The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.1 East Cty Hall of Justice SDR AmendOF 0�6IF0�� DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL May 21, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager( a� Z -z_�- 14 G-ma sled Kns�i l3 CITY CLERK File #410-30 SUBJECT: Site Development Review Amendment for the East County Hall of Justice (Alameda County Courthouse) Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The East County Hall of Justice (ECHOJ) Site Development Review approval was granted by the City Council on December 15, 2009. The Conditions of Approval and associated City/County Agreement state that the approval is valid for twenty-four (24) months. In November 2011, the County was granted an 18-month extension to the approval by the City Council, which will expire on June 15, 2013. The County is moving forward with the construction of the project, but will not be underway before the SDR approval expires. The County is requesting a twenty-four month extension, which necessitates a second amendment to the City/County Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution approving a second amendment to the Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice. Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: Alameda County proposes to construct a new courthouse called the East County Hall of Justice, which is comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities. The project area is 21.77 acres and is located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan and Arnold, the planned location of the East County Government. A Vicinity Map is shown below - Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 8.1 L ALAMEDA COUNTY SANTA RITA JAIL BRODA BLV - Project Site GLEAS7N7 VE M 6 0 i y u Aw WA Under the 1993 Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda, the City retained the right to perform design review of any projects proposed on the County Governmental property. Therefore, although this project is not subject to the normal development standards or land use controls that would be applicable to a private project, the project is subject to the City of Dublin Site Development Review regulations. WA CENTRAL PARKWAY :A On November 16, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 220 -04 approving a Site �• � +} ,. - Development Review application " "'�'� �~ to construct a 208,408 square DUBLIN BLVD. ate. = foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities. Resolution 220 -04 also approved an associated Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice. The County did not immediately proceed with the construction of the facility, and requested from the City two 18 -month extensions to the Site Development Review approval. The first extension was granted by the City Council in May 2006 and the second in November 2007. The Site Development Review approval was set to expire on May 16, 2009 if the County did not proceed with plans to construct the building. In April 2009, County Staff informed City Staff that revisions to the original building designs were underway. City and County Staff met and reviewed conceptual building designs during the intervening months, and Alameda County submitted the Site Development Review application that detailed the revised design for a 196,219 square foot building on the same site. The revised project was processed as an amendment to the original Site Development Review approval, which remains in effect due to the ongoing efforts by the County to progress towards construction. On December 15, 2009, the City Council approved the revised Project via Resolution 187 -09. The Project Plans are included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report. ANALYSIS: Because of the unique nature of this project, where the City of Dublin had Site Development Review authority but would not be issuing subsequent building permits, an alternative method of ensuring the Applicant's compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the project had to be developed. The City Attorney, in cooperation with Alameda County Counsel, drafted an agreement regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the County Courthouse. Page 2 of 4 The Agreement was approved as an exhibit to the Site Development Review Resolution, and the Conditions of Approval for the project were contained within the Agreement. Condition of Approval No. 2 stated the following: "Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for twenty -four (24) months from the date approved by the City Council. If construction, or demonstrated progress toward commencing such construction, has not commenced by that time, this approval shall be null and void. If an additional extension is desired, the County can make the request to be considered by the City Council. " The project was approved by the City Council on December 15, 2009, and as such, the expiration date of the Site Development Review approval was originally December 15, 2011. At the County's request, the City Council granted an extension and the new expiration date for the project approvals became June 15, 2013. Although the County has demonstrated progress toward commencing construction by receiving proposals from two qualified design -build entities, the progress of moving towards construction has not been as swift as the County anticipated. The County submitted a formal request on April 17, 2013 to extend the approval for an additional 24 months in order to keep the Site Development Review approval effective (Attachment 2). The request letter from the County explains the delays in more detail. For various reasons, the County is now expecting the potential award of contract to a design -build firm in late Summer or early Fall of 2014. The City Attorney has drafted a second amendment to the original Agreement for the City Council's review and consideration (Attachment 3). The amendment addresses only one issue: extending the expiration date of the Site Development Review approval for an additional 24 months. All other aspects of the original Agreement and the original Conditions of Approval remain in effect. If the County's request is approved, the new expiration date of the Site Development Review will be June 15, 2015 and will enable the County to keep the existing design approvals in effect without having to incur the time and expense of replicating the process. Subsequent to the City Council's approval of the second amendment to the Agreement, the amendment to the Agreement will be acted on by the County Board of Supervisors. The amendment to the Agreement and the extension of the Site Development Review approval term will become effective only after the second amendment to the Agreement is executed by both parties. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The County of Alameda prepared a joint Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR /EIS), dated April 2003, to determine the potential environmental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed project. The Final EIR /EIS concluded that the preferred alternative for the location of the East County Hall of Justice was in Dublin at the subject site. The EIR /EIS identified mitigation measures to address the environmental impacts identified and the Final EIR /EIS and accompanying mitigation measures were adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2003. When the East County Hall of Justice facility was redesigned by the County and the Courts, an Addendum was prepared to document the differences between the project originally analyzed in Page 3 of 4 the 2003 EIR /EIS and the current proposal. The Addendum states that although changes are proposed as part of the current project that require revisions to the previous EIR /EIS, the changes do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously- identified significant effects. Only minor changes to the previous EIR /EIS were required, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. The City Council certified the Addendum via Resolution 188 -09 on December 15, 2009. No additional environmental review is required to extend the date of the Project approval by an additional 24 months. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A copy of the report has been provided to Alameda County. It is not, however, the City's practice to send out a public notice for a request for a SDR time extension on a previously - approved application. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Approved SDR Project Plan set dated November 23, 2009 2. SDR time extension request from Alameda County dated April 17, 2013 3. Resolution approving a second amendment to the Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice (with the Amendment to the Agreement attached as Exhibit A) Page 4 of 4 '�`. '1. �} mss,. S �„ <� ��^ •'� i . A , rPj: r•,� �4' � 4 t��lti .f�``� •I !tr i��i� EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE DUBLIN, CA GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY COUNTY OF ALAMEDA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 ARCHITECTS '�'i °Ile au11 eld J SAIN DIS PROJECT SITE ALAMEDA COUNTY SANTA RITA JAIL 3 BRODER BLVD. - - D °+ i 1 ci y z 4 1 0 - t},,,,�� GLEASONRRIVE waft o n CENTRAL PARKWAY - I� f r DUBLIN BLVD. - 1/2 Mile I I �6 U. S. INTERSTATE 580 f= k NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT -- I ¢o� 'o w 0 Qo oz> �o wow G-A „ Ff1!V ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE YcJN�oP�`� OF THE COURTS OFFICE OF COURT CON-D-ON AND MANAGEMENT -2- PROJECT GOALS Develop a design that does not modify the approved project E.I.R. Keep building pad generally in the same location. Maintain parking count and entry and egress points. Generally maintain landscape and hardscape approach. Building massing should be equal or less than previous approved design. The building design should reflect the dignity and stability of the courts and the accessibility and transparency of the court system. Utilize massing forms and a material and finish palette that is harmonious with the surrounding hills and landscape, but respectful of the variable mix of development to the south of the project site The building design should create a high performance work environment that contributes to the productivity and health of its staff and users. • The building design should provide for a high level of sustainability. Achieve a LEED Silver level. KEY PROJECT COMPONENTS The new contemporarily designed 196,219 gross sq. ft. East County Hall of Justice project is composed of the following main components: a. A new 146,331 gsffive story Courthouse, with a total of 13 standard multi -use trial courts. b. Anew 42,284 gsf two story County Agency office building, with Public Defender, District Attorney and Probation program elements. c. A 7,604 gsf connecting central lobby/security screening /entrance area between them. <o� w 0 ZQO ozW �o wow OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN -3- w 0 a� o�> �o wow LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENT -4- w 0 a� o�> �o wow PLANTLEGEND SHADE TREES 0 c�uNAMOMUM CnMPXDRw 1.1 -rcU Mw. ACCENTTREE OauERCUS LaaATA zs cU Mlx. SHRUBS LnsacclDENTALIS 11rs•cAU Mw. � ARCT OTAPmLOS DervslaoaA scU ®rO.c. xrT•XnRMOrm MAxznxTA SLOanrn ocuEaGNoASTLNE wx 1.1ncu.Mw. wEEr HNCEn sGAL�NO.c. ENTRY DRIVE TREE PISTACwemNEwsls 11a GU Mw. ®°W"Aa MYRnE •COMPf1T °•) sGU ®ze•o.0 /O wus I'NTn IxE S�RAxcxlxG O owARROLIVE vTTLE OLUe sGN ACCENT TREES 'poi; %'.. WHEELER OwARVrmoswRU � 9 D.C. QOtEn EUROPAE43WAN HILL sINCLEmuxxwanHNG PL U=-FIC-1— CUPxES3uS3EMPER -INS OXEIGXTMIN. ® WRUSCA LLERYNU EnM3EN— YCN. MIN. • 'LAPArvE6 .IDES GROUND COVER SCREEN TREE — uEOMUNDSI') N �wCM ooc. t'-W .Kl soEw1 ` o Us GIu wIrA 1-1H CUMIN. E— SCUtRH= irlua zm D.c. sPECIESwznERS ]DISTINCT eoo LIGHTING, SITE FURNISHINGS AND PAVING MATERIALS LEGEND FOR L F _ E.YACT—OTON SwE aACx aesEg STREET UGXr o TRASXnxoASX RECEPTACLE SC-1 PNRING LIGHT ® PROPOSED—FOR—PIES. LANDSCAPE DESIGN INTENT THE ZCl.lN GRASSES SURROMDINO EWIRSINMENT. A SOFTENED. PARK — FEEL IS RE—ED GEEaGwss RIGEwa z+oc LOTS seovxnry MIDNISaxoraecssux NDINGTHIRS RING �„, z3ucHLOE OncmaoESli UaanLOCRAS3 lroc zsw rx srurn cauro)NrNICA -l1-11 SC US AND T='IELE TOTHEREARCOU— M1.1=1 12.5w sWs IINCHH of BEUUUMII —E EYED cans mSUalussPrnaLwavuEEri HASrou• 1 E (cLUSTERS OE.EACX) GF%NUGmU UE I—RED SENCHTHAT SURROUNDSTHE OUTER EDGE OO'"Aaa usnm. TUAluucou HOara o.c. IED 13 EX—CA 1UTOMOSIL—INGAN—ESS. INauxrEx.ArExTRY NuuraANnrvG _ TE us .) — NEDlOF E a c�vECD�.o��iww �>m 'w �a (NoLLiA�xrisr,AViTroTAe1Pw ' —) wA E cREOT VINES TO CASCADE OVER THE WALL TF ES. SHauss. THAT. MHEI NO �'BLWN�OU&E DE USERT 9G.C. DURING WINTER . _=S M xGR, >s� — TI—EREOSENCX R—INING —, HEIGHT —ES OWALL PUNTER. 13' HIGH rIGRr33ENCHEAC~HwITH,SEATS — RETENTIGHSYGTEM _5_ CRETE. CS UN —ENS TO MATCN ® =,Er I RoSG.wA —HRMlTGGORUMTI —ENS Q o °a Yam °z _w zl- o- �o wog LANDSCAPE SITE FURNISHINGS BIKE RACK PUBLIC PLAZA LIGHT GLASS ROAD STUD BOLLARD WITH LIGHT BOLLARD WITHOUT LIGHT -6- TRASH AND ASH RECEPTACLE BELVEDERE ELEVATION Q 'o w 0 Qo ozw �o wow SITE PEDESTRIAN EGRESS PLAN DETAINEE /TRANSPORT BUS &VAN STAGING r `J SECURE JUDICIAL PARKING r ®® ®® PV MAIN ENTRY. oo, I ° O irk° Q B —E- 11111E Ra E oERBw .................... (MOM Ow (00 W ?0000000 00 -00 -0000 0 DISABLED o PARKING / v 0c- t;',D000-000-0 do NORTHOPENPARKING 4 CC o 0 00 0 4 S .. IIIIIIIIII o `ca" �Yayl / _ Li o oeee E) - o e 'jl ��i$. s^S'O�U)}T.H -STSf OPENPARRIINNG'�j 0 �-� 5�� 0 000��\-,000G 0000000 O&DOGO 0 SOUTHEAST OPEN PARKING 00 :0000000 eeoc) 0 0 Ya� ova a� ,� �--N �-� /,-N � 7T o o O Ju� 0u 000- w 0 0 -' LAVTA BUS STOP - n w c��.coN OBivE o — a � Qo oz> �o wow LANDSCAPE SECTIONS SECTION A sw� o 0 SECTION B etas v is _g_ w 0 Qo oz> �o wow LOWER LEVEL PLAN h s -9- ova Ya� w 0 r Sao o�> �o wow LOBBY LEVEL PLAN 1- 1 SECUREJUDICIAL ` PAMNG 10- MAIN ENTRTY -- F AUTO DROP -OFF SA NO- 16' 0' 16' 32' I age 'o w o F Qo oz> �o wow SECOND LEVEL PLAN NORTH w 16' L� 0' 16' 32' ° z Qo oz> �o wow THIRD & FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 12- NORTH w 16' L� 0' 16' 32' ° z Qo oz> �o wow ROOF PLAN 13- NORTH w 16' L� 0' 16' 32' ° z Qo oz> �o wow SITE GRADING PLAN T P R f SANDIS �' GLEASON DRIVE 14- Qom �uA w_ 0 Qo oz> �o wow SITE UTILITY PLAN is- w 0 a� o�> �o wow _1(_ Q p � � m w_ O QO OZ� SOUTHWEST ELEVATION �_ f rl f. 'y A 7ft <o� oQa Yam w 0 Qo oz> �o wow _ 8_ Q p � � m w_ O QO OZ� _ g_ Q p � � m w_ O QO OZ� NORTHEAST ELEVATION -zo- w 0 a� o�> �o wow _2 _ Q p � � m w_ O QO OZ� EAST & WEST ELEVATI 1. INSUTATED METAL PANEL, SYSTEM COLOR 2. INSUTATED METAL PANEL, SYSTEM COLOR B 3. STOREFRONT OR PUNCHED WINDOW WALL SYSTEM 4. GLAZED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM — 5. METALPANEL "CHANNEL" ELEMENT - fi.ARCH ITECTURAL METAL LOUVERS J. TRANSLUCENTGLAZEDCURTAIN WALL _ B. GLAZED CURTAIN WALLW/ HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADES 4 i M_ illi O 7rIL i 16' 0' 16' 32' 22 Q p Q o Ynvi 0 w 0 o�> �o wow I . INSUTATED METAL PANEL, SYSTEM COLOR 2. INSUTATED METAL PAN EL, SYSTEM COLOR B 3. STOREFRONT OR PUNCHED WINDOW WALL SYSTEM 4. GLAZED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM 5. METALPANEL "CHANNEL" ELEMENT fi. ARCH ITECTURAL METAL LOUVERS J. TRANSLUCENT GLAZED CURTAIN WALL 8. GLAZED CURTAIN WALL W/ HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADES 16' 0' 16' 32' -23- w_ O QO OZ� NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS 1. INSUTATED METAL PANEL, SYSTEM COLOR 2. INSUTATED METAL PAN EL, SYSTEM COLOR OFFICE BUILDING 3. STOREFRONT OR PUNCHED WINDOW WALL SYSTEM 4. GLAZED CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM 5. METALPANEL "CHANNEL" ELEMENT fi. ARCH ITECTURAL METAL LOUVERS J. TRANSLUCENT GLAZED CURTAIN WALL 8. GLAZED CURTAIN WALL W/ HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADES Lii�fAi1I1�a -lclL- IEi�+IL- A- Ir'L�11 1 Il - O Lit-. n _24_ w_ O QO OZ� �y OF O c'�C7FOR��P SUSAN S. MURANISHI COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Ms. Joni Pattillo City Manager, City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR April 17, 2013 DONNA LINTON ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RG`I APR 2 2 7613 DUBUN PLANNING SUBJECT: East County Hall of Justice Site Development Review Time Extension Request PA 02 -030 (East County Hall of Justice) Dear Ms. Pattillo: I am writing to update you on the status of the East County Hall of Justice project and to request a Site Development Review (SDR) time extension inasmuch as the SDR approval will expire on June 15, 2013, When we last met, the County apprised you of design changes that may result from the design -bid solicitation process. We agreed that when the County had completed the selection process, we would discuss the top - ranked proposal with you and your staff to determine if the design was consistent with the site development conditions approved by the Dublin City Council. We are now ready to convene that discussion. We received and evaluated bona -fide proposals from two qualified design -build entities. Normally the next step would be to advance the best value proposal to the County Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to award the design -build contract. We have been advised by the State parties that legislation authorizing their participation in the project has lapsed and must be reinstated. Further, the State parties recommend that we plan for as much as 12 months from now {April 2014) to complete this process and receive all needed approvals from the State. The award of contract and issuance of notice to proceed to a Design/Builder could therefore be delayed until late Summer 2014. In the worst case onsite construction could begin as late as Fall of 2014. Accordingly, the County hereby requests an extension of the June 15, 2013 deadline by 24 months, to June 2015. Please advise us of the process and timing of obtaining this extension, including City Council meetings, at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Donna Linton Assistant County Administrator c: /Jeri Ram, City of Dublin Susan S. Muranishi, County Administrator Aki Nakao, GSA Jim Kachik, GSA 1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 555 + OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • (5 €0) 272 -6984 FAX (51 O) 272 -3784 RESOLUTION NO. xx -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * ** APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CITY /COUNTY AGREEMENT REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE (ALAMEDA COUNTY COURTHOUSE) PA 02 -030 WHEREAS, on November 23, 2009, Alameda County submitted an application to the City of Dublin requesting Site Development Review approval to construct the East County Hall of Justice, a 196,219 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan and Arnold Drives; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and approved the East County Hall of Justice Site Development Review application at a public hearing on December 15, 2009 (Resolution 187- 09, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City Council also approved an associated City /County Agreement regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the project which stated an expiration date for the term of the approval as twenty -four (24) months from the date of City Council action; and WHEREAS, David Savellano, on behalf of the Alameda County General Services Agency, requested on September 6, 2011 an amendment to the City /County Agreement to extend the Site Development Review approval term for the East County Hall of Justice (County Courthouse) by an additional eighteen (18) months since the County had not yet commenced construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 185 -11, approving an amendment to said Agreement to extend the term of the Site Development Review approval for an additional 18 months while leaving all other provisions of the original Agreement and project Conditions of Approval intact, by which the agreement was changed and; and WHEREAS, by letter dated April 17, 2013, Donna Linton, on behalf of the County Administrator, requested a second extension of the Site Development Review approval, for an additional twenty -four (24) months; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council recommending that the application be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve, and authorizes the Mayor to execute, a second amendment to the Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice (Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference) to extend the date of the approval to June 15, 2015. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE This SECOND AMENDMENT is entered into this 21St day of May 2013 by and between the City of Dublin, a municipal corporation ( "the City "), and the County of Alameda, a political subdivision of the State of California ( "the County "). The City and the County are referred to collectively as "the Parties." RECITALS 1. The Parties are parties to that certain agreement entitled "Agreement Between County of Alameda, Surplus Property Authority and City of Dublin Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Upon Annexation, Provision of Services and Other Matters," dated May 4, 1993 ( "the Annexation Agreement "). 2. In the Annexation Agreement, the County agreed to subject County projects on certain lands owned by the County to the City's site development review ( "SDR ") process under the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. In 2004, the County proposed the development of the East County Government Center ( "the Project ") and submitted an SDR application to the City. 4. In 2009, the County proposed revisions to the previously- approved Project and submitted a revised SDR application to the City, which was approved by the City Council. 5. In conjunction with the City's 2009 approval of SDR for the Project, the Parties entered into that certain agreement entitled "Agreement Between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda Regarding the Enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice" (the "Agreement ", attached and incorporated herein by reference). 6. The Agreement, consistent with the Annexation Agreement, sets forth the County's obligations to comply with the City's conditions of approval of the SDR for the Project. 7. One of the conditions of approval, which were incorporated into the Agreement, states that the City's approval of the SDR for the Project shall only be valid for twenty four (24) months from the date approved by the City Council, which was December 15, 2009. 8. Since the SDR Approval would expire on December 15, 2011 and the County had not yet commenced construction of the Project, the County requested that the City extend the life of the SDR approval for an additional eighteen (18) months. The City approved the request on November 9, 2011, extending the Site Development Review approval to June 15, 2013. The County has requested a second extension of the Site Development Review approval, for an additional twenty -four (24) months. 9. The City is amenable to again extending the life of the SDR, and therefore it is willing to partially waive the requirement set forth in the Annexation Agreement that the County be subject to the City's SDR process under the City's Zoning Ordinance, only to the extent necessary to permit the life of the SDR approval to extend twenty -four (24) months beyond the initial twenty -four (24) month expiration provided for in the 2009 Agreement as extended for eighteen (18) months in the 2011 amended Agreement.. 10. By agreeing to waive the referenced provisions of the Annexation Agreement, there shall be no inference that the City has waived any other provisions of the Annexation Agreement, it being specifically agreed by the Parties that the City does not waive any other provision of the Annexation Agreement by agreeing to the amendment. 11. The Parties therefore desire to amend the Agreement to extend the life of the SDR approval for an additional 24 months. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, the City and the County agree as follows- A. Extension of Life of Site Development Review Approval. Section 2.5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.5. Term of Site Development Review. Notwithstanding anything to contrary in Exhibit A -1, the City's approval of the SDR, or the City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code) the City Council's approval of the SDR shall be valid for sixty -six (66) months from the date it was approved by the City Council. B. All other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Chair of the Board of Supervisors Approved as to Form: DONNA ZIEGLER County Counsel Approved as to Form: by City Attorney