Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Promenade General Planor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL October 15, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' CITY CLERK File #420 -30 Promenade General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider a request to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study which would evaluate a proposal to change the existing Neighborhood Commercial and Public /Semi - Public Land Use designations to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes with the possibility of mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard and community amenities within the project area. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact to the City. All costs associated with preparing the General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study, if authorized by the City Council, would be borne by the Project Proponent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council either adopt Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the existing Neighborhood Commercial and Public /Semi - Public Land Use designations to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes and mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard as well as community amenities within the project area; OR adopt Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the existing Neighborhood Commercial and Public /Semi - Public Land Use designations to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes and mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard as well as community amenities within the project area. Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8.1 Submitted By Director of Community Development DESCRIPTION: Background Reviewed By Assistant City Manager The proposed Study Area is an approximate 23 -acre area commonly referred to as the Promenade. The Study Area is located along the east and west side of Grafton Street between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. The proposed Study Area abuts the Devany Square and is adjacent to the following residential developments: Table 1: Surrounding Uses Location w /in Area G Project Name No. of Units Land Use General Plan /EDSP NE The Courtyards 281 units Medium High Density Residential NW The Cottages 200 units Medium High Density Residential SE The Terraces 626 units High Density Residential SW The Villas 289 units High Density Residential 1,396 units The General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for the Promenade were approved by the City Council on March 7, 2000. The current land use designations are Page 2 of 5 approximately 20 acres designated as Neighborhood Commercial and approximately 3 acres designated a Public /Semi - Pubic. The project area currently has a Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan approved a concept for the Promenade to create a Main Street within Dublin Ranch with up to 230,000 sf of commercial development and 80 residential units. The intent and purpose is to provide a pedestrian- oriented and neighborhood - serving commercial center including retail, commercial, and entertainment, within the neighborhood commercial land use, serving the daily needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and providing shopping, service, and entertainment opportunities for a wider community base. The Promenade also includes a Public /Semi - Public land use designation which allows a variety of uses including facilities owned by a public agency or non - profit entity such as schools, libraries or City office buildings. Additionally, quasi - public uses such as child care centers, youth centers, senior centers, religious institutions or other facilities that provide cultural, educational or other similar services that benefit the community also are allowed. Fi Land Use Designations The City received a letter from Martin Inderbitzen requesting City Council consideration of initiating a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate a proposal to change the Land Use designation to Medium Density Residential with the possibility of Mixed Use along the Dublin Boulevard frontage (Attachments 1a and 1b). The Applicant's intent is to provide a combination of single - family detached residential units and single - family attached residential units at densities within the Medium Density range (6.1 to 14.0 du /ac). ANALYSIS: It has been past practice for the City Council to initiate all General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Studies prior to accepting an official application and beginning work on such a request. Any development of the site would also require a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Development Review. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan envisioned the Promenade as a gathering place for residents of Eastern Dublin and Dublin Ranch specifically, which would incorporate walkability from the surrounding multi - family neighborhoods by inclusion of various pathways and connections as well as providing a commercial resource of up to 230,000 square feet and Public /Semi - Public Page 3 of 5 uses to meet the neighborhood needs of the residents. Plazas and outdoor dining were a part of that original vision. The applicant's proposal would eliminate the 230,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses and replace those uses with a combination of single family attached and detached residential structures with a number of units and a density as yet unknown. The potential for the inclusion of some commercial /mixed use development fronting Dublin Boulevard is also included in the applicant's request. In conjunction with their request, the Applicant commissioned a retail supply and demand study for the Promenade property which also looked at additional properties in eastern Dublin to bolster their application. This study is included with the Applicant's letter attached hereto as Attachment 1b. Should the City Council authorize the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study; Staff will evaluate the retail supply and demand study as described below. If the City Council initiates a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment study, Staff will prepare a study and return to the City Council with an analysis of the following- 1 . Land Use and proposed densities; 2. Circulation and connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods, including connections to the currently proposed commercial development to the south at the Grafton Plaza site, and at the existing Grafton Station shopping center; 3. Timing of the proposed commercial development on the Grafton Plaza site; 4. Project interface with the surrounding neighborhoods; 5. The Applicant's retail supply and demand study; 6. Fiscal impacts of proposed change; and 7. Impacts to public schools. The City Council would then have the opportunity to direct Staff to further process the Amendment Study or conclude the study at that time. If the City Council decides to proceed with the Amendment Study, Staff would then- 1 . Evaluate the proposed land plan; 2. Evaluate any associated environmental impacts from the land use change such as traffic and noise, and prepare the appropriate environmental documents; 3. Perform any additional studies that may be required; and 4. Prepare a project analysis for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If these tasks result in a recommendation to amend the existing land uses, Staff would then present the Planning Commission with the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use amendments for recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then could take action on the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment. Any development on the site would require application materials which would be presented concurrently with the requested land use amendments, including: a) the Planned Development Rezone consistent with the proposed land use amendment, b) Site Development Review, c) Vesting Tentative (Tract) Map, and d) any required environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Page 4 of 5 Staff has prepared draft Resolutions approving and denying the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study (Attachments 2 and 3, respectively). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Although a public notice is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment Study, the City mailed notices to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the proposed Study Area as well as all residents and tenants of the Villas, the Cottages, the Courtyards and the Terraces, and Sorrento West. A public notice also was published in the Valley Times, on the City's website and posted in the designated posting places. A copy of this Staff Report was distributed to the Project Proponent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Information Collection). ATTACHMENT: 1. Property Owner /Project Proponents' letters of request a. Letter dated September 25, 2013 clarifying previous letter b. Letter dated September 16, 2013 with the retail supply /demand analysis as an attachment 2. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the existing Neighborhood Commercial and Public /Semi - Public Land Use designations to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes and mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard as well as community amenities within the project area 3. Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the existing Neighborhood Commercial and Public /Semi - Public Land Use designations to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes and mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard as well as community amenities within the project area 4. General Plan Amendment Study Status Report. 5. Opposition letter from resident received October 8, 2013. Page 5 of 5 MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN Attorney at Law September 25, 2013 Mike Porto City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Promenade, GP/EDSPA amendment request Dear Mike, Pursuant to our discussion yesterday, I am waiting to follow up on my letter to the City Council of September 16, 2013. As you are aware, in preparation for the request to Council, we held an initial outreach meeting with residents during which we received input, concerns and ideas about the future of the area. Many residents told us that they would like to see the property developed with retail and dining nearby, We also heard that people do not want to see high- density apartments or condominiums proposed for the property. We understand that the process, if approved, will require some initial analysis and a "check -in" with the City council within 3 months. That check in will report back to the council with preliminary feedback on such items as basic land uses, circulation, school and fiscal impacts. We would therefore like to begin this process with a proposal that considers the following elements: a combination of single family detached residential and attached single family townhomes at medium densities. All homes would be for sale and at lower densities than any of the existing residences in the surrounding neighborhoods. The possibility of mixed uses along Dublin Boulevard will be considered. Relocation of the Promenade retail south of Dublin Boulevard to a fully activated retail street along Grafton Street that we believe will meet the needs of the area residents. P.O. Box 1537 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone 925 485 1060 Fax 925 485 1061 MARTIN W. INDERDITZEN Attorney at Law The benefit of a study is that it allows for a cooperative effort to begin that will involve not only the property owner and the city, but also the residents of the immediate area. We will be able to evaluate the existing and these alternative uses in the context of current market demands as well as surrounding development as we work together to revision the area. We look forward to working with you on this important project. Very Truly Yours, Martin W. Inderbitzen ---, P.O. Box 1537 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone 925 485 1060 Fax 925 485 1061 MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN Attorney at Law September 16, 2013 Mayor Tim Sbranti Council Members Don Biddle Kevin Hart, David Haubert and Abe Gupta 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Promenade Request for General Plan Amendment Study Dear Mayor Sbranti and Council Members, I am writing to you on behalf of Charter properties to request that its application for a General Plan Amendment study be placed on the October 15, 2013 agenda for consideration by the City Council. This request in one form or another has been pending since February of this year. A request for such a study was first initiated by Charter Properties with your staff in February of this year, about the same time that the City received similar requests for the sites known as "The Greens ", "Regency" and the " Dimanto" properties. While our request was pending with city staff, I attended the City Council meeting of March 5, 2013 and suggested in comments during the public hearing that, before approving General Plan changes, the City should evaluate the available and potential sites for commercial /retail development on a citywide basis to gain an overall understanding of the city's supply, market demand, and other conditions that impact the build out and use of commercial /retail sites. Thereafter, the City Council would be in a better position to evaluate individual requests. The City Council did ask for more information at that meeting and deferred the Dimanto request until after a report was brought forward. Following discussion with the City staff Charter Properties agreed to defer its request for a study until after the staff reported back to the council on the deferred March 5 request. On April 16, 2013, the staff brought back to the City Council a report that compared 2013 development assumptions with the assumptions made when the EDSP was adopted in 1994. The staff reported further on the status of actual development within the EDSP area. Following the presentation of the above mentioned report and, after hearing council discussion of the same, I was of the opinion that the Council needed a more specific and detailed study of the retail supply and demand potential in the City of Dublin in order to make a thoughtful determination of requested General Plan Amendments involving a change from commercial /retail designations. Accordingly, I met with staff on May 7, 2013 and again on May 29, 2013 and proposed that Charter commission such a study to bring back to the City along with its request for a General Plan Amendment study. P.O. Box 1537 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone 925 485 1060 Fax 925 485 1061 I advised the staff that Charter Properties would conduct more outreach to the adjacent residential neighborhoods to engage the residents in a dialogue about the proposal for a study and the desire to solicit from them input on alternatives to retail (pending the outcome of a study). Charter Properties held a neighborhood meeting in July. All nearby residents were invited to attend, and many did, sharing with us that they would like Charter Properties to preserve retail and dining nearby. Attendees also expressed that do not want to see high- density apartments or condos proposed for the property. That meeting was the start of what will be an ongoing discussion with comments and suggestions continuing to flow in from neighbors. Charter Properties asked ALHJUrban, economic analysis and research experts based in Berkeley, to conduct a retail supply and demand study of the City of Dublin and the Promenade property. The ALH analysis was expected to provide a data -based understanding of retail supply and demand in the City of Dublin. In addition, the study would provide valuable information about the feasibility of 230,000 square feet of retail uses at the promenade both in the short and long term, and would help better inform the Council about our request for a study. Last week their study was released. It concluded that Dublin has an oversupply of land planned for commercial or retail use: "The findings of this study indicate Dublin likely has an oversupply of land designated for commercial development. Many of the undeveloped parcels with retail potential are very well located to capture both local and regional demand. The Promenade property comprises an infill site with limited visibility, within a community that already has numerous nearby shopping opportunities for convenience and comparison shopping goods. " As noted above, The Promenade site is not as well suited for economic success as many other retail sites (i.e. those sites situated in locations that will capture both regional and local retail demand as opposed to a purely infill site). A copy of the executive summary of the ALHJUrban study is enclosed with this letter. The entire study will be provided to you within the next 7 days. That brings me to the point of this letter; asking you, the city council, to allow us to commence a general Plan Amendment study on this property to determine what is and is not feasible in the way of alternative land uses. Charter Properties has patiently watched as the City has commenced other general Plan Amendment studies on far less information. Given the extensive work and discussion that has already occurred with the City staff, Charter Properties has demonstrated a willingness to work with the community and to provide the City with the necessary background information upon which to make an informed decision and, we hope you will agree, deserves an opportunity to study alternative land uses for its property at the Promenade. It is our expectation that through the City's exhaustive process, an alternative will evolve that creates a tangible benefit for neighbors and provides a fair return for the property owner. One of the concepts that will be studied is the impact of building out both sides of Grafton Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a street - facing and pedestrian- oriented block of shops and restaurants. Since the west side of the street is already built — and occupied by restaurants like Vito 's Pizza and Buffalo Wild Wings — it provides a head -start and some synergy to build on. While there is no guarantee that even this concept will be feasible, we believe it's worth studying, as it would provide a great amenity for the local neighborhood comparable to the promenade concept. We have not arrived at this juncture ill informed. We have done our best to seek as much input and data as possible, and are confident that as we move forward, we will be able to arrive at an alternative that can be both feasible and beneficial for the whole community. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request for a general Plan Amendment study on this property. Sincerely, Martin W. Inderbitzen /4 Cc. Jim Tong � Joni Patillo Luke Sims ENCLOSURES: ALHJUrban Retail Supportability Analysis, Executive Summary Map of proposed and existing commercial sites in Dublin Map of the Promenade Concept plan for Grafton Street south of Dublin Blvd. The Promenade and City of Dublin Retail Supportability Analysis Prepared for: Charter Properties Prepared by: September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... ............................... 1 OVERVIEW............................................................................................. ............................... 1 SUMMARY OF RETAIL SUPPLY CONDITIONS ..................................................... ............................... 1 SUMMARY OF RETAIL DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS ............................................ ............................... 1 RETAIL SUPPORTABILITY CONCLUSION AND THE PROMENADE IMPLICATIONS ........... ............................... 2 II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................... 3 STUDY PURPOSE AND APPROACH ................................................................. ............................... 3 STUDY RESOURCES ................................................................................... ............................... 4 III. EXISTING, PLANNED, AND POTENTIAL RETAIL SUPPLY .......................... ............................... 5 EXISTING RETAIL INVENTORY ....................................................................... ............................... 5 MAXIMUM RETAIL POTENTIAL ....................................................................... ............................... 5 PLANNED AND POTENTIAL RETAIL SUPPLY ....................................................... ............................... 6 EXISTING AND CUMULATIVE RETAIL ............................................................... ............................... 7 IV. DUBLIN RETAIL DEMAND ...................................................................... ..............................8 DUBLIN RETAIL MARKET CHARACTERIZATION ................................................... ............................... 8 DUBLIN RESIDENT -BASED RETAIL DEMAND ...................................................... ............................... 8 V. DUBLIN RETAIL SUPPORTABILITY ......................................................... ............................... 10 TRI- VALLEY RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY ............................................................. ............................... 10 TRI- VALLEY RETAIL SPENDING IMPLICATIONS ................................................. ............................... 10 CITYWIDE SUPPORTABLE RETAIL BASE ASSESSMENT .......................................... ............................... 11 SUPPORTABLE INCREMENTAL RETAIL SPACE ................................................... ............................... 11 VI. RETAIL SUPPORTABILITY CONCLUSION ............................................. ............................... 13 POTENTIAL OVERSUPPLY CONDITIONS ........................................................ ............................... 13 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROMENADE AT DUBLIN RANCH .................................. ............................... 13 ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS .......................... ............................... 15 APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS APPENDIX B: Map of Select Future Refai) Sites LIST OF EXHIBITS (Appendix A) Exhibit 1. City of Dublin Commercial Property by General Plan Land Use Designation, Estimate of Maximum Retail Potential Exhibit 2. Identified Planned and Proposed Retail Development Projects, City of Dublin, July 2013 Exhibit 3. Select Vacant Sites with Retail Potential, City of Dublin, July 2013 Exhibit 4. City of Dublin Retail Demand, Sales Attraction, and Spending Analysis, Fourth Quarter 2010 through Third Quarter 2011 Exhibit 5. Existing Populaton Supportable Square Feet, City of Dublin, in 2013 Dollars Exhibit 6. Calculation of Sales per Square Foot Estimates, Select Retail Stores and Store Types, 2009 Through 2012, and 2013 Projected Exhibit 7. City of Dublin Buildout Potential Resident - Supported Retail Space, in 2013 Dollars Exhibit 8. Tri- Valley General Plan Population and Housing Unit Capacities Exhibit 9. Household and Retail Market Characteristics, Tri - Valley Cities, 2013 Exhibit 10. City of Dublin Supportable Retail Square Feet from a Regional Perspective Exhibit 11 . City of Dublin Oversupply of Potential Retail Space at Residentail Buildout ALH Econ /2013 Projects /1308 Charter Properties /Report /1308.r04 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW ALH Economics conducted analysis regarding the supply and demand for retail space in the City of Dublin, with implications for the development potential of Charter Properties' 23.5 -acre property called The Promenade at Dublin Ranch. This analysis focused on assessing the long -term match between Dublin's supply of retail space pursuant to Dublin's General Plan land use designations and the City's future potential demand for retail space. The findings of this study indicate Dublin likely has an oversupply of land designated for commercial development. Many of the undeveloped parcels with retail potential are very well located to capture both local and regional demand. The Promenade property comprises an infill site with limited visibility, within a community that already has numerous nearby shopping opportunities for convenience and comparison shopping goods. SUMMARY OF RR "'1" Mt RDRRtY CO DI "'I "'NRb R The findings indicate that based upon existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations, the City of Dublin has the development potential for 5.7 million square feet of retail at buildout of the City's properties with retail potential. Examined a different way, based on the City's estimated existing 3.0 million- square -foot retail base and properties with identified or prospective retail development potential, the City has the potential for 5.9 to 6.2 million square feet of total retail development potential. This estimation includes consideration of 21 properties in Dublin with identified retail development plans or other retail development potential, many of which are located proximate to The Promenade along major thoroughfares or with highway visibility. Conservatively, ALH Economics assumes this maximum potential based on existing land use designations and identified projects totals 5.8 million square feet. This includes existing retail development as well as all properties with future retail potential based upon existing General Plan land use designations. SUMMARY OF RR "'1" Mt DEMAND CO RIDER "'I "'IONS These retail supply figures contrast with existing and buildout demand projections. Assuming a household buildout estimate of 27,217 based upon the City's General Plan, ALH Economics estimates that Dublin residents will have the potential to support 2.7 million square feet of retail space. Currently, the City of Dublin serves a regional market, with half of all retail sales in Dublin generated by regional demand. In other words, Dublin's residents currently support approximately one -half Dublin's retail base. If half of Dublin's retail sales continue to be supported by retail demand when Dublin is built out, then based on the volume of space estimated to be supported by the City's residents the supportable retail square footage will total 5.5 million square feet of space. However, the likelihood of Dublin continuing this level of attraction is low. This is attributable to the relatively greater level of residential buildout already achieved by the Tri- Valley cities that account of Dublin's retail sales attraction plus the increasing retail attraction character of some of these cities, such as neighboring Livermore. Thus, future supportable retail space in Dublin will be lower, dependent upon the share of sales contributed by the region. If 40% of Dublin's retail demand at buildout comprises attraction then the City's supportable retail space estimate is 4.5 million square feet. In like manner, if the City's share of retail attraction drops to 30% then the total supportable retail square footage drops to 3.9 million square feet. Pmfladl SupprrtabihlyAwnalysiss 1 AI ..,I I I. rban & Rc,aRarnal Ec:on nnicss "'1" Mt SUPPOR I' ABILI I Y CONCLUSION AND I HE PROMENADE NM LIC I IONS These supportable retail square footage estimates based upon the regional share of sales compare to the City's current estimate of 3.0 million square feet and maximum potential of 5.8 million square feet of retail. Even if Dublin's retail base continues to be 50% region - serving, there will be a surplus of property with retail development potential at residential buildout. Estimates of this surplus range from 340,000 square feet if Dublin continues to achieve 50% regional attraction, 1.3 million square feet if the share of regional attraction drops to 40 %, and 1.9 million square feet if the share of regional attraction drops to 30 %. The likelihood that Dublin will continue to achieve 50% attraction is low, given that many regional retailers are already located in Dublin, the region's growth rate is slowing relative to Dublin, and adjoining cities are strengthening their retail base. Therefore, the analysis strongly suggests that Dublin has many parcels designated to support retail development that are unlikely to be able to successfully support retail development, and that alternative land uses should be considered that will best support Dublin's long -term growth as a balanced community. Many of the undeveloped parcels with retail potential are very well located to capture both local and regional demand. In contrast, Charter Properties' The Promenade property comprises an infill site with limited visibility, within a community that already has numerous nearby retail shopping opportunities for convenience and comparison shopping goods. Already the neighborhood's convenience and comparison retail needs are being sufficiently met by existing retail opportunities in Dublin, such as Waterford Place and Hacienda Crossing, and the neighborhood is not supporting the local- serving component of Charter Properties' nearby Grafton Station project. A number of Dublin's vacant properties that are designated for retail development will complement this existing array of comparison and convenience shopping opportunities. Many of the vacant sites are adjacent to or near existing major retail nodes, such that their development will strengthen the critical mass of retail at these locations. Most importantly, if warranted by retailer demand, development of these sites would help Dublin preserve its regional- serving character. It therefore is more appropriate for the City of Dublin to retain these sites for retail, rather than an infill site such as The Promenade with no potential to create this critical mass. Therefore, ALH Economics believes that the retail supportability analysis supports Charter Properties' General Plan Amendment request to convert the 23.5 acres reserved for The Promenade away from a retail designation. Pmfladl SupprrtabihlyAwnaly.siss 2 AI ..,I I I. rban & Rc,a arnal Ec:on nnicss II. INTRODUCTION P "'I "'UDY PURPOSE AND APPROACH Charter Properties is a real estate development company with several commercial real estate holdings in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Several of these properties have been developed bringing major retailers to the City of Dublin, including Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse, Target, and Dick's Sporting Goods. Charter Properties' real estate holdings include a 23.5 -acre property in Eastern Dublin currently referred to as The Promenade at Dublin Ranch. This property is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, to the east of Tassajara Road. Pursuant to its location, the property lacks visibility from major thoroughfares such as Tassajara Road or Interstate 580. As such, the property comprises an infill location within the City of Dublin. Pursuant to the Master Planning process for Dublin Ranch, this property was envisioned to comprise the community's neighborhood shopping center, providing retail and services to the area's resident population base, including adjoining high density housing developments. Charter Properties is seeking a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of this 23.5 -acre land area. Charter Properties believes that the amount of existing and planned retail in the City of Dublin precludes the potential for The Promenade to successfully attract neighborhood- oriented retailers. Charter Properties has already developed a more local- serving shopping center at Grafton Station, located very proximate to The Promenade completed in 2008. Five years later, this 39,500- square- foot center is more than 30% vacant. This, plus the nearby location of Waterford Place at the periphery of Dublin Ranch, with a grocery store and other neighborhood- serving retailers, suggests that the original concept of developing The Promenade as a neighborhood shopping center is not supportable. Charter Properties further believes this is compounded by the number of undeveloped parcels in the City of Dublin with superior visibility that are designated for commercial retail development, which results in a potential oversupply of land designated for retail development. Accordingly, Charter Properties engaged ALH Economics to conduct a retail supportability analysis for the City of Dublin. This analysis focuses on assessing the long -term match between Dublin's supply of retail space pursuant to Dublin's General Plan land use designations and the City's future potential demand for retail space. The suitability of The Promenade retail site as a future retail property is then assessed in the context of these findings. ALH Economics pursued a number of tasks to complete this analysis. These tasks included: • Conduct site and field reconnaissance • Estimate volume of existing Dublin retail inventory • Identify Dublin General Plan -based maximum retail potential • Identify planned retail development projects in Dublin • Estimate Dublin's existing and buildout resident retail demand • Conduct sensitivity analysis regarding Dublin's long -term retail supportability • Analyze the long -term potential for additional retail development in Dublin • Assess the long -term retail potential of Charter Properties' The Promenade retail project Pc „afadl Supprrtabihl y Analysis 3 AI ..,I I I. rban & Pc,aPd rnal Ec:on nnicss The retail supportability analysis relied upon a number of key resources. These resources are all identified in the sources and notes to the exhibits developed to support the analysis. These resources are as follows: • Gtyof Dublin resources. These include representatives from the City's Planning and Economic Development Departments; a City of Dublin Commercial Property Database with General Plan land use designations; the City of Dublin General Plan 2035, Land Use Element; and Appendix 4 of the "City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan." • Other Tri- Malley City resources. These sources include planning documents from other Tri- Valley cities, including the City of Livermore General Plan; the City of Pleasanton General Plan; and the City of San Ramon General Plan. • Thirdpartyresources. These sources include Realquest, a property information search engine; select commercial real estate brokerage retail market reports; the California State Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California reports; the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey; Claritas, a national resource for demographic estimates and projections; the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index; Retail Maxim, a retail industry performance resource; Alameda County Office of Assessor, Parcel Viewer; and a market study prepared for the City of Dublin by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in May 2009, titled "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Focused Market Study. " All of these resources are identified as warranted in the text and /or the series of exhibits found in Appendix A that document the retail supportability analysis. An additional map is located in Appendix B. Pmfladl Supprrtabihl y Analysis 4 AI ..,I I I. rl an & Rc,a a rnal Ec:on nnicss III. EXISTING, PLANNED, AND POTENTIAL RETAIL SUPPLY EXIS I ING RE "'I" It I VEN I'ORX The City of Dublin has a large retail base. Estimates of the size of Dublin's existing retail base vary, depending upon the commercial brokerage firm surveyed. However, economic research conducted for the City in support of the Downtown Specific Plan in May 2009 estimated that the City's retail base totaled 2.8 million square feet at that time.' This estimate, prepared by the real estate advisory firm Keyser Marston Associates on behalf of the City of Dublin, was based upon numerous resources, including the Shopping Center Directory, project information available from the City's website, and City staff. Very little additional retail development has occurred since that timeframe. The most notable addition is 179,267 square feet developed by Charter Properties at Fallon Gateway, where Target, Dick's Sporting Goods, and BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse have since been developed and occupied. Thus, with the addition of these new regional - serving retailers, Dublin has an estimated commercial retail base of approximately 3.0 million square feet. This equates to approximately 60 square feet of retail space per Dublin resident, based upon a 2013 population estimate of approximately 49,100 prepared by Claritas, a national resource for demographic estimates and projections.' MAXIMUM RE "'I "' It PO I "'E "'I "'I Dublin's 3.0 million square feet of existing retail inventory comprises just a portion of the City's long- term potential retail space based on current General Plan land use designations. ALH Economics developed an estimate of the City of Dublin's long -term retail development potential based upon analysis of land parcels in Dublin with a commercial General Plan land use designation. The City of Dublin made a database available to ALH Economics with all commercially- designated parcels. Parcel- specific data included General Plan land use description, Assessor Parcel Number, and parcel size. ALH Economics sorted the parcel database by land use designation, with the results presented in Exhibit 1. This indicates 965.1 acres of commercially- designated property, including developed and undeveloped parcels. The 965.1 acres of parcels comprise 11 different land use designations, such as General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Retail /Office. Each land use designation has a different capacity for retail development, depending upon the allowable uses and typical patterns of development. In conjunction with City of Dublin Planning Department and Economic Development Department staff, ALH Economics prepared and applied assumptions to each category of land use to develop an estimate of the City's maximum retail potential given current land use designations. Some of these assumptions included the percent of each category that does or will comprise retail, and the floor area ratio (FAR) for development. The assumed percentages of retail range from 0% for the properties designated Campus Office to 100% for the properties designated Neighborhood ' See "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Focused Market Study," prepared for the City of Dublin by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. See retail market discussion on page 15. ' The Claritas estimate for 2013 is 49,063. This compares to Dublin's 2010 census population of 45,598. Pmfladl Supprrtabihly Analysis 5 ,I ..,I I I. rban & RR: :agirnal Ec:on nnicss Commercial. Many categories were assigned a 50% or higher percentage based on City input and knowledge of existing development. The retail FAR assumes 0.25, with the exception of Neighborhood Commercial, assumed at 0.35. The resulting figures indicate that based on existing General Plan land use designations the City of Dublin has the potential to develop 5.7 million square feet of retail space (see Exhibit 1). As stated above, this includes existing development as well as potential new development on currently vacant parcels. Therefore, based on the preceding estimate of 3.0 million square feet of existing retail space, Dublin has the future potential to develop an additional 2.7 million square feet of retail space based on General Plan land use designations. Notably, this is supply potential based on land use designations, and is not a demand -based estimate. Further, this 5.7 million figure is the result of an estimation procedure, with potential for a nominal margin of error. PLANNED AND PO .I E I IAL RE I' Mt SUPPLY There are numerous retail projects in the planning process in the City of Dublin. These include projects that are approved, planned, or otherwise engaged in the planning process. Identified Planned and Proposed Projects Exhibit 2 identifies 10 properties with identified retail development plans located throughout the City of Dublin. The projects are listed in descending order of potential retail square feet. The Promenade, the Charter Properties site that is the subject of this report, is denoted as #7 on this exhibit. Most of the projects cited in Exhibit 2, as noted in the accompanying map in Appendix B, are located proximate to The Promenade site, generally with more visibility and accessibility. The 10 projects listed on Exhibit 2 total an estimated 1 .0 to 1.3 million square feet of potential retail development. Some of these projects have anticipated opening or completion dates, but many are indeterminate, including projects that gained approvals before or during the recent national recession. Some of these projects are seeking General Plan land use amendments to allow residential development, most notably including #7, "The Green at Park Place" project, which received approval for 305,000 square feet of retail space in 2008 at the onset of the national recession. The ownership of this property is now seeking a General Plan amendment to reduce the retail space to 40,000 square feet. This request accounts for the range in square footage of potential retail space identified in Exhibit 2, from 1 .0 to 1.3 million square feet. Select Vacant Sites with Retail Potential In addition to the 10 sites with identified planned and proposed retail projects, there are 11 more sites in Dublin with notable amounts of retail development potential. These sites, consecutively identified as #11 - #22 continuing from the prior exhibit, are also denoted on the map in Appendix B. Similar to the parcels referenced in Exhibit 2, many of these parcels are located proximate to The Promenade's site, with enhanced visibility and accessibility. The undeveloped properties identified in Exhibit 3 have even greater retail development potential than the projects included in Exhibit 2. Some of these parcels alternatively have potential for office development. These 11 parcels, which total approximately 220 acres of undeveloped land in Dublin, have the potential for up to 1.9 million square feet of retail development. This acreage is especially concentrated in the area to the immediate east and west of The Promenade, comprising properties #11 - # 14. These properties generally surround The Promenade, and collectively have the potential Pfladl Supprrtabihly Analysis 6 ,I ..,I I I. rban & Pc,aPdrnal Ec:on nnicss for 1 .7 million square feet of retail development. Some of these properties, such as the #11 and #12, have limited opportunity to convert to non - commercial uses, due to air flight restrictions, while others, such as the property #14 that borders Tassajara Road, have sought and are likely to continue to seek some conversion to residential development. EXIS I'I D AND CUMULA I'IVE RE "I "' It The preceding retail supply analysis provides a general range of potential retail supply in Dublin based upon existing General Plan land use designations and prospective development plans. The analysis based on land use designations in Exhibit 1 indicates the potential for 5.7 million square feet of retail space. Combining the findings of Exhibits 2 and 3 with the existing retail base results in an estimate of approximately 5.9 to 6.2 million square feet of potential retail space. These total retail space estimates are relatively comparable, suggesting that given existing land use designations in Dublin there is the potential for an average of about 5.8 million square feet of retail space upon buildout. This is a conservative figure given the up to 6.2 million figure developed based on the existing retail base and the 2.9 to 3.2 million square feet of potential development presented in Exhibits 2 and 3. Pmfladl Supprrtabihly Analysis 7 ,I ..,I I I. rl an & CRc,a arnal Ec:on nnicss IV. DUBLIN RETAIL DEMAND DUBLIN RE 1 Mt M BKE "I "' C W B C "I ERIZA I'NBb The City of Dublin is characterized as an attraction retail market, meaning that the City attracts more retail demand than would be expected given the City's population base. This determination is based on a Retail Demand, Sales Attraction, and Spending Analysis prepared by ALH Economics pertinent to the City of Dublin. This analysis is presented in Exhibit 4, and is based upon City of Dublin retail sales achieved during approximately 2011 (i.e., fourth quarter 2010 through third quarter 2011 ). This timeframe pertains to analysis conducted separately by ALH Economics for the City of Dublin.' The City of Dublin's characterization as a retail attraction market is also consistent with analysis prepared for the City of Dublin relative to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.4 The City of Dublin Retail Demand, Sales Attraction, and Spending Analysis generally corresponding with 2011 is presented in Exhibit 4. This exhibit is based on a 2011 household count of 15,172 for the City of Dublin, with average household incomes of $123,215. Based on these parameters, ALH Economics estimates annual per household retail spending of $34,557 per Dublin household, corresponding to total demand of $524.3 million. This per household sales figure comprises 28.0% of estimated average household income. This percentage figure is comparable to the 27.3% figure estimated in the City's 2009 "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Focused Market Study." s For this time period, Dublin realized estimated retail sales of $1.1 billion, indicating that Dublin achieved strong retail sales attraction. As noted in Exhibit 4, this attraction generally corresponds to 51% of Dublin's retail sales, meaning that the City's resident demand comprised only half of all sales achieved by the City's retailers (i.e., 49 %). This is a relatively simplistic evaluation, given that Dublin residents likely spend a portion of their retail sales outside of the City, but the overall purpose of this technique is to characterize a retail market pursuant to its relative status as a leakage or attraction market. In this regard the results clearly indicate that Dublin is an attraction retail market. DUBLIN RESIDE .I° BASED RE1 Mt DEMAND Existing Residents The household retail spending vector estimated in Exhibit 4 provides a basis for estimating supportable retail demand for Dublin's population base. Inflated to 2013 dollars, Exhibit 5 estimates per household retail spending of $35,792. The City of Dublin is estimated to have 15,769 households in 2013.6 Based on this household count, retail demand generated by Dublin's population basis totals $564.4 million. To assess how this level of demand compares to Dublin's retail base requires ' See Draft EIR for The Village @ Dublin, released August 2013 for public comment. This analysis was included as Exhibit 18 in an Appendix to the DEIR. The Appendix is referred to as "The Village @ Dublin Urban Decay Analysis," and was prepared by ALH Urban & Regional Economics, dated April 2013. 4 See "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Focused Market Study," prepared for the City of Dublin by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. See retail market discussion on pages 15 -18 of this document. ' See Table 4 in this May 2009 Keyser Marston Associates report. 6 Estimated by Claritas. See Exhibit 9. Pmfladl Supprrtabihly Analysis 8 ,I ..,I I I. rl an & Rc,a arnal Ec:on nnicss conversion to supportable retail space. For analytical purposes this is achieved by developing retail sales estimates by retail category and making further adjustments based on a retail vacancy allowance and allocation for personal and commercial services that are not typically reflected in retail sales.' ALH Economics refers to an industry resource to develop per square foot sales estimates. This resource, Retail Maxim, prepares an annual publication that culls reports for numerous retailers and publishes their annual retail sales on a per square foot basis. This type of information for a range of retailers or type of retailers is presented in Exhibit 6 annually from 2009 through 2012. The figures are then averaged and presented in 2013 dollars as a generalized estimate of sales per square foot applicable to the retail categories for which Dublin's retail demand is estimated. The resulting sales per square foot range from a low of $280 per square foot for general merchandise stores to a high of $558 per square foot for food and beverage stores (e.g., grocery stores). In addition, Exhibit 5 indicates an estimate of $800 per square foot for motor vehicles and parts, which is an estimate prepared by ALH Economics for analytical purposes to drive the analysis. Pursuant to the retail sales per square foot assumptions, an industry standard 5% vacancy allowance, and an increment of 15% of space allocated to commercial services, the findings suggest that Dublin's existing population base generates retail demand sufficient to support 1.6 million square feet of retail space. As referenced earlier, the City of Dublin has an estimated 3.0 million square feet of retail space. Therefore, these figures suggest that Dublin's population base supports the equivalent of 53% of Dublin's retail base. This finding is generally consistent with the Dublin Retail Demand, Sales Attraction, and Spending Analysis findings in Exhibit 4 that approximately one -half of Dublin's retail sales are generated by regional consumers living outside the City of Dublin. Buildout Potential Existing Residents According to the City of Dublin General Plan, anticipated residential buildout for the City of Dublin totals 27,217 housing units, considered a proxy by ALH Economics for households. This is pursuant to the City's General Plan 2035, last amended in February 2013. Exhibit 7 presents analysis regarding the retail space supportable by this estimated buildout household count. This analysis includes the spending and per square foot retail sales assumptions included in Exhibit 5 to estimate existing resident supportable retail demand. Based upon Dublin's buildout household count of 27,217, ALH Economics estimates that Dublin's buildout population will have spending potential sufficient to support 2.7 million square feet of retail space. This is the amount of retail space anticipated to be supportable by Dublin's population base when Dublin is built out. Notably, this is generally equivalent to Dublin's existing complement of 3.0 million square feet of retail space. ' The State of California Board of Equalization taxable retail sales reports, used as a basis for estimating Dublin's retail sales base, do not report sales for personal or commercial services such as hair and nail salons, copy facilities, or banks. Pmfladl SupprrtabihlyAwnalysiss 9 AI ..,I I I. rban & Rc,a arnal Ec:on nnicss V. DUBLIN RETAIL SUPPORTABILITY �I RU��VALLEY RESIDE 9I IAL CAPACI Ili As noted previously, Dublin's retail base does not exclusively serve Dublin residents. Instead, Dublin serves a sub - regional market, including the other Tri- Valley cities of San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Consequently, earlier estimates in this report indicate that Dublin's residents support 49% - 53% of Dublin's retail base. These figures, however, do not necessarily apply to Dublin's retail market in the long term. This is attributable to the relative build out status of the major demand generators of Dublin's retail market, and their overall retail market characterization as well. Exhibit 8 presents information about the General Plan population and housing unit capacity estimates for select Tri - Valley cities. These include Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. These figures were obtained from each city's respective General Plan. These figures range from Dublin's figure of 27,217 to Livermore's figure of 38,500. In total, the General Plan housing unit (e.g., household) capacity of these four Tri - Valley cities totals 129,057. This corresponds to a population capacity estimate of 344,718. I R LLEY RE I "' IL SPENDING IMPLICA I IONS The existing population and housing unit base of each of the Tri - Valley cities comprises a different respective level of General Plan buildout. These figures are presented in Exhibit 9, and range from a low of 58% of households in Dublin to a high of 90% of households in Pleasanton. Other figures include 77% - 78% for San Ramon and Livermore. These figures indicate that each city is currently generating a different level of retail demand relative to its buildout potential. For example, the amount of retail supported by Pleasanton's current households is already equal to 90% of Pleasanton's maximum potential supportable retail. In contrast, Dublin has the greatest potential to support yet more resident -based retail in the future, with only 58% of Dublin's buildout currently achieved. These figures are relevant because they indicate the likelihood that the percent of Dublin's retail space that will be supported by Dublin's households versus other households will shift over time, as buildout capacities are approached. This further suggests that the portion of Dublin retail supported by Dublin households will increase, since future demand generated by the other Tri - Valley cities is relatively limited. Dublin's current households comprise 16% of the Tri - Valley household count presented in Exhibit 9. When all cities achieve relative buildout, Dublin will comprise a higher percentage, or 21%. Retail spending potential is greater in Pleasanton and San Ramon, given higher average household incomes. For example, the average household in Pleasanton and San Ramon is estimated to spend $40,000 or more annually on retail expenditures.$ This contrasts to average household spending in the $30,000s in Dublin and Livermore. However, even with these higher spending profiles, retail spending generated by Dublin's households at buildout is estimated to total $974 million, which will a See household incomes and average household spending presented in Exhibit 9. The average household retail spending estimates were prepared based upon the Retail Demand, Sales Attraction, and Spending Analysis model maintained by ALH Urban & Regional Economics. These household spending estimates are also equivalent to approximately 27% of average household income. This percentage is comparable to the percentage estimated by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in the "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Focused Market Study," May 2009, in Table 4. Rc :fadl Supprrtabihly Analysis 10 ,I ..,I I I. rban & Rc,a arnal Ec:on nnicss comprise 20% of the total $4.8 billion Tri- Valley retail spending potential at buildout. This compares to 15% based on the current estimated $564 million and $3.7 billion spending potential in Dublin and the Tri - Valley, respectively. The Dublin spending potentials are presented in Exhibits 5 and 7 while the Tri - Valley totals are calculated based on figures presented in Exhibit 9. This shifting percent of Tri - Valley retail sales generated by Dublin residents is compounded by the existing and shifting retail market dynamics. As noted on Exhibit 9, only the City of San Ramon is characterized by a retail leakage market. This means that in addition to Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton achieve retail sales attraction, i.e., sales beyond expectations generated by residents. Livermore's status as an attraction market is relatively recent, with Livermore historically comprising a leakage market. However, the development of the recent Livermore Premium Outlets results in Livermore achieving a much higher level of sales than previously, with Livermore consequently becoming a retail attraction market like Dublin and Pleasanton. A potential outcome of the attraction of these nearby retail markets could be reduced attraction for Dublin, and increased reliance of Dublin's retail base on demand generated by Dublin residents. C1I'RV IDE RItRRRbR "'I" BLE RE I" IL BASE ASSESSMEN .I. Dublin's existing population base is estimated to support 1.6 million square feet of retail space, regardless of its location. At buildout of the City given the existing General Plan Land Use Element, the City's buildout population base is estimated to support 2.7 million square feet of retail space, regardless of location. This means 2.7 million square feet in total is estimated to be supported by Dublin residents, which could include a mix of retail space in Dublin, other Tri - Valley cities, and more distant locations, depending upon resident shopping patterns. RItRRRbR "'I" BLE 1 CREME "'I" L RR I' IL SPACE Dublin's retail base serves a more sub - regional market than just the City's residents. Accordingly, City of Dublin retail support is a component of the City's supportable retail base, but not the whole base. The preceding analysis indicated that Dublin's resident demand is equivalent to approximately 49% to 53% of Dublin's retail base. Exhibit 10 presents estimates of Dublin's future supportable retail base given graduated assumptions regarding the share of Dublin's retail base supported by the population base. Exhibit 10 includes five different assumptions regarding the share of Dublin's retail base supported by Dublin's buildout population. These include 50 %, which is generally consistent with prevailing conditions. This is then increased to 70% in 5% increments. This increasing range reflects the assumption that Dublin's resident -based demand will not drop below existing levels, and may increase over time as the rate of population growth in other Tri - Valley cities slows relative to Dublin. The increasing range also considers that several of these cities will in turn develop stronger retail bases, such as Livermore pursuant to the recently developed Livermore Premium Outlets, with expansion potential totaling almost 200,000 square feet.9 Based on this analysis, Dublin will require an incremental 2.5 million square feet of retail space if Dublin's residents continue to support approximately 50% of Dublin's retail base. This increment will drop, however, if Dublin's residents over time provide an increasing amount of support for Dublin's retail base. For example, as neighboring communities get built out, Dublin's share of support for the City's retail base could increase to 60 %, in which case only an incremental 1.6 million square feet of retail space will be needed. In like manner, if Dublin's local demand increases to 70% of retail sales, then Dublin's 9 Expansion of 192,100 square feet was approved by the City of Livermore in July 2012. Rc: fadl Supprrtabihly Analysis 1 1 AI ..,I I I. rl an & Rc,and rnal Ec:on nnicss incremental retail needs will be less than 1.0 million square feet. This is less than the amount of identified planned and proposed retail development projects identified in Exhibit 2. Looked at a different way, but with the same results, if retail demand in Dublin is to continue to be 50% regional- serving, then Dublin's incremental retail needs total 2.5 million square feet. However, if Dublin attracts a lower percentage of regional demand over time, pursuant to the relative slowing of regional growth and other factors, then this incremental need drops. Incremental retail demand in Dublin will drop to 1.6 million square feet if regional demand comprises 40% of total demand, or even further to less than 1.0 million square feet if regional demand comprises a lower 30% of demand. Pmfladl Supprrtabihly Analysis 12 ,I ..,I I I. rban & Rc,a arnal Ec:on nnicss VI. RETAIL SUPPORTABILITY CONCLUSION PO I E I I P OVERSUPPLY CONDI I'IONS The retail supply and demand findings are summarized in Exhibit 11. This exhibit summarizes the maximum potential retail supply findings and compares the result to long -term potential demand, comprising existing demand and the calculated incremental demand to meet future local and regional needs. The results are presented based upon the share of total Dublin retail sales supported by regional demand. The oversupply findings are benchmarked to the 5.8 million square feet of potential retail space derived earlier. As the analysis noted, this figure may be conservative, given the volume of properties and projects identified with future retail development potential in Exhibits 2 and 3. The findings indicate that Dublin likely has an oversupply of land designated for commercial development. The amount of this oversupply depends upon the extent to which Dublin will continue to benefit from regional retail demand. If Dublin continues to attract approximately one -half its sales, then the oversupply of potential retail space is only approximately 340,000 square feet. However, the likelihood of Dublin continuing to satisfy this volume of regional demand over time is low, with growth in the cities surrounding Dublin slowing relative to Dublin and with these same cities changing their retail dynamics over time, especially Livermore's evolution into an attraction retail community. Thus, the likelihood is greatest that regional demand for retail in Dublin will diminish over time. If this regional demand diminishes to 40% of total demand, then Dublin's potential oversupply of retail space will total almost 1.3 million square feet. This figure will increase to 1.9 million square feet if regional demand drops to 30% of all Dublin's retail support. This analysis strongly suggests that Dublin has many parcels designated to support retail development that are unlikely to be able to successfully support retail development, and that alternative land uses should be considered that will best support Dublin's long -term growth as a balanced community. NMPLIC "'I "'NRb S FOR "'I "'PWP PROMENADE A I DUBLIN RANCH The preceding findings suggest that the City of Dublin has more land designated to support retail development than is warranted given existing and future market demand considerations. Many of the undeveloped parcels with retail potential are very well located to capture both local and regional demand. These parcels, as depicted on the map in Appendix B, are along major thoroughfares bordering Dublin's residential nodes and have strong highway visibility. As such they are well located to capture both local and regional demand. In contrast, Charter Properties' The Promenade property comprises an infill site with limited visibility, within a community that already has numerous nearby retail shopping opportunities for convenience and comparison shopping goods. While the surrounding community is not yet built out, comprising Dublin Ranch, Jordan Ranch, and Fallon Village, already the neighborhood's retail needs are being sufficiently met by existing retail opportunities in Dublin such that the more local- serving component of Charter Properties' proximately located Grafton Station center has not successfully attracted neighborhood- serving retailers. Pfladl LupprrtabihlyAwnalysiss 13 AI ..,I I I. rban & Pc,aParnal Ec:on nnicss At full development, the Dublin Ranch, Jordan Ranch, and Fallon Village area will have the buildout potential of an estimated 10,520 units, comprising almost 40% of the City's buildout potential.10 Based on resident demand estimated in Exhibit 7, this is equivalent to about 1 .1 million square feet of retail space. This includes convenience and comparison shopping needs, with most comprising comparison shopping, such as general merchandise. These are the type of goods provided by major merchandisers such as Target, which is well - located to serve this part of Dublin. Yet many of the other existing nearby retail sites satisfy the many components of local demand, including the Lowe's at Grafton Station, and the numerous retailers at Hacienda Crossing. Moreover, relative to more convenience - oriented goods, Safeway, a strong grocery retailer, is located nearby at Waterford Place, the nearby Target sells groceries, and the proposed Village @ Dublin retail project now undergoing Draft EIR review may also include a grocery store. Thus, many resident shopping needs are already being met by existing retail. A number of the vacant properties cited in Exhibits 2 and 3 that are designated for retail development will complement this existing array of comparison and convenience shopping opportunities. Many of the vacant sites are adjacent to or near existing major retail nodes, such that their development will strengthen the critical mass of retail at these locations. Most importantly, if warranted by retailer demand, development of these sites would help Dublin preserve its regional- serving character. It therefore is more appropriate for the City of Dublin to retain these sites for retail, rather than an infill site such as The Promenade with no potential to create this critical mass. In contrast, with their more central neighborhood- oriented location, retail potential sites #9 and #16 depicted on the Appendix B map and totaling 53,560 square feet of retail development potential, are better located to serve the convenience - oriented needs of the Dublin Ranch, Jordan Ranch, and Fallon village area. Therefore, ALH Economics believes that the retail supportability analysis supports Charter Properties' General Plan Amendment request to convert the 23.5 acres reserved for The Promenade away from a retail designation. 10 This figure is based on review of The City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Appendix 4, Land Use Summary by Land Owner, and includes the properties located East of Tassajara Road and from the Golf Course in Dublin Ranch south to Highway 580, which include Properties #1, 5 -7a, 8 -12, 18- 24, 26 -28, and 31. Pmfladl Supprrtabihly Analysis 14 ,I ..,I I I. rban & Rc,a arnal Ec:on nnicss ASSUMMONS AND GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS ALH Urban & Regional Economics has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and timeliness of the information contained in this study. Such information was compiled from a variety of sources, including interviews with government officials, review of City and County documents, and other third parties deemed to be reliable. Although ALH Urban & Regional Economics believes all information in this study is correct, it does not warrant the accuracy of such information and assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies in the information by third parties. We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. Further, no guarantee is made as to the possible effect on development of present or future federal, state or local legislation, including any regarding environmental or ecological matters. The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in connection with the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the projections, were developed using currently available economic data and other relevant information. It is the nature of forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved during the projection period will likely vary from the projections, and some of the variations may be material to the conclusions of the analysis. Contractual obligations do not include access to or ownership transfer of any electronic data processing files, programs or models completed directly for or as by- products of this research effort, unless explicitly so agreed as part of the contract. ALH Econ \2013 Projects \1308 Charter Properties \Reports \1308.r03.doc APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS e CO 22£ ° §0 . CL ix m Q � � § L- t C E q U § � 0 2 Z� Lb Um vo k C _ ƒ m § � 0 o g m m q o o q o q o## a# o o# m I --q�ImoomlON w w m Ln o o o r I g ON o m #<& m #m<m mmm CIZ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 cec@e9 »9oo0 0< 0- 0 q #< 0 0 0 a g I I m 0 q q <&& o m m ON ON ON ON mmgm<mq #mm& o- m& #qm<o cl L A C ON LLr� r-� 00 -1 Ln <m<mmmoa&m& a a<# o g ON ON o&& I #m - /m @me»2»@»@@@ g m# m a o o m# a o \ %Im\Immmm# � \\ § \ \ � 6 & �$¢ 0 � ± t } ƒ 0 o / a o ( 2 U O o E ƒ e & 7 \ E \ / / U / 0 EE Us § ± G G c E E CN 0 o 0 Q 0 0 0 U U o ®+ / / S u u%�$ Q Q D- m &< E * * * 0 0 0 0 f f 0 0._._'a -- UcGG22 » »ZJJ k � LC \ .0 E E \ ƒ / E Go D- Cl / q } 0 q § E / Q 0 E L * o 0 / ± /ƒ ƒ e 0 E E g u 0 \ § \ \ & ƒ E o Ln 'e ' a o / \ / }U * •§ / :@ 6 ƒ o m &< © & C: oE H \ / S ) a- E 3 - 2 u ° § s + V / \ E ƒ ƒ / , %E - -E t ° G u 0 D- D- / uƒ G G ƒ \ \ \ ./ 0 0 E o•- G 4 G u u $\ Eƒ & 00 /§/ § 0 ƒ 0 \ \: 0 (( 2 2 sU o� 0 / / \ 0 0 \ i D- ® G 6 ƒ ƒ o .g L - * 3 3 + § \ / $ \ 3/ o g o o} o -0 / > -a ® 0 0 ( o ƒ ƒ \ §\ 0 m 200 u u / i _ o 0 x©00 / D- e 0 0 0 0 0 & % § o # < E E § / \/ E E E o G o& U® Q Q Q o •2 o 0 %o \ y co Ln y u \ N O CL C E a O .6 a) O a O a. C O C C C O d —0,0, E C _- ? w � U w wCL ®u c 0 0 N o C+ vs ® o H V Q O: C 0 'C O N 6 C q 7 c v 0 c � o _ � o c c 2 d d 0 0 o O O o - Q C C � 0 C C � C C c 0 6 C a V o O j n C n m a -a > D -6 -a > _o a � -6 0 in > D > N o m `` m c`` -a m m �° m o C m E o c C -a o m �Qn 0 o� > a o� O a� .� m o N m D m E o °. u (D 0 3 S r� o- a ° o O ° m a O ° oa c o c 2 o o s o — 'o °' o a m `a No a"' s O a a O Q° s� o o E� m m C o 0 a u O a °u Q O Q O Q O a 0 °O O 0 O D C7 � 0 ^ °O o °O C1 �2 °O O 0 o roi ° o r� °O � O 0 v O °` r v .0 h rn ri � N N N C C C N N N E E E a a a O O O N N N D D D N N N C C C C C c a a a 0 0 0 E E E 0 0 0 V V V 0 0 0 w Q a S T o `m s E '> Ew O N y S 0 Oo N° s o 3 s 3 O o o ° O O 3 0 W ° rn °O m 3 o o°'E� E ° ° m o `m a N N o E O° o - n C E > ° J. LE u o o oD a 3c, 0 `a c o ° s a a a v o a o E 3 o o ri Oa a O c a o 0 O Q a rn o o c� o a° t E c O o N a a o O s 3 E o ~ ° o o o s o o E a ° v O aE oaN_s�� o ' a C c o m o o ° o 3n c u E ° O m ° a a_ o a o a= S o s o c a m g a u �? .2 E 0 o sn= aoN °u .E° O x a o � m c � s o o a m D o o o c u D o 0 u w E V o u T� V s s o (h m o E O c _E0� av E CO,00 �Q m v °o o c E ° 0 ° n ° c Ln° LL a C) ° c o v o O c `m C7 a 'o N O N m E o a `o 0 E ° o S E H °u N o °u ° `a V c 'a o a C N E a O C N E a O N j N D N N D N - Q C C � 0 C C � E m 0 6 C a V o O j C a E m a >• � �n N o-0 o a � ° 0 3 a S — m u 3 a s S u O 33 u F Q o o O °m > o 0 o O (9 o .o o u a a a° O . `1 m ` � L E m a N o E ou a 0 0 o . Q `o a o `m E a a N a . a� a ° m ' o N E o °. u o a u° o- 0 o 3 u o c o s rn o o 3 o a.- o ° oa t a m c� o c 2 � rn o a 'E Qom m o o co o a m o — 'o °' o a m `a o° a m o s = a"' s O a a O Q° s� o o E� m m C o 0 c o fl-- o o 3 o °_ a o� am ao ° o N° o N a LE O N o c�I T ao N ao E - o o o�° o N^ a o S LE C S m3 a m a c D N o (6j V a C7 a — E c o ° c� r� rn ri � N N N C C C N N N E E E a a a O O O N N N D D D N N N C C C C C c a a a 0 0 0 E E E 0 0 0 V V V 0 0 0 w Q a S T o `m s E '> Ew O N y S 0 Oo N° s o 3 s 3 O o o ° O O 3 0 W ° rn °O m 3 o o°'E� E ° ° m o `m a N N o E O° o - n C E > ° J. LE u o o oD a 3c, 0 `a c o ° s a a a v o a o E 3 o o ri Oa a O c a o 0 O Q a rn o o c� o a° t E c O o N a a o O s 3 E o ~ ° o o o s o o E a ° v O aE oaN_s�� o ' a C c o m o o ° o 3n c u E ° O m ° a a_ o a o a= S o s o c a m g a u �? .2 E 0 o sn= aoN °u .E° O x a o � m c � s o o a m D o o o c u D o 0 u w E V o u T� V s s o (h m o E O c _E0� av E CO,00 �Q m v °o o c E ° 0 ° n ° c Ln° LL a C) ° c o v o O c `m C7 a 'o N O N m E o a `o 0 E ° o S E H °u N o °u ° `a V c 'a o a / [ $ / \ § ƒ - \0cr x a) { \\ / j / j .0) _ _ aI ( j§ / CL ! } )\ \moo \ \ \ \\ /0 } a 0 10 10 Ln ( / ( ( \ \ \ 0 ! [ � \\ \\ � }\ [/ / ! -®, ( ®/ z§ ! \g -» ` @o ±&E ƒ)& } °t= { \: [ / }$ , ° �® §f §[ -E�( E o LE - a ( �� - !±\ _ 7r1 [: / {(\ \ m= ID udM1 \} }3- ƒ })` \` } _ \ 2 -0 } / \f (( / §j 0 -0 0 DO T �»z ®f E -< 3u -- :f«(0 - o °� 0.oE { [!)f';; - }E §/ {)) \} �ffƒ \ 2 \ ƒ \� sole± & + )'® e! *} . }(%77 eG {r =ell7Em -o §(e 6�a ±! & /EE$&G }%>a§ 6uu$ � \ [ ) (D ± 0 } / (D ƒ } \ \ \ j / \ \ \ 0 So uo \0 \ \ \o %Ef0 \- \ \� \; \ \ \ \\ ��\ \ s aJ 0 _ // §0 /3 y// /\ ) $ \ } } aI ( j§ / CL ! } )\ \moo \ \ \ \\ /0 } a 0 10 10 Ln ( / ( ( \ \ \ 0 ! [ � \\ \\ � }\ [/ / ! -®, ( ®/ z§ ! \g -» ` @o ±&E ƒ)& } °t= { \: [ / }$ , ° �® §f §[ -E�( E o LE - a ( �� - !±\ _ 7r1 [: / {(\ \ m= ID udM1 \} }3- ƒ })` \` } _ \ 2 -0 } / \f (( / §j 0 -0 0 DO T �»z ®f E -< 3u -- :f«(0 - o °� 0.oE { [!)f';; - }E §/ {)) \} �ffƒ \ 2 \ ƒ \� sole± & + )'® e! *} . }(%77 eG {r =ell7Em -o §(e 6�a ±! & /EE$&G }%>a§ 6uu$ � \ [ ) (D ± 0 } / (D ƒ } \ \ \ j / \ \ \ 0 So uo \0 \ \ \o %Ef0 \- \ \� \; \ \ \ \\ ��\ \ )� | %j §J- u \ 3) 7 k � 7 \ §\� 27�ECL _\ �; LE 3 Q : J y y y J 0 J J J s o s 0 s ID s s ID 0 » 2/ 2/ 2/ � . \ » \ / / \ \ \ \ ° E E @ E E E . u u u \ ~ oc) 2 ® ! u G 10 u > \ z a \ < E 10 < E ./ /u /u / // (;/ \ « « z 7{ \0 \0 y 0 _ -c E \\ g.-6 \-, \ \ \ \ J\ \ 4 / / j / _ _ [{ \ z? -a E2 \/ \/ z 0 0-0 E o E 00 ƒ E o j /\�_ } \\N o ° /§ \2z z z 2 }G ' 0 0 ( s o s 0 s ID s s ID 0 �2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ -C \ \ '[ &E§% \ m4 ° E E @ E E E . u u u \y ! u G G u G \ \ \ \ E E E ./ /u /u / // (;/ \ « « z 7{ \0 \0 y : -c E \\ g.-6 \-, }\ J\ \\ \0 j \ \ / \ \\ _ _ [{ .\{ z? -a E2 \/ \/ \0 Ln \( u00 U0 �) \\ /0 2 2 ƒz _ > k E / \\ \ / f / f $\ / \{ s ;zf0 zfo - \ \\ z E< 23 23 23 % 2 2 3 2 }G _ / / \ \ / -C 7 '[ &E§% m4 OD- —D �\ \y \\) 2 39 §0 }[ \ /5% 00 / � � ? u- (;/ \ « - [ CD y : -c E \\ g.-6 \-, j \ \ / \ o )/® ) z? -a E2 } E E / \\ C7. \ } / > \ 2) \ 3Q } 23 23 23 30 u E 2= 0 E 2 \ -C \ �/ \\ \ }} \ }\ \ / \ 00 /\ 3j ) J x Ey ƒ» ) 0 _ a) 0 2 � - o CL 0 \ coz < �� ®/ g / \\ /9 )) > /\ % 22 xe \ 2 2 2 & & rl rl 0 00 E E u § '2 / [ ID ID 110 0 { \3 ® \\\ -C 0 ID ID u 'f E } &u \ /4; ,U 2 ƒ /±/ \\ }\( -0 a) C3 E \\� \\ \ \ / \\ §&2 °fa \ U §� �\ \-c \(2 ?m)«:2 \\ }j3 \ (\ \ \(( \\ /)))G\ 2«Jy «y % \ \ \J 4 < - \% \ � I� « — / ƒ | )- \ / y | %/ / §) u y CT \) \ CL ct \ 'k \ \ u u � E ] �\) ® ® } a) C \/ E 2 \ _ \ •| 2 _ CL } \ ._ c y .! : Q 30 s \ _ u / E ) E c 4 c } / ` C: CL /j 3j ƒ � / ) ) ) ƒ ƒ 2 7 J f § / 0 _ 2 / 2 ) = 2 E g §\n \ ® 2 5 \ \o� - ® LE \ 0) � rl rl 0 00 E E u § '2 / [ ID ID 110 0 { \3 ® \\\ -C 0 ID ID u 'f E } &u \ /4; ,U 2 ƒ /±/ \\ }\( -0 a) C3 E \\� \\ \ \ / \\ §&2 °fa \ U §� �\ \-c \(2 ?m)«:2 \\ }j3 \ (\ \ \(( \\ /)))G\ 2«Jy «y 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,,�o o a c 'T N �n 01 �n o �:, o 10 +�0 0i ° E o 00 Ln 10 0 ol 10 IM Ln :.. D o Ln c LE N .� cl a) O ,., ., N r C3 0 N Q � a) D O (o N O (o (o ,G,.7 N ol Ln CV r Q p N p a Ln 10 CV V V Il CV Ln i CO r GO ON 0 — E —T r 0 a) •7- a O V Cl Cl � — Q' N 0 U3 N N 113 Ln CO Ln N M a) N O C a) N 113 16S 16S ER ER Ln t Q 2 E Q N O a) V• N N a 40 —T a O a a) 0X N ai co E 0 0 0 o o ° 0-0 0- C Q` ) V y a) N a a) I, N Ln r, r V 10 Ln Co %0 V Q N - x = Co Co I, 10 O r, Ln V V 03 a) >• •� LE -a N O p O t C� CI cl C Ln Cy r CV r- r N O w C O N Q I� 10 CO — N r N a t 0) -6 O I� Ln . O Ln rl N Cp %0 r cl a) j N a 0) a p 0 s O O O H r '6s '6s '6s '6s N 0 V N p V 7 E C v -0 - 0 0 0 ° 0 O �� °- C — N a a a E a) 0 y > --c N o 0 `o 0 c r, cNLn0r, vLnLnr 0 O ') '° o 0 o o o N ._ Co Co I, N O I, N V r E C) Q 01 � �C �C eC» eC» �C Cy) eC» e» � O .L t (n ocl;ui�16C6 Q a) aN ) o �nN0�n�nN10 `O a O G0 `� o - N C3 N 7 0 to N a) a -o E u -6 O O > -a E Op O O p N S2 ~�>, p C O Cy E u 3 E m O = ® o ornu�v a N O N aN ) O o a) N -O I, N rl 10 V r N r, r � 0- 0 a L( O 00 10 u) o, r, of 0� O a Q a n 0 -O Cy) V N N I, Ln Cp Ln O j o- y > ` L (� o vv� > Cp Cp Ln N N O a 0 0 7 V ( 7 O O N CaN f 3 ) U O a) N s= O �O LL :E N N C3 Q a U O E O N C3 O t C p O a -a -0 i 0 s= w a aj O O a O IE L C3 N -6 C3 0) X O 0 i Q N Ln Ln CO 10 10 N r V r O D V V a N a) O CT a O O Cp I� CO N N Ln `•`- V O C: i) t C= -0 o a) p , V C� V S O CI N V O; 0 J C-0 t Ia,) 0 N -0 a) O a a) .5)-o C a V I, co Ln I, co � I, Ln O� U Q - � � � v N 0 � E °� s 0 U3 N ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER +p a - w LO L j Q a a) t ch � 0 s o o C7 a C N s 0 s N 0 0 N U O V 0 m 0 v 0 0 0 -0 i) a 0 i) E O o O a te�N 0 N aTi E� N� os 0s ° 0 0�0 u C r H a O 0) = a) 7 � Q O in N N O 0 N O 7 J C a) C3 0 N a) N a r' O N N O N I� (+� 1O N O N V o Q Q O Q p N a) o- . q) ® O 2 c I, r, 10 N r, co I, r, 10 Lf} p� w t E N- 3 D � C C4O C�,0N10Ln1ounv0 Lc, _� s a 0 •�� 0 0° 0 `o� -a a O m = Sri r cy Sri c+� r Ln v v ' 0 °� E -o ° s 0 `o m C m fR fR fR fR fR fR fR fR fR M w E CJ p N a) N � N C C N a� va O E o 0- E o^ aa)i 0' o o N i o 0 j m m U o o Ln 3 s 0? 0 o s s u 06 Q s 0> V a) `� —Q ° u 0> E 3 N lie C a 0 V i) -a C a N E N N N C a ` J N N N 0�� 7 a) a) 7 E E O > i) N O 0 s\ o E 0 p 3 `o E o 0 E 0 0 .0 N V N 0 sQ a= 0 0 E E E U 'a S Tot 0 .0 °_ w' Q 0 a� U 0° s N 0' V o a o ` N a N O N O E OV a) N• 7 N C Q -a N C Lu 'wO -a OV E N 0 C a) , s a) r a) -a a a C3 in C3 N >� N N s= w O m a) C C p N C3 0 E. N N 7 a) N C3 V N -6 Q` N CO N N Q 0 N OV E t a C3 O a) 00 w -p C cl a 0 N �° °) — 0 s a 0 Q N 0 a C7 >� •E) vi a 0 X) a0 QC� o Q N �= L a �E� asr o 0 0� °° E�� o u �Ci ao6o6 N °)o a .2 U) axi o." ,, N No s ° �,o o 0o6 0 c m 0 N s s 0 E E 3 0 N 0 0 s Q O o _ a � s .a 0 0 N 0 O O a) 0- a O O N E '� m N O .O p t O C3 • N s s C3 V 0 O -0 N a) C3 U Y a) r N >' a N r >\ a E V LL N ��� m s'i� �N��.L a Uo ° s s 0 0� N E o °= N Iq C GC a 7 m a .. N 0) C3 0 H t -a 7 a) N J O a) C L= C a N N N N N E a) Q .N i O o s E v) 0 o E 0 0 a 0 0 •- 0 o s 0 o i t — s 0 s s E U Q m p o .7 p 0 0 p s 0 0 0 Q -, - E � v) m-0 `n E 0 LS U L � C= m uo- V 0 V uo- O H v°) C1 D cl C v u� o a a F 7. a 7. Exhibit 5 Existing Population Supportable Square Feet City of Dublin In 2013 Dollars S u biota I Additional Service Increment (15% of total) (8) Total Total Rounded to Nearest 10,000 $35,792 $564,403,285 1,228,169 1,292,810 N/A N/A 272,572 286,918 N/A N/A 1,500,741 (9) 1,579,728 (10) 1,500,000 1,580,000 Sources: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers; "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan - Focused Market Study," Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., May 2009; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. (1) Estimated spending per household based on the findings in Exhibit 4, inflated by the CPI index from 2011 to 2013, averaging a 3.57% increase from June 2011 to June 2013. (2) Comprises projected spending multiplied by Dublin's estimated 15,769 households in 2013. See Exhibit 9. (3) These figures reflect achievable sales per square foot estimates for each respective retail category except as noted. The figures reflect general industry averages as well as national averages reported in the Retail MAXIM publication "Alternative Retail Risk Analysis for Alternative Capital." See Exhibit 6. (4) Reflects the total estimated project - generated spending on retail divided by the achievable sales per square foot estimate. (5) Includes a 5% vacancy allowance for all categories of retail space. (6) The cited source for sales per square foot, Retail Maxim (see Exhibit 7), does not include sales figures for auto dealers. Sales figures for auto parts stores are included, and average $226 per square foot. However, auto dealer sales greatly outweigh these sales in the overall category. Such sales are typically very high, especially relative to the amount of building area required to support their sales. For analytical purposes ALH Urban & Regional Economics assumes such sales are high, and overall average $800 for the category. (7) Gasoline sales are highly volatile, and gasoline stations do not typically require large increments of built space. Therefore, estimates for gasoline stations are excluded from this analysis. (8) Includes an allocation of 15% of space to accommodate service retail, such as banks, personal, and business services. (9) Excludes Gasoline Stations. (10) The City of Dublin has an estimated 3.0 million square feet of retail space. Therefore, based on this analysis, resident demand supports approximately 53% of the City of Dublin's retail base. Projected City of Dublin Supportable Sq. Ft. Spending Per Total Household Sales Per Sq. Vacancy Adjusted Retail Category Household (1) Spending (2) Ft. (3) Amount (4) (5) Food and Beverage Stores $5,823 $91,821,617 $558 164,429 173,083 Food Services and Drinking Places $4,632 $73,037,205 $481 151,976 159,975 Home Furnishings and Appliances $1,117 $17,621,727 $289 61,038 64,250 Building Materials and Garden Equip. $3,376 $53,240,883 $292 182,415 192,016 Clothing and Clothing Accessories $1,692 $26,676,785 $366 72,791 76,622 General Merchandise Stores $5,775 $91,063,096 $280 325,517 342,650 Other Retail Group $4,205 $66,302,781 $409 162,236 170,774 Motor Vehicles and Parts $5,467 $86,213,762 $800 (6) 107,767 113,439 Gasoline Stations $3,705 $58,425,429 N/A (7) N/A (7) N/A (7) S u biota I Additional Service Increment (15% of total) (8) Total Total Rounded to Nearest 10,000 $35,792 $564,403,285 1,228,169 1,292,810 N/A N/A 272,572 286,918 N/A N/A 1,500,741 (9) 1,579,728 (10) 1,500,000 1,580,000 Sources: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers; "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan - Focused Market Study," Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., May 2009; and ALH Urban & Regional Economics. (1) Estimated spending per household based on the findings in Exhibit 4, inflated by the CPI index from 2011 to 2013, averaging a 3.57% increase from June 2011 to June 2013. (2) Comprises projected spending multiplied by Dublin's estimated 15,769 households in 2013. See Exhibit 9. (3) These figures reflect achievable sales per square foot estimates for each respective retail category except as noted. The figures reflect general industry averages as well as national averages reported in the Retail MAXIM publication "Alternative Retail Risk Analysis for Alternative Capital." See Exhibit 6. (4) Reflects the total estimated project - generated spending on retail divided by the achievable sales per square foot estimate. (5) Includes a 5% vacancy allowance for all categories of retail space. (6) The cited source for sales per square foot, Retail Maxim (see Exhibit 7), does not include sales figures for auto dealers. Sales figures for auto parts stores are included, and average $226 per square foot. However, auto dealer sales greatly outweigh these sales in the overall category. Such sales are typically very high, especially relative to the amount of building area required to support their sales. For analytical purposes ALH Urban & Regional Economics assumes such sales are high, and overall average $800 for the category. (7) Gasoline sales are highly volatile, and gasoline stations do not typically require large increments of built space. Therefore, estimates for gasoline stations are excluded from this analysis. (8) Includes an allocation of 15% of space to accommodate service retail, such as banks, personal, and business services. (9) Excludes Gasoline Stations. (10) The City of Dublin has an estimated 3.0 million square feet of retail space. Therefore, based on this analysis, resident demand supports approximately 53% of the City of Dublin's retail base. (D E w 7 O N 1 LL 0 � � C � N C � O C d c i � O C a� ® N C ®� ®.o 10 f V C LXX W U V) C 0) CO o aC, c c 0 0 of m of 010 I 001 CO U �O CO O U N M N I� O N 'o 'o U N N m� N 0 I� m m of co co N N 10 N U of N I� (`') N V O m V N (`') 0 V V V N N N m V N N N N N N N N N V N V N N U N co N N N N m m V U (`') V �N co V N o.o.N V N U I� co U 0 V N V N E9 2 E9 En E9 of m 0 10 N m V 69 (`') V 1O O N N m V 2 E9 E9 V O I� N N E9 2 10 10 m CO N lo N m m E9 2 2 V 01 10 0�ol N 1 N N N co I of m N 0110 V co N 1010 N co E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 U cool O m N co 1O of V N V En En En I� co N En M O N N 69 U U M 10 1O — 0mm10 m V N N N N m m N N N O U (`') N 1O N () N N co N N N N m m V _'EA 2 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 Ef3 M� O N M O O I� 1 N CO O U N N O O N V U N CO 1O (`') (`') O CO N 10 N CO 10 I� N O N V V V N N N 0 N m N co N N of 0 of N m N N co co co m N 10 1 N co of N N N N co N N N U co V of N V N V N O V N N N N M M V En En E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 2 E9 2 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 2 E9 E9 E9 E9 _'fA E9 E9 En E9 E9 E9 En En 'a 0 d 69 n N0 o. 10 co 0ol mco 010 10 co co co CO q 0, CO ro � �oV �ro n v n nrn� V V V � o.o. V 0 co m 100 10 1 N N o.�0 mco�'q M M 0 y M w o a 2 odp ® a Q o ® _ 0 a 0 o V O o° s E d ® Q° o od ° o UD N¢ I o D- -y `O M O 10 10 N U U O M M O co O O fn U E 0� � N .0 ._ a Q cN o m co N O N m of of V V V m m m O m N N 1O N m N N N N V N 10 10 V V V m Q co � 'I� ) m N m N I� N N a U= N �V n �nI�vrn A 10 vco� q 01 01 0 �V ii ro1 ON Ocov coI� 0 10 m h UD um O V N V V N N N10 'N o N 'o 2 Q �cov�o. nm'o 'o o. NNm 1ONV v� M � 0 Q Nm1ocoroNO'o'om'o N� o. o m N 0� co of o v a N V (`') N N 'O V co o \ m 10 ol v o. '0 1'- '0 V V m m N N m V N N m N N N N N N co V V V m Z N V N N N— N '') (; � ') I 01I 1ON o.N V 1000 lq n� OvrocoN ��o� O Q v�co�1oo.NO V v of co 10 co N O co N 1O I� co N N of O co co of (`') V co \ I� (`') O N N I� V N U N V m m (`') N N N N V N N N N N V N 10 V I� V V V M `a in m `a 0 `a m T O .0- N S_ C N rn C N N Q C O `a a . o u E m O O O N u � a a C .o N 'rn o � N o E r 0 0 u = u O Q � N -2 a � � D- a —_ V `m `o m E m O `m V Q o V `O -2 `a N a E ` m N m E m a a m d N N N D- i N 'a a ro O a E 0 (D j V o a co O a a� `- — a -0 ° a .N m 0 -0 N 0 ua 0) —u > S 2 L Q o m �N O N o rn E V � � 'a 0 d o `m u uu 0 y M w o a 2 odp ® a Q o ® _ 0 a 0 o V O o° s E d ® Q° o od ° o UD N¢ I o D- -y `O o N c U O O o N -a a ° o U S y o ® fn U E 0� � N .0 ._ a Q Q S p) a o L? - is N N D y C L O U a d a s Q 0 u N N N j o �O a Q 0 d1 ON = O Q N a U= N Q`N O � ¢ 0. D- p �- CL � 3 E E¢ �cn D 0 �V ii E Cl UD um O in Q¢ �F-- 3�: ocn 0 Z 2 Q `a in m `a 0 `a m T O .0- N S_ C N rn C N N Q C O `a a . o u E m O O O N u � a a C .o N 'rn o � N o E r 0 0 u = u O Q � N -2 a � � D- a —_ V `m `o m E m O `m V Q o V `O -2 `a N a E ` m N m E m a a m d N N N D- i N 'a a ro O a E 0 (D j V o a co O a a� `- — a -0 ° a .N m 0 -0 N 0 ua 0) —u > S 2 L Q o m �N C | / ] � k CL � \ o � z \� kCL j3 \� \\ SC4 Um= ƒ� �S§ 3. 3. 2 ) 3 @ ] (n �k (n §0 ) 0 .| ] }�u w £ g g § ƒ ( LU \ E ) o _ 2 § ) - i \ ° E $ / ƒ _ / E CL § \ \ $ \ z 0 } } _ 4 / U" o g \ \ 2 \) E ® \ \ / e a § / ® / §0 7 7 ( \ \ \ o \ V ƒ / a ± ± _ / O o / i o < 7 ai 16 y o = 2 m < _ * \ \ \ < \ C o Cl) 3 / / § 2 0 \ / % % \ 7 % 7 & 2 \ « k Z \ \ C'4 C4 G / & m ƒ C4 / / G \ r w R w * ± g L \ § & E 2 r r \ u - Cl) / / > o m < * < 7 * " o 8 o m Cl) Cl) o m > m m o = m m = < 7 8 C * � o Cl) 10 � C4 G - ® Cl) \ - 7 m 00 C4 / - < Z ƒ / � n � n �/ \ 0 ` _.: u B ]U & �\ cl� cl� £ g g § ƒ ( LU \ E ) o _ 2 § ) - i \ ° E $ / ƒ _ / E CL § \ \ $ \ z 0 } } _ 4 / U" o g \ \ 2 \) E ® \ \ / e a § / ® / §0 7 7 ( \ \ \ o \ V ƒ / a ± ± _ / O o / i o < 7 ai 16 y \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ § % C ± % 3 / / § 2 0 \ / % ® \ % \ % 7 & & 2 & 7 0 Z ' , \ £ g g § ƒ ( LU \ E ) o _ 2 § ) - i \ ° E $ / ƒ _ / E CL § \ \ $ \ z 0 } } _ 4 / U" o g \ \ 2 \) E ® \ \ / e a § / ® / §0 7 7 ( \ \ \ o \ V ƒ / a ± ± _ / O o / i o < 7 ai 16 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ a 0 / \ § § 2 0 \ / \ % \ \ \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ / \ V 0 oa \ § ƒ * ± g L \ § E 2 3 \ u - Cl) / / / \ z - ; 7 - 0� 2 m m m & m m m £ g g § ƒ ( LU \ E ) o _ 2 § ) - i \ ° E $ / ƒ _ / E CL § \ \ $ \ z 0 } } _ 4 / U" o g \ \ 2 \) E ® \ \ / e a § / ® / §0 7 7 ( \ \ \ o \ V ƒ / a ± ± _ / O o / i o < 7 ai 16 § u 0 a 0 / \ § § 2 0 \ / \ % \ \ \ \ V 0 oa \ § ƒ * ± g L \ § E 2 3 \ u ) { z / / \ � ; e = 0� .§ \ ±s 0 ��� \\ \ \ \/ ƒE\ \0.2 .� \ \ ( �/ \ 0 ` _.: u B ]U �\ ) g C: vi 0 �\ /0 0/ g $ ) = J ! : / -0 o » � > \ / ƒ \ \ \\ § a \ / \ }/ %/ \ \ \ E ® ®9`G\ \ J § L6 L, m E _ 2 � g ; .E [ G) f a { g./ g E00LU �7 ) / _m LU.-V) o= / \ $Ry -y2y k m .§ m § \ / CL � Lb � ƒ _ s — _ 0 o u \ \ \ C14 \ \ \ \ o ƒ G $ / C r,: C 0 4 0 /°§ 2 ƒ q m m m m E g E o § 2 % ƒ - \ 0 E \ / ) \ [ y o § 7 m ON� E � u u / / 00 / / ® » »�, % / o 7 % R R)[ ' I o m 0 R � a m C � � 3% E R\ m m N \ & a # o o t o m U- � 0 2 6 G 0 $ ƒ ƒ G 0 0) ., § s 0 C E $ ®'22 m E •§ 0- 0 C E / $ \ ( U § $ 'E \ m \ $ 2 ; E o \ o a_ U § + / ° \ W \\ %/ 2 0 / $ k D \ / / \ / o, ƒ 2 / 0 » U- @C2 .E o E / m o E/ /0ƒ / WU �% /Q§ 2$§a@ W � / \ / ( a/ U / LU G \ / C: C: ®-C co G s J CN r s o o E %§= o CO \ / % � / /\ / ° [ ± ? 2 f / \ ƒ / ƒ Eƒ \ o o o \ o / \< 0 U / $ m^ �_ J 3 2ƒ k / 0).C: t 0) $ § ƒ ( CN ® •� ( ƒ / f ° 2§ 3 Cl- 3 u Ln $/-0 c@ o 3 \ < E \ ƒ 5 $ + $ ƒ o o s$ E E % U- ./ m $ 2� o I u > 3$ s E o ^ E o \§ o G$ / E § o % $ > '[ 0 / $ / / \ u - § ƒ k 0§ ® ® ® LU � ° ƒ \ L § E ° -oo O m/ s G} a \\ n 7 o§§ & 2 E '' y» m s 7 '§ d o 5 §\ 2 \ $ J u ° S \ \ ƒ ° 7 . Cl- e Ie O \ / / / / / \ / _ _ _ / I 0 E u _ 1101 m ƒ .2 2 � q � � ƒ .§ a q � 7 m - © � § > ƒ�q § g 00 % g g o 3 / 3 § a 2 b- 0 u 2 o Z Z [ 2 .- 2 \ 2 \ \ \ / ± / G U « C14 k .0 \ \ o � \ / . e 2 E 2 0 m q C14 I r g m / / < ƒ ƒ 2 / '\ o 13 _ e E � m o Z Z T / 0 2 2 2 7 7 / g J am\ w I • % / \ o ƒ E § •\ g ± 0 ƒ & © o q 7 \/ E � j } e o 00 L « « t .o T $ § ¢ §§ 7/ 7\ ® 7 0 ° o u * o u U & E o o / ƒ ) k§ E / » o / x e 0 / u f o % §ƒ \ v u f / u/\ 2 2 2 2 2 2 « 2 m 0 U r I I c w g w a w 4 w Z b o ® 0 CL UE a) ƒ G ƒ ƒ \ 7 o % $ § Lb @ ./ \03 5 E - o g 0 E m o G ± o o & u § 17 o E E § E 'ƒ e± E o 2 o - u c ® o \ 0 o ° o � 0 0-0 ® G L e w I a a & § I / o /o-0 E r C14 m� m C14 m o 0 � / ƒ /G %.qm_U \ 2 0 §§ S o t o$ / £ / o ® § / » ƒ + \ 2 3 § \ ƒ « s a 4 c w \ 2) 2§ 2\ 4 m m 4C14 w ƒ 0o/ : { - o w c � 4 § E o- $ f \ / / ol \ 2 _ � D 0 Q - ƒ g § / § n « 2 [ § Q ƒ E } 0 g C -E I D— « 5 x .3 ® \ / / ± G LE mot 0 ®G �� 0 0 o 0 -E E 2 Q •• 0 x) a® 2 G.g �.E e- ) 2 ± § A$ o [ ± .2 i 2 o w ± / oƒ ƒ f 2 ƒ LU m � m .E U o_ + Q 0 2 3ƒ 0 \ 0 0 / R F E� 2 2 66' © ` 0 0 0 0 0 ± 13 LL RRRRR ± Q (� 0 CO 0 CO 0 0 4 Q � 7 'T � LO CN a § t CN 0 ƒ \ •e 0 Z \ e t \ m 0 � u 0 \ � \ 0 E \ 2 E 0 (D •7 :t= m 2 ° J ± § a ° 7 7 7 7 7 q\ 9% R c \ f ¥% 2 / § -0 0 Ln CL a) (D -Ja E X u c 0 U LU -0 ( / ._0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 G° a 0 00000 E) a LE R ? ? q 0 0 ƒ ± / } 0 & ON Ln CN ON CL m C14 Ln # ## co Q e 0 \ §.e n / E _ E \ 2 A p ƒ 0 O ƒ5 \ a ƒ J § \ \ D ƒ_ % 0 ¥ e •; 0 e e E o \ 0 / 2 g tƒ 5 o gfo E±0 $ 2 e c e 2= e a_ o O ± o± e 0 m± o .0 m f y :t= 2 c •/ 5 5 e c o o .m [ _ E s g o E e • % u 0 C / u \ \ E o t E u \ O / E \ƒ El o e o 0 o e e- e E ° 2° ) % % % % % 2 E u / § \ \ g j ƒ + ± 2 2 2 2 %� (D ±)§ m =± 7 7 7 7\ 5 7 e c o= @ LL 5 \ 7 7 7 7 7 \ m a= m m m q/? q° » 5° 0 0 E @ e 0 0 �� \\ o �� a) m m m m m / ® t c c e /•- @ o 7 7 7 7 7 e e e e e c o E E 2 LE 0/ 5.5 \ o e E \ u w ± n 0 0 0 0 0 + 2 f.- ƒ\ .--Co E o @ g a g m o E 0 CD q $ p % / ƒ u - X E e m o \ \ \ u 0 -0 ± .- \ / 0 ƒ \ 0 ° C n % U e� « g� w ±-0 � C CL _ m •- o Ld U 2 Q a_ ƒ ƒ ƒ S±) 0 LO ƒ E o IV 2 0 .m � � -Cq / � � % 8 � 0 g m � � � � M � � iL o a 0 a e Lb QO �® M 0 � E 0 U � E 0 � � � � 000 k k k k / / C C C C C 10 k � � � � � k k / / \ q C14 C14Iq q CN - » / 0 0 = 0 k k / $ / q C14 -I» Mi i I. la q C14 -I» / / / / / c o 0 o c / CO / / / CIZ C'� a a, a, q C14 m � / Z 0 .$ 0 § u u » M M / / % / ƒ \ a ± o a 7 / 2 �$ % ƒ 7 � n ° _ CL § / u J / A / \ J � E / §ƒ / \ § \ ƒ C14 o .e E ± 2 / 0 / / ƒ ƒ ) o u� § « ƒ m 'E .@ '� » .2 0 & : / § ƒ a) u • •�.§ 0 o » \ u O = 0 D- ( ± •- o ± ƒ / / u % 7 ° D ƒ \� k E 0 - $ / ) u \ E § ( \ \ 0 \ / �foo 0 � m o ° o o / / 2 / u / J ± 0 o t(ƒ o E o 0 0• f o o± o \ m - \ D- 2 0 ƒ § @ o g o G E o g 1 m ® - •m ± $ / o % /0 2- o w g / / 7 G \ a) + o •O o i U- 0 ± % \ 0 m $ \ §$ R¥[2 ± G 7 ƒ E G @ \ / E o o \ C14 0 0 0 m c 0 } 2 E / .0 t - / \ u $ E \ ƒ 2 ƒ d \ $ ± e % / « D- u / (ƒ ƒ 6 \ ± ƒ 0 ± U) / / / 0 0 0 0 2 » •0 ƒ � ± \§'k7GE /wG 0 0 0 t 0 § ° / 0 o -C §.§ / / / \ \ 06 / ./ E •\ >, ± 0 .E ) § \ / § y ƒ 0 D a ± gƒ E g c g a 2 - a) J q 8/¢ 2 ƒ ƒ ± / ƒ \ a p o 3 / ' « § / ƒ / \ $ / / - 2.9 G - t ® / / ) \ j ƒ § U) U) / ± u ƒ G u E k k k k k k 0 co co 1 10 k � � � � � q C14 -I» Mi i I. la q C14 -I» / / / / / c o 0 o c / CO / / / CIZ C'� a a, a, q C14 m � / Z 0 .$ 0 § u u » M M / / % / ƒ \ a ± o a 7 / 2 �$ % ƒ 7 � n ° _ CL § / u J / A / \ J � E / §ƒ / \ § \ ƒ C14 o .e E ± 2 / 0 / / ƒ ƒ ) o u� § « ƒ m 'E .@ '� » .2 0 & : / § ƒ a) u • •�.§ 0 o » \ u O = 0 D- ( ± •- o ± ƒ / / u % 7 ° D ƒ \� k E 0 - $ / ) u \ E § ( \ \ 0 \ / �foo 0 � m o ° o o / / 2 / u / J ± 0 o t(ƒ o E o 0 0• f o o± o \ m - \ D- 2 0 ƒ § @ o g o G E o g 1 m ® - •m ± $ / o % /0 2- o w g / / 7 G \ a) + o •O o i U- 0 ± % \ 0 m $ \ §$ R¥[2 ± G 7 ƒ E G @ \ / E o o \ C14 0 0 0 m c 0 } 2 E / .0 t - / \ u $ E \ ƒ 2 ƒ d \ $ ± e % / « D- u / (ƒ ƒ 6 \ ± ƒ 0 ± U) / / / 0 0 0 0 2 » •0 ƒ � ± \§'k7GE /wG 0 0 0 t 0 § ° / 0 o -C §.§ / / / \ \ 06 / ./ E •\ >, ± 0 .E ) § \ / § y ƒ 0 D a ± gƒ E g c g a 2 - a) J q 8/¢ 2 ƒ ƒ ± / ƒ \ a p o 3 / ' « § / ƒ / \ $ / / - 2.9 G - t ® / / ) \ j ƒ § U) U) / ± u ƒ G u E q C14 -I» / / / / / c o 0 o c / CO / / / CIZ C'� a a, a, q C14 m � / Z 0 .$ 0 § u u » M M / / % / ƒ \ a ± o a 7 / 2 �$ % ƒ 7 � n ° _ CL § / u J / A / \ J � E / §ƒ / \ § \ ƒ C14 o .e E ± 2 / 0 / / ƒ ƒ ) o u� § « ƒ m 'E .@ '� » .2 0 & : / § ƒ a) u • •�.§ 0 o » \ u O = 0 D- ( ± •- o ± ƒ / / u % 7 ° D ƒ \� k E 0 - $ / ) u \ E § ( \ \ 0 \ / �foo 0 � m o ° o o / / 2 / u / J ± 0 o t(ƒ o E o 0 0• f o o± o \ m - \ D- 2 0 ƒ § @ o g o G E o g 1 m ® - •m ± $ / o % /0 2- o w g / / 7 G \ a) + o •O o i U- 0 ± % \ 0 m $ \ §$ R¥[2 ± G 7 ƒ E G @ \ / E o o \ C14 0 0 0 m c 0 } 2 E / .0 t - / \ u $ E \ ƒ 2 ƒ d \ $ ± e % / « D- u / (ƒ ƒ 6 \ ± ƒ 0 ± U) / / / 0 0 0 0 2 » •0 ƒ � ± \§'k7GE /wG 0 0 0 t 0 § ° / 0 o -C §.§ / / / \ \ 06 / ./ E •\ >, ± 0 .E ) § \ / § y ƒ 0 D a ± gƒ E g c g a 2 - a) J q 8/¢ 2 ƒ ƒ ± / ƒ \ a p o 3 / ' « § / ƒ / \ $ / / - 2.9 G - t ® / / ) \ j ƒ § U) U) / ± u ƒ G u E � / Z 0 .$ 0 § u u » M M / / % / ƒ \ a ± o a 7 / 2 �$ % ƒ 7 � n ° _ CL § / u J / A / \ J � E / §ƒ / \ § \ ƒ C14 o .e E ± 2 / 0 / / ƒ ƒ ) o u� § « ƒ m 'E .@ '� » .2 0 & : / § ƒ a) u • •�.§ 0 o » \ u O = 0 D- ( ± •- o ± ƒ / / u % 7 ° D ƒ \� k E 0 - $ / ) u \ E § ( \ \ 0 \ / �foo 0 � m o ° o o / / 2 / u / J ± 0 o t(ƒ o E o 0 0• f o o± o \ m - \ D- 2 0 ƒ § @ o g o G E o g 1 m ® - •m ± $ / o % /0 2- o w g / / 7 G \ a) + o •O o i U- 0 ± % \ 0 m $ \ §$ R¥[2 ± G 7 ƒ E G @ \ / E o o \ C14 0 0 0 m c 0 } 2 E / .0 t - / \ u $ E \ ƒ 2 ƒ d \ $ ± e % / « D- u / (ƒ ƒ 6 \ ± ƒ 0 ± U) / / / 0 0 0 0 2 » •0 ƒ � ± \§'k7GE /wG 0 0 0 t 0 § ° / 0 o -C §.§ / / / \ \ 06 / ./ E •\ >, ± 0 .E ) § \ / § y ƒ 0 D a ± gƒ E g c g a 2 - a) J q 8/¢ 2 ƒ ƒ ± / ƒ \ a p o 3 / ' « § / ƒ / \ $ / / - 2.9 G - t ® / / ) \ j ƒ § U) U) / ± u ƒ G u E � E / §ƒ / \ § \ ƒ C14 o .e E ± 2 / 0 / / ƒ ƒ ) o u� § « ƒ m 'E .@ '� » .2 0 & : / § ƒ a) u • •�.§ 0 o » \ u O = 0 D- ( ± •- o ± ƒ / / u % 7 ° D ƒ \� k E 0 - $ / ) u \ E § ( \ \ 0 \ / �foo 0 � m o ° o o / / 2 / u / J ± 0 o t(ƒ o E o 0 0• f o o± o \ m - \ D- 2 0 ƒ § @ o g o G E o g 1 m ® - •m ± $ / o % /0 2- o w g / / 7 G \ a) + o •O o i U- 0 ± % \ 0 m $ \ §$ R¥[2 ± G 7 ƒ E G @ \ / E o o \ C14 0 0 0 m c 0 } 2 E / .0 t - / \ u $ E \ ƒ 2 ƒ d \ $ ± e % / « D- u / (ƒ ƒ 6 \ ± ƒ 0 ± U) / / / 0 0 0 0 2 » •0 ƒ � ± \§'k7GE /wG 0 0 0 t 0 § ° / 0 o -C §.§ / / / \ \ 06 / ./ E •\ >, ± 0 .E ) § \ / § y ƒ 0 D a ± gƒ E g c g a 2 - a) J q 8/¢ 2 ƒ ƒ ± / ƒ \ a p o 3 / ' « § / ƒ / \ $ / / - 2.9 G - t ® / / ) \ j ƒ § U) U) / ± u ƒ G u E APPENDIX B: MAP OF SELECT FUTURE RETAIL SITES r�� ■ y o� �k {yk +„, �mii v RESOLUTION NO. XX — 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO EVALUATE CHANGING THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC /SEMI- PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ACCOMMODATE A COMBINATION OF SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ATTACHED SINGLE - FAMILY TOWNHOMES AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG DUBLIN BOULEVARD AS WELL AS COMMUNITY AMENITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (PORTION OF APN 985 - 0078 -004) WHEREAS, the City has received a request from Grafton Station LLC to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the existing Neighborhood Commercial and Public /Semi - Public Land Use designations to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes at medium densities with the possibility of mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard and community amenities within the project area; and WHEREAS, said Study Area currently is designated with two land uses proportionately as 3.1 acres of Public /Semi - Public adjacent to Chancery Lane and a 20 acre Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the request for study would evaluate changing the existing land use designations of the Study Area from its existing land use designations of Public /Semi - Public and Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential and potential Mixed Use; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes at medium densities with the possibility of mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard as well as community amenities within the project area. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 15th day of October 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:IPA #120131PLPA- 2013 -00058 Promenade GPA Initiation Req 20131CC 10.15.131ATTCH 2 CC Reso- APPROVE Promenade GPA study.docx RESOLUTION NO. XX — 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO EVALUATE CHANGING THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC /SEMI- PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ACCOMMODATE A COMBINATION OF SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ATTACHED SINGLE - FAMILY TOWNHOMES AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG DUBLIN BOULEVARD AS WELL AS COMMUNITY AMENITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (PORTION OF APN 985 - 0078 -004) WHEREAS, the City has received a request from Grafton Station LLC to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the existing Neighborhood Commercial and Public /Semi - Public Land Use designations to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes at medium densities with the possibility of mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard and community amenities within the project area; and WHEREAS, said Study Area currently is designated with two land uses proportionately as 3.1 acres of Public /Semi - Public adjacent to Chancery Lane and a 20 acre Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the request for study would evaluate changing the existing land use designations of the Study Area from its existing land use designations of Public /Semi - Public and Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential and potential Mixed Use; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study initiation request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation to Medium Density Residential to accommodate a combination of single - family detached residential units and attached single - family townhomes at medium densities with the possibility of mixed use development along Dublin Boulevard as well as community amenities within the project area. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 15th day of October 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:IPA #120131PLPA- 2013 -00058 Promenade GPA Initiation Req 20131CC 10.15.131ATTCH 3 CC Reso -DENY Promenade GPA study. docx O CL N N 7 N N C � N r O .a N C r N E 9 C YO W U - a L R � y O C Y N > i6 U Q Q D +__ r C) c2 tr ❑ m r o ❑ m r r c r N r c "Q ~ Z ~ 2! U N r C, 3 rn N 3 N O ❑ N ❑ N T m N- N n N LL O r CL O In O r N M C ❑ ❑ 07 !L !L m !L m 'C O c O m N m N N O - c 'cu m5 c a~Ui Q p O O O ¢ E E O n Q p U O o ~Q T U Q O) O N O O 0 .1 COL c n Q U O cu ( U LL N N m d 9 m E a a+ Q O Q .� to O Q) O U L l m Q (U m -6 � m O U O) "' O m m C_ U U O) d N O N .- c> H❑ Q N O O. N N T O O c c m c Q — O Q m N >i '� m m O D '6 > y 0) C d N c c0 C N c E '6 N U O O_ O N Q i > c❑ O CU Q) c i O 'N6 'Q c0" N O O ;� W m N p N -a c d O) N O N o_ -a O c U) N 0 s .� (.7 E m c c 9 an d -a o N E °' Q ' 9 0 0 o �. W 'a O E Y N y (U d ¢ (U c0 9 N 0 (� ❑ cu �= O r c N a Q O m❑ '6 -6 (U U cu cu E C d cu U O N + N (U U a d d d r cl CU N O p a O U m U '6 Q) p N N m N O C - i0 N '6 Un Q O N .T O U m y. O O .0 .0- E 9 i Q� N N c Q❑ i Y N y O O C O) U O p .0 T E c O) O N❑ U 0 -6 m c C E m .6 U O E O m cv . � O. Q d '6 m '-' (U w "' p E Q c c pQ d N p U Q -6 U a E O_ U c° i m (D d m 0 (U � '6 cmi� U d L T� O > m !L J d ❑ c (U O O ❑ Q U Q U U '6 �_ N p d U Q Z !L c �_ d U d W a Q p > U m N m 2 2 Q> C c O Q H Q O l cl N _ O O O 0 O Q c i d m 3 CL a N� U m E O_ N — CL m CU 0 a❑ J (U E .�-- a .� Q 'O S5 E¢ . (U (U c 9 N (U Q O y > — (U LL O C Q m UQ O O N m '6 N 0 o > N E c6 g > c d m (U p i Y m T C y0 m LL N -- p Q -0 � CD O 2 � i (n "6 .�- i0 m O 'N6 '6 Un C ' 2_ N G5 C_ d �- .6 .- >i .-- - (U m N (U - N N O d 00 d (D H E .� .- Ln m d a N L m U N m c0 Q C O C m F 'C N d p >i m N E C m O (U d p3 E d O (U 9 c0 C .�- O 'p O C� N N d U m c N a U c N (U U N (U U E (U CL (U> '6 .Y N N d (U> U y, _ O) E 9 c o m E U c a O) (U d --o i E o- c c m E— o❑ O >� O) � N O Q O N c N ❑ Q N O) y c p Q O C .. m w U O?— m cl, m C❑ n C LU U d C c 'i O> 'N N (L C C 0 0 o a E U N c W i0 N— 6 o f °' mom- Q Q U U' 6 '� s N O Q o CL O c c m ¢ E o s N N CL U> Ll O N U Q CL Q Q Q' cu '6 -00 Q (U N C Q C c cu E Q j� a Qj O.v,M 6 L U '6 E Q d C Y O) C �- Q d d (7Q a�JC.7 (7d(7❑ °� m Un S ( �� UW (7 ❑� O c2❑ Q (7 ❑❑ c cu co m C C 0 ¢ O U cu N N (U d > N UL ❑ CL c N ❑ i UU O E) cu Y 0: cu 9 J T d CL C m U C U I cu O U" cu � QN c T c E'E-6 Q O Y cu p 9 cu 9 C N N (U (U Q U 07 U U ❑ U ❑ W W LL (3 N co In UO n W cu U c U Q) u c > cu ❑ Z >c_ > > U Cn U } } C } C } C ❑ c6 c6 c6 c6 co ( ❑ O m N N N U c6 E❑ c6 C c6 c6 C C c6 C N U C E❑ c6 C — (n W D W r N r N M N co N N M M W rn (D h N (D M IL IL co c U U c '6 T U d N —' Q� O c%J ❑ fL > c N o m_ c W N U � c c0 N O c >' � cU 0 w U O U c O >i w? a T O O- O > Q Q 'N6 T Q N d 6 (� U O_ Q CCL 00 d U Y C (n O" CZ O T❑ N N >i a C O (U (U (U O U N N >i T cu N O CL '6 0 U� 6 Q u❑ N .6 (U (U c d U a d y Q N >i H O_ O 'p Q c E d d a— w ❑ ❑ O '6 O O N N N❑ Q t/J C C❑ E N CU a d co" '6 > O N d O 'N O E CU c❑ Cn �- N .-- N J 0 N❑ ZT r >> U N c cu >i Q 9 O Q , V O d Q O Q O '6 O (n -O c E❑ E y c Q c p E— (%J -6 C O N— c iL O N .% U❑ y U O O d N 1p Q N c N c O O_ N❑ °�o�N� u— c0 c OQ CL t� N O Cn 0 D i c a� 0 Z(j O ac��o� °��� W �Ea�� '6 N •� a °=���� a� CL >i (U Q O (7 O E Q .- U- N W c N cu '6 U O� E, [i ° Q c '06 0 E .� p_ O 0 > IL 3: y C C U N C.7 o N cz❑ N O co" c U -6 C N zg c O o w m o. d N E. N Q ai o> O Q Q O > E .N a o 0 W (n 0. m aNi '6 OQ U N (u U'O c D ZT N � U❑ t0 O .= ❑ ZT ❑ N N c ? a c 0� c W N .N C).> .6 O d c0 r c C W O t0 . c ❑ c0 t' c0 O� O" U a C O 'N ' O N a O (U d N 9 Q O N O (U r C E c Q 2 Q U E N N' Y 'U C O p+ CL O N C 'C d _ O N L c N Q d O O "6 Q E CP N O — d 'U CL C 0 0 c0 ZT CL N "6 Z N _O O U (U Q .6 T c C L O C C> a 0- — U C d c6 >i >i O 9 p_ > c c0 U c0 O c0 c0 O U E❑ U d a O j 0 O E 'a6 c0 O> '6 d cl Q d O '6 O d l O EO 2 O y p O d E U c0 c0 (3 L N U CL Q (L d Q N CL U U Un U Q 2 U '6 Q d CL 0 d O E YO - O M 3: .'_' N O O C E i C', N O T O N c0 U O❑ Q In -0 O In c Q) (U O (U —_ ^ c N (O O N N O❑ c Q) cu 2— cu L U) cu O ❑ ) Y n N Q U O C C O 2 � N N .- '6 C o C m L O O C C O � c 'p E N L N -6 U W >i N O O a (U N !-' Y O a .- O O N W� O N N M N �' Y N c0 L ❑ O N i O O_ 1 T ❑ N U ❑ cu a C C L N — W C E O CL ZT cu cu v° E� Qm E QU 0° 0 0 o Q U d d ❑'a U 3: O °o _O❑ CL .� U W U U O CL O d (n E U d d ❑a O N .� U Q Q> o� QQ Q) o� Q > aNiQ Q N (L 2 U (D [Y d U c (7 [Y 0— d d U Q 0 (3 H U (n d U a O 6 U C7 ❑ m U 0 cp d 2 aNi (D [Y d Q) (7 [Y m N 6 co 6 Q C T U r C O C U) Y U E c N a�i a`> 6 d _U W Y C U J O > N cu N m iL i0 (3 (U 2 O U 2 Un (U lcn U H O O r N M - n OCT 0 8 2013 %pF DUBLIN CIiY MAiYAGER'S OFFICE Dublin City Council: As a condominium owner in the Villas, I am wholeheartedly against the zoning change of the Promenade (PLPA- 2013 - 00058) to Medium Density residential property. Traffic will become burdensome. Property values will suffer not only because of saturation of the market but also because the high density of residents would bring the usual blight to neighborhoods which are too crowded. There is also not enough parkland within a reasonable walking distance in the immediate area. And the area does not have enough entertainment, restaurants and grocery stores within a reasonable walking distance, I expected the promenade to be a park /small business development when I purchased my condo. I cannot change the zoning of the Villas and open a convenience store in my condo. if I were to sell my condo it would certainly be at a considerable loss. I would expect the same for any property owner in the area. There could be a happy median. Luxury homes on large lots. Let's say, 3000 square foot homes on 10,000 square foot lots. I think if such a concession is made, the impact due to population density could be minimized. The development would have the appearance of open space. The comp's would benefit current residents, and the investor could even gain a return. Sincerely yours, Dave Enfield 4124 Clarinbridge Circle'°