HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Attachment K, L, M
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
HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO.
AND
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
FOR THE TRI-VALLEY CROSSINGS PROJECT/SANTA RITA
COMMERCIAL CENTER
\ _ "2.. ~ -<11 ':::> ~ ...:!.
EXHIBIT X
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
INDEX
1
RECITALS
2
AGREEMENT
2
1.
Description of Property.
2 .
Interest of Developer.
3
3.
Relationship of City, County and Developer.
Effective Date and Term.
3
3
4.
4.1 Effective Date
3
4.2 Term
3
5 .
Use of the Property
5.1 Right to Develop
4
4
5.2 Permitted Uses
4
5.3 Additional Conditions
4
5.3.1
Conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for subsequent
discretionary actions.
4
5.3.2
Additional or modified conditions
agreed upon by the parties in order to
eliminate or mitigate adverse
environmental impacts of the Project or
otherwise relating to development of
the Project. . . . .
4
5.3.3
provisions that the Project be
constructed in specified phases, that
construction shall commence within a
specified time, and that the Project or
any phase thereof be completed within a
specified time. . . . . . . . . .
5
5.3.4 Financial plans which identify
necessary capital improvements such as
streets and utilities and sources of
funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
1
5.3.5
Terms relating to subsequent
reimbursement over time for financing
of necessary public facilities.
5
5.3.6
Terms relating to payment of fees.
5
5.3.7.
Miscellaneous terms.
5
5.4 Subsequent Approvals.
5
6. Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official policies.
5
. . . . . .
6.1 Rules re Permitted Uses.
5
6.2 Rules re Design and Construction
6
6.3 Uniform Codes Applicable
6
7.
Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations.
6
7.1 New Rules and Regulations
6
7.2 Moratorium Not Applicable.
6
8 .
Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and
Taxes.
7
8.1 New Fees
7
8.2 Construction of Off-Site Traffic Improvements
7
8.3 Revised Application Fees
7
8.4 New Taxes.
7
8.5 Assessments
7
9 .
Amendment or Cancellation.
8
9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or
Federal Laws.
8
9.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent.
'. .
8
9.3 Insubstantial Amendments
8
9.4 Amendments of Project Approvals.
8
9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. .
9
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
ii
10. Term of Project Approvals.
9
11. Annual Review.
9
11.1 Review Date
9
11.2 Initiation of Review
9
11.3 Staff Reports
9
11.4 Costs
10
12. Default.
10
12.1 Other Remedies Available
10
12.2 Notice and Cure.
10
13. Estoppel Certificate.
10
14. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure.
11
14.1 Mortgagee Protection.
11
14.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated
14.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee
11
11
15. Severability.
11
16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
12
17. Transfers and Assignments.
12
17.1 Right to Assign Project as Whole or Either Phase 12
17.2 Release Upon Transfer. 12
17.3 Sale of a Portion of Either Phase 13
18. Agreement Runs with the Land.
13
19. Bankruptcy.
13
20. Indemnification.
13
21. Insurance.
14
21.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. 14
21.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. . . . . . . .. 14
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
iii
21.3 Evidence of Insurance.
22. Sewer and Water
23. Notices.
24. Agreement is Entire Understanding.
25. Meaning of "DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY"
26. Stat-us.
27. Exhibits
28. Time of the Essence.
29. Recordation
30. Counterparts
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
lV
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
21
22
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered in
the City of Dublin on this _ day of January, 1995, by and
between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation
(hereafter "CITY"), the SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY of the
,County of Alameda, a public corporation (hereafter
,u>COUNTY"), and HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO. f a Delaware
Corporation (hereafter "DEVELOPER"), pursuant to the
authority of ~~ 65864 et seq. of the California Government
Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12.
RECITALS
A. California Government Code ~~ 65864 et seq.
and Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter
:~Chapter 8.12") authorize the CITY to enter into a binding
"',agreement fbr the development of real property with any
person having a legal or equitable interest in such property
in order to establish certain development rights in such
property; and
B. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is
applicable to the Property; and
C.' The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires
DEVELOPER to enter into a development agreement; and
D. DEVELOPER and COUNTY desire to develop and
Developer holds legal interest in certain real property
consisting of approximately 75 acres of land, located in the
City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California,
which is more particularly described in Exhibit A-I and A-2
at.tached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
and which real property is hereafter called the "Property";
and
E. COUNTY is the owner of property in the City of
Dublin consisting of approximately 620 acres of land, which
includes the approximately 75 acres which DEVELOPER has
option on rights to acquire;
F. DEVELOPER and COUNTY propose the phased
development of the Property with a 75-acre retail commercial
development (the "Project"); and
G. CITY, COUNTY, and DEVELOPER acknowledge that
de~elopment of the Project is a large scale undertaking,
involving major investments by DEVELOPER and COUNTY, with
development occurring in phases over several years.
DEVELOPER and COUNTY are unwilling to incur the required
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
l
investment in development of the Project without assurance
from CITY that all phases of the Project can be developed in
accordance with the approvals granted by CITY. CITY, in
turn, cannot be assured of realizing the benefits of
development of the Project without granting assurance of
continuity of CITY'S approvals to DEVELOPER and COUNTY; and
H. DEVELOPER and COUNTY have applied for, and
CITY has approved, various land use approvals in connection
with the development of the Project, including a PD District
rezoning (Ord. No. ), and intend to process a tentative
parcel map and site development review (collectively,
together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter
issued with respect to the Project, the "Project
Approvals"); and
I. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly
and proper development of said Project in accordance with
this agreement; and
J. The Master Development Agreement approved by
CITY Resolution No. 109-94 was used as the format for
negotiating this Agreement; and
K. The City Council has found that, among other
things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has
been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.12;
and
L. CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER have reached
agreement and desire to express herein a Development
Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project
subject to conditions set forth herein; and
M. On January , 1995, the City Council of the
City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. approving this
Development Agreement. The ordinance took effect on
February , 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing
recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises,
obligations and covenants herein contained,.' CITY, COUNTY and
DEVELOPER agree as follows:
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
2
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Property.
The Property which is the subject of this
Development Agreement is a portion of Assessor's Parcel
Number 946-15-1-4, consisting of approximately 75 acres at
the southeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard
in the City of Dublin as depicted on the map attached as
Exhibit A-I hereto ("Property"). The parties agree that a
legal description of the Property will be attached hereto by
CITY ~s Exhibit A-2 at the time of approval of the tentative
parcel map and will become a part hereof without further
action.
2. Interest of Developer.
The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in
the Property in that it has an option to purchase the
Property in fee simple which may be exercised in two phases.
DEVELOPER shall incur no obligations hereunder unless and
until it purchases the Property or any portion of it in fee
simple.
3. Relationship of City, County and Developer.
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract
that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by
CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER and that neither the COUNTY nor
the DEVELOPER is an agent of CITY. The CITY, COUNTY and
DEVELOPER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint
venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing
contained herein or in any document executed in connection
herewith shall be construed as making the CITY, COUNTY and
DEVELOPER joint venturers or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term.
4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this
Agreement shall be the date when signed by all parties.
4.2 Term. Unless said term is otherwise
terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this
Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto by
amendment of this Agreement, the term of this Development
Agreement shall commence on the effective date and extend
until the earlier of a) ten (10) years thereafter, or b) ae
to DEVELOrER or COlnJTY, when either DEVELOPER has completed
its obligations under this Agreement for Phase 1 or Phase 2,
and has completed development of Phase 1 or Phase 2, as the
case may be, or c) when COUNTY has completed its obligations
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
3
under this Agreemen t for Phase 1 or Phase 2 and has
completed development of Phase 1 or Phase 2, as the case may
be.
5. Use of the Property.
5.1 Riqht to Develop. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the
Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and
any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time,
be approved pursuant to this Agreement.
5.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum
height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for
reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and
location and maintenance of on-site and off-site
improvements, location of public utilities and other terms
and conditions of development applicable to the Property,
shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project
Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the
Project Approvals.
5.3 Additional Conditions. Provisions for the
following ("Additional Conditions") are set forth in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
5.3.1 Conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for subsequent discretionary
actions. (These conditions do not affect
Developer's responsibility to obtain all
other land use approvals required by the
ordinances of the City of Dublin.)
Not Applicable.
5.3.2 Additional or modified conditions
agreed upon by the parties in order to
eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental
impacts of the Project or otherwise relating
to development of the Project.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.3 Provisions that the Project be
constructed in specified phases, that
construction shall commence within a
specified time, and that the Project or any
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
4
phase thereof be completed within a
specified time.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.4 Financial plans which identify
necessary capital improvements such as
streets and utilities and sources of
funding.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.5 Terms relating to subsequent
reimbursement over time for financing of
necessary public facilities.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.6 Terms relating to payment of fees.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.7. Miscellaneous terms.
See Exhibit, B.
5.4 Subseauent Approvals. Development of the
Property by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is subject to certain
future discretionary approvals including, but not
necessarily limited to, subdivision and site development
review approval. Upon approval and issuance of any such
subsequent discretionary approval (including conditions of
such approval) each such approval shall automatically become
part of the approvals which vest hereunder as each such
approval becomes effective following final action by CITY,
and DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be entitled to develop in
accordance with such approvals as provided in this Agreement
as though such approval existed upon the effective date of
the Agreement and was initially incorporated herein.
6. Applicable Rules, Requlations and Official
Policies.
6.1 Rules re Permitted Uses. Notwithstanding
any future changes in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinances or any future rules,
regulations, or policies adopted by the CITY, including
initiatives applicable to the Property, for the term of this
Agreement, the CITY's ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and official policies governing the permitted
uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
5
of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of
proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the
effective date of this Agreement.
6.2 Rules re Desiqn and Construction. Unless
otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this
Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations
and official policies governing design, improvement and
construction standards and specifications applicable to the
Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of
the applicable discretionary Project approval. Ordinances,
resol~tions, rules, regulations and official policies
governing design, improvement and construction standards and
specifications applicable to public improvements to be
constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be those in
force and effect at the time of the applicable permit
approval.
6.3 Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly
provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall
be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the
Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes
and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating
to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of
the appropriate building, grading, or other construction
permits for the Project.
7. Subsequent Iv Enacted Rules and Requlations.
7.1 New Rules and Requlations. During the term
of this Agreement, the CITY may apply new or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official
policies of the CITY only if they were not in force and
effect on the effective date of this Agreement, if they are
not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set
forth in this Agreement and if the application of such new
or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or
official policies would not prevent or materially delay
qevelopment of the Property as contemplated by this
Agreement and the Project Approvals.
7.2 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an
ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether
by action of CITY, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise,
that imposes a building moratorium which affects the Project
on all or any part of the Property, CITY agrees that such
ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to
the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project
Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
6
of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency
as defined in Government Code ~ 8558.
8. Subsequentlv Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments
and Taxes.
8.1 New Fees. The CITY, DEVELOPER, and COUNTY
agree that the fees payable and exactions required in
connection with the development and buildout of the Project
for the purposes of mitigating environmental and other
impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the
Project, and complying with the Specific Plan shall be those
set forth in PD Ord. No._ or in this Agreement. The CITY
shall not impose or require payment of any other fees,
dedication of any land, or construction of any public
improvements or facilities, in connection with any
subsequent discretionary approval for the Property or any
portion of it, except as set forth in PD Ord. No. and
this Agreement.
8.2 Construction of Off-Site Traffic
Improvements. The CITY, DEVELOPER, and COUNTY agree that
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY'S obligation to mitigate the traffic
impacts of the project with respect to either constructing
or contributing to the cost of any off-site improvements are
limited to those set forth in this Agreement. No other off-
site improvements, or contributions to off-site
improvements, shall be required of DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
at any phase of development of the Project.
8.3 Revised Application Fees. Any existing
application, processing and inspection fees that are revised
during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project
provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2)
the application of such fees to the Property is prospective;
and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent
development in accordance with this Agreement.
8.4 New Taxes. Except as set forth below, any
subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the
Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to
the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such
taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this
Agreement. No excise tax on the privilege of developing
property shall apply to the Project.
8.5 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be
construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied
against it by CITY pursuant to any statutory procedure for
the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or
services which benefit the Property.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
7
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 cDnfer 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 permitted uses of the
Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for
reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B;
(d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for
subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or
intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or
size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY as provided in this Agreement,
including Exhibit B, shall not, except to the extent
otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing
before the parties may execute an amendment hereto.
9.4 Amendments of proiect Approvals.
No amendment of Project Approvals shall
require an amendment of this Agreement. Instead, any such
amendment automatically shall be deemed to apply to the
Project and shall be subject to this Agreement.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
8
9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent.
Except as otherwise permitted herein, this
Agreement may be cancelled in whole or in part only by the
mutual consent of the parties or their successors in
interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.12
of the Dublin Municipal Code. Any fees paid pursuant to
Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the
date of cancellation shall be retained by CITY. Any credit
due to COUNTY under paragraph 5.3.6 shall be carried over to
future projects on COUNTY's remaining property.
Upon completion of Phase 1 or Phase 2, the
parties may agree in writing to cancellation of this
Agreement as to Phase 1 or Phase 2, as the case may be, in
accordance with the provision of Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin
Municipal Code.
10. Term of Proiect Approvals.
Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 66452.6778(a), the term of the tentative parcel map
described in Recital H above shall automatically be extended
for the term of this Agreement. The term of any other
Project Approval shall be extended only if so provided in
Exhibit B.
11. Annual Review.
11.1 Review Date. The annual review date for
this Agreement shall be April I, 1996, and each April 1
thereafter.
11.2 Initiation of Review. The CITY's Planning
Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under
Section 8.12.140 of Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal
Code, by giving to COUNTY and DEVELOPER thirty (30) days'
written notice that the CITY intends to undertake such
review. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall provide evidence to
the Planning Director prior to the hearing on the annual
review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the
Planning Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with
the provisions of the Development Agreement. The burden of
proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY. The review shall be for the
purpose set forth in Government Code section 65865.1.
11.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical,
CITY shall deposit in the mail and fax to COUNTY and
DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
9
concerning contract performance at least three (3) days
prior to any annual review.
11.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in
connection with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY in accordance with the City's schedule of fees
in effect at the time of review.
12. Default.
12.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the
occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue
all other remedies at law or in equity which are not
otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's
regulations governing development agreements, expressly
including the remedy of specific performance of this
Agreement.
12.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an
event of default by any party, the nondefaulting party shall
serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting
party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party
wi thin thirty (30) days after service off'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 default.
13. Estoppel Certificate.
Any party, or prospective party or lender of any
party hereto may, at any time, and from time to time,
request written notice from the other parties hereto
requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the
knowledge of the certifying party, (a) this Agreement is in
full force and effect and a binding obligation of the
parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified
either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying
the amendments, and (c) the requesting party or the party
about which information is requested is not in default in
the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or
if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of
any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder
shall execute and return such certificate within thirty
(30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer
period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
10
Manager of CITY shall be authorized to execute any
certificate requested by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY and County
Administrator shall be authorized to execute any certificate
for COUNTY. Failure to execute an estoppel certificate
shall not be deemed a default.
H1A . Mortqaqee Protect; on; Certain Rights of Cure.
14.1 Mortoagee Protection. This Agreement shall
.be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property,
or any portion thereof after the date of recording this
Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or
mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no
breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or
impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for
value, but all for the terms and conditions contained in
tpis Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against
apyperson or entity, including any deed of trust
beneficiary or mortgagee (IlMortgagee") who acquires title to
.the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure 1
trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
" 14.2 Mortqaqee Not Obliqated. 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 Mortqaqee. If CITY
receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any
notice of default given DEVELOPER hereunder and specifying
the address for service thereof, then CITY shall deliver to
such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to
DEVELOPER, any notice given to DEVELOPER with respect to any
claim by CITY that DEVELOPER has committed an event of
default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the
same period available to DEVELOPER to cure or remedy, or to
commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set
forth in the CITY's notice.
15. Severabilitv.
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.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
11
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 ~roject 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 Assiqnments.
17.1
Riqht to Assiqn Prolect as Whole or Either
Phase.
In the event that DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
proposes to assign this Agreement in whole or as to the
entirety of Phase 1 or Phase 2, (exclusive of any portions
of Phase 1 or Phase 2 transferred pursuant to subparagraph
17.3) DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall give CITY ten (10)
working days written notice of such proposed assignment and
the right to review and comment on the proposed assignment
document. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY agree to give all
reasonable consideration to CITY's comments but shall retain
the right to assign this Agreement as herein stated without
CITY's approval. Each successor in interest to the
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be bound by all of the terms
and provisions hereof after the effective date of the
assignment of this Agreement, and DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
shall be relieved of any obligations, liabilities or the
like incurred after the effective date of the assignment.
17.2
Release Upon Transfer.
Except as provided otherwise, upon the sale,
transfer, or assignment of DEVELOPER'S and/or COUNTYIS
rights and interests under this Agreement under subparagraph
17.1 , DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be released from their
obligations under this Agreement with respect to the portion
of the Property and/or Project so transferred; provided
however,that (i) DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is not then in
default beyond all applicable cure periods pursuant to
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
12
written notice given under this Agreement; (ii) DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY have provided written notice of such transfer
to CITY and (iii) subject to the exceptions stated herein
below, the transferee executes and delivers to CITY a
written Assumption Agreement in which (a) the name and
address of the transferee is set forth and (b) the
transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes.all of the
obligations of the DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY under this
Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property and/or
Project transferred.
17.3
Sale of a Portion of Either Phase
Neither DEVELOPER nor COUNTY shall be
relieved of its respective obligations under this Agreement
upon the sale of a portion of the Property comprising Phase
1 or Phase 2 and no such sale shall require approval from
CITY pursuant to this Agreement.
18. Aqreement Runs with the Land.
All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants,
and obligations contained in this Agreement' shall be binding
upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and
assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons
acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any
interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any
manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall
constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to
applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468
of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant
to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property
hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for
the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such
properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is
binding upon each party and each successive owner during its
ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and
shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its
property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an
interest in such properties.
19. Bankruptcy.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be
dischargeable in bankruptcy.
20. Indemnification.
In addition to the Processing Fee Agreement Form
signed by DEVELOPER, which is incorporated herein, DEVELOPER
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
13
and COUNTY each agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CITY,
and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions,
officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any
and all claims, costs and liability for any personal injury
or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as
a result of any actions or inactions by the DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY, respectively, or any actions or inactions of
.DEVELOPER's and/or COUNTY's respective contractors,
subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the
construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the
Project. No trustee shareholder, officer, director,
employee, parent or subsidiary company, DEVELOPER affiliate
or partner of DEVELOPER shall in any event at any time be
personally liable for the payment or performance of any
obligation under this Development Agreement. Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to mean that DEVELOPER shall
defend, indemnify or hold CITY or its elected or appointed
representatives, officers, agents and employees harmless
from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage
arising from or alleged to have arisen from, the maintenance
or repair by CITY of improvements that have been offered for
dedication and accepted by CITY for maintenance or arising
out of the negligence of CITY or its elected or appointed
representatives, officers, agents and employees.
21. Insurance.
21.1
Public Liabilitv and Property Damaqe
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 and COUNTY as additional insureds 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
and/or COUNTY shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance
for all persons employed by DEVELOPER for work at the
Project site. DEVELOPER shall require each contractor and
subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation
insurance for its respective employees. DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY, as the case may be, agree to indemnify the City for
any damage resulting from DEVELOPER's and/or COUNTY's
failure to maintain any such insurance.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
14
Evidence of Insurance.
21.3
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 in the form of a certificate of insurance and evidence
that the carrier is required to give the CITY at least
fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or
reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall
extend to the CITY, its elective and appointive boards,
comm~ssions, officers, agents, employees and representatives
and to DEVELOPER and each contractor and subcontractor
performing work on the Project.
22. Sewer and Water.
DEVELOPER and COUNTY acknowledge that water and
sewer permits must be obtained from the Dublin San Ramon
Services District (IIDSRSD") which is another public agency
not within the control of CITY.
23. Notices.
All notices required orprovided for under this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person (by
overnight mail) 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 DEVELOPER shall be addressed
as follows:
Homart Development Co.
ATTN: Community Centers Counsel
55 West Monroe, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
with copy to Executive Vice President
Notices required to be given to COUNTY shall be addressed as
follows:
County Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street,Room 555
Oakland, CA 94612
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
15
with a copy to:
Planning Director
Alameda County
399 Elmhurst St.
Hayward, CA 94544
A party may change address by giving notice in writing to
the other parties and thereafter all notices shall be
addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall
be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if
mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being
deposited in the United States Mail.
24. Aqreement is Entire Understandinq.
This Agreement is executed in three duplicate
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.
This Agreement and all Exhibits attached hereto
contain the sole and entire agreement between the parties
concerning the Project. The parties acknowledge and agree
that none of them has made any representations with respect
to the subject matter of this Agreement or any
representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof,
except such representations as are specifically set forth
herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on
its own judgment in entering into this Agreement.
25. Meaninq of "DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY".
DEVELOPER and COUNTY will provide CITY with a
memorandum signed by both parties specifying which party
will be obligated to perform the obligations herein. This
memorandum will be provided prior to issuance of the first
building permit for phase 1 and phase 2, respectively, and
will be incorporated into this Agreement at such time.
26. Status
Upon the request of DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY, CITY
agrees that it shall certify to DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY, or
to any prospective purchaser or lender of DEVELOPER's and/or
COUNTY's interest in the Property, as to the status of the
completion of any obligation to be performed by DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY under this Agreement. CITY shall respond to
such a request within thirty (30) days following the receipt
thereof.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
16
27. Exhibits.
The following documents are referred to in this
Agreement qnd are attached hereto and incorporated herein as
though set forth in full:
Exhibit A-I Map of Property
Exhibit A-2 Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B
Additional Conditions
28. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the
performance of each and every covenant and obligation to be
performed by the parties hereunder.
29. Recordation. CITY shall record this Agreement
when the legal description (Exhibit A-2) is attached, as
provided in paragraph 1, which shall occur within ten days
after CITY executes this Agreement.
30. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in
three separate counterparts, each of which shall constitute
an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first
above written.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
17
HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO. a Delaware
Corporation
By:
Name:
Its:
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
18
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF DUBLIN:
By:
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
19
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
By:
President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
20
1-
---- , 1- - 200' I
I '."".'.......,. .-..--~~~-- J "./ Ir~
"';,~' ~~~~~':,~~
'''~='''~ "'''''' -"'",,"-,,":~ ~ <' ~ "y''''''-
.' :'U.{ { '::~:,. "'1-W~- I --r' . .. . 'I . f /
: ~.l~. ;; "f f;(Ij' I}" J . ,) i.
, \ I I ~J.. I j '_ :: I
d ~-~}3 '" J:.. / /.
/_ ;: ,:.-'~.~:\\;:~) ( >-' .,', /u
rl l...../ (.rJ ,-,". \\.,./ ,.'J' "- / . I tJ
(II '-'.'.:~:::. 1\." '. , '..' ~ '
-\\\ ._ .,:... ;> , \ \"-.... ~~ -'::--:-' -. -'!J I '7
i ,,\:>~-=.::,._~.~ -:-- ........_"2..-:7. ._}.. ,
/" .'_~;:.::5---=r~:' - - -. . _2.-4= -- - _ ::J.~.:. - '
.I " /'''', f'-' _.~
-'2 (.. (\ ( f "', _,-' ,lI) lV~ \}
'~/"--~ ,,_.1, (/' (,r ( J
.-.. ,- " \ ( .\) [
......, ,,-. ~-"- .- c!........---..-_._,,~ J-- 1- --..E, 1
r~~'\''';~=~'-=:~~-6~:==~:'::'''':::'';''---,,,, -~: " 1 " . ,'. '-::...~' r-'
(d':.av,.{4~ b.. ~c-._-=~~=-,,:-~_-__ _d... 'I >~ -~J,.
::1' ;[ {U I~ (C=--= &. i;4.'~~ ' 0' ~) .,
::" /l1 1..) ( ~~==~ll".::d,'~~flM, (0"
'\j; I ,r-a~~, ~"/l /-"'''-O:::---~''''f g~, "}J
<v"{.~' !iJ\1{\;'-' I",~W_:: 'I'~v,' 'j'/ )J~iJhC Ill'
" 1 ( ~ -.) \j . ._-J I ( ~ u..." "-- \I I ( '.. /,'
",': / ) \) "~J/ ~ j1.<-'>::' :-~~'j.~1 'E. .c-::i:.~/ I) ) ,_o~, -,; Itl~
',) \ I, . .~_-' ), ,_' '\ ,,( , jlJlll
, I I I' \ f ,{ . 'f "", " I,I
',' ,-' IF" I I ". I J n
\, ~ / r I ",l< j 'j' \111 c. " II {OJ
I ," ('''- ..I. ,- 41 ,..'; it \ I.. II J
. ) ~, ) -..{ \i "J ',..'I -' u" " , IA 1') -" i Q 'f ,-"
I. 'l / I ",..J1, I , Ir\t.jl II,,.. /'- ," )1
I J V" I ,1........;?"\ J /'" I v ~ % '. f( \: .t~~; I ~
I I I' ;'. l I" \. '~-I T' \) _)
i )...t( ~:\,;' (, '\1 -..-_.:-.._-~, i/ "'!~A<:I":;'';I' c-<\
", M / {.16\"\ (\ ''')/ ". dl . '1
:~ ~., j~J:~~I:-\!') \) l):~! r)~"-~::':~J"-11i;~/'l~:~'~:~~\= \~-:I\~..J;J.
\" -.. I;. \ .t ....') - . l . J I fl' r ' \10 ~
'},\ 1 \\, f,' '..- IJtJP' \ Of ;.! i,. j.' \ '. ,I, ',:. \ I
" '..:;>' b"j .:'/, ")_:): .... t I) III i- " '~' )
I J ":\.~:_ I \1 ~~~. t f;_ <'~}....i --: {._'_ 1\ I
~\ /.U/'.'\'.:..,...., J c., '..::~~-.:--::.,. _.." ,V'.. \'
I I (.::" ,-.. ( \\, - '"", '-.' - ,~,- ~;!ili;;.;;,;a......:- .;...- . =-~ ~---- I
t, j"'; <j':'\,r 1;" r -..'..~ ',-. - ----... i ,"- --, .
, '~ ,,;'~-;"[~J". .".,'---....,' '. '--.. -. ". ) \ J ((.'
, i'!.-- :~':" \~'''' ''', -. '. \ j \\~ ~' I,
t. . '.'t '''\ ~ . ...~ \ I' " ..
tr1 .~" '!- . .. -:..~~,. .. . " " ! 1 I
;;,c e: '. ~~:~~~.-~:.... ". '~~ -'-=':'L '.. -~'., . , I ; d,i! .
~ g:, ,.~S~~~ ". .....,.~~.:..:~",...~~~::':... >.... ....., . . ':-"/:l~ 11'\
..... > '-' -""..*.~",.. - ," . ..." r - ';";";'... ~' I' Ifl I
o ~ lill~ ~fV.y.-~~>.,.,:; ~,".'. .- ", ...J{=-:~i:!.,:.i~l.) :.ll~~,~~::....~$..,_.-' ~.v~ ';::~~ 11111 !..:
t-+) 1.1' f fn ~ / '.~ ~'- ..:,... - '.. - :--::. '. _ '. _. -~ ......~~.~7=~:~~~::-,,::.~~;~~.~.~~~~~ . ,: ~ ~
tv
~,
~I
~I
EXHIBIT A-I
Page 2
~
$
~
VICINITY MAP
(N.T.S.)
)
CAMP PAiiKS
~:
3\
,..1
O'
...
~:
o.
- \
~.!.
.~
".,
~
~
I~
!
Dt.'SLIN 3t. yo. iJ
I
lr\
I\~
- .;(J ~
i!~ __~rc
. ,\ ~r'N IA "r, A ;:;O"'C~ I { """'-"::::
: L..: O\ic;;q;Cs.:;;NG -/N i
_r/ I\~ ~IUlj <1;#
fJ 113 11
~/ }I~
",:. la .1-"" ,
j II #'..~,.
~ -
C'\
J
l\
'5
Ie
EXHIBIT B
Additional Conditions
The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed
pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above.
Section 1. Subparaqraph 5.3.1:
None.
Section 2. Subparaqraph 5.3.2:
Subsection a. Infrastructure Sequencinq Proqram
The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the
Project is set forth below. As used herein, "occupancy"
shall mean the receipt from CITY of a "Certificate of
Occupancy for Eastern Dublin Development" which shall be
issued by CITY when the building is ready to be opened to
the public.
(i) Roads:
A. Phase 1
Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 1,
the project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of
dedication) identified in the Traffic Impact
Analysis/Regional Discount Retail Center report dated
November 1994 prepared for Homart Community Centers by
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (hereafter "Project Specific
Traffic Report") shall be completed by DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY. Certain additional improvements (and offero of
dedication) (hereafter "Oversized Improvements") may be
constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY as herein provided
which, together with offers of dedication the right-of way
for the oversized Improvements and the Project Specific
Improvements, are collectively referred to below as "Full
Improvements" .
Hacienda Drive between 1-580 and Dublin
Boulevard:
Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 94
foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is
responsible for a minimum of 32 feet (adjacent to the
property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements
for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Additional right-of-way
for turn lanes is required. Full Improvements include
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feet if two left-
January 29, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
22
turn pockets required), two 12 foot southbound travel lanes,
three 12 foot north-bound travel or right turn lanes with 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes
for project entrance and Dublin Boulevard (12 foot lane with
5 foot bike lane in place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike
lane), 12 feet of parkway area which includes 8 feet of
sidewalk, and left-turn pockets as required by the Dublin
Public Works Director. Of the Full Improvements, the
Project-Specific improvements include 10 foot of median
improvements if two left-turn pockets are required, one 12
foot northbound travel lane with 8 feet of emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), and 12 feet of parkway
area which includes 8 feet of sidewalk. Of the Full
Improvements, the Oversized Improvements include full
improvement of the median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24
foot if two left-turn pockets are required), two 12 foot
southbound and two 12 foot northbound travel lanes.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for
adequate transition between existing improvements and
proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin
Public Works Director applying CITY'S standards and policies
which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the
permit for the proposed improvements..
Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and
Eastern-Most Proiect Entrance:
Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 102
foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is
responsible for a minimum of 40 feet (adjacent to the
property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements
for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Additional right-of-way
for turn lanes is required. Full Improvements include
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feet if two left-
turn pockets required), two 12 foot westbound travel lanes,
three 12 foot east-bound travel lanes with 8 foot emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), 20 feet of parkway area
(adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk
(20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet, when two left-
turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn
lanes are required), and left-turn pockets as required by
Dublin's Public Works Director. Of the Full Improvements,
the Project-Specific Improvements include 10 foot of median
improvement if two-left turn pockets are required, one 12
foot eastbound travel lane with an 8 foot emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
23
entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), and 20 feet of parkway
area (adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of
sidewalk (20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when
two left-turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when
right-turn lanes are required). Of the Full Improvements,
the Oversized Improvements include Full Improvement of the
median (minimum 14 foot width, ,maximum 24 foot if two left-
turn pockets are required), two 12 foot southbound and two
12 foot northbound travel lanes.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for
adequate transition between existing improvements and
proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin
Public Works Director applying CITY's standards and policies
which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the
permit for the proposed improvements.
B . Phase 2
Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 2,
the Project Specific Improvements (and offers of dedication)
set forth below shall be completed by DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY. In addition, the following Oversized Improvements
(and offers of dedication) may be constructed by DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY as herein provided.
Dublin Boulevard between Eastern-Most Project
Entrance and Tassaiara Bridqe:
Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 102
foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is
responsible for a minimum of 40 feet (adjacent to the
property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements
for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Additional right-of-way
for turn lanes is required. Full Improvements include
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feet if two left-
turn pockets required), two 12 foot westbound travel lanes,
three 12 foot eastbound travel lanes with 8 foot emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), 20 feet of parkway area
(adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk
(20-foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet:when two left-
turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn
lanes are required), and left-turn pockets as required by
Dublin's Public Works Director. Of the Full Improvements,
the Project-Specific Improvements include 10 foot of median
improvement if two-left turn pockets are required, one 12
foot eastbound travel lane with an 8 foot emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
24
entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), and 20 feet of parkway
area (adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of
sidewalk (20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when
two left-turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when
right-turn lanes are required). Of the Full Improvements,
the Oversized Improvements include Full Improvements of the
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feet if two left-
turn pockets are required), two 12 foot southbound and two
12 foot northbound travel lanes.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for
adequate transition between existing improvements and
proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin
Public Works Director applying CITY's standards and policies
which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the
permit for the proposed improvements.
C. General
Drawing Depictinq Improvements
A drawing signed by' all partiesBand'>depicting
the Project-Specific Improvements and the Oversized
Improvements may be attached hereto as Exhibit C, in which
event it shall replace the foregoing descriptions of the
Project Specific Improvements and Oversized Improvements.
Siqnalization
As provided in the Project Specific Traffic
Report the DEVELOPER and/or the COUNTY shall install signals
1) at the intersections of Dublin Blvd/Hacienda Drive and
Dublin Blvd/Tassajara Road and 2) at all driveways onto
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard where access to the
driveway would require median opening. The foregoing
signals shall be installed prior to occupancy of Phase 1
provided the signals at driveways onto Dublin Boulevard
ma:yshall be installed as part of Phase 1 or security in a
form and amount satisfactory to turned on at a later date
at the di3cretion of CITY's Public Works Director shall be
provided to CITY by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY to secure such
obligation.
Maintenance
CITY will maintain the Project-Specific
Improvements and Oversized Improvements once they are
completed and prior to formal acceptance thereof, provided
that City'S liability shall be limited to its negligent
maintenance thereof until acceptance.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
25
(ii) Sewer
The Dublin San Ramon Services District has prepared
a report (nEastern Dublin Fa<;:ilities Plan Final Reportn
dated December, 1993, prepared by C. S. Dodson & Associates
(the nDSRSD Report") which determined the sizes and
approximate location of pipelines to provide potable water
distribution, wastewater collection and recycled water
distribution within the Eastern Dublin area at ultimate
buildout. All references hereinafter to the DSRSD Report
shall- be to the report as 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 occupancy of any portion of Phase I,
trunk line sanitary sewer improvements to serve the
property as well as laterals hooked up to the buildings to
be occupied shall be complete to the satisfaction and
requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District
applying the District's standards and shall be consistent
with the DSRSD Report.
(iii) 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 applying the Authority's standards.
Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 1,
trunk line potable water system components to serve the
property as well as laterals hooked up to the buildings to
be occupied shall be complete and in working order to the
satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon
Services District applying the District's standards and
shall be consistent with the DSRSD Report.
Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 1,
recycled water lines shall be installed on site and within
adjacent roadways to the satisfaction and requirements of
the Dublin San Ramon Services District applying the
District's standards and shall be consistent with the DSRSD
Report. If such lines are not installed prior to occupancy
of any portion of Phase 1, security in a form and amount
satisfactory to the District shall be provided to District
by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY to secure such obliga tion.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
26
(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 COUNTY's 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 the occupancy of any portion of Phase
I, the storm drainage systems to the site as well as on site
drainage systems to the areas to be occupied shall be
complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin
Public Works Department applying CITY's 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.q. qas, electricitv}
Prior to occupancy.
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 and/or COUNTY to defer completion of discrete
portions of any of the above public improvements until after
occupancy if the Public Works Director determines that to do
so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or
welfare.
(ii) Improvement Aqreement
Prior to constructing the Project-Specific
Improvements and the Oversized Improvements, DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY 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
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
27
such improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
Ci ty' s standards and policies which are in force and effect
a t the time of issuance of the penni t for the proposed
improvemen ts.
(iii) Bonds
Prior to issuance of any building permit in Phase 1
or Phase 2, DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall provide a
performance bond and labor and materials bond or other
adequate security to insure that the Project-Specific
Improvements and the Oversized Improvements (if to be
constructed) will be constructed prior to occupancy. 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.
Section 3. Subparaqraph 5.3.3:
DEVELOPER and COUNTY intend to construct"the
Project in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of an
approximately 50-acre retail center. Phase 2 will consist
of approximately 25 acres of retail development which, if
constructed, will be constructed to function in harmony with
the Phase 1 retail center.
This Agreement contains no requirements that
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY must initiate or complete
development of either Phase 1 or Phase 2 or any portion of
either phase within any period of time set by CITY. It is
the intention of this provision that DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
be able to develop the Property in accordance with their own
time schedules.
Section 4. Subparaqranh 5.3.4:
Except as provided in Section 2, subsection bel)
(Completion May Be Deferred), DEVELOPER and COUNTY will
provide all infrastructure necessary and as set forth in
this Agreement for the each phase of Project prior to
occupancy by any tenant in such Phase of the Project.
DEVELOPER and COUNTY intend to install all street
improvements necessary for the Project at their own cost
(subject to credits for any Oversized Improvements as
provided in Section 5, 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
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
28
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.
Section 5. Subparaqraph 5.3.5:
COUNTY and/or DEVELOPER may construct Oversized
Improvements on Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive fronting
the Project as described above.
. COUNTY shall be entitled to a credit against
Traff~c Impact Fees for the Project for construction of any
such Oversized Improvements.
The total value of the Oversized Improvements and
right-of-way is $4,574,140 less $808,870 (which is the value
of that part of the Oversized Improvements previously
constructed by the City of Pleasant on) for a net credit of
$3,765,270 (hereafter "Net Credit"). The Net Credit shall
be given at the time DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY enter into an
improvement agreement with CITY for construction of the
Oversized Improvements.
Although DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY currently
contemplate constructing all of the Oversized Improvements
as part of Phase 1, it is possible that they may defer
construction of a portion of the permanent Oversized
Improvements to Phase 2. In that event, the amount of the
Net Credit for Phase 1 shall be reduced in the following
manner. For those Oversized Improvements not constructed
(or right-of-way not offered to be dedicated,) as part of
permanent Dublin Boulevard, the Net Credit shall be reduced
by $1,140 per lineal foot not constructed and not offered to
be dedicated. For those Oversized Improvements not
constructed (or right-of-way not offered to be dedicated )
as part of permanent Hacienda Drive, the Net Credit shall
be reduced by $942 per lineal foot not constructed and not
offered to be dedicated. If the Net Credit is so reduced
and the permanent Oversized Improvements are later
constructed as part of Phase 2, DEVELOPER and\or COUNTY
shall be entitled to the amount of the reduced Credit at
that time.
Section 6. Subparaqraph 5.3.6:
Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fees.
Except as hereinafter provided, DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY agree that the Project will be subject to Traffic
Impact Fees in an amount not to exceed $5,162,719, to be
paid by COUNTY. This amount is based on the City'S Traffic
Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 1-95, adopted
by the Council on January 9, 1995) on a maximum building
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
29
square footage for the Project of 800,000 square feet as set
forth in PD Ord. No. ____I and a trip generation rate for
the Project as determined in the Project Specific Traffic
Report, as follows:
Section 1 Fee:
Section 2 Fee:
Section 3 Fee:
$3,665,002
$ 969,111
$ 528,606
Total:
$5,162,719
_ The total Traffic Impact Fee ("TIFn) of $5,162,719
shall be reduced, however, by the Net Credit for Oversized
Improvements provided in Subparagraph 5.3.5 for a net TIF
due of $1,397,450 for the Project if the Oversized
Improvements are ,constructed or guaranteed.
For purposes of applying the Net Credit, the
following shall apply: When a building permit is issued,
CITY will calculate the square footage of the building.
CITY will then calculate the amount of the credit to be used
for such building by multiplying the square footage of the
building by $6.4533987 which equals the total.TIF of
$5,162,719 divided by the maximum Project square footage
800,000 square feet, to arrive at the credit for such
building. The Net Credit will be reduced by the amount of
the credit for such building. A sample calculation follows
for illustrative purposes only:
Total Net Credit
$3,765,270
Building 1 (10,000 sq. ft.) TIF
$
64,534
Remaining Credit
$3,700,736
Building 2 (15,000 sq.ft.l TIF
$
96,801
Remaining Credit
$3,603,935
When the Net Credit has been exhausted or if the
Oversized Improvements are not constructed or guaranteed,
thereafter COUNTY will pay the applicable TIP in accordance
with Resolution No. 1-95, as adopted January 9, 1995, as
follows: When a building permit is issued, CITY will
calculate the square footage of the building. CITY will
then calculate the amount of the TIF to be used for such
building by multiplying the square footage of the building
by $6.4533987, which equals the total TIF of $5,162,719
divided by the maximum Project square footage of 800,000
square feet to arrive at the TIF for such building.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
30
Payment of the TIF by COUNTY following exhaustion of the
Net Credit will be made in cash or, with the approval of the
City Manager, by use of credits towards the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee accumulated by the COUNTY through prior
agreements with CITY (Agreement Between City of Dublin, City
of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and the Surplus
Property Authority Regarding Construction of Certain Roadway
Improvements, as amended, and Agreement Between the City of
Dublin, the City of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and
the Surplus Property Authority Regarding Construction of
Certain Freeway Improvements).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, COUNTY may, if it
constructs or guarantees the Oversized Improvements elect to
defer application of all or a portion of the Net Credit and
first pay all or a portion of the applicable TIF as
hereinabove provided. In such event if COUNTY does not use
all of the Net Credit for this Project, COUNTY shall be
entitled to carryover the unused Net Credit to another
project on its remaining property within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. Should the COUNTY elect this option, the TIF
funds shall be used by CITY to repay BART the IIshort term
loan" owed by CITY to BART/andguaranteed'by COUNTY.
The TIF for the Project may be increased by the
CITY to reflect increases to the Eastern Dublin TIF
attributable solely to construction cost increases
(including increases in right-of-way acquisition) and/or
interest due on loan repayments to BART and/or Pleasanton.
Such Project TIF increases shall only apply to building
permits issued after adoption of a TIF increase by the CITY
and shall not be retroactive.
Subsection b. Possible Traffic Impact Fee to
Reimburse Pleasanton for Freeway
Interchanqes.
In addition to the foregoing, if CITY amends the
TIF, as adopted by Resolution No. 1-95, to include a fee to
repay Pleasanton for Eastern Dublin's proportionate share of
improvements to the Hopyard, Hacienda and Santa Rita
Interchanges constructed by Pleasanton, COUNTY agrees that
it will pay any such additional fee attributable to the
Property even if building permits have already been pulled
prior to the time CITY amends the TIF. COUNTY shall be
released from its obligation, as set forth in the preceding
sentence, if a lawsuit is filed challenging the Project
approvals, this Agreement I the negative declaration prepared
for the project, the TIF as adopted by Resolution No. 1-95
or any other aspect of the development of the Property. The
obligation set forth in this subsection (b) paragraph is not
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
31
applicable to DEVELOPER and shall not be released pursuant
to Paragraph 17.2.
Subsection c. Reaional Trans~ortation Mitiqation.
In addition to payment of the above Traffic Impact
Fee, COUNTY shall enter into a binding commitment to convey
15 (plus/minus) acres of land adjacent to the Eastern Dublin
BART station to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for use
as surface parking and related facilities. COUNTY shall
also dedicate to CITY up to 2 acres of right-of-way deemed
necessary by CITY for access to the BART station from Dublin
Boulevard. COUNTY's obliga tion in this subsection (c) shall
not be released pursuant to Paragraph 17.2
Subsection d. Public Facilities Fees.
CITY has retained a consultant who prepared a draft
report (November 11, 1994 Memorandum to Richard Ambrose from
Recht Hausrath & Associates, hereafter the "Draft Study") to
calculate the amount of a Public Facilities Fee for funding
the cost of new public facilities required for development
in the Eastern Dublin area (the Eastern Dublin General
Amendment and Specific Plan Areas). The Draft Study
calculates the amount of a Public~acilitie~ Fee for
neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities,
libraries and buildout of the Civic Center (hereafter
"public facilities"). It concludes that the amount of the
Public Facilities Fee for retail development is $290 per
1,000 Building Square Feet.
Except as provided in the next paragraph, COUNTY
agrees that, prior to the issuance of each building permit
as part of the Project, it will pay a Public Facilities Fee
(hereafter "Fee") in the amount of $362.50 per 1,000 Square
Feet of Building. The fee of $362.50 represents $290 per
1,000 Building Square Feet plus a 25% contingency.
City has retained a consultant to prepare a more
comprehensive report to determine the cost of the public
facilities and how such cost should be apportioned among
properties within the Eastern Dublin area. When CITY
approves and adopts the comprehensive report, the amount of
the Public Facilities Fee to be paid by COUNTY pursuant to
the preceding paragraph shall thereafter be the amount
included in such report for retail uses for all such public
facilities, provided that in no event shall the Fee be more
than $362.50 per 1000 Square Feet of Building. If the Fee
paid by COUNTY pursuant to the preceding paragraph is more
than the amount included in such report for retail uses for
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
32
all such public facilities, CITY will refund the difference
to COUNTY within 30 days of a request for a refund.
COUNTY may, at its option to be exercised prior to
the time the Fee is payable, dedicate land to CITY in fee
simple in lieu of payment of the Fee provided that land may
not be dedicated unless it is in excess of the amount of
land which COUNTY will be required to dedicate pursuant to
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 (CITY's "Quimby Act
Ordinancell) when COUNTY subdivides the remainder of its
approximately 600 acres for residential uses. If COUNTY
exer~ises its option to dedicate land in lieu of paying the
Fee, the value of the land to be dedicated shall be
calculated in the same manner as the value of land was
calculated in the Draft Study and in any subsequent study
prepared for CITY to calculate the Fee imposed by CITY.
CITY shall not be obligated to accept any such land until
CITY and COUNTY have agreed on the value of the land to be
dedicated and CITY has determined that the land is
appropriate for park and/or community facility uses. In no
event shall the failure of CITY and COUNTY to agree on
either the value of the land to be dedicated or the
appropriateness of such land for park and/or communitY";r:';~tl'll",,,.tW%';~"
facility use be an impediment to the development of the
Project.
Subsection e.
Noise Mitiqation Fee.
When CITY adopts a resolution imposing noise
mitigation fee pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.10\7.0 of
the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the purpose of
mitigating noise on existing residences along Tassajara
Road, DEVELOPER will pay its proportionate fee into the fund
established by such resolution, provided that in no event
will DEVELOPER be required to pay more than $3,000. For
purposes of calculating DEVELOPER's proportionate fee, CITY
will use 270 trips per day which is the number of trips on
Tassajara Road which are attributable to the Project, as
determined by the Project-Specific Traffic Report. Any fee
to be paid by DEVELOPER pursuant to this paragraph shall be
paid no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy
(or equivalent approval) for the last building in Phase 2.
If no fee has been established by such time, no fee shall be
payable.
Subsection f. School Impact Fees and Fire Impact
Fees.
Any school impact fees shall be paid by DEVELOPER
in accordance with Government Code section 53080.
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
33
Any fire capital impact fees shall be paid by
DEVELOPER in accordance with applicable requirements of the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
COUNTY agrees it will pay fire capital impact fees
to the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority in advance of
issuance of a building permit or permits if requested to do
so by CITY provided that CITY gives COUNTY twenty working
days' advance written notice. Any fire capital impact fees
paid in advance which are not required for the Project may
be applied by COUNTY to other projects constructed on
tfieCOUNTY's remaining lands within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan.
Section 7. Subparaaraph 5.3.7:
Subsection a.
Creek Improvements.
When development occurs on property to the east of
and directly adjacent to the Property, COUNTY will comply
with all provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
all mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report
for the Eastern Dublin General"'Plan Amendment and Specific'"
Plan which relate to improvements of Tassajara Creek. Such
provisions include but are not limited to Specific Plan
Action Programs 5C, 6A, 6B, Mitigation Measures 3.3\16.0,
3.4\29.0 [reference to trail corridor], 3.4\36.0 [reference
to stream corridors] and 3.7\13.0 [reference to dedication
of land and improvements along both sides of stream
corridors]. COUNTY's obligations in this subsection (a)
shall not be released pursuant to Paragraph 17.2.
Subsection b. Contractor Sub-Permits.
DEVELOPER will include a provision in its notice to
bidders requiring its contractor(s) to obtain a sub-
permit(s) from the State Board of Equalization for the
jobsite if the construction contract(s) is (are) in excess
of $5,000,000 and shall use its best efforts to assure that
its contractor(s) obtain such sub-permit(s). In no event,
however, shall DEVELOPER be in default of this Agreement or
be liable to CITY for damages as a result of the failure of
a contractor to obtain a sub-permit.
Subsection c. Fire Station Site.
COUNTY will dedicate property for a site for a fire
station when requested by the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority provided that COUNTY does not waive any claim to
compensation for the fair market value of the land so
dedicated and provided that the site is mutually agreeable
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
34
to COUNTY and CITY. COUNTY's obligation in this subsection
(c) shall not be released pursuant to Paragraph 17.2.
Subsection d. Future Sewer, Water, Recvcled Water
and Storm Drainaqe Facilities
County agrees that all trunk line sanitary sewer
and potable water system improvements, all recycled water
lines and all storm drainage systems to serve other projects
on COUNTY's remaining lands wi thin the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan shall be consistent with the DSRSD Report and
the Drainage Plan, respectively. COUNTY's obligation in this
subsection (d) shall not be released pursuant to Paragraph
17.2
January 19, 1995
114\agree\devlp52.agr
35
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE
SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. RECITALS
A. - The proposed Santa Rita Commercial Center (PA 94-001)
(lIprojectll) is located within the boundaries of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (IISpecific Planll) in an area which is
designated on the Land Use Map as "general commercialll.
B. A Program Environmental Impact Report (" EIR") was
prepared for the Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and certified by the Council by Resolution No. 51-
93.
C. Implementing actions of the Specific Planl including
Chapter 11 thereof 1 require that all projects within the Specific
Plan area enter into development agreements with the City.
D. Homart Development Company and the Surplus Property
Authority of Alameda County have filed an application requesting
approval of a development agreement for the Santa Rita Commercial
Center.
E. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublinl
Homart Development Company 1 and the Surplus Property Authority of
the County of Alameda (IIDevelopment Agreement I') has been
presented to the City Council 1 a copy of which is attached hereto
as Attachment 1.
F. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement
was held before the Planning Commission on January 171 19951 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 1 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 1 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 January 23, 1995, for which
1 EXHIBIT L
l-"2..~ --=CS- Ce.3
public notice was given as provided by law. Said public hearing
was continued to January 31, 1995.
J. The City Council has considered the recommendation of
the Planning Commission (Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-
03), including the Planning Commission's reasons for its
recommendation, the Agenda ~tatement, all comments received in
writing. and all testimony received at the public hearing.
K. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa
Rita Commercial Center projectl including the Development
Agreement 1 and the City Council has adopted a resolution
approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration included a Matrix showing how the project
complies with the Specific Plan's programs and the mitigation
measures contained in the EIR.
Section 2.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, (g)
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
objectivesl policies, general land uses and programs specified
and contained in the City's General Plan, as amended by the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendmentl and in the Specific Plan
in that (a) the General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designations for the site are IIgeneral commercialll and the
project is a commercial development consistent with the "general
commercial" designationl (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 1 and
(c) the Development Agreement includes provisions relating to
financing, construction and maintenance of public facilities 1
payment of fees, timely provision 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
district in which the real property is located in that the
project approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning adopted
specifically for the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public
convenience, general welfare and good land use policies in that
the Santa Rita Commercial Project will implement land use
guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan and the General Plan
which have planned for cbmmercial development at this location.
2
.
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the mitigation monitoring program for the project adopted by the
City Council 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 Specific Plan.
Section 3~ APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement
(Attachment 1) and authorizes the Mayor to sign it.
Section 4. RECORDATION
Within ten days after the Development Agreement is executed
by the Mayor, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the
County Recorder for recordation.
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 this 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 k~D ADOPTED by the City Council of the
City of Dublin on this ____ day of , 1995, by vote
as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
114\ord\homart
3
~ .'
[NOTE: For the January 23. 1995 City Council Agenda Statement. a/ease refer to
Exhibit K : Deve/oament Agreement 1
ATTACHMENT 1
. ,: . .
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 19, 1994, JANUARY 3, 1995
AND JANUARY 17, 1995
\ -""'l. ~-"'"I S (0 .3-
EXHIBIT J1L
......
,;:
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December 19, 1994
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
~
Jeri Ram, Associate PlannerO?
Planning Staff
if
PREPJ>..RED BY:
SUBJECT:
PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center
Planned Development R~zoning
GENERAL INFORMATTON:
PROJECT:
A reauest to rezone 75 + acres from Planned
Deveiopment - Business Park/Industrial (low
coverage) to a standard Planned Development. This
project has a General Plan and Specific Plan
Designation of General Commercial. The proposed
Planned Development would allow for an 800,OOOi
square foot commercial center which may include
retail shops, offices, movie theaters ana
restaurants among other uses.
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
Homart Ce~aunity Centers\Homart Develep~ent Ce.
1099 18th street, #2680
Denver, CO 80202
Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
LOCATION:
75 I acres on the southeast
Drive and Dublin Boulevard.
the Hacienda Gateway in the
Specific Plan
corner of Hacienda
This area is know~ as
Eastern Dublin
ASSESSOR PARCEL:
946-15-1-4 (por)
PARCEL SIZE:
75I acres
GENERi\L PLAN
DESIGNATION:
General Commercial
EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION:
General Co~~ercial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.V
COPIES TO:
Applicant
Ow-ner
Address File
c~;::
l)
,
EXISTING ZONING: Planned Development - Business Park/Industrial
(Low coverage)
EXISTING LAND USE: Primarily vacant with remains of the old Santa
Rita Jail Facility
SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING DISTRICT AND
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) LAND USE DESIGNATIONS:
NORTH:
a. Land Use: Vacant
b. Zoning District: Business Park/Industrial
c. SP Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Commercial, Single Family,
Medium. Density and Medium High Density Residential
SOUTH:
a.-c.
1-580
EAST:
a. Land Use: Vacant
b. Zoning District: Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage
c. SP Land Use Designation: Campus Office
WEST:
a. Land use: Vacant
b. Zoning District: Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage
c. SP Land use Designatio~: Campus Office
ZONING HISTORY:
The site was the location 0= -c::e old Santa Rita Jail Facili-:y. 'l.:'.=
new Jail Facility has been relocated north of Gleason Road.
PA 85-018:
The City of Dublin Prezoned this parcel
Business Park Industrial/Low Coverage on
September 23, 1985. The City of Dublin
annexed this land as part of the ,annexation
of 2713.47 acres of land on December 24,
1986.
Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan &
General Plan
Amendment:
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan a~d
General Plan fu~endment were adopted on
May 10, 1993, and was effective
in November, 1993, following the referendum
election. The General Plan and Specific Plan
Land Use Designations were applied to the
subject property at that time.
S~~~Y RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing,
take testimony and continue the public hearing to January 3, 1995, in
order to review the public comments on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and staff's responses to those comments prior to taking
action on the PO Rezone.
-2-
-.~~ '1 ,,- 0
:.,:0.:;:. -4-::: 1;:' .._
.,
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
section 8-31.0 Planned Development District Intent. Planned
Development Districts, hereinafter designated as PD Districts, are
established to encourage the arrangement of a compatible variety of
uses on suitable lands in such a manner that the resulting developmeDt
will:
a) Be in accord with the policies of the General Plan of the
City of Dublin;
b) Provide efficient use of the land that includes preservation
of significant open areas and natural and topographic
landscape features with minimum alteration of natural land
forms;
c) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of co~~on
open areas for neighborhood or community activities and
other amenities;
d) Be compatible with and enhance the development of the
general area;
e) Create an attractive, efficient and safe enviror~ent.
section 8-31-13 L&~D USE J>.~~D DEVELDPMENT P~~ - PURPOSE ~~D
REQUIREMENTS FOR. The Land Use and Development Plan shall be part of
the Planned Development District zoning process. The Land Use and
Development Plan is intended to provide to the City a comprehensive
plan of the proposed develop3ent to insure that the intent and
purposes of the Planned Development District are met. The processin~
requirements for a Land Use and Development Plan are as follows:
a) A Land Use and Develop~ent Plan may proceed as a single
phased project addressing the entire Planned Development District
area, or as a multiple phased project addressing portions of the
Planned Development District area.
b) Prior to issuance of a site Development Review permit,
building permit, or other development permit, a Land Use and
Development Plan shall be required for that portion of the Planned
Development District where development is proposed.
c) A Land Use and Develonment Plan shall be subject to review
by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council as an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental..Quality J>._ct (CEQA) I
State CEQA Guidelines and the citv of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
The project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The public review period is from November 23,
1994 to December 23, 1994.
~
_..j-
..~-3 --jb
"; ~ :.. .~....-_. : :;' ...........
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the November 19, 1994, public hearing
was published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent property
owners, and posted in public buildings.
ANALYSIS:
proiect Description:
Several steps will be required before the Santa Rita Commercial
Center can proceed to construction as follows:
1. Rezone 75 I acres from Planned Development - Business
Park/Industrial (low coverage) to a General Commercial Planned
Development_.
2. A development agreement is required for each project in Eastern
Dublin. At the first meeting in January, staff will bring forward a
Development Agreement between the County, Homart Community Centers a~Q
the City of Dublin for the Planning Commission's review and
recommendation to the City Council.
3. site Development Review approval will be required prior to
approving building permits for the project.
4. The Applicants have also indicated that they will process a
tentative parcel map. The project would be located on a 75= acre
portion of the 951 i acre Santa Rita property owned by Ala~eda County.
A tentative parcel map would separate this 75= acres from the
remaining County property.
Consistencv
The proposed project is consistent with the city of Dublin
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment.
Mitiaated Negative Declaration
The environmental docQuent that was prepared for the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment was a "Program
Environmental Impact Report". CEQA Guidelines state that if a progra:rr
Environmental Impact Report is prepared, subsequent enviroThuental
documents need to be prepared only if there were additional
environmental impacts not considered in the prepa~ation of the
original environmental document. ..
The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Santa Rita Commercial Center Project (Exhibit A). A Mitigated
Negative Declaration is similar to a Negative Declaration. The major
difference between the two types of environmental documents is that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration requires certain mitigation measures or
conditions of approval be added to the project in order to render
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Additionally,
when a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared, a Mitigation
Monitoring Program must also be adopted.
-4-
... Ll ~.-: I'D_
"u... __.. __. .
. .
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Final
EIR (FEIR) contains more than 250 mitigation and action measures.
These items have been incorporated into a Master Matrix that is being
used to monitor compliance with the Specific Plan. The Master Matrix
is attached to the Santa Rita Commercial Center Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Exhibit A) and has been organized into columns as
follows:
1. It. No.: A numerical listing of the matrix for reference use.
2. Mit Meas. No.: The Mitigation Measure number from the Eastern
Dublin Final Environmental Impact Report.
-
3. Act. prog No.: The Action Program number reference from the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
4. Lead: The agency with the lead responsibility to ensure the
mitigation measure or action program is accomplished.
5. What is the Action or Measure: A summary of the Action Program
or Mitigation Measure from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or Final
Environmental Impact Report.
6. Start/End: wnen work towards completing the action or measure
should begin and be completed.
7. NA: The Not Applicable column is checked if the item is net
applicable to the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project.
8. PROJ: The Project colu~~ is checked if the item is
into the project proposal.
. . -
J..:1CC:-:9c:!:"~~ec.
9. COND: The Condition col~un is checked if the item should be made
a condition of approval.
10. ASAP: The As Soon As Possible column is checked if the City
should begin working on the item immediately (sometimes this col~illn is
checked if it is not applicable to the Santa Rita Commercial Center,
but as a reminder for the City to begin work on it because it may be
needed for another Eastern Dublin project) .
11. Action Taken: This colua~ contains comments on the progress
taken or reasons why another column was checked. ,-
.,
.
12. Completed: This column provides an area to make notes
has been completed.
',::
~.l..
an
....
~,,-em
13. Issue: This column was a cross reference area to major topic
areas in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
A legend is attached to the Master Matrix explaining all of ~ne
abbreviations.
-~-
.J
;-~~ 6 :.~ ro
'"---..-.-- ~-; ..~.................
Projects that are proposed for Eastern Dublin will be evaluated,
in part, utilizing this Matrix. The Master Matrix has been used for
this project in two ways:
1. It is attached to the Initial study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (as a part of the Initial study) (Exhibit A) to indicate
that the Action Programs of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
Mi tigationMeasures of the FEIR relating to the Rezoning are being
addressed for this project; and
2. It was revised into the "Santa Rita Commercial Center
Project Mitigation Monitoring Program" (Exhibit B). The Master Matrix
was re~ised to create the Mitigation Monitoring Program by:
A. Removing all the items in the Master Matrix that were
not applicable to the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project;
B. Adding a new column labeled "Condition No.". This
column'.wB.:l be used by staff to monitor what conditions on the proj ect
satisIY what Item on the Matrix.
C. Adding a new column labeled "completed". In this
column, staff will check off and note T,yhen the item is completed.
D.
neces'sa'ry.
Removing the collliu labeled "Issue" which is no longer
Those items in the Matrix that were reauired to be co:r,oletec. 2.-:'
the time of Rezoning have been included as conditions of approval of
the PD Rezone for the Santa ~ita Commercial Project. This will ensure
comp~iance ~vi th the Mitigation Measures anc. Action prosrans 0:::: ::::e
Easl:'~tn.. Dublin Specific PIa:: and FEIR.
~fThe Public Review Period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
~vil.f;.end on December 23, 1994. Staff will bring forward public
comfuents on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and staff's Response to
Comment5~to the Planning commission at their first meeting, in January.
Fiscal Analysis
Policies of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
reauire that develoDment in the area pays for its needed
ini~tructure and ~ervices.
....
The Applicants have not requested city finari;ing aSS1.s::ance for
theiron~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 iEpact 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 monies.
-6-
"..J,., 'A
, . \!I ,... V
__ a. ._....._....._ .
This project, like others in Eastern Dublin, will require
provision of public services. Monies 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 monies 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 firs~ Eastern Dublin ~~nexation has been prepared. This fiscal
analysis also included the direct fiscal impacts of the Santa Rita
commercial Center Project.
The updated fiscal analysis (Attachment 1) for both the areas
identifies a small shortfall of $40,917.00 in Fiscal Year 1994-95
attributable to start up fire services. A shortfall of $216,141 is
identified for Fiscal Year 1995-96. However, the City's J>.~nexation
Agreement with the Lin Families would completely eliminate this
shortfall. In those years following Fiscal Year 1995-96, the city
would realize a substantial operating surplus as a result of the Santa
Rita Commercial Center Project.
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 Dubli~
Specific Plan and General Plan &uen~~ent.
Planned Deve10nment Rezonir-c
The Applicants are reques~~ng approval of a Planned Development
(PD) Rezoning to establish the General provisions and Development
Regulations for the 75~ acre project area.
A Land Use and Develonment Plan for the PD Rezone has been
submitted for the project. It consists of:
1. A Planned Development Rezone Application dated Se?tember 6,
1994, prepared by Eomart Co~~unity Centers; and
2. A Conceptual site Plan prepared by Homa;t Community Centers
dated September 23, 1994 (which supersedes the conceptual
site plan contained in the Rezone Exhibit dated September 61
1994). The September 23, 1994, Conceptual site Plan will ~e
displayed at the Planning Commission Meeting; and,
The majority of the Applicant's Rezone Application and proposed
Development Standards (Attacfu~ent 2) were found by staff to be
consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan
J>.~endment, the FEIR, and various concerns of local agencies. These
include the Applicant's proposed permitted and conditional uses (with
the exception of hotel/motel discussed below); setback and yards;
-7-
r'--1 jO
1- ;' '-. .-:-
. !"---. :,. .
--- - .,: . -...".......
maximum building heights; parking and loading (with the exception of
parking space size and aisle width noted below): bicycle facilities;
and landscaping.
The following revisions to the Rezone Application are reco~~ended
by the Planning staff. These changes were made to address land use
issues and provide flexibility for parking lot design and layout as
follows:
1. The Applicant's list of uses for consideration as permitted
uses within the new PD District are similar to those permitted in the
C-2 Zone, with some modifications. staff has worked with the
Applicant and has one recommended modification to their proposed list,
to which th~y have agreed. The modification is to change hotel/motel
from a permitted to a conditional use.
A hotel/motel type of use is generally evaluated as a Conditional
Use Permit in commercial areas. The City's Zoning Ordinance presently
provides for a hotel/motel use in the C-l Zoning District with a
Conditional Use Permit. Through the conditional use permit process,
staff can evaluate traffic, circulation and possible land use
conflicts so that the Planning commission can determine the
suitability of the use at a particular location. The Applicants have
agreed to this change.
This change has been made in the attached Resolution (Exhibit D)
reco~~ending approval of the PO Rezone.
2. The Applicants have also proposed a list of prohibited uses.
staff is not recommending that this list be included in the approval.
Under the City's Zoning Ordi~a~ce, uses are not permitted if they are
not identified as permitted or co~ditional permitted uses, unless they
meet the intent of the P.D.Zoning District. Therefore, listing
prohibited uses is not necessary and might be confusing because it
would vary from the manner in which the entire Zoning Ordinance is
i.,ri tten.
This change has been made in the attached Resolution (Exhibit D)
reco~uending approval of the PD Rezone.
3. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FL~) should be .25 instead of
25%. This appears to be a typographical error in the Applicant's
submittal.
The proposed FJ>..R is consistent with the preient PD Zoning
District, PO Business Park Industrial/Low Coverage of .25. The
proposed FAR is also consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Oesicnation of General Commercial and the Eastern Dublin Snecific Plan
Designation of General Co~~ercial in the Hacienda Gateway Area.
This chance has been made in the attached Resolution (Exhibit D)
recommending approval of the PD Rezone.
-8-
-,.,-~ --&
. --. ,.
-.-~: .- : I:"
:_~.::- -... -- .. . --
4. ~The Applicants have requested a mlnlmum size parking space
of 9 I X 18 I which varies from the City standard that requires 180
square feet of area, a minimum width of 9 feet and minimum length of
18 feet.
,staff recommends that the development standard in relatio.n to.
parking be revised to read as follows:
D. Parking Spaces: Size and Lo.cation. A standard
parking stall shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet wide by
nineteen (19) feet in length. Co.mpact stalls shall be a
.'minimum of eight (8) feet wide by a minimum of seventeen
(17) feet in length. Compact parking spaces may comprise up
to 25% of the required parking spaces. Where parking spaces
abut sidewalks or landscape areas, the length of a parking
stall may be reduced by two feet. Minor adjustments to
parking space size and locatio.n may be made through the site
Development Review process.
~his change has been made in the attached Resolution (Exhibit D)
recommending approval of the PD Rezone.
5. The Applicant has requested a 24' aisle width for 90 degree
parking with two way traffic. The City standard is a 251 aisle.
StaIf'reco.nunends that we maintain the City standard of. 25' but add a
new sentence at the end of the development standard to indicate that
minor..adj ustments to the aisle width standards may be :mac.e through
site D~velopment Revier.'! process.
This change has been made in the attached Resolution (~xhibit D)
reco~uending approval of the ?~ Rezo.ne.
6. Planning staff recommends that two clarifications in
relation to internal and perimeter setbacks be made in the Rezone
Application.
\ b. Under Item 5A, Minimum Setbacks, it is recommended that
\thi'S''3'e-ction be revised to clarify that it relates to perimeter
setbacks; and
a. Under Item 5C, Minimum Yards, it is recommenc.ed that
this Section be revised to. clarify that it relates to internal
setbacks.
This proj ect has been reviewed by other ci tj'Departments and
affected agencies. Their comments have been incorporated into the
conditions of Approval. Suggested Conditions of Approval relative to
the site Develonment Review or Tentative Subdivision MaD will be
applied at the time of approval of those applications. -
-9-
~. __(1 10
l-_::'.V{ r.:- ~
,; , "-- ----- !.:. _.,...~....
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
Question staff, Applicant and the public.
Continue public hearing to January 3, 1995.
Staff recommends that the Planning commission continue the
Public Hearing to January 3, 1995, in order to review the
public comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
staff's Response to Comments prior to taking action on the
PD Rezone.
Initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (under
separate cover)
Mitigation Monitoring Program (under separate cover)
Resolution recommending City Council certify the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring Program
Resolution reco~uending city Council approval of ~~e
Planned Development Rezoning
Backaround Attachments:
Attachment 1: Letter to Richard C. p~rose, City Manager, fro~ ER~
dated November 3, 1994, regarding fiscal analysis along
with attached Table 1, "Summary of Revenues and
Expenses, Fiscal Year 1995-96 to 1998-99". :
Attachment 2: Rezone Application including applicant's written
statement and preliminary site plan which includes the
project location.
,
.~
i
-10-
. .:.:lQ_":~.l-Q
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
GENERAL INFORMATION'
PROJECT:
APPLlCANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ITEM NO. <6. \
- SY"
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENTISTAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 3, 1995
Planning Commission
Planning Staff
~
~ Jeri Ram, Associate Plann~
PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center
Planned Development Rezoning, Development Agreement -
Supplemental Report to December 19,1994, Planning
Commission Agenda Statement
A request to rezone 75:t acres from Planned Development -
Business Park/Industrial (low coverage) to a standard Planned
Development. This project has a General Plan and Specific Plan
Designation of General Commercial. The proposed Planned
Development would allow for an 800,OOO:t square foot
commercial center which may include retail shops, offices, movie
theaters and restaurants, among other uses.
This report includes supplemental analysis relating to the Rezone
request continued from the December 19,1994, Planning
Commission Meeting, Public Comments and Responses to
Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
In addition, the Planning Commission will consider a development
agreement between the City of Dublin, County of Alameda and
Homart Development Company. The Development Agreement is
required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items included in
the development agreement are traffic, noise and public facilities
impact fees, phasing of infrastructure construction and future
creek improvements, among other items.
Homart Community Centers\Homart Development Company
1099 18th Street, #2680
Denver, CO 80202
Alameda County Surplus. Property
Authority
399 Eimhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
75:t acres on the southeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard. This development is within the Hacienda Gateway in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
FA File
~
ASSESSOR PARCEL: 946-15-1-4 (por)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines. The project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the
environment. For a complete discussion of the environmental document, please see the
December 19, 1994, Planning Commission Agenda Statement.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The public review period concluaed on December 23, 1994. It ran for
thirty days, from November 23, 1994 to December 23,1994.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the December 19,1994, public hearing was published in the
local newspaper, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. The
December 19, 1994, public hearing was continued at the Planning Commission Meeting to the
Planning ~ommission's January 3, 1995, meeting.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION'
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend1hat the City Council:
1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
3. Approve the application for a Planned Development Rezone to General Commercial; and
4. Approve the Development Agreement between Homart Development Co., the Alameda
County Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin.
.~
BACKGROUND'
This staff report is a supplemental staff report for the Planning Commission on the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Rezone to a Planned Development for
the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project. Please refer to the December 19, 1994, staff report for
background information and analysis on those items.
This staff report also contains new analyses pertaining to the public comments received on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Development Agreement for the project.
On December 19, 1994, the Planning Commission heard the staff report, opened the public
hearing, and took testimony on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program
and Rezone on the Santa Rita Commercial Center Project. At the public hearing, the Applicant
and their representatives spoke about issues related to the project. The draft minutes for the
December 19, 1994, meeting are in the Planning Commission packet for approval at this meeting
and can be used for reference and review.
Attached to this Staff Report (Attachment 1) is a copy of the Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of the
Proposed Homart Development within the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Area dated November 3,
1994, as well as a Memorandum Report on the Combined Fiscal Analyses - Homart Retail Project
and Annexation Area prepared by ERA for the City of Dublin. This is included as background
material for the Planning Commission and relates to the December 19,1994, staff report section
on "Fiscal Analysis".
ANAL YSIS'
-2-
Plannino Commission Comments on the Proiect
At the meeting, the Planning Commission had several questions regarding the project. Staff
indicated that the answers to the questions would be provided at the January 3, 1995, meeting.
The Planning Commission questions were as follows (staffs responses follow each question):
1. What were the approximate impact fee costs that would be paid by the Developer?
Public Facilities Impact Fee - Approximately $290,000.00
Noise Impact Fee - Not to exceed $3,000.00
Traffic Impact Fee - Approximately, $5,162,720.00
Please see discussion under the "Development Agreement" Section of this Staff Report
for an explanation of these amounts.
2. W~ere has Homart Community Centers previously developed in Northern
California?
Homart Development Co., is comprised of three development divisions. One of the
divisions, Homart Development Co., has developed two malls in Northern California:
Arden Fair Mall in Sacramento and New Park Mall in Newark.
3. What road improvements will be part of the project?
The road improvements that will be made in conjunction with the project in Phases 1 and 2
are listed in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement (Exhibit A of this Staff Report) and in
the Traffic Study attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the December 19,1994,
packet. However, the fOllowing is a brief summary:
Phase One Improvements:
On Dublin Boulevard from Hacienda to the easterly driveway of the Project, three
eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes. Dual left turn lanes westbound to the project
major driveways, a right turn lane eastbound to the westerly major driveway; and a
parkway area adjacent to the project, which includes sidewalk and landscaping. Dualleft
turn lanes will be provided for westbound on Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda Drive.
On Hacienda Drive, three northbound lanes, two southbound lanes, and a right northbound
turn lane at the driveway of the Project will be provided. Parkway area adjacent to the
project, which includes sidewalk and landscaping. Dual left turn lanes will be provided for
southbound Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard.
On Tassajara Road, dual northbound left turn lanes will be constructed at Dublin
Boulevard.
Traffic signals will be installed at each ofthe three major access points to the Project, as
well as at the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard
and Hacienda Drive. .
Phase Two Improvements:
On Dublin Boulevard from the easterly driveway to the Tassajara Bridge, three eastbound
lanes and two westbound lanes and a parkway area adjacent the Project which includes
sidewalk and landscaping.
-3-
. It should be noted that while right-of-way will be obtained for the lanes noted above in
Phases One and Two, the striping may vary according to City Engineering requirements.
Also, the Traffic signals on Dublin Boulevard at the major access points may be turned on
at a later date upon City Engineering approval. Additionally, bicycle lanes will be provided
on Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive.
Public Comments on the Mitiqated Neaative Declaration:
The public comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was from November 23, 1994,
through December 23, 1994. During that time, staff received three comments (Exhibit B) as
follows:
1. Letter from CAL TRANS dated December 23, 1994. The major comments in this letter are:
a) CAL TRANS discussed two additional projects which they thought should be
considered; and
b) If any construction is done within the CAL TRANS right-of- way, CAL TRANS would
require an encroachment permit.
2. Letter from Reynolds and Brown dated December 14, 1994. The major comments in this
letter relate to:
a) Circulation improvements that would be made as part of the project; and,
b) Area wide traffic circulation improvements and the method that would be used to
pay for them.
3. Cover letter from several Pleasanton Property Owners dated December 22,1994,
enclosing a legal memorandum from the law firm of Cassidy and Verges. This
memorandum contains 45 pages of comments. The two main comments in this
memorandum are:
a) The negative declaration is inadequate; and
b) The rezoning is inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The Dublin City Attorney has prepared summaI)' Responses to Comments (Exhibit C). The
complete Response to Comments will be prepared for the City Council Meeting on Janual)' 9,
1995. The City Attorney will be present at the Planning Commission Meeting to answer additional
questions the Planning Commission may have regarding any of the Public Comment letters
received on the Mitigation Negative Declaration.
Development Aqreement:
One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to enter into
development agreements with developers in the plan area. The purpose of a development
agreement is to provide security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other
laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time and, on the other hand, provide a
mechanism to the City to obtain commitments from the developer the City might not otherwise be
able to obtain. The development agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific
Plan goal that new development fund the cost of infrastructure and service is met.
-4-
Development agreements are authorized by statutes (Government Code Section 65864 et seq.).
Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code is the City's enabling ordinance and provides the
procedure for adoption of a development agreement.
On October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Master Development Agreement for use in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Master Development Agreement is to be used as the
basis for beginning negotiations with developers within the Specific Plan area.
Attached to this Staff Report (Exhibit A) is a Development Agreement (DA) between the City of
Dublin, the Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda and Homart Development Co.
The DA sets forth the agreements between the three entities in relation to many items, including,
but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing, payment of public facilities, noise and
traffic impact fees and future creek improvements.
The DA becomes effective when it is signed by all the parties for a term of 10 years. The DA runs
with the land and the rights thereunder can be assigned. The main points of the DA can be found
in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement and are highlighted below:
Section 6. Public Facilities Fee.
This section sets forth that the City has hired a consultant who has prepared a draft Public
Facilities Fee Study. The draft study calculates the amount of the public facilities fee for
neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities, libraries and buildout of the Civic'
Center. The study concluded that the amount of the public facilities fee for commercial
development in Eastern Dublin is $290.00 per 1,000 building square feet. However, as noted, the
study is still in draft form and the final fee may be greater than $290.00 per 1,000."The DA is'"
structured to enable the County to pay the fee that is approved up to $362.50, and receive a
refund if the $362.50 per 1,000 sq. ft. is paid and the fee is determined to be less than that
amount.
Section 6. Noise Mitiqation Fee.
This Section implements Mitigation Measure 3.lOn.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Eastern Dublin. When the City adopts a noise mitigation fee, the Developer will pay the fee, up to
$3,000. The fee will be collected at final occupancy of Phase 2 of the Project. If a fee is not
established at that time, the Developer will not be obligated to pay such a fee.
Section 6. Traffic Impact Fees.
The amount of Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) has been calculated based on the Barton Aschman
November, 1994 traffic study attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed
Traffic Impact Fee that is presently being considered by the City Council. Public hearings have
been held on the proposed TIF by the City Council on December 12th and 27th. It is anticipated
that the fee will be adopted at the City Council Meeting of January 9, 1995. prior to the City
Council's public hearing on the Santa Rita Commercial Centers Project. The DA assumes that the
TIF will be approved. If there is a significant change in the TIF that is adopted from what is
anticipated, the DA will be brought back before the Plannirig Commission for further consideration.
Since the Developer and/or the County will be oversizing a substantial portion of infrastructure,
Subparagraph 5.3.5, allows credit against the TIF amount for the value of the oversizing, as
follows: The total value of the oversized improvements and right of way is $4,574.140.00 less
$808,870.00 which is the value of that part of the oversized improvements previously constructed
by the City of Pleasanton for a net credit of $3,765,270.00.
-5-
.Based on the tlF presently being considered by the City Council, the Project's TIF is
$5,162,719.00. Based on the present TIF and agreement due to oversizing the improvements, the
net traffic impact fee due for this project is $1,397,449.00
Section 7. Creek Improvements.
The County agrees that when the property adjacent to this project to the east develops, the County
will comply with all the provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and mitigation measures of
the Environmental Impact Report.
Approval Findinqs for Development Aqreement.
Section 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code sets forth the findings that must be made in order to
approve a development agreement. These findings are contained in the Resolution
recommending approval of the Agreement to the City Council (Exhibit E).
RECOMMENDA TIONS'
FORMAT:
1)
Hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Adopt Exhibit C from the December 19,1994, P.C. Staff Report,
Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (ind,adoptthe Mitigation Monitoring Program.
5) Adopt Exhibit D from the December 19,1994, P.C. Staff Report,
Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned
Development Rezoning.
6) Adopt Exhibit A from the January 3, 1995, P.C. Staff Report, Resolution
recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement.
ACTION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Rezone to a
Planned Development and Development Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS'
Exhibit A:
Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, Homart Development Co.
and Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda for the Tri-Valley
Crossings Project.
Exhibit B:
Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit C:
Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit D:
Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement
-6-
Backqround Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Homart Development within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area dated November 3, 1994, and Memorandum
Report on the Combined Fiscal Analyses - Homart Retail Project and Annexation
Area prepared by ERA for the City of Dublin.
-7-
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
GENERAL INFORMA nON:
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDASTATEMENT~TAFFREPORT
Meeting Date: January 17, 1995
Planning Commission
-<.6/Planning Staff
Jeri Ram, Associate Planner~
P A 94-00 I Santa Rita Commercial Center
Planned Development Rezoning, Development Agreement - Supplemental Report to
December 19, 1994, and January 3,1995, Planning Commission Agenda Statements
PROJECT:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCA nON:
ASSESSOR PARCEL:
A request to rezone 75i: acres from Planned Development - Business ParklIndustrial (low
coverage) to a General Commercial Planned Development. This project has a General
Plan and Specific Plan Designation of General Commercial. The proposed Planned
Development would allow for an 800,000i: square foot commercial center which may
include retail shops, offices, movie theaters and restaurants, among other uses.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
prepared for this project.
This report includes supplemental analysis relating to the Rezone request continued from
the December 19, 1994, and January 3,1995, Planning Commission Meetings, Public
Comments and Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project.
In addition, the Planning Commission will consider a Development Agreement between
the City of Dublin, County of Alameda and Homart Development Company. The
Development Agreement is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items included
in the Development Agreement are traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees,
phasing of infrastructure construction and future creek improvements, among other
items.
Homart Community Centers\
Homart Development Company
1099 18th Street, #2680
Denver, CO 80202
Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
75 :l: acres on the southeast comer of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. This
development is within the Hacienda Gateway in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
946-15-1-4 (por)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.
8.1
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
PA File
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The project,
as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment. For a complete discussion of the environmental
document, please see the December 19, 1994, Planning Commission Agenda Statement.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The public review period concluded on December 23, 1994. It ran for thirty days, from
November 23, 1994, to December 23, 1994.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the December 19, 1994, public hearing was published in the local newspaper, mailed to
adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. The December 19, 1994, public hearing was continued at the
Planning Commission Meeting to the Planning Commission meeting on January 3, 1995.
Public Notice of the January 17, 1995, public hearing was published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent property
owners and posted in public buildings.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
3. Approve the application for a General Commercial Planned Development Rezoning; and
4. Approve the Development Agreement between Homart Development Co., the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority and the City of Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
This staff report is a supplemental staff report for the Planning Commission on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program and Rezoning to a General Commercial Planned Development for the Santa Rita
Commercial Center Project. Please refer to the December 19,1994, and January 3, 1995, staffreports for background
infonnation and analysis on those items.
This staff report also contains new analyses pertaining to the City's Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the proposed Development Agreement for the project.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
December 19. 1994:
Agenda Statement:
The analysis relating to the PD Rezone, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, while
supplemented in the January 3, 1995 and this Agenda Statement is still relevant. Therefore, the Commission may wish to
review the December 19, 1994, Agenda Statement.
Exhibits and Attachments:
Exhibits and Attachments that continue to be relevant to the project are as follows:
Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring Program
Exhibit C: Resolution recommending City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit D: Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezoning
Attachment 1: Letter to Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager from ERA dated November 3, 1994, regarding fiscal analysis
along with attached Table 1, "Summary of Revenues and Expenses, Fiscal Year 1995-96 to 1998-99".
2
Attachment 2: Rezone Application including applicant's written statement and preliminary site plan which includes the
project location.
Public Hearing:
On December 19, 1994, the Planning Commission heard the staff report, opened the public hearing, and took testimony on
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Rezone on the Santa Rita Commercial Center
Project. At the public hearing, the Applicant and their representatives spoke about issues related to the project. The public
hearing was continued to the January 3, 1995, meeting of the Planning Commission.
January 3.1995:
Agenda Statement:
The analysis related to the Response to Comments contained in the January 3, 1995, Agenda Statement continues to be
applicable to the project. Therefore, the Planning Commission may wish to review that Agenda Statement. This Agenda
Statement (January 17, 1995) contains analysis regarding the Development Agreement and revisions to the Response to
Comments. Additionally, your packet contains draft minutes from the January 3, 1995, meeting that you may wish to
reference.
Attachments and Exhibits:
Exhibits and Attachments from the January 3, 1995, Agenda Statement that continue to be relevant to the project are as
follows:
Exhibit B: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit D: Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement
Attachment 1: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Homart Development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Area dated November 3, 1994, and Memorandum Report on the Combined Fiscal Analyses - Homart
Retail Project and Annexation Area prepared by ERA for the City of Dublin.
Please note, that the Response to Comments that was contained in the January 3,1995, Agenda Statement has been revised.
Since the Development Agreement was not discussed and was not agendized for the January 3, 1995, meeting, the
Development Agreement and all discussion relevant to the Development Agreement are contained in this Agenda Statement.
Public Hearing:
At the January 3, 1995, public hearing, the Planning Commission asked stafffor additional information regarding the Fiscal
Analysis (Attachment I to the January 3, 1995, Agenda Statement). In particular, concern was expressed with the method
used to determine the taxable sales per square foot in the Study.
Steve Spickard of ERA, the consultant who prepared the fiscal analysis, indicated that the rate of retail sales tax capture was
based on a formula that included discounting based on several factors, including regional competition, transfer of sales from
other Dublin businesses, and vacancy rates. Mr. Spickard indicated that regional competition was the highest discounting
factor that was used. The vacancy rate that was used was similar to ones used in other power centers and ranged from 5 to 10
percent after completion of the project.
During the public hearing the Planning Commission requested written comments from the East Bay Regional Park District
and John DiManto so that staff and the Commission could study their comments and respond. Exhibit C is a copy of a letter
received by facsimile on January 11, 1995, from the East Bay Regional Park District. Staffs summary and analysis of that
letter can be found below under the Section entitled "Public Comments". Written comments have not been received from
Mr. DiManto.
The Santa Rita Commercial Center Project public hearing was continued to January 17, 1995.
3
ANALYSIS:
Development Agreement:
One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to enter into development agreements
with developers in the plan area. The purpose of a development agreement is to provide security to the developer that the
City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time and, on the other hand,
provide a mechanism to the City to obtain commitments from the developer the City might not otherwise be able to obtain.
The development agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific Plan goal that new development fund the
cost of infrastructure and service is met.
Development agreements are authorized by statutes (Government Code Section 65864 et seq.). Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is the City's enabling ordinance and provides the procedure for adoption of a development agreement.
On October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Master Development Agreement for use in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan area. The Master Development Agreement is to be used as the basis for beginning negotiations with developers within
the Specific Plan area.
Attached to this Staff Report (Exhibit A) is a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, the Surplus Property
Authority of the County of Alameda and Homart Development Co. 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 when it is signed by all the parties for a tenn of 10 years. 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:
Section 2. Roads.
The road improvements that will be made in conjunction with the project are listed in Exhibit B of the Development
Agreement (Exhibit A of this Staff Report) and in the Traffic Study attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the
December 19, 1994, packet. However, the following is a brief summary:
On Dublin Boulevard, one east and one west bound travel lane, left turn lanes at the two main access points to the Center and a right t
lane for the westerly main access point to the Center. On Hacienda Dr., one north and one south bound travel lane, one right turn lane
one left turn lane into the main access point to the Center. On Tassajara Rd., dual north bound left turn lanes to Dublin Blvd.
Signals will be provided at Dublin Blvd. and Hacienda Dr., Dublin Blvd. and Tassajara Rd., Dublin Blvd. and the two main
access points to the Center, and Hacienda Dr. and the main access to the Center.
Additionally, improvements may be made as follows:
On Dublin Blvd., two east and one west bound travel lanes, dual left turn lanes at the two main access points to the Center,
dual west bound left turn lanes from Dublin Blvd. to Hacienda Dr. On Hacienda Dr., two north bound travel lanes and one
south bound travel lane. Dual south bound left turn lanes from Hacienda Dr. to Dublin Blvd.
Section 6. Public Facilities Fee.
This section sets forth that the City has hired a consultant who has prepared a draft Public Facilities Fee Study. The draft
study calculates the amount of the public facilities fee for neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities,
libraries and buildout of the Civic Center. The study concluded that the amount of the public facilities fee for commercial
development in Eastern Dublin is $290.00 per 1,000 building square feet. However, as noted, the study is still in draft fonn
and the fmal fee may be greater than $290.00 per 1,000. The Development Agreement is structured to enable the County to
pay the fee that is approved up to $362.50, and receive a refund if the $362.50 per 1,000 sq. ft. is paid and the fee is
detennined to be less than that amount.
Section 6. Noise Mitigation Fee.
This Section implements Mitigation Measure 3.10/7.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Eastern Dublin. When the
City adopts a noise mitigation fee, the Developer will pay the fee, up to $3,000. The fee will be collected at fmal occupancy
of Phase 2 of the Project. If a fee is not established at that time, the Developer will not be obligated to pay such a fee.
4
Section 6. Traffic Impact Fees.
The amount of Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) has been calculated based on the Barton Aschman November, 1994 traffic study
attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Traffic Impact Fee that was approved by the City Council
on January 9, 1995 (Resolution 1-95).
The Developer and/or the County may oversize a portion of infrastructure. Subparagraph 5.3.5, allows for a credit against
the TIF amount for the value of the oversizing, as follows: The total value of the oversized improvements and right of way is
$4,574,140.00 less $808,870.00 which is the value of that part of the oversized improvements previously constructed by the
City of Pleasant on for a net credit of $3,765,270.00.
The Project's TIF is $5,162,719.00. Based on the County's current plans for oversizing certain improvements, the net traffic
impact fee due for this project would be $1,397,449.00
Section 7. Creek Improvements.
The County agrees that when the property adjacent to this project to the east develops, the County will comply with all the
provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report.
Approval of the Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement that is attached to this Agenda Statement may have additional revisions made to it prior to the
Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 1995. The anticipated changes will not be substantive. If revisions are made
to the Development Agreement, a revised copy will be distributed at the Meeting.
Section 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code sets forth the fmdings that must be made in order to approve a development
agreement. These findings are contained in the Resolution recommending approval of the Agreement to the City Council
(Exhibit D of the January 3, 1995 Agenda Statement).
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:
The January 3, 1995, Agenda Statement contained a draft Response to Comments (Response). Staff was not able to prepare a
complete document due to the time allocated for preparation of the January 3, 1995, Agenda Statement and the close of the
public review period on December 23, 1994.
Attached to this Agenda Statement as Exhibit B is the completed Response. The Response document contains the same
information that was included in the draft with additional information and responses following on pages 6 through 9.
Additionally, a letter dated January 4, 1995, to the City Attorney's Office from the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority is
attached to the Response to Comments and is referenced in that document.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
At the public hearing on January 3, 1995, Martin Vitz of the East Bay Regional Park District spoke regarding the District's
desire to identify a linkage between the Tassajara Valley Trail, the Iron Horse Trail and the BART station. He wanted to
ensure that approval of the Development Agreement would not preclude such a trail from being designated. The Planning
Commission requested that Mr. Vitz put his comments in writing. Exhibit C is a copy ofa letter sent to the City's Planning
Director from Mr. Vitz as well as a copy of a letter, dated January 11, 1995, sent to Mr. Vitz from the County on this issue.
Mr. Vitz indicated in the letter that the District, after discussions with the City and County, believed that the trail connection
could run along the north side of Dublin Boulevard. It should be noted that no development applications have been
submitted for the north side of Dublin Boulevard. The County, in their letter, indicates their wiliness to cooperate with East
Bay Regional Park District in developing an appropriate connection. A specific trail connection on the north side of Dublin
Boulevard is Dill.. in the Park District's Master Plan, nor in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan or Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The Santa Rita Commercial Center project is proposed south of Dublin Boulevard and would, therefore, have
no impact on the trail connection.
Additionally, Mr. Vitz discussed the District's wish to work with the City of Dublin and Alameda County in the preparation
of a Greenway Study for Tassajara Creek. The Greenway Study is one method of implementing Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan policies relating to the Tassajara Creek Corridor.
5
Mr. Vitz concluded his letter by requesting that the Planing Commission express its support for 1) the development of a
Tassajara Creek Greenway Study, and 2) a future trail connection property from Tassajara Creek along the north side of
Dublin Boulevard to the BART Station/Iron Horse Trail.
It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to express its support for a Tassajara Creek Greenway Study. It would
also be appropriate for the Planning Commission to express its support for the City to continue to work with the East Bay
Regional Park District on trails consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. It should be noted that this may require amendments to City documents in the future.
In response to comments and questions raised by Mr. DiManto, at the January 3, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, the
City's consultants on the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Project prepared a fiscal analysis which
included estimated absorption amounts for the Eastern Dublin area and the overall effects on the City's revenues and
expenses. Revenues projected for the project took into account any net leakage from existing City revenues.
RECOMMENDA nONS:
FORMAT:
1)
Hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close Public Hearing and Deliberate
5) Adopt Exhibit C from the December 19.1994, P.C. Staff Report, Resolution recommending that
the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
6) Adopt Exhibit D from the December 19.1994, P.C. Staff Report, Resolution recommending City
Council approval of the Planned Development Rezoning.
7) Adopt Exhibit D from the Januarv 3. 1995, P.c. Staff Report, Resolution recommending City
Council approval of the Development Agreement.
ACTION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Rezone to a Planned Development and
Development Agreement.
And, if the Planning Commission so desires:
'1.
Recommend that the City Council support, in concept, the preparation of a Greenway Study along
Tassajara Creek.
I
\
\
2. Recommend that the City Council support continuing to work with the East Bay Regional Park
District on trails consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A:
Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, Homart Development Co. and Surplus Property
Authority of the County of Alameda for the Tri- Valley Crossings Project.
Exhibit B:
Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Exhibit C:
Letter to Mr. Laurence Tong dated January 11, 1995, from Martin Vitz of East Bay Regional Park District.
6