<-:--
e:,
.....,
'.'
e
to'')
Public Facilities Fee. CITY shall not be obligated to accept any such land until CITY
and COUNTY have agreed on the value of the land to be dedicated and CITY has
determined that the land and groundwater are free of hazardous substances and that
the land is appropriate for park andlor community facility uses. If COUNTY
dedicates any land, COUNTY or its successor(s) may be entitled to a credit against
payment of the Public Facilities Fee for other projects on its remaining land in the
amount of the agreed upon value of the land.
J :\WPD\MNRSW\1 J 4\AGREE\DVLP-K&B.EXB
xii
April 4, J 996
. - - o. _ .
^
c
~
e
~
~
l>Q
<:
~
00
C
I'<J
~
~'i:"
~ ell
~~
c-
:= i3
.0 .~
~~ M
i-I_ 0\
CO 0\
.... l>Q , -
~.5 :
... c '
~.;o .:
... ~ ,
-j:Q'N
e " I ~
o ~ :_
N""
~O!
-......
V"l~
N
...
...
~
QQ
~
<:
~
....
<:
.5
:0
~
o
E
~
Vi
~
y
.5
:0
~
Q
-
o ...
>,'-
,~ ~
u";
,,<
~-
o i3
titi:
::r: =
(I)::
O\C)-g
~....:!O
=<:c
~U~
.otl)...
~fi:~
UJ
U
j
<:
j:Q
UJ
tI)
Z
tu
c..
><
UJ
id
tIJ
:>
Z
tIJ
>
tu
IX:
10
~
-
OOOONOO-OO
-
V"l
~
-
0000000000
~
'<t'
~
-
-
""
-0000000000
~
~
-
...
=
~oooooooooo
...
=
8
=
....
-
0000000000
-
~
-
0000000000
~
-
0000000000
'0
C
tf
~~~~e~';~C)=
U~UU~U~~cE-
=ccc=c=c~...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ell
OOOOOOOOE-O
C'
.!i!
U
~
<Ii
S
o
~
(;
ti5
M
-
t--NIO ON t--t--V"l0
-
o
000000000
o
000000000
o
000000000
o
000000000
o
000000000
o
000000000
...
'0
C
~
~
<
8E
'E 1IJ
...E lIJS
ClIJ tl)O-
tl)lIJE ~ 1IJ
~ellJ ~ ....i~
~C'=O e<; ='lIJell
:>~~ tlJg.!!lCl~
E- 0 ell ,!:! ':::::3 >, =>
,..... ~ --ca..?
00...,:;; -gt:cI/$'Ccl/$
Z';~ c..~1IJ~
~ ... .- 1IJ ......:: e oS
... 1IJ'OC) lIJS::-S-
........ c:: ==...-01 GJ ..c: .::: ~
>< 0 =' '0 .:: ... e =' 8 1IJ
~Oj:Qc..~OE-U ::r:
o
~
=
o
;>
~
IX:
';
o
E-
\0
'<t'
o
o
o
o
o
o
U
l>Q
'0
~
j:Q
I:lO
,5
iii
...
&.
o
";
o
E-
-
M
M
'-'
c
o
o
o
c
o
E='
U
u:
tu
Cl
r::
o
'-'
tI)
::J
..J
c..
0:::
:>
tI)
..J
<:
U
tI)
fi:
..J
0(
::>
Z
z
0(
..-,
M
M
'-'
o
o
o
o
o
o
t-- M! 0
00 V'l "<T
\ONO\
MA 00 _A
........... r<"l
(,00') "" ...,
II
E='
U
E
tu
Cl
0:::
o
.........
tI)
;:J
..J
c..
0:::
;:J
tI)
..J
<:
U
tI)
E
tLl
>
E::
<(
..J
:>
::E
:J
U
Cl'{~
C:OO
"<T
@)
L1
>-
0\......
..... 0
.::
UJ I'<J
:> ...
..Jg.
<( u
>@)
E--
Z ~
W2
> ...
UJ~
O::,-......l
Cl,.o<
E->E-
UJCl,.Q
ZZE-
"
:I:
..
If~~
iirf1~
~~
c.:;~:i!'~m
r"(.\.'........~=-'"fI'
.-.... ".\l,j., ~..:..o.-i,ifL;
~~
~~;~4J:~~
r.;;:..'~
t'li .... .
i lrik; .
-
~
II'i
~
1IJ
C
"0
~
1.0
r<"l
~ .'
...
t"l
N
......
.-
U
N
~
....
b'
....
...
~
ctl
'g
...
.(
.c
u
...
ell
1IJ
~
0:::
.!;!
E
o
c
o
u
UJ
ij
u
...
:I
o
tI)
."
lit
.
.
^
...
c
C,)
e
C,)
C,)
...
~
o('i:'
u CU
cou
:;><
.c:-
~ ~
~ .-
~u..
CU....
E-- 0
c~
.... .-
- C
.D ._
=' ~
o~
S II
u
c;;~
~Q
... -...
....
CU
...
o
N
g:
-
It"l~
N
...
'"
='
;..Q
.(
iO
~
.5
::0
::::I
o
=
...
u
...
'"
~
V
.5
::0
='
o
....
o '"
>,.-
:.::: ~
ue;
c
"0(
~-
o ~
iiii:
x=
tI)::
0(.D
.'~ ~ Ci
0( S
-u~
.DtI)'"
~ti:~
M
8
N
"'g""f' Ml"V'lV'l f'1O
_ II"lN"" -t"'l 0
V'l..,.-M- M ......
.....cA.~...
N
g
N
O\g\Of't"'lV'l""MV'l1O
o \ONO\ O\N 10
N~ co~ M _
--
-
8
N
N8Mf'N""Mf'''''CO
co O\Nf' ..,._ ..,.
f' co~ M _
-
~
N
.-
Ol"'-OV'll"'-\ONN_N_
8NOV'lN"" 0\.... t"'l
_II"lN t"'l
""
-
0\
,
o
~
-
"''''OOOONV'll'''-NO\
CO\OV'l M V'l _
cONN
...
'"
c
8
0\
0\
0\
-
..5
'-'
eo
g:
-
~8~O~-~.qo-eo
--
l"
0\
0\
-
"'ONOo\OMNO..,.
..,.0..,. _
....
"0
C
::::I
u..
'2'2'2'2'2'2'2'2u~
u u u u u u u C,) ~ ~
c c c c c c c = ~ '"
u C,) u u C,) u C,) u ... CU
OOooooc.:n:>E--O
tI.l
U
~
...J
0(
m
UJ
tI)
Z
ll.1
t:l..
>::
ll.1
~
ll.1
::>
z
~
ll.1
0:::
c
C,)
....
't)
0:::
~
~
~e;-
r: c
CU
... c..
~ :l U
u~a~ :l..,
C~CUO "'5 cC,)
- CU ... C,) >
'-' E-O E-- = :i.5 u ~ ti: ~
tI):iu>,u~u..O:::::::Iu~
ll.1:: lI'l t:.;;; CU t: S' 5"O~
......E-O::> u cE--:l >8~
.,.J "Oc..cuu8uC,) '"
z ~ = e ~ ,!:3 E; 0::: ~ OCU
ll.1 u CUt:l.._.c:... 1:10'" u
:>c.."'-ugu...u.-u
ll.10~~ocu,;:~-S~c;
o:::,:t;~o:::::r:~O.sO:>fi5
u
c;
ci5
u
e
o
::t
......
......
o
IO~
..,.0..,. ""0""'10 NO
IOII"lNNMr--M-
..,.-O_O\-..,.""t"'l
-
eo
eo
r--
M-
-r--IOIO..,.eoMMO
Oo\lO..,.eoOeoO
M 10M MNN
0\
CO
N
t"'l~
MV'lIl"l""V'leoO\r--O
Ml"--IOM-1I"l
N V'lM NN-
V'l
0\
N~
......
O\eoO\t'--NNOgo
..,...,.NIO..,.II"l""
- MN --_
o
10
10
r---IrlMr--O\-II"lO
O\M-NNo\O\IO
NN
0\
10
M
-\ON N"" Neo..,.O
V'l__II"l_V'l..,.M
--
eo
....
N
OO_IO....eo-COOO
M 10M MNN
-
lI'l
"0
C
::::I
u..
~
lI'l
8 =
.t;: u
~ ~ e
= ~ tI) oc..
tl)4,)e e:-
ll.1Su ~ ~'t)~
~E~ cuc~i)~
-' 4,) c ~ sa 'Q Q u
E- E; CU :;: ........l >,:>
:=:: 0 ::E .D 5 _~ .-:= ?
..... co ::::I"'~c~
ffi '2 .5 C,) ': &. ~ S:::l .c:
4,)"00 ull'l:::l ...
&:l.c::::;:C,).c:c;.:::ee;
>< U :l 0 ,:: .... ~ ::::I 8 u
UJomc..u..OE-U ::r:
U
::::I
=
~
0:::
.....
cO
....
o
E-
N
......
0\
t"'l~
0\
eo
N
N
t'--
......
oo~
....
t'--
N
N~
-
0\
..,.
00
0\
t'--
..,.
II"l
N
M
...
u
co
"0
:l
ro
t>J)
-5
~
&.
o
e;
~
g:
o
N~
8
t'--~
..,.
0\
0\
..,.-
......
-
o
10
N~
N
l"
..,.~
......
N
o
-
....
00
\0
.-
o
t'--
t"'l
'-'
..-.,
0\
00
-
'-'
.-
0\
M
..,.
'-'
..-.,
o
-
....
'-'
..-.,
o
V'l
~
..-.,
I"'-
o
-
'-'
.-
o
..,.
-
'-'
p
u
u:
UJ
o
0:::
o
'-'
p
u
u:
UJ
o
0:::
o
'-'
tI)
::>
...J
c..
0:::
::>
tI)
...J
~
VJ
u:
UJ
>
3
:>
::E
::>
U
VJ
::>
...J
c..
0:::
:>
V)
~
u
VJ
ti:
~
z
~
be;;
-
.!>::
~
~
U
C
"0
~
10
t"'l
o
-
~
M
N
-
..-
U
N
~
~
-
~
-
.0
'ij
o
...
:(
...,e:
c,)
..
.0
4.l
...
U
p:::
!j
's
o
c
8
ttI
8
..
::t
~
^
-
s:::
u 00
e 8
S N
...
co
<"i:'
C,) fll
ClOU
;>-
..c- t--
~ ~ 8
UJ'- N
M~
'-
e: 0
= ~
;:: '=
,t:l ._
:::;I co ~
QU ~
s:::a:l N
~ II
~~
Wo
.:: "-
~ lrl
~ ~
~
-
Iri
N
-
'"
~ 8
< N
;,;
~
.S
:0
:l
Q
=
...
U
~
fll
UJ
V
.5
:0
:::I
Q
'-
~.~
.: .;
U fll
"'<
~-
o l3
ri~
:I: =
en=
<.0
O\u:l
=..JO
-<E
~u~
,t:ltl)'"
r::-_"l
E-o~w
UJ
U
Z
j
<
Q:l
tIJ
tI)
Z
tIJ
Q.,
><
UJ
~
uJ
;:J
Z
tIJ
>
tIJ
p:.:
o
-
o
N
1.0000 t--oo ("'IOO_'<1"N
lrl("'l-NlrlNlrl_No\
t--N-l.""l'<1" __ l.""l
lrl~ I.O~ _
8
N
lrlg-t--II")-t--gN_
'<1" -N-Nf"l Nil")
N-'-("'I'<1" o~- l.""l
II") ~ 1.0- _
N~OOt--NO\t--OO\O
o -Nt----O\__
t-- _l.""ll.""l 0\ l.""l
'<1"~ II")~
..-..
~~8~
_Ot---
lio"! ~~ lrl~
-
0\
~
t--0\t--1.00\t--0
NN....O\t---t--
l.""l("'l t-- N
-
--8'<1"
=1.0 N
""~ ....
C;; l.""l~"';
r=
8
t--0\"<t1.Ot--"<t0\
Nt--_t--I.O_N
tf'lN 1.0 N
..::
........
t--8~t--"<tNI.Ot--NOO
M ,., N M _ lrl lrl - 00
OOOO-tf'lN V'l _
N~M~
O\g"<tt--O\OV'll.Oot--
N -NOO-("'I-v_"<t
NI.OI.Otf'l- '<1" _
N~tf'l~
"l:l
r=
:::I
~
.........-IIIIc;_....~.........-III ~
~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U fll
uuuuuuuu;::::E--
r=r=r=s:::r=r=r=='i;'"
u u u u u u u u ... fll
OOOOOOOOE--O
C'
.~
43
~
l<
~
l<f)'
~ r=
""
... Q.,
~ :l U
uu~e ",g '"
r=><fllO UU ~
~~ ell ... _ >
;;- E- E-o = ~.::: 2 U ti: ~
,^ u u >. u l< tI...... :l u ><
~. l< '" - .- fll t: . = "l:l fll
~~:;J g,l:!E-o::l S ~8E-o
z e- 'g e ~ .~ 8 ~ ~ u :
tIJ &. fllQ.,_ts... ~"'uO
~ou-;~;~s~:a~
-...-uO"'-r=-U~
p:.:Q.,~P::::r:tI.O-O>tI)
u
';
-
en
o
e
o
::t:
t--
0\
If'l..
'<1"
....OOMOOlrlNNOOO
00t--t--'<1"-_0\0\
'OT-vNOO-VV"lMO\
..,,-..4'" ("t')....f(IIIIIIII4,.. ......................
o
I""l
t--~
M
....
-v"<t-OOOI.ONMI.OO
'OT1""lt--'OTt--t--1.00
l""l'OTO\OOMI""lNO\
.,.; ('f ......"' .....~ ...;
V"l
t--
t--~
N
....
1.0000"<T00t---MNO
OOOI.O'OTI""lI""lM....
N~MI.OOOMN_OO
~ N.........- ...................
N
....
t';..
-
....
MMOOOOOI.OO\t--O
1.O'OTV"l"<T0\000\_
OI""lMOONOO'lt--
.-;" ('""f" ...; ...-4"
N
0'1
-
~
I""l-V"l"<t-MNOOOOO
OO\O\NIrlN"<TO
O\N~O\NO\OOI.O
.....
00
V"l
-
00
0011")1.0 "<t-N"<tN-O
V"l"<Tt--N-t----
t-- N 1.0_ 0\ N t-- t-- II")
....
1.0
&
t--
-t--O"<t-"<t-"<tNO
-O\V"lNt--Nt--_
1.0 - M~ 0\ - 1.0 II") "<t
....
'"
'0
==
&:
<
'"
u _
u r=
'E u
==fl ~~
~ueue ~ uSu
..... '- ...u...
~~: ~=~i)~
E-<>; u.2jCl43
~ r~ "'=' ~ '; ~ ~
..... ~ ..::; .g t: ~ '2
Z-C>.O Q.,ou=~
hi e.5 Q.,... e .t::
.....U"l:l8 ..."'= -
e:: =::::.- u~;':::: ec;
""'u=o....... ::laU
tIJOQ:lQ.,U:O~U :I:
U
::l
=
o
~
P::
-;
"0
E--
l"'-
0'1
("'1_
-
-
N
-
V"l
o~
-
-
N
1.0
O\~
"<t-
o
l"'-~
00
lrl
"<t-
t--~
1.0
M
-
00
lrl~
N
1.0
OO~
"<t
-
u
co
'0
::l
Q:l
co
.5
....
fll
...
&.
o
-;
~
{,b
8
N~
("'I
Irl
-
oo~
"<T
N
.
00
-
N~
("'I
lrl
-
I.O~
-
N
"<T
II")
....
M~
00
0\
("'I
tJti
-
00
8
M
-v
"<T
N~
.......
-
1.0 1.0
"<T ,~ M
"<T N
N~ N-
....
-
.lo:
;:t
vi
;:t
u
=
'0
U
~
~
o
-
--
N
N
...
I""l
N
-
--
U
N
~
-
0-
....
e.,
Irl 0
..". 0\
M t--
N~ 0\
V'l -v
-v ~
l"'- ""=-
N~ t--
p
U
ti:
UJ
Cl
P::
o
'-'
CI)
::>
..J
Q.,
~
;:J
CI)
..J
~
CI)
~
...J
-(
::>
z
z
<
p
u
-
u.
UJ
Cl
~
o
'-'
CI')
::>
.....J
t:1.
0:::
::>
CI')
,.J
(j
tI)
u:
~
E::
:s
::>
:::E
a
~
u
...
:::I
o
CI)
~
fll
'u
o
~
'ti
...
fll
U
'"
C)
0:::
.~
e
o
r=
o
u
t.:J
.