Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 Commercial Dev Task Forceor 19 82 !ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL September 16, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers CITY CLERK File #470 -50 Christopher L. Foss, City Manager " Commercial Development Task Force Prepared by Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council created a Commercial Development Task Force comprised of 12 Dublin residents which was charged to: 1) classify the desirability of existing commercial sites for future development; 2) identify design principles to shape the vision of future development; and 3) identify additional economic development incentives for consideration. A series of five Task Force Meetings were held between April and July of this year. Staff and outside experts in the field of commercial development helped to educate and facilitate a discussion amongst the Task Force members about future commercial development in Dublin. A Summary and Key Recommendations Report was prepared using the information received at these meetings. The City Council will receive this Report and an overview of the Commercial Development Task Force recommendations. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost for MIG to facilitate the Commercial Development Task Force meetings is $44,790. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Commercial Development Task Force Summary and Key Recommendations Report. Submitted By Community Development Director DESCRIPTION: 'Reviewed By Assistant City Manager On December 17, 2013, the City Council directed Staff to prepare, for their consideration, a community engagement process to educate and seek input from the community regarding the remaining undeveloped commercial properties in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On January 21, 2014, Staff presented the City Council with a proposed community engagement process in the form of a Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF) with a citywide focus (Attachment 1). The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the CDTF as outlined in the Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 3.3 Staff Report. The City Council determined that the Task Force should be made up of 12 residents: one task force member appointed by each City Councilmember; eight task force members appointed by the Mayor; with all appointments to be confirmed by the full City Council. The City Council also directed Staff to seek a scope and budget for consulting services to facilitate the task force meetings. The City engaged the consulting firm MIG to facilitate these meetings (Attachment 2). The City solicited Dublin residents to submit an application to participate on the Task Force. The Task Force application period ran from January 29 through February 19. The City received 35 application submittals which were provided to the City Council for review and consideration. On March 18, 2014, the City Council confirmed the appointment of the following residents to serve on the CDTF. Task Force Appointments r�i1fbr TIC F6r�cibr Mayor Sbranti Kerrie Chabot Steve Lockhart Todd Padnos Prashant Ravani Bill Schaub Melissa Sladden Renata Tyler Stephen Wright Vm. Biddle Janine Thalblum Cm. Gupta Sulayman Bimar Cm. Hart Bob Costa Cm. Haubert Jim LeQuin The purpose of the CDTF, as defined by the City Council, was to engage residents and seek their input regarding the remaining undeveloped commercial properties in Dublin. Staff identified "opportunity sites" that were the key focus of the CDTF. These sites included: 1) Downtown Dublin; 2) The Green at Park Place; 3) Dublin Land Company; 4) The Promenade; 5) Grafton Plaza, and 6) the Chen property. The City Council charged the CDTF with the following three tasks: 1. Classify the desirability of existing commercial sites for future development. 2. Identify desirable design principles to shape the vision of future commercial development. 3. Identify additional economic development incentives to attract and retain commercial uses. A series of five task force meetings were held between April and July of this year. Staff and outside experts in the field of commercial development helped to educate and facilitate a discussion amongst the CDTF members about development activity, real estate trends, the economics of development and leasing, and community design. The CDTF focused on specific aspects of the planning process including vision, market viability, design, and desirability of the opportunity sites, resulting in a series of recommendations. These recommendations were consolidated into the Commercial Development Task Force Summary and Key Recommendations Report. This report is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff Report. Page 2 of 3 The Summary and Key Recommendations Report includes a series of recommendations that are organized by: 1) Desirability of Commercial Sites; 2) Design Principles; and 3) Economic Development Incentives. The Desirability of Commercial Sites recommendations are broken down into general and site specific concepts. The Design Principles recommendations have been categorized into "Materials Textures and Character ", "Amenities ", and "Connectivity, Access and Sustainability." The Economic Development Incentives recommendations are targeted toward specific groups to include "Developers, Property Owners, Restaurants, Retailers, and Institutional Investors" and "Shoppers, Diners and Visitors." The City Council will receive the Summary and Key Recommendations Report and an overview of the Task Force recommendations. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required for an informational report to the City Council. The CDTF members were advised of this meeting and this Staff Report was posted on the City's website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated January 21, 2014 without attachments 2. City Council Staff Report dated March 18, 2014 without attachments 3. Commercial Development Task Force Summary and Key Recommendations Report Page 3 of 3 _* L 19 • FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL January 21, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Christopher L. Foss, Acting City Manager �/-- " CITY CLERK File #470 -50 Commercial Opportunity Sites Task Force Prepared by Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On December 17, 2013, the City Council directed Staff to prepare, for their consideration, a community engagement process for Dublin residents in an effort to educate and seek input from the community regarding the remaining undeveloped commercial properties in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In order to most effectively facilitate the community engagement process, Staff is proposing the creation of the Commercial Opportunity Sites Task Force. Staff is seeking direction on the proposed task force by the City Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. Staff anticipates the need for consulting services to assist with the proposed task force. These services are currently estimated to cost up to $35,000. Funds have not been allocated in the FY 2014 budget for this community engagement process. Therefore, Staff will return to the City Council with a budget adjustment request to achieve the direction received from the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and provide Staff with further direction. "A -C Submitted By Director of Community Development DESCRIPTION: "Reviewed By Acting Assistant City Manager On December 17, 2013, the City Council directed Staff to prepare, for their consideration, a community engagement process for Dublin residents in an effort to educate and seek input from the community regarding the remaining undeveloped commercial properties in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In order to most effectively facilitate the community engagement process, Staff is proposing the creation of the Commercial Opportunity Sites Task Force. Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 8.3 The following is a discussion of the proposed Commercial Opportunity Sites Task Force. Staff is seeking feedback and direction from the City Council regarding the proposed task force. Commercial Opportunity Sites Task Force Task Force Formation Staff proposes the formation of a task force of no more than 12 members comprised of residents from throughout Dublin. Community members would be selected to serve on the task force through an application process. The task force members would be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Task Force Focus Staff will seek a facilitator and subject matter experts to assist with engaging the task force in a dialogue about development activity as further described below. The primary focus of this dialogue will be commercial development opportunity sites. Staff recommends that this dialogue be extended citywide, rather than only in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, in order to ensure that the task force receives a comprehensive education of the issues citywide, as they are inter - related. The goal of this dialogue will be to educate and seek input from the task force in the following areas: • Commercial and residential development activity to date, and future build out; • Current General Plan Amendment studies to convert commercial land uses; • Characteristics of different types of commercial centers and the economics of developing such centers; • Economic viability of the commercial opportunity sites; and • Community design considerations. Task Force Outcomes At the conclusion of the task force meetings, Staff will return to the City Council with a report that will include recommendations for the City Council's consideration in the following areas: • Classify desirability of existing commercial sites; • Desirable design principles; and • Economic development incentives. The task force would not be responsible for recommendations of land use decisions; however, their findings could result in land use decisions by the City Council. Timeframe Staff anticipates that the task force will meet regularly over a four -month period and that a report of the task force findings will be presented to the City Council in September 2014. The following is the proposed timeline: ➢ February: Return to the City Council with a refined scope and a budget request for consulting services ➢ March: Task force appointments ➢ April -July: Regular task force meetings ➢ August: Prepare report on task force findings ➢ September: Present task force findings to the City Council Page 2 of 4 Current General Plan Amendment Studies/Applications The City is currently processing the following General Plan Amendment (GPA) studies that address the conversion of existing commercial sites. Specifically, the City Council directed Staff to conduct outreach to residents as part of the GPA Study for the Promenade. Staff anticipates that this Commercial Opportunity Sites Task Force will address this direction and is seeking City Council confirmation for this purpose. These projects include the following: Table 1: Current GPA Studies Heritage Park *Land use allows a range of 71,874- 172,498 s.f. of commercial development The Green at Park Place il d y General Commercial (0.20 -0.60 FAR) 305,000* -- 230,000 80 Public /Semi - Public (Max 0.50 FAR) r Mixed Use 20,000 - 40,000 400 -750 'land use allows a range of 298,931- 717,433 s.f. of commercial development summernm /LmManto Parcels 3 & 4 Medium Density Residential (6.1 -14 du /ac) -- 9 -22 Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 -25 du /ac) -- 56-100 High Density Residential (25 +du /ac) -- 27 -37 General Commercial (0.20 -0.60 FAR) 170,319* -- Public /Semi - Public (Max 0.50 FAR) 32,670 max -- Medium Density Residential (6.1 -14 du /ac) I -- 1 161 * Land use allows a range of 170,319- 408,767 s.f. of commercial development The Promenade .:µ - Neighborhood Commercial (0.25 -0.60 FAR) 230,000 80 Public /Semi - Public (Max 0.50 FAR) 76,230 max -- . x F: Medium Density Residential (6.1- 14du /ac) TBD 140 -322 I- Lana use allows a range of 112,355- 509,652 s.f. of commercial development Task Force Cost Staff anticipates costs associated with obtaining a professional facilitator for the task force and may incur costs to bring in subject matter experts. If the City Council provides direction to pursue the task force concept, Staff will seek cost estimates for these services and present it as part of the refined scope. Additionally, the creation of the proposed task force would require a significant investment of Staff time. If authorized by the City Council, a re- prioritization of Staff's Page 3 of 4 assignments may be necessary to defer work that is not time sensitive. Those decisions will be made by the respective department Directors in consultation with the City Manager. Next steps Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the proposed task force including the: 1) task force selection process; 2) focus on commercial opportunity sites; 3) task force outcomes and key focus areas; 4) timeframe to complete the task force meetings and report back to the City Council; and 5) confirm utilizing the task force for input regarding the Promenade. Staff will then return to the City Council with a refined scope and a proposed budget for consulting services to achieve the direction received by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. This informational report is related to establishing a working group to review development sites in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and is Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Information Collection). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required for an informational report to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 4 of 4 or 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL March 18, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers CITY CLERK File #470 -50 Christopher L. Foss, Acting City Manager " Commercial Development Task Force Prepared by Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 21, 2014, the City Council directed the creation of a Commercial Development Task Force comprised of Dublin residents appointed by the Mayor and City Councilmembers. The City Council will consider the confirmation the Task Force appointments. The City Council will also review the refined scope and budget for the Task Force meeting facilitation by MIG. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost for MIG to facilitate the Commercial Development Task Force meetings is $44,790. Funds are available in the Community Development Department's FY 2013/14 budget to pay these expenses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council confirm, by motion, the appointment of the Commercial Development Task Force members. Submitted By Community Development Director DESCRIPTION: 'Reviewed By Acting Assistant City Manager On December 17, 2013, the City Council directed Staff to prepare, for their consideration, a community engagement process to educate and seek input from the community regarding the remaining undeveloped commercial properties throughout the City, including in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On January 21, 2014, Staff presented the City Council with a proposed community engagement process in the form of a task force (Attachment 1). The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the Commercial Development Task Force as outlined in the Staff Report. The City Council determined that the Task Force shall be made up of 12 residents: one task force member Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 8.1 appointed by each City Councilmember; eight task force members appointed by the Mayor; with all appointments to be confirmed by the full City Council. The City Council also directed Staff to seek a scope and budget for consulting services to facilitate the task force meetings. Task Force Member Selection The City solicited Dublin residents to submit an application to participate on the Task Force. The Task Force application period ran from January 29 through February 19. The application period was advertised in the Tri- Valley Times, posted at the Civic Center, Dublin Library and Senior Center, and promoted on the City's website. The City received 35 applications which were provided to the City Council for review and consideration (Attachment 2). The following are the proposed Task Force member appointments as selected by the Mayor and City Councilmembers. The City Council is requested to confirm the appointment of these residents to serve on the Commercial Development Task Force. Task Force Appointments Ciy pwplfftfbr Tk Fr+ IUI<ibr Mayor Sbranti Kerrie Chabot Steve Lockhart Todd Padnos Prashant Ravani Bill Schaub Melissa Sladden Renata Tyler Stephen Wright Vm. Biddle Janine Thalblum Cm. Gupta Sulayman Bimar Cm. Hart Bob Costa Cm. Haubert Jim LeQuin Task Force Facilitation Staff has engaged the consulting firm MIG, Inc., to facilitate the Commercial Development Task Force meetings. Staff and MIG have refined the scope of the Task Force meetings originally outlined in the January 21, 2014 City Council Staff Report. MIG has prepared a scope of services and budget which is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff Report. The cost for MIG to facilitate the Commercial Development Task Force meetings is $44,790. MIG will help to coordinate a variety of different experts in the field of commercial development to help educate and inform the Task Force about development activity, real estate trends, development, economics, and community design. The scope of services includes a strong graphic illustration component to help illustrate concepts and to capture Task Force feedback. MIG will prepare a report of the Task Force findings and present those findings to the City Council. Next Steps Staff anticipates that the Task Force will meet five times between April and July of this year. A report of the Task Force findings will be presented to the City Council in September 2014. Page 2 of 3 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: I101 •[Tits ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated January 21, 2014 2. Applications 3. Scope of services prepared by MIG, Inc. Page 3 of 3 f commercial development task farce city of dublin SUMMARY AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Final I July 2014 Prepared by: @ commercial development task farce city of dublin SCE K4 MARY AN D KEY R ECO M M EN DATIONS REPORT Final I July 2014 Prepared by: � Acknowledgements COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE Sulayman Bimar Robert Costa Steve Lockhart Jim LeQuin Bill Schaub Renata Flecchia Tyler Stephen Wright CITY STAFF Melissa Sladden Kerrie Chabot Prashant Ravani Janine Thalblum Todd Padnos Project Lead: Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Foss, City Manager Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager Luke Sims, Community Development Director Lori Taylor, Economic Development Director Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner Hazel Wetherford, Senior Administrative Analyst Erin Steffen, Administrative Analyst II CONSULTANT TEAM Lou Hexter, MIG Project Manager Jeff Liljegren, MIG Project Associate Chris Beynon, MIG Principal Michael J. Berne, MJB Consulting Principal Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................... ............................... Page 1 ProjectBackground .................................................. ............................... ...........................Page 1 Task Force Purpose and Charge ........................................................ ............................... Page 2 PlanningProcess ....................................................... ............................... ...........................Page 2 PlanningTools ........................................................... ............................... ...........................Page 3 CDTF Meetings Summary ................................................................... ............................... Page 3 II. Recommendations .......................................................................... ............................... Page 5 A. Desirability of Commercial Sites .................................................. ............................... Page 5 B. Design Principles .................................................. ............................... ...........................Page 8 C. Economic Development Incentives ................... ............................... ...........................Page 9 Appendices............................................................................................ ............................... Page 10 A. Meeting Notes and Wallgraphics B. PowerPoint Presentations C. Supportive Documents D. Homework Assignment and Summary [This page intentionally left blank.] I. Introduction Project Background Commercial development for any city can have a significant impact on the quality of life for residents and economic development for the community as a whole. To seek community input regarding future development in Dublin, the Dublin City Council, on March 18, 2014, created the Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF) — an appointed committee of 12 local citizens — to examine the potential for additional commercial development throughout Dublin. City staff identified five "opportunity sites" that were the key focus of the CDTF. These sites included: 1) Downtown Dublin; 2) The Green at Park Place; 3) Dublin Land Company; 4) The Promenade /Grafton Plaza; and 5) the Chen property. A consultant team was hired by the City to work with the CDTF and City staff to provide information on economic viability and commercial design considerations, and to assist in facilitating and documenting all CDTF meetings. Throughout the project, City staff from Community Development, Economic Development and the City Manager's Office provided helpful support to the CDTF and the consultant team. All members of the CDTF have shown strong dedication to this planning effort and have volunteered many hours in discharging their duties as outlined in direction from the Council. Opportunity Sites Map Camp PeMpRFTA MY M DOM1, SPW. of M— =C -111el Deyplpp —t TtW Fa Cppat 9 r ®.0 of —,. Rlgh[af Ways W+�-1 April 2014 S City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report Task Force Purpose and Charge The purpose of the Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF), as defined by the City Council, is to engage residents and seek their input regarding the remaining undeveloped commercial properties in Dublin. For this specific planning effort, the CDTF was charged with the following three tasks: 1. Classify the desirability of existing commercial sites for future development 2. Define desirable design principles to shape the vision of future commercial development 3. Identify additional economic development incentives to attract and retain commercial uses Planning Process The planning process for the CDTF was comprised of five facilitated meetings to guide the CDTF through the process of creating a series of key recommendations for future development in Dublin. For each of the five meetings, the CDTF was asked to focus on a specific aspect of the planning process including, vision, market viability, design, desirability of the opportunity sites, and key recommendations. Planning Process and Meeting Organization v I I IS O N 2 Market Viability 3 Design Market Design 4 • Viability 5 Review and Finalize CDTF Recommendations City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report Planning Tools Each meeting included a presentation on the specific aspect of the process given by either a member of City staff or the consultant team. This was followed by a period of discussion for CDTF members to ask questions and consider what was presented. All meetings were open to the public and time was provided towards the end of each meeting to offer an opportunity for community feedback. A wallgraphic recording was created for each meeting to help facilitate the discussion and to record comments from the CDTF and community members present. As a supplement to each meeting, CDTF members were also provided meeting packets that included a meeting agenda, meeting notes, and a copy of the wallgraphic recording from the previous meeting. Supplemental material was provided to CDTF members prior to some meetings and that information was included again in the meeting packets for the CDTF members' reference. Surveying tools were used to gain additional feed back from all participants. These included an interactive community design survey (Meeting 3) and an individual homework assignment (Meeting 4). All meeting materials and notes were made available to the public on the CDTF website at www.dublin.ca.gov /CDtaskforce. The Appendices provided at the end of the report include copies of all meeting notes, wallgraphic recordings, presentations, supplemental documents and the homework assignment and its summary for reference. CDTF Meetings Summary Meeting 1: Vision — The initial kick -off meeting for the CDTF included a general overview of commercial development in Dublin provided by city staff and facilitated by the consultant team. The meeting helped to introduce all participants to the planning process and generate an initial assessment of assets, issues and opportunities for commercial development in the City of Dublin. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, provided background information about current development activity and anticipated build out of the community. Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager provided background information on the City's current economic development programs and incentives to attract and retain business in Dublin. Meeting 2: Market Viability— Michael Berne of MJB Consulting, a national expert on the economics of retail and commercial activities, gave a presentation on market considerations, market demand, and different typologies of retail development to the CDTF. The presentation served as a means of educating CDTF members on general assumptions and basic concepts for the current retail market. The meeting's follow up discussion gave members an opportunity to ask market - specific questions for Dublin and led to further refinements to the CDTF's overall vision for future commercial development. City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report Meeting 3: Design Principles — An overview of design principles was presented by Chris Beynon of MIG at the third meeting, building upon the viable retail typologies identified in the previous meeting. CDTF members were introduced to key design aspects such as, range of uses, site configuration, building design, circulation, access, materials, and textures. The CDTF was informed that all of these considerations help to define the character of a place and can have a big impact on the long -term economic success of development. Through an interactive community design survey during the meeting, the CDTF was asked to identify desirable elements of design that they would like to see with future commercial development in Dublin. As a follow -up to the content presented to the CDTF during the first three meetings — existing conditions, market viability, and design principles — the Project Team issued a homework assignment for CDTF members to complete prior to the fourth meeting. The homework assignment asked CDTF members to assess each of the five opportunity sites for the following criteria: 1. Overall desirability for commercial development 2. Preferred retail typology 3. Preferred use types 4. Desired design elements Market Viability Typologies Opportunity Sites Services, Amenities, Location, Quality Design Principles Meeting 4: Desirability of Opportunity Sites — Findings from the homework assignment were crafted into an initial list of preliminary recommendations and presented to the CDTF during the fourth meeting. These findings and other outstanding questions were part of an "open discussion" period of the meeting which led to a reassessment of desirability and use types and design principles for each of the opportunity sites. An overview of existing direct and indirect economic development programs and incentives was also presented to the CDTF at Meeting 4 by Lori Taylor, Economic Development Director, and Hazel Wetherford, Senior Administrative Analyst for the City. CDTF members were asked how they would encourage developers, property owners, restaurants, retailers, and institutional investors to locate and invest in the City of Dublin. They were also asked how they would encourage shoppers, diners and visitors to choose Dublin over other areas in the region. Various recommendations were generated during an open discussion of both questions. Meeting 5: CDTF Key Recommendations Review —The Summary and Key Recommendations Report was prepared based on feedback received from the CDTF. Prior to Meeting 5, a draft form of the report was provided to CDTF members to review and consider any revisions to the report. The revisions and a final review with the CDTF were facilitated during Meeting 5 to ensure that the recommendations represented the feedback from the CDTF. City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report II. Recommendations The following is a compilation of recommendations derived from the entire planning process for the City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF). The recommendations are organized based on the three part charge posed to the CDTF including desirability of commercial sites, design principles, and economic development incentives. A. Desirability of Commercial Sites A1. GENERAL A1-1. Strong consideration should be given to site adjacencies including development type, intensity, mass /scale, uses, interface and connectivity. A1-2. The construction timing for the residential portion of a mixed use project should be tied to construction of the commercial portion of the development where feasible. A1-3. The City Council should approach development strategies with a long -term vision making sure not to settle for something less than optimal for the community. A1-4. Create commercial experiences that are unique to Dublin and help to create a sense of place and identity. A1-5. Traffic flow patterns should be considered within and around any future development. A2. DOWNTOWN DUBLIN A2 -1. Retail commercial intensification is critical to the downtown and should be a key component of revitalizing the area. A2 -2. Mixed use in the retail core of the Downtown should have a significant focus on retail uses. A2 -3. Additional residential units are supported when the intent is to support additional commercial development in Downtown as a whole. A2 -4. Mixed -use projects should include a significant commercial component, particularly in the Retail District. A2 -5. Use additional residential development to leverage opportunities for commercial development. A2 -6. A key opportunity site for commercial /mixed use intensification is the Burlington Coat Factory parcel at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive. City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report A2 -7. The area south of Dublin Boulevard should, wherever possible, contain a mix of uses and not be just residential. A2 -8. Create a walkable environment along Regional Street with new development. A3. GREEN AT PARK PLACE A3 -1. This site is ideal for retail commercial development. Mixed use residential is an acceptable component as long as the focus of the project is on a high quality commercial experience. A3 -2. The site has good access for Dublin residents. A3 -3. Leverage the prime site location (i.e. visibility and access from 1 -580 and BART, and proximity to the future Persimmon Place) to create a development with a memorable experience. A3 -4. The Task Force vision is in line with the proposed project concept for a walkable area with outdoor dining and other lifestyle amenities. A4. DUBLIN LAND COMPANY (DLC) DLC - Parcel 1 A4 -1. There is support for the existing land use of General Commercial which allows both office and retail commercial. A4 -2. There is strong support for office uses at this site which should be a priority over retail. A4 -3. Office development should and would complement Dublin Corporate Center and Gateway Medical to the west across Tassajara Road. A4 -4. Do not consider an auto dealership at this location. DLC - Parcel 2 A4 -5. Create a "main street" lifestyle experience which incorporates a sense of place, walkable, with gathering areas. A4 -6. Provide opportunities for retail, restaurant and neighborhood serving uses. 6 City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report A4 -7. This site provides a prime location for retail uses since it is on the "going home" side of Tassajara Road. A4 -8. Uses should complement, but not necessarily duplicate, those uses already located at The Shops at Waterford. A4 -9. Develop this parcel as a neighborhood commercial /lifestyle oriented walkable shopping center. A4 -10. A mixed -use residential development, similar in orientation to The Shops at Waterford, is supported here if it includes a strong retail component. A4 -11. The construction timing for the residential portion of a mixed use development should be tied to the construction of any retail component. DLC - Parcels 3 & 4 A4 -12. These parcels are best suited for medium - density residential. A4 -13. Residential uses should be considered based on existing adjacent uses and the proximity to Emerald Glen Park. A4 -14. Residential development is supported on Parcels 3 and 4 if there is a strong commercial component on Parcel 2. A4 -15. The construction timing for the residential units should be tied to the construction of a strong retail component on Parcel 2 where feasible. A5. PROMENADE A5 -1. There is support for a combination of commercial and residential development here. A5 -2. This site requires a strong commercial component. A5 -3. The commercial component should front on Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard. A5 -4. Commercial development should be walkable with a "main street" feel. A5 -5. Grafton Street should extend through the site to the north and south. A5 -6. The timing of residential construction should be tied to commercial construction. A5 -7. There is a preference for horizontal mixed -use but open to vertical mixed -use. City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report 7 A6. GRAFTON PLAZA A6 -1. Commercial development should generally mirror the Grafton Station corner. A6 -2. The timing for residential construction in a mixed use project should be tied to commercial construction where feasible. A6 -3. There is support for the existing Mixed -Use designation. A7. CHEN PROPERTY A7 -1. There is strong support for the existing General Commercial land use. A7 -2. This is a good regional shopping location (i.e. proximity to 1 -580, Livermore Premium Outlets and Fallon Gateway). A7 -3. There is strong support for flex -tech office space here. B. Design Principles B1. MATERIALS, TEXTURES AND CHARACTER B1 -1. Utilize design elements that create a sense of place. B1 -2. Consider a contemporary design style. B1 -3. Incorporate quality lighting. B1 -4. Provide signage and wayfinding elements. B1 -5. Incorporate a base, body and cap in the design of future buildings. B1 -6. Consider historical references and /or contemporary elements in design through the use of traditional materials that are representative of the Tri- Valley area where appropriate. 8 City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report B2. AMENITIES 62 -1. Provide places for people to gather. 62 -2. Accommodate areas for interactive "play' such as chess games, shuffle board, etc. 62 -3. Create event -ready spaces. 62 -4. Incorporate water features, such as fountains using sustainable measures. B3. CONNECTIVITY, ACCESS, AND SUSTAINABILITY 63 -1. Design pedestrian - friendly features (i.e., safe pathways with landscaped borders). 63 -2. Include bicycle - friendly features (i.e., bike lanes, bike racks, and storage). 63 -3. Utilize drought - tolerant landscaping. 63 -4. Incorporate solar technology where possible. 63 -5. Consider low- profile parking garages as an alternative to surface parking. C. Economic Development Incentives C1. DEVELOPERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, RESTAURANTS, RETAILERS, AND INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS C1 -1. Expand the marketing and promotion of Dublin's assets, such as a prime location, retail desirability, an innovative incentives toolbox for economic development, an educated and talented workforce, a high- achieving educational system, and an appealing residential real estate market. C1 -2. Attract tech - oriented businesses to locate in Dublin as an alternative to Silicon Valley and as a long -term investment strategy for job creation and growth. C1 -3. Assist entrepreneurial businesses, particularly with annual sales in the $5 -$10 million range, to acquire office and flex -tech space to locate and expand in Dublin. C1 -4. Encourage current property owners to invest in the upkeep and improvement of their properties to help build a positive brand for the Dublin community. C1 -5. Support a broad mix of tenants in commercial development. City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report C1 -6. Consider policy strategies that leverage the greatest potential for existing assets, such as the zoning of property near transit, and adaptive reuse of older commercial property for non - traditional uses. C1 -7. Work with LAVTA to create programs such as a "ride- share" or shuttle service from BART to retail and office uses as an incentive to bring businesses and new jobs to Dublin. C2. SHOPPERS. DINERS AND VISITORS C2 -1. Encourage sponsorships by local businesses, the chamber of commerce, and the Tri- Valley Visitor's Center to create event programming that makes Dublin a destination, such as "free nights ", movie nights, and free concerts in the park during the summer to use as a marketing strategy for promoting local shops, restaurants, and attractions. C2 -2. Create retail centers that provide a diversity of shopping and dining options. C2 -3. Encourage private shuttle services for businesses in the community. 10 City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report APPENDICES A. Meeting Notes and Wallgraphics B. PowerPoint Presentations C. Supportive Documents D. Homework Assignment and Summary City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force — FINAL Summary and Key Recommendations Report 11 APPENDIX A. Meeting Notes and Wallgraphics APPENDIX B. PowerPoint Presentations APPENDIX C. Supportive Documents APPENDIX D. Homework Assignment and Summary APPENDIX A. Meeting Notes and Wallgraphics commercial development task force city of dublin Task Force Meeting #1 Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 6:00 pm — 8:00 pm Dublin Library — Community Room NOTES IN ATTENDANCE: Commercial Development Task Force: Sulayman Bimar Kerrie Chabot Bob Costa Jim LeQuin Steve Lockhart Todd Padnos Prashant Ravani Bill Schaub Melissa Sladden Janine Thalblum Renata Tyler Stephen Wright Public: City Staff and Consultants: Mike Tseng Chris Foss (City Manager) Marshall Torre Linda Smith (Assistant City Manager) David Bowlby Luke Sims (Community Development Director) Marty Inderbitzen Jeff Baker (Assistant Community Development Director) David Clock Marnie Delgado (Senior Planner) Lou Hexter (MIG) Jeff Liljegren (MIG) The following is a meeting summary for the first meeting of a five meeting process to kick -off the Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF) for the City of Dublin, California. Those in attendance for the initial gathering included the appointed members of the CDTF, representatives from City staff, MIG, Inc. (consulting firm) and members of the public. The meeting was facilitated by Lou Hexter of MIG and a binder of supportive information was provided for each member of the CDTF. Within each binder members were provided with a meeting agenda, the task force purpose and charge, a list of member responsibilities, a city map with identified opportunity sites, and "property fact sheets" for each of the five identified opportunity sites. All materials provided and presented for Task Force meetings are available on the City's website at http: / /www.dublin.ca.gov /CDtaskforce Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #1 Notes 4123114 —Page 1 The following provides the key points addressed during each portion of the meeting as per the agenda: I. Welcome Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director for the City of Dublin, opened the meeting introducing City staff and MIG facilitation team to the Task Force. He thanked members for volunteering to serve on the Task Force and encouraged them to participate fully in crafting a set of recommendations to the City Council regarding the community's vision for commercial development. Lou Hexter of MIG then explained the purpose of the meeting and provided a brief overview of the evening's agenda. II. Task Force Charge and Ground Rules Lou Hexter facilitated a quick "get to know you" session with the group, asking each member to introduce themselves briefly. He then reviewed the purpose and charge of the Task Force, and described some ground rules to establish the tone for how all meetings are expected to proceed. III. Plan Process, Work Plan and Outcomes Mr. Hexter next provided an overview of the CDTF process, explaining the overall work plan and the three outcomes that are expected from this effort, as directed by the City Council. These outcomes include a prioritization of desirability for each of the identified opportunity sites; identification of desirable design principles for future development; and identification of additional economic incentives to further catalyze development activity in Dublin for near- and long -term goals. CDTF members asked clarifying questions about the status of development activity, economic incentives, and the scope and role of the Task Force. Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #1 Notes 4123114 — Page 2 IV. Background: The Dublin Story Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner for the City of Dublin, provided the CDTF with a presentation covering supportive background information and summary of the Dublin Story. The presentation included a brief history of development in Dublin, an overview of existing plans and the regulatory setting for development, a description of schools serving the City, key commercial and residential development benchmarks of existing and proposed growth (citywide), and information regarding the undeveloped commercial opportunity sites which include: 1) Downtown Dublin; 2) The Green; 3) Dublin Land Company; 4) The Promenade and Grafton Plaza; and 5) the Chen property. Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager for the City of Dublin, then presented an overview of the City's current set of economic development incentives that are offered to businesses interested in locating in Dublin. Ms. Smith discussed the cost of starting a business in Dublin, including the high cost of impact fees such as traffic impact fees and the sewer and water connection fees charged by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Then Mr. Hexter asked for general comments and questions (in italics) regarding the commercial opportunity sites from the Task Force. The questions and comments are provided below and were noted by the graphic note taker. Downtown Dublin Is there a hotel planned near the BART station? What is the expectation of density in the area? Dublin Land Company What are the expectations for future parking, traffic and infrastructure for this area? Should this area be considered for creating a downtown for Dublin? Could this be an urban transit district for Dublin? Perhaps this is an activated area with entertainment and destination uses? The northern most parcel is public /semi - public /residential. Could this be a neighborhood park? The Green at Park Place What is the context of this site and anticipated future development of the surrounding undeveloped properties? The Promenade and Grafton Plaza What does "commercial" signify and what does the current plan anticipate to be developed on The Promenade? Chen Property None Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #1 Notes 4123114 — Page 3 V. Task Force Discussion Lou Hexter and Jeff Liljegren facilitated a group discussion with the CDTF, surveying the group to establish a baseline set of assets, issues /challenges, and opportunities that the group sees for future commercial development that may occur within the City of Dublin. Members of the task force provided mixed perspectives regarding what they want for their community. Some are happy with what Dublin has and want to build upon that success. Others see shortcomings for Dublin and perhaps have a desire to create a unique identity /center /heart for their community. The group identified the following key assets, challenges and opportunities: Assets - Schools - Location w/ room to grow - Homeownership - Farmers' Market Issues /Challenges -Traffic/ parking/ congestion - Lack of a downtown /center /heart - Working with property owners Opportunities - Attract businesses that want to own property vs. leasing space to locate in Dublin - Develop a unique destination strategy for Dublin - Identify Dublin's niche markets, competitive edges of neighboring cities, and future potential for commercial development - Splatter! - Talented population - Our Community! - Alameda County Facilities (in Dublin) - Imbalance of housing and commercial dev. - Effects of the Great Recession - Access to commercial development is geographically challenged - Approach development strategies with long- term goals - Leverage county development as a catalyst for additional development opportunities - Utilize good urban design to locate a mix of uses that support a more walkable environment for Dublin Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #1 Notes 4123114 —Page 4 VI. Community Audience Feedback The CDTF meetings will all be open to the public. Mr. Hexter, as facilitator, took time towards the end of this initial meeting to address the community members present and to offer them the opportunity to provide feedback. Marty Inderbitzen, representative for the property owner of The Promenade and Grafton Plaza, spoke briefly about the history and vision for build -out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. He further expressed an interest in the CDTF process, and requested that the City provide him with a copy of all meeting materials that the Task Force receives. A CDTF member voiced an opinion that input is welcome from the community, but should be represented fairly and not skewed by special interests of local developers working in Dublin. VIL Next Steps Action Items: • Post digital copies of all materials on the City's website. • Provide copies of background information to CDTF prior to meetings (homework assignments). Upcoming Meetings: • May 21 — Dublin Library Community Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm • June 5 — Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm • June 25 — Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm • July 16 — Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #9 Notes 4123114 -- Page 5 -Owl* tArAe_ m,W4N& 2014 'f _ 5V'I � CAS_ commercial development task force City of Dublin Meeting #1 April 23, 2014 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By - , ('to[AXI, Y I ZI LQcp,­ = -Ilr��+7';7iL-�,pA?�I-"/e-j6t5*oN weare- ­4 W A U"S -11 I r7 Coo'&% Q2j�-57['N' S'PMIN� WA.- w, V commercial development task force City of Dublin Meeting #1 April 23, 2014 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By , ti commercial development task force city of dublin Task Force Meeting #2 Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 6:00 pm — 8:00 pm Dublin Library — Community Room NOTES IN ATTENDANCE: Commercial Development Task Force: Sulayman Bimar Jim LeQuin Bob Costa Bill Schaub Steve Lockhart Janine Thalblum Prashant Ravani Public: City Staff and Consultants: Marshall Torre Chris Foss (City Manager) David Bowlby Linda Smith (Assistant City Manager) Marty Inderbitzen Luke Sims (Community Development Director) Steve Lawton Lori Taylor (Economic Development Director) Wendi Baker Jeff Baker (Assistant Community Development Director) Lou Hexter (MIG) Jeff Liljegren (MIG) Michael J. Berne (MJB) The following is a summary of the second meeting of the City of Dublin's Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF). Those in attendance (shown above) included appointed members of the CDTF, representatives from City staff, MIG, Inc. and MJB (consulting team) and members of the public. The meeting was facilitated by Lou Hexter of MIG and a packet of supportive information relating to this meeting was distributed to each member. The packet included an agenda, notes from the previous meeting and a photoreduction of the graphic recording produced during that meeting. An excerpt from an article on the forecast for retail in 2014 was also offered as background on current retail trends occurring nationwide. All materials provided and presented for Task Force meetings are available on the City's website at http:// www .ci.dublin.ca.us /index.asl2x ?NID =1498 Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #2 Notes 5121114 --Page 9 The following provides the key points addressed during each agenda segment of the meeting, and a photoreduction of the wallgraphic produced during the meeting is attached to these notes. I. Welcome /Introduction Lou Hexter, the facilitator for the Task Force process, opened the evening with a description of the meeting purpose and agenda, followed by a reminder of highlights from the Task Force's initial meeting on April 23rd. He also gave a brief review of the City Council's deliberation and direction the previous night regarding the Dublin Land Company parcels, which are among those under discussion by the Task Force. II. Presentation: Retail 101 - A Context for Exploring Dublin's Commercial Future Michael J. Berne, principal of MJB Consulting and a national expert on the economics of retail and commercial activities, provided an informative and educational session to the CDTF covering some general assumptions and basic concepts for the retail market today. This included an overview of retail terminology, market analysis, consumer demand, the retailer's perspective, shopping center typologies, primary actors, and a competitive context specific to Dublin and for the opportunity sites charged to the CDTF to evaluate for site desirability. Within the presentation, Michael identified various existing retail centers within or in close proximity to Dublin. These centers include: Stoneridge Shopping Center, Downtown Walnut Creek and Broadway Plaza, Livermore Premium Outlets, Pleasanton Gateway, and Ulfert Center. Such existing and future businesses contribute to a competitor profile that will have impacts for any retail being considered for the opportunity sites. Questions and comments were generated during the presentation that included: - Are "niche" markets and the phychographics apart of what advertising agencies focus on? - What are Department Stores now? Do they exist? - Ethnic specialty centers like Ulfert Center tend to be second generation businesses located in older commercial building stock due to cheap rent. III. Task Force Discussion Lou Hexter and Jeff Liljegren facilitated a group discussion with the CDTF, surveying the group to generate a vision for the kind of retail mix, and environment the task force might envision for Dublin in the future. The discussion included identification of desired broad retail trends that are needed in Dublin along with some discussion of site - specific aspirations regarding retail typologies. In terms of desired retail for Dublin, task force members identified a need for more destination - based food and entertainment venues such as restaurants and a theater, and more basic services such as a pharmacy and grocery store. The CDTF expressed these retail services be unique (i.e., specialty) and of high quality and value such as Berkeley Bowl in Berkeley, or the farmers market in Walnut Creek. Both the Green at Park Place and the opportunity site owned by the Dublin Land Company are already being considered for these types of uses. Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #2 Notes 5121114 -- Page 2 Walkability and broader connectivity within and between commercial sites were other desirable characteristics mentioned. CDTF members expressed strong support for a pedestrian - friendly "main street" environment. Some examples included Santana Row (San Jose), Bay Street (Emeryville) and Belden Lane (San Francisco). Some members expressed that a Santana Row could bring unwanted congestion and expressed that if such a center were to be explored, it should be smaller in scale. Regional Road, located within Downtown Dublin was identified as a potential main street location. Some "out -of- the -box" thinking was generated regarding alternatives to typical anchor retail, such as a casino. This raised the broader question of "what's off the table for Dublin ?" Finally, it should be noted that the five Task Force members were absent for this discussion. Comments collected during the meeting therefore did not include the entire task force team's input; however, the facilitation team announced that there would be follow -up discussions to continue this conversation at the next meeting, in addition to "homework" that would be transmitted to the members as a way of preparing for the June 5 session. IV. Community Audience Feedback All five of the CDTF meetings for this process are open to the public. Mr. Hexter, as facilitator, took time toward the end of the meeting to address the community members present and to offer them the opportunity to provide feedback. Five members of the community were in attendance. Wendi Baker of Summerhill Homes addressed the Task Force regarding the Dublin Land Company proposals discussed at the City Council meeting the previous night. Steve Lawton of Main Street Property Services greeted the group to express his interest in the Task Force proceedings. VII. Next Steps Upcoming Meetings: • June 5 — Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm • June 25 — Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm • July 16 — Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #2 Notes 5121114 --Page 3 > y (' ot�r�e.rzcul_ 5 Evg� o?i� F N T f1� EJAI,�Mi01� OG CRPtJFT N,-rq 514-$ Fi DMIa Dovs.opmEN'f IN cNT'dFa N Tpaak Pu�G C � �(Mu�M15 •KaPaswnn[ . uex+we.swce. an.,w w , —14z 1—r 9oWN?pWN O�O�N PJ/ ;�1�, CIU'N I " NJ>gw " CWKh" [a) p (w) •�Hk,M wws teas eHS1 ssu+r K?J YEN Bii�l9l•IWi E N Tpaak Pu�G C � �(Mu�M15 •KaPaswnn[ . uex+we.swce. an.,w w , —14z 1—r �CONNGLKMTPI LA� U1.IlCpU -- PJ/ ;�1�, CIU'N QUF3'f;oNS NJ>gw " \ e ear ww teas eHS1 Tv�ct . Bii�l9l•IWi E N ° 1�IE- raxens- .�'�.!� OJb��N L4Ne�ce*nnNNj' (sear -q CTee- ae) 5 c-�ea- ca:r -> �yWMAT'S 0�5�DETiLE� - �.) e� Fe}- DL'611N �§) •�`���' � .� , C+M FK'ouea,sErwwyy,y_fgpp FWW hML B(YE$ CoNYV yam, Eim/d y •- _ commercial development task force city of dublin Task Force Meeting #3 Thursday, June 5, 2014 - 6:00 pm — 8:00 pm Dublin City Hall — Regional Meeting Room NOTES IN ATTENDANCE: Commercial Development Task Force: Sulayman Bimar Jim LeQuin Steve Lockhart Bill Schaub Prashant Ravani Janine Thalblum Kerrie Chabot Stephen Wright Renata Flecchia Tyler Todd Padnos Melissa Sladden Public: City Staff and Consultants: Marty Inderbitzen Chris Foss (City Manager) Marshall Torre Linda Smith (Assistant City Manager) Wendi Baker Luke Sims (Community Development Director) Steve Lawton Lori Taylor (Economic Development Director) David Clock Jeff Baker (Assistant Community Development Director) Lou Hexter (MIG) Chris Beynon (MIG) Jeff Liljegren (MIG) Michael J. Berne (MJB) The following is a meeting summary for the third meeting of a five meeting process regarding the Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF) for the City of Dublin, California. Those in attendance for the meeting included appointed members of the CDTF, representatives from City staff, MIG, Inc. and MJB (consulting team) and members of the public. The meeting was facilitated by Lou Hexter of MIG and a packet of supportive information relative to the third meetings purpose was provided for each member of the CDTF to include in their task force binder. Each packet provided included a meeting agenda, notes from the second meeting and a reduced copy of the graphic recording produced during that meeting. All materials provided and presented for Task Force meetings are available on the City's website at http:// www .ci.dublin.ca.us /index.asl2x ?NID =1498 Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #3 Notes 6109114 — Page 1 The following provides the key points addressed during each portion of the meeting as per the agenda: I. Welcome /Introduction Lou Hexter, the facilitator for the evening discussion, opened the meeting with a description of the meeting purpose, followed by a brief overview of the evening's agenda, and then a recap of highlights from the second meeting on May 21 st. II. Brief Recap of Retail 101 Presentation — A Context for Exploring Dublin's Commercial Future Michael J. Berne, principal of MJB Consulting, provided a high level review of the presentation from the last CDTF meeting, touching on key concepts of market viability and identifying potential retail development formats as they pertain to the existing and future market in Dublin. A period for questions and comments from the CDTF was provided to help resolve any confusion and to help bring all members of the CDTF "up -to- speed" on these overarching retail concepts due to a low attendance of CDTF members during the previous meeting. Questions and comments generated include: - What does the "trade area" mean ? — It is the suggested catchment area that includes the potential customer base for a particular retail business. Key point for this discussion suggests that the permitted amount of retail square footage for the five opportunity sites would require 220,000 additional residents to support that amount of retail. - What about the walkability and other modes of travel in Downtown Dublin ? — Regional Road and Golden Gate Drive have potential for walkable environments. Golden Gate Drive in particular, connects the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station across 1 -580 north to Downtown Dublin. San Ramon Road to Safeway is also a complete bikeable /walkable connection. - How do we address the future of retail in Dublin? —Ask yourself what are the drivers of the development? What are the trends? Businesses are evolving in format to adjust to retail and real estate markets (e.g., shrinking their building footprints; reusing existing commercial building stock such as Sprout's in an old circuit city building). Commercial environments are being tailored to create inviting experiential environments for consumers and to trigger other human impulses. - What about other uses other than retail (e.g., office and residential) for professional businesses? What about Light Industrial? How do we bring Dublin to the next level? How can Dublin be an attractive alternative to Silicon Valley cities such as Cupertino? Can Dublin have a tech /research park? Can we set a new goal to grow our population and draw more people through a bigger business /office presence? Dublin currently has 30 acres of available office sites and over 3 million square feet of available office space. Much is owned by Oracle. Other locations such as Bishop's Ranch in San Ramon also offer other choices then Dublin. Recent trends suggest that demand for office space in office park type settings is decreasing. More and more, businesses are looking to blur the lines of where people work, play and live. Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #3 Notes 6109114 — Page 2 III. Presentation and Interactive Survey: Design Principles to Enhance Economic and Community Development Chris Beynon, principal of MIG, and design expert, provided a presentation and interactive survey for the CDTF discussing a broad set of design principles to consider for future commercial development in Dublin. Chris touched on 9 different aspects of urban design that should be considered for each of the opportunity sites including: range of uses; orientation (of development sites and buildings); massing, scale and articulation (of buildings); materials, textures and character; amenities and activities; landscaping; connectivity and access; and parking. The market viability for particular typology of retail combined with variations on design principles can create different results for the considered opportunity sites in Dublin. To get the CDTF to begin thinking about design in the context of viable retail, Chris facilitated an interactive survey with the CDTF polling them on a series of images of existing retail development that conveyed different ways in which the most viable retail typology could look, feel and function. For each, four examples were shown. Each CDTF member chose their favorite electronically. After the polling of each, Chris facilitated a discussion with the group to highlight reasons why they chose, or did not choose, the images provided. Lou Hexter provided graphic recording during this portion of the presentation to capture individual comments. Questions and comments per typology include the following: - Neighborhood Shopping Center — "D" was the preferred image because it was different from what is currently in Dublin. It shows a mix of uses. It is pedestrian and bicycle friendly. It is family- oriented. It shows solar power /green technology. Relative to the other options, it is important to provide convenient parking; include a grocery tenant; and consider a format that caters to both pedestrians and autos (parking in the back with store frontage on street). Village Parkway could lend itself to a pedestrian - friendly, store front on street, parking in back format. - Hybrid Power Neighborhood Center — None of the options were liked by the task force members. The key issues with the examples shown: not sophisticated enough; architectural character was lacking; don't want plywood and stucco construction; not very pedestrian friendly; doesn't diversify Dublin enough from the competition. - Hybrid Power Lifestyle Center — "A ", "B ", and "C" were liked for various reasons. Day and night activity is good. Can we get another theater here? Typical theater metrics suggest that a single screen needs at least 9,000 people. A 20 screen theater needs a population of 20K within a 3 -5 mile catchment area. Reacting to "B" and "C ": destinations that differentiate Dublin are needed. We need a place to go to. What kind of destination could Dublin have? Not every site can be a main street. No one liked "D ". It was too intense and busy. - Faux "Main Street " - 55% of the CDTF members in attendance chose "D" (Bay Street) example. Mixed - use was desired and the example image appeared walkable and allowed for shopping from store to store. - Ethnic Specialty Center —CDTF members were mixed on the four choices. "B" and "D" were favored. Of the 11 out of 12 members present for the survey, 3 liked none of the examples. Some thought some examples were dumpy and lacked the quality desired in Dublin. Some members requested the task Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #3 Notes 6109114 — Page 3 force consider these types of retail centers. They can thrive due to low -rent and tenant mix, and their function as incubator space for startup, mom - and -pop type businesses are important. Other questions - Is there enough parking shown in these examples? It should be assumed that adequate parking and access is always provided. IV. Community Audience Feedback All five of the CDTF meetings for this process are and will be public. Mr. Hexter, as facilitator, took time towards the end of the meeting to address the community members present and to offer them the opportunity to provide feedback. Five members of the community were in attendance. VII. Next Steps Upcoming Dates and Meetings: • June 18 - Due date for CDTF Homework Assignment • June 25 - Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 - 8:00 pm • July 16 - Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 - 8:00 pm Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #3 Notes 6109114 — Page 4 ► HOW Lb '(GU S t 4-- +e;PU-7 ► w+�mT �vr 5rr, �+� ► CGF L5 C�4� "iclr-S 90 a V6 a cavft.0fr- v cm-cE sf-� io M AI> Uq-?, wr ",XT or- M(P4"Ie' .m ca4,� d-jo r* 6- -rrt In1CVl99tfr� wilf ' ► �C�{�ant�ze � - PaPui� P�6f•+INp u.w ,v>krlK n� QAq M ? ► HOW Lb '(GU S t 4-- +e;PU-7 ► w+�mT �vr 5rr, �+� ► CGF L5 C�4� "iclr-S 90 a V6 a cavft.0fr- v cm-cE sf-� io M AI> Uq-?, wr ",XT or- M(P4"Ie' commercial development task force City of Dublin MEETING 43 — JUNE5,2014 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By. .m ca4,� d-jo r* 6- -rrt In1CVl99tfr� wilf ' g)mrc rt�7p'�a' 0,060t11 mss/ u.w ,v>krlK n� QAq M ? CAN y4a 5� ► per. sfpm"? commercial development task force City of Dublin MEETING 43 — JUNE5,2014 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By. commercial development task force city of dublin Task Force Meeting #4 Thursday, June 25, 2014 - 6:00 pm — 8:30 pm Dublin City Hall — Regional Meeting Room NOTES IN ATTENDANCE: Commercial Development Task Force: Sulayman Bimar Melissa Sladden Steve Lockhart Renata Flecchia Tyler Todd Padnos Stephen Wright Prashant Ravani Bob Costa Public: City Staff and Consultants: David Bowlby Chris Foss (City Manager) Marty Inderbitzen Linda Smith (Assistant City Manager) Steve Lawton Luke Sims (Community Development Director) Marshall Torre Lori Taylor (Economic Development Director) Hazel Wetherford (Senior Administrative Analyst) Jeff Baker (Assistant Community Development Director) Lou Hexter (MIG) Jeff Liljegren (MIG) ABSENT: Commercial Development Task Force: Kerrie Chabot Bill Schaub Jim LeQuin Janine Thalblum The following is a summary of the fourth meeting of the City of Dublin's Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF). Those in attendance (shown above) included appointed members of the CDTF, representatives from City staff, MIG, Inc. (consultant team) and members of the public. The meeting was facilitated by Lou Hexter of MIG and a packet of supportive information relating to this meeting was distributed to each member. The packet included an agenda, notes and a photo reduction of the graphic recording from the previous meeting, a summary of the homework assignment completed by Task Force members, and a handout on the City's economic incentive programs. All materials provided and presented for Task Force meetings are available on the City's website at httl2://www.dublin.ca.gov/CDtaskforce Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #4 Notes 6125114 — Page 1 The following provides the key points addressed during each portion of the meeting as per the agenda: I. Welcome /Introduction Lou Hexter, the facilitator for the Task Force process, opened the meeting with a description of the purpose and agenda for the evening, followed by a recap of highlights from the third meeting on June 5th. II. Discussion of Potential Economic Development Incentives Lori Taylor, Economic Development Director for the City of Dublin, and Hazel Wetherford, Senior Administrative Analyst, presented an overview of the City's programs for stimulating economic investment. These include direct incentives — such as sales tax reimbursement, traffic impact fee deferral, commercial facade improvement and small business assistance grant programs — as well as indirect economic incentives, such as communications and marketing of Dublin as business- and consumer - friendly. Ms. Taylor indicated that Dublin has a very strong reputation among trade groups and commercial brokers for its low business registration fee, clear zoning and permitting process, educated workforce and available sites. It is extremely well - positioned geographically and demographically for a range of commercial types, both in retail and office sectors. She also stated that Dublin's direct and indirect incentive programs are very broad and innovative, and serve both to attract and to retain businesses here. Moreover, other municipalities look to this City for ideas on how to better serve commercial development. The CDTF was posed with the following questions (in italics) for discussion. Their responses have been refined from the wallgraphic and are provided in bulleted form. How would you encourage developers, property owners, restaurants, retailers, and institutional investors to locate and invest in the City of Dublin? - Expand the marketing and promotion of Dublin's assets, such as a prime location, retail desirability, an innovative incentives toolbox for economic development, an educated and talented workforce, a high- achieving educational system, and an appealing residential real estate market. - Attract tech - oriented businesses to locate in Dublin as an alternative to Silicon Valley and as a long- term investment strategy for job creation and growth. - Encourage current property owners to invest in the upkeep and improvement of their properties to help build a positive brand for the Dublin community. - Support a broad mix of tenants in commercial development. - Consider policy strategies that leverage the greatest potential for existing assets, such as the zoning of property near transit, and adaptive reuse of older commercial property for non - traditional uses. - Create programs such as a "ride- share" or shuttle service as an incentive to bring businesses and new jobs to Dublin. Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #4 Notes 6125114 — Page 2 How would you encourage shoppers, diners and visitors to choose Dublin over other areas in the region? Create event programming to make Dublin a destination and to encourage prospective businesses and entrepreneurs to open in Dublin. Some examples given were to leverage sponsorships by local businesses to create on -going weekly and monthly events such as "free nights ", Movie Night, free concerts in the park for 2 -3 months in the summer, and shuttles from BART to the Farmer's Market and to shopping and restaurant locations. - Create retail centers that provide a diversity of dining options. III. Discussion of Homework Assignment Results Next, Lou bexter of MIG provided an overview of the aggregated results of the homework assignment, which Task Force members had completed in the interval between the previous meeting and this one. The assignment gauged members' perspectives on the relative desirability of opportunity sites, the types of retail and other uses most appropriate for the sites, and design principles to consider for future commercial development. The Task Force had an opportunity to provide feedback on the results and offer further commentary. These comments were recorded on the wallgraphic that has been provided with this meeting summary. IV. Open Discussion The final portion of this agenda was an open discussion and review of each opportunity site and a discussion among the Task Force members about the desirability, types of uses and design elements envisioned for each. This portion of the meeting ran past 8:30 and three Task Force members left the meeting during the discussion. The Task Force members that were present for this portion of the meeting had a robust discussion and reached consensus on the following preliminary recommendations for each of the opportunity sites. Downtown Dublin The Task Force acknowledged this area is large, complex and includes multiple parcels and property owners. ➢ Retail commercial intensification is critical to the downtown and should be a key component of revitalizing the area. ➢ Mixed use in the retail core of the Downtown should have a significant focus on the retail experience rather than the residential experience. ➢ Additional residential units are supported so long as additional commercial development occurs in the Downtown. ➢ Mixed use projects should include a large ground floor commercial component as opposed to small retail allocation. ➢ Use additional residential development to leverage opportunities for commercial development. ➢ Opportunity site for commercial intensification: Burlington Coat Factory parcel at northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive. Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #4 Notes 6125114 — Page 3 ➢ Area south of Dublin Boulevard should include a mix of uses and not just residential. Green at Park Place ➢ Ideal for retail commercial development with a residential component. ➢ Good access for Dublin residents, I -580 and BART. ➢ Leverage site location, visibility, and proximity to future Persimmon Place (i.e. Whole Foods anchored center) shopping experience. ➢ Development should include outdoor gathering spaces and strong connection to surrounding uses. ➢ Task Force vision is in line with the proposed project concept for walkable area with outdoor dining and other lifestyle amenities. Dublin Land Compan-y Parcel 1 ➢ Support for existing land use of General Commercial which allows both office and retail commercial. ➢ Strong support for office uses at this site. ➢ Office development should and would complement Dublin Corporate Center and Gateway Medical to the west across Tassajara Road. ➢ Do not want an auto dealership at this location. Parcel 2. ➢ Development should complement The Shops at Waterford located to the west across Tassajara Road. ➢ This is a prime retail location because it is on the "going home" side of the street — particularly at the corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. ➢ Provide opportunities for retail, restaurant and neighborhood serving uses. ➢ Uses should supplement those already located at The Shops at Waterford. ➢ Develop as neighborhood commercial /lifestyle oriented walkable shopping center that creates a sense of place, walkable, with gathering areas. ➢ Want that "main street" experience. ➢ Parcel 2 could include medium density residential development as part of a strong commercial development. ➢ A strong retail component should be a requirement of a mixed use project. ➢ The timing of residential construction on a portion of Parcel 2 should be tied to construction of the retail component. Parcels 3 and 4 ➢ These two parcels are best suited for Medium Density Residential development. ➢ Residential consideration based on adjacent uses and proximity to Emerald Glen Park. ➢ The timing of residential construction should be contingent on construction of strong retail component on Parcel 2. The Promenade ➢ Supports a combination of commercial and residential development. ➢ There needs to be a strong commercial component. Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #4 Notes 6125114 — Page 4 ➢ Commercial should be walkable with "main street" feel. ➢ Grafton Street should extend through the site to the north and south. ➢ Commercial component should front on Grafton Street. ➢ Commercial development should relate to Grafton Station and Dublin Boulevard. ➢ The timing of the residential construction should be tied to commercial construction. ➢ Preference for horizontal mixed use but open to vertical mixed use. Grafton Plaza ➢ Commercial development should generally mirror Grafton Station. ➢ Timing of residential construction should be tied to commercial development. ➢ Support for existing Mixed Use designation. Chen Propert y ➢ Strong support for existing General Commercial land use. ➢ Good regional shopping location (i.e. proximity to 1 -580, Livermore Premium Outlets and Fallon Gateway). ➢ Supports Hybrid Power Neighborhood Center or Hybrid Power Lifestyle Center. ➢ Support for flex -tech office space. V. Community Audience Feedback All five of the CDTF meetings for this process are open to the public. Mr. Hexter, as facilitator, took time towards the end of the meeting to address the community members present and to offer them the opportunity to provide feedback. Four members of the community were in attendance, but there were no comments. W. Next Steps Mr. Hexter thanked the group for the additional discussion time. He indicated that the next step would be to create a draft report of the Task Force process with a set of preliminary recommendations addressing each of the three City Council charges. Members will receive the draft report in advance of the next meeting at which time the group will provide feedback on the recommendations for input into the final report. Upcoming Meeting: ■ July 16 — Dublin City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 6:00 — 8:00 pm Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #4 Notes 6125114 — Page 5 fl47i r L UT T3FwI .- -- �� .. �` : - � gel o 'vl&4�, '''off +�''�.� "� +�t�', ltd' #'�+�� ►cam' 1k� 4y0- flu ISM a M -r 4 f a"Otc l +Sf _ JpO rok- W14 # " 11'•1' . x - °a - uP t 1 #44of S �A eC.� UXAAw SftM/ta %WAWS 1�4 �w mm- w Dons IMA. 4 eu . t4r-�WIe4 ts Ifu-1,ft rKWD OL- is's pe 161 W05 Lr- Lor cof� ,Pao D tl1`•+iJ o . vim. L ( p �5v- tA wlso*--S. -v"Tok& - OwUA4 PA � �A . of Uw �l W To DNW M Q sn"aa.. p Let 'L'" -. �l�l � k"Ou"r 4<17> Olt dpppp \�q OeT 0�� L44SAIWOO '�" map Opp �*TY W ac UW PAWL. R C j � �., _ _A� f 6� _ 9 DOO*Voy. m vsf6 • r h MLN rlw. - + 1 • fay -po g*Q�i L Cam" wm -Ts t4h u- q 0 luz O&klh L. go on Im e— —vb~ - Kx • Wt- •+o � '`"''��'- �'�"�. � ,cry' , is uses ept*OK COAAW- J ure. commercial development task force city of dublin Task Force Meeting #5 Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 6:00 pm — 8:00 pm Dublin City Hall — Regional Meeting Room NOTES IN ATTENDANCE: City Staff and Consultants: Commercial Development Task Force: Sulayman Bimar Melissa Sladden Steve Lockhart Renata Flecchia Tyler Todd Padnos Bill Schaub Jim LeQuin Kerrie Chabot Janine Thalblum Bob Costa Public: City Staff and Consultants: David Clock Chris Foss (City Manager) Marshall Torre Linda Smith (Assistant City Manager) Wendi Baker Luke Sims (Community Development Director) Lori Taylor (Economic Development Director) Jeff Baker (Assistant Community Development Director) Hazel Wetherford, Senior Administrative Analyst Lou Hexter (MIG) Jeff Liljegren (MIG) ABSENT: Commercial Development Task Force: Prashant Ravani Stephen Wright The following is a summary of the fifth meeting of the City of Dublin's Commercial Development Task Force (CDTF). Those in attendance (shown above) included appointed members of the CDTF, representatives from City staff, MIG, Inc. (consultant team) and members of the public. The meeting was facilitated by Lou Hexter of MIG and a packet of supportive information relating to this meeting was distributed to each member. The packet included an agenda, notes and a photo reduction of the graphic recording from the previous meeting. All materials provided and presented for Task Force meetings are available on the City's website at http:// www .dublin.ca.gov /CDtaskforce.The following provides the key points addressed during each portion of the meeting: Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #5 Notes 7116114 --Page 9 I. Welcome /Introduction The facilitator for the Task Force process, Lou Hexter of MIG, opened the meeting with a description of the purpose and agenda for the evening, followed by a recap of highlights from the fourth meeting on June 25th. II. Review and Discussion of Draft Recommendations The Summary and Key Recommendations Report will be the final deliverable for this planning process, listing the key recommendations associated with the three charges established for the CDTF. These charges include the assessment of site desirability of five identified commercial sites within the city; the clarification of preferred design principles to be incorporated with the design of future commercial development; and the identification of additional economic development incentives to be considered for future commercial development that may occur in Dublin. A draft of the Report was distributed to Task Force members in advance of the meeting to allow them a chance to review the recommendations and prepare feedback for discussion. Members of the Task Force were asked to provide comments for those draft recommendations with which they did not agree. Task Force member Stephen Wright was unable to attend this meeting but submitted his comments for consideration by the Task Force. Lou Hexter as facilitator and Jeff Liljegren as graphic recorder guided the Task Force through a facilitated discussion of the draft Report providing individual members the opportunity to ask questions or offer amendments for consideration by the group. The Task Force then made a decision on each point as a group. III. Open Discussion Time was provided at this meeting to allow an open discussion of topics of interest to the Task Force members. The time allowed for this portion of the agenda was folded into Part II. V. Community Audience Feedback The CDTF meetings are open to the public. Mr. Hexter, as facilitator, took time towards the end of the meeting to address the community members present and to offer them the opportunity to provide feedback. Wendi Baker of SummerHill Homes, updated the Task Force on the status of their development proposal for the Dublin Land Company (DLC) property and provided feedback as a participating developer in the community. Ms. Baker informed the Task Force that SummerHill Homes is no longer in contract on the DLC property and is not going to pursue development of the site as this time. VII. Summary and Next Steps Mr. Hexter thanked the group for their time. He indicated that the next step would be to revise the Summary and Key Recommendations Report to reflect the agreed upon changes provided by the Task Force tonight. The Final Summary and Key Recommendations Report will be presented to City Council on September 16. Upcoming Meeting: ■ September 16— City Council Meeting, Dublin City Hall, 7:00 pm Commercial Development Task Force Meeting #5 Notes 7116114 --Page 2 01 �I —I cET11N �q $J= _'Snrtcou,+UL rrt+wy A.y LavryTEr+n Vislenl °voN'Y SC*n�... Lsss TmaJ, �oF oPfn4vL bW&LwM.dN4 otr,MaL. zoNWy .. coMews wl;� ®DOWN'DNN bV_�4lN II�2� GtARRy INIE;IT ya SVp;car ovpgDhyykL RcSbaN11PL M�aN�UW.TeN Oppyo;TOpaW ptro*uv.� ® PKIN L.MV mMrK+y L�--�- FNCaap.y� ovv�y 9ewtyv��' >rEEMOrf �... Ouw�b� 'g Twil lYfM42 UbllxELSVarAycec r $ D%v 4NenIT Trnw� 1ayNy�,NEEd cw:Kwfm.... - aPRomoloAOti DUbIRJ ryaNlpytM �. "'rv�Il vs.srtoUw�... ... (pNm�LGPL OGLD L'�N pWD'� sTw�yeenMaeµ. . GPGPfoN P[!._ �•zi .`Wllutsw�d'C9�r�rerP„�I+N� Ta1� .. PaD qr uGY,ePU.,y.�,i� '>v- T1c+ike�K.xMZaE. OTf6F COM WS Wabwa,. na kWPi9%E81MLr '7rt -61gN Ptun�IPI�S MaYeaaLS'fc><yars�uFacac,ta �... p eet aooy , � cao Cyc+em,euw�ynalpry� c ( ,MP*��kL3 'C t'AkMV#NGY IN'Gb81�T1 "WNEf.E JRGOaPRMnIC... "plEesGOp µl$6P.�' .. ., IMVOrTw! �p DowNTO;aN ...V vl ® C-0NNBf.TViTj hccgya,9WTP1Nyy��1Y4 ... i�PiPE eUriRea�,vyy To Wm9f @iT� i.ow NCGtlF. FFYI�yuy�. y�.GUwtE.hewuy �CANOMVL DEV61/�'PMGN7' INCyNTIV�S DEV�LOass,.iVota?nvaWws,Rcaf, vr�ma ;.� Mvettros Exx+o K�7 gok ro eNiaE UY� .. Y WF P6Pi<6� �..cc- cnwG:ry - ow.+ro..N paRwx,;.��s_,FunSem�vay {' 8 cw.Dw- fCJYI 51bNiP -5, U14160.9. VieIT6p�p N.- 3aLcpIC.W, WuL %4SIUE5,5 &sNkl 9knsolsw'a O +Da,µ \. Fhl'/ML 9Grtr -E °NWT, I ' AS'+Y 9NNM1CYWeTa a DLYHUai]- Nvxfwcg..? A TnW4 a'++aWUy.DP�� - Q Nff � edv+eta. {M1wvay OW;✓4� b ba ftM�Dhu`ry..FVxrco44wd+�,�t commercial development task force City of Dublin MEETING 45 - JULY16,2014 Page 1 of 1 Prepared By. im m Z v_ X W O (D O 3� rr (D fD 3 v O 7 commercial development task force city of dublin ■Ylli'pi��= Introduction ie Residential Development City -wide Downtown Dublin Eastern Dublin Schools Commercial Development Downtown Dublin Eastern Dublin . Opportunity Sites Downtown Dublin The Green @ Park Place Dublin Land Company The Promenade /Grafton Plaza Chen Commercial Economic Incentives Residential Development Dublin 49,890' 17,5161 8,9572 8,559 1 Department of Finance, May 1, 2013 2 City of Dublin, Community Development Department, December 31, 2013 M j . ,/ y '�,' "'� ♦ - "d '� flirt Residential Development No. of Existing Units 309 No. of Approved Units 700 No. of Units Remaining 291 Total No. of Units 1,300* `An additional 1,200 units currently proposed for a grand total of 2,500. ueoa Sp.cNk PMn DYMkh T,— 0--d Och.,t u6. Fb4 m V~ FI,SCiry of M.. Residential Development No. of Active Projects 7 No. of Units Under Construction 1,444 No. of Units Remaining 4,870 Total No. of Units 15,271 Schools No. 71 2 22 43 Plus two future Elementary Schools 2 Dublin High School and Valley High School 3 Valley Christian Center, Quarry Lane, St. Phillip Lutheran, St. Raymond Existing Development 2.35 MSF Development Potential 5.38 MSF Net New Development 3.03 MSF* 'A reduction of 773,000 square feet currently proposed for a net new development of 2.26 MSF. 1:3 ED ...Ok.��..,m Lav:R 0—e D-11 116q b4 ., V.- o., o� Commercial Development Existing Development 3.60 MSF Development Assumption 10.22 MSF Net New Development 6.62 MSF Development Potential 7.56 -20.0 MSF Opportunity Sites City of Dublin Commercial Development Task Force Opportunity Sites 3 C A M P PARK 5 $ (ParNS RFTq) i �Qt q w AND oa d`'� eainrra. Rx ti ti ; y � �+"'k rgcasaq n 5 D ✓ V p4 wY�on yt 2 f` OGa+q Pdta RFT� �OlydpE�n SpnwedinMrenu �CVmmmKw Oa.Mepnun�Tnt Fwu �GVwunM Sba OcMaao.e wqn dwers A P fil 2014 Opportunity Sites- Downtown Dublin Development Assumptions Opportunity Sites -The Green @Park Place Development Assumptions Opportunity Sites - Dublin Land Company Development Assumptions Land Use Designatio Density rum 0.20-0.60 General If 60.3 Commercial (525,223- — 1,576,001 sf) 0.25-0.60 Neighborhood Commercial 3'7 40,293 - 96,703 — sf) High Density 25.1+ units /acre 3.2 _ Residential (80 +units) Medium High 14.1 -25 Density 5.3 — units /acre Residential (75 - 133 units) 6.1 - 14 Medium Density 4.3 — units /acre Residential (26 - 60 units) Public / Semi- 0.60 Max 3.3 — Public (Up to 86,249 sf) Total 80.1 Development Assumptions 846,153 sf 56,410 sf 112 units 106 units 43 units Comm: 902,563 sf Res: 261 units Opportunity Sites - Dublin Land Company Con Development Assumptions Existing Develop- 170,000 ment 158 single family & multi - family 161 single family Opportunity Sites -The Promenade /Grafton Plaza AM Proj ommercial (SF) Development Assumptions Public / Residenti` Semi - (Units) Public (SF) Promenade 230,000 Up to 80 25,000 Grafton 35,510 122 N/A Plaza TBD: Possibility of TBD: Attached commercial / mixed 0 use along Dublin Blvd and Detached N/A N/A N/A ie Promenade Grafton Plaza Opportunity Sites -Chen Property Development Assumptions City's Actions to Stimulate Economic Investment is Economic Incentive Program Sales Tax Reimbursement Offsetting physical improvement costs of project with rebate of new sales tax revenue • City offering up to 50% of new sales tax revenue (over $10 million for five years; over $50 million for 10 years) Traffic Impact Fee Deferral Program Payment due just prior to occupancy rather than at building permit City's Actions to Stimulate Economic Investment Fee Financing through SCIP Program Sewer Capacity Assistance Program t Small Business Assistance Questions? Dublin General Plan Land Use Map v DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN {Figure 1 -1) L A N D U S E February 2013 �•,s tir ra+rou r. 40 OIL i • C:,• of L-- -I Rewfw..tiMwpn s0+c. comm.wWreNUw oo.,xo.n wwn � :e, roe. w..'f'w.— •u�uts -+.mow W�ro � W �+e.w..MWM.Wr.. . ..ru....y.:q�orr+Vxr twu -+y�f..w..r..F• ea, ...r .ur. ��ti- Retail 101 Task Force Meeting #2 Dublin, CA A Retail Real Estate Consulting Firm Presentation May 21, 2014 Mike Berne MJB Consulting CONSULTING 0 A Retail Real Estate Consulting Firm Presentation May 21, 2014 Mike Berne MJB Consulting The Big Picture ■ Recent industry trends — Growing market share of online channel — Decline of and consolidation within categories — New types of shopping centers — Desire for "Main Street" settings — Retail brands as self- identification — Food as a powerful anchor — Continued risk aversion .-R Q 24 taA_��A = Retail 101 / Dublin 2 May 2014 f f w •i, y- :itsµ• r Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Terminology ■ Types of goods and services — Convenience • Commodity — Products that are uniform and interchangeable across retailers • Non - commodity — Comparison • Commodity • Specialty Retail 101 / Dublin 3 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Terminology ■ Convenience goods and services — "Commodities" • Price, style and quality roughly the same everywhere • Examples: traditional supermarkets, drug stores, dry cleaners — Consumers will choose store solely on the basis of convenience — Draws from the immediate neighborhood • Trade area defined by nearest competitors Retail 101 / Dublin 4 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Terminology ■ Comparison goods — Price, style and /or quality vary from one store to the next... — consumers will "comparison- shop" and choose store on the basis of these factors • Favors districts with a large selection of such stores � 40 — Examples: apparel, footwear, jewelry, furniture, sit -down dining — Draws from a wider trade area • Consumers will drive further for that selection Retail 101 / Dublin 5 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Terminology ■ Comparison goods — "Commodity ": brands that can be found in virtually every retail sub - market of a particular metropolitan area • One location within the chain is no different from another... • ... so consumer will typically shop the location that is most convenient to them • Trade area = defined as that area within which the subject site would be the most convenient option Retail 101 / Dublin 6 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Terminology ■ Comparison goods t1k 14, — "Specialty ". concepts (or a concentration of such) that cannot be found elsewhere in a particular metropolitan area • ... are therefore able to draw from beyond the competing commodity - filled shopping centers — Can be defined culturally or psycho - graphically �AVIq Retail 101 / Dublin 7 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Terminology ■ Convenience as a non - commodity — Grocery store as destination — Emergence of "niche" markets 'tie•. -�..�L i . _ . Retail 101 / Dublin 8 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Market Analysis ■ Two markets to consider... — Consumers demanding goods and services (from retailers) — Tenants seeking retail space (from property owners) l 304 1 Retail 101 / Dublin 9 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Consumer Demand • Convenience /comparison /specialty • The lure of existing clusters — In order to "comparison- shop" — For convenience of one -stop shopping IT Retail 101 / Dublin 10 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Consumer Demand ■ Reilly's Law of Retail Gravitation — Larger shopping correspondingly Retail 101 / Dublin May 2014 destination enjoys more "gravitational pull" 11 Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Consumer Demand ■ The importance of "niche" markets • Ethnic/ cultural • Psychographic ■ Lifestyles, sensibilities and aspirations n Retail 101 / Dublin 13 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Consumer Demand ■ Retail as reflecting tastes and aspirations ■ Preferred formats ■ Urbanization of suburbia ■ Self- and community- branding r:_ I r Retail 101 / Dublin 14 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Market Analysis ■ Two markets to consider... — Tenants seeking retail space from property owners • Comparing to possible alternatives Ll- of c Retail 101 / Dublin 15 May 2014 UNIQL4 RAY STREET Ilk. 71 t STORE HOURS MONDAY — WEDNESDAY 10AM — FPM THURSDAY— SATURDAY LOAM — ?PH SUN 3 HOLIDAYS IIAM — 6PM High quality, stylish basics for men, women & kids Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ Visibility and access — Both "front -of- mind" and easy to reach • Within the traffic flow — Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts • On the "right" side of the road — "Drive- home" side • On the corner / "end -cap" — Notion of the 100% corner • Providing visible off - street parking • Near desired co- tenants and anchors F Retail 101 / Dublin 16 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ Concept of "critical mass" — Point at which a given market undergoes a fundamental change with regard to its scale and potential • Not just one store, but as a destination • Where one "goes for X, Y or T ;r v^ rr. Retail 101 / Dublin 17 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ Lure of co- tenancy — Creates critical mass that draws the consumer — Generates visibility and cross - traffic • "Safety in numbers" strategy • "Retailers are like lemmings..." Retail 101 / Dublin 18 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ The importance of anchors — Spend on advertising (visibility) — Drive traffic to smaller "in -line" stores • ... who pay higher rents to be near them — Dictate the overall draw and "trade area" • ... on which other businesses can rely LOWER LEVEL Retail 101 / Dublin 19 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ Specific to chain (commodity) ■ Existing network of stores ■ Radius restrictions ■ Branding considerations Retail 101 / Dublin 20 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ (Most) chains as risk - averse bureaucracies • Co- tenancies and anchors • Sales -per- square -foot figures • "Bell- weather" brands • Change perceptions of a given market • Establish legitimacy as a place to invest Retail 101 / Dublin 21 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ Suitable spaces and sites — Parcel capable of accommodating store and parking (suburb) • Rule -of- thumb: one acre per 10,000 square feet • Workable configuration, sufficient depth — Walk -in density negligible (suburb) • Risk of zero - setback development Retail 101 / Dublin 22 May 2014 Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective ■ Store prototypes (chains) IRA — Allow for economies -of -scale in design and development ■ Willingness to deviate (and absorb added costs) — Existing supply- demand dynamics — Alignment with consumer expectations Retail 101 / Dublin 23 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology ■ Traditional (`50's through `00's) — Unanchored — Neighborhood — Community — Regional — Super - regional — Outlet — Power — Lifestyle Retail 101 / Dublin 24 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology ■ Today — Neighborhood shopping center — Hybrid power / neighborhood center — Hybrid power / lifestyle center ( "power town ") — Outlet mall — Redeveloped super - regional mall — Faux "Main Street" — "Neo -loft" district — Ethnic specialty Retail 101 / Dublin 25 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology ■ Neighborhood shopping center • Supermarket- anchored strip mall ■ In -front parking field • Focus on convenience goods and services • Draws local residents (i.e. within 3 miles) • 30K to 125K square feet (3 to 12 acres) Retail 101 / Dublin 26 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology ■ Hybrid power / neighborhood center • Strip of big and medium -box stores (power center) ■ In -front parking field • Also include neighborhood draws (e.g. grocer) ■ Represents a hedge against online channel Retail 101 / Dublin 27 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology ■ Hybrid power /lifestyle center (aka "power town ") ■ "Main Street" core surrounded by power center ■ Surface parking between the two ■ "Main Street" or central plaza ■ Most often centered on a multiplex, with in -line space filled by food / drink and teen retailers ■ Sometimes anchored by a department store 500K square feet and up (50 acres) r Retail 101 / Dublin 28 May 2014 Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology Outlet mall Faux - village layout ■ Surrounded by surface parking Manufacturer, designer and retail outlets • "Made- for - outlet" goods represent 80% of merchandise In growth mode since Great Recession • Primary growth vehicles for apparel retailers today, even for upscale department stores • Locating closer to city centers, malls and each other ■ Retailers not as concerned about diluting brand, alienating department stores • Growing larger, averaging 400K square feet (40 acres) • Limited food - service component Retail 101 / Dublin 29 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology Ift Redeveloped super - regional mall • Renovations to and expansions of existing centers ■ Very little new construction in last decade • Far from dead — do not believe the hype ■ 4.8% national vacancy rate, 2% in Class A centers • At least 1 M square feet (100 acres), with 3+ anchors • "Fortress malls" versus smaller B and C centers • Less vulnerable to struggles of Sears and J.C. Penney • Have been adding walk -able, open -air "lifestyle" wings Retail 101 / Dublin 30 May 2014 Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology ■ Faux "Main Street" (project) ■ Requires either... • "Captive" density (urban) • Can include commodity brands • San Francisco not comparable • Destination (suburban) • Dining /entertainment and specialty • Needs critical mass to drive foot traffic • Parking just within walking distance ■ Convenience (suburban) • Walk -in population insufficient • Needs clearly visible parking • Zero - setback access not advised Retail 101 / Dublin 31 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Shopping Center Typology A; 7FR0`��......... i "Neodoft" district • Craft food and drink, artisan shops, etc. • Hip, creative vibe... but "sanitized" grit ■ Located in historic (non - retail) buildings or referencing historical forms • Can disobey traditional site - location principles • Requires corresponding psycho - graphic Retail 101 / Dublin May 2014 32 Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective Deal- making with the property owner ■ Occupancy costs ■ As a percentage of projected sales ■ Incentives and concessions • T. I. allowances (versus lease term) • Free rent for _ months • Percentage -rent deal ■ Intangibles • Personality • Sensibility • Track record Retail 101 / Dublin May 2014 34 Mike Berne MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Primary Actors F .:,11 a � Property owner / developer �,.■r,� — Must align occupancy costs with projected sales — Needs to amortize up -front costs, earn a profit — Influenced by sources of funding • Requirements of lenders (and shareholders, if applicable) • Prospects for "spec" development — Does not necessarily care about social and community aims r • More likely to be responsive... — "Patient" capital — Larger centers — Mixed -use projects Retail 101 / Dublin 35 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective • Visibility and access • Critical mass • Co- tenancy and anchors • Chain - specific factors • "Bell- weathers" and sales levels • Suitable spaces and sites — Different types of shopping centers ■ Possible deals (property owner) Retail 101 / Dublin 36 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Competitive Context ■ Vis -a -vis possible alternatives... — Stoneridge Mall/ Pleasanton — Broadway Plaza / Downtown Walnut Creek — Livermore Premium Outlets — Future competitors -- 7"M R ��j f. 4 4\ n.`'�S" ip \ Y •6 Retail 101 / Dublin 37 May 2014 Mike Berne MJB Consulting Your Charge ■ Evaluation of opportunity sites ■ How do they relate to each other? 1. Market realities (site- specific) 2. Broader objectives (community goals) 3. Resulting "gap" between the two 4. Additional incentives needed (later) ■ Design Principles ■ Additional Economic Development Incentives Retail 101 / Dublin 39 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Positioning ■ How a project can "fit" within the broader retail ecology — Square footage — Design orientation — Core customer — Merchandise mix — Price point — Size of tenant — Type of operator — Brand and narrative Retail 101 / Dublin 40 Mike Berne May 2014 MJB Consulting Contact Info With any comments or questions... Michael J. Berne President, MJB Consulting 2730 Forest Avenue / Suite W / Berkeley, CA 94705 85 Fourth Avenue / Suite 6A / New York, NY 10003 Phone 1 510 356 4956 or 917 816 8367 E -Mail I mikeberne @consultmjb.com A Retail Real Estate Consulting Firm © 2014 MJB Consulting Market Viability and Design Principles Meeting #3 — June 5, 2014 city of dublin Tonight's Agenda • CDTF Process and Recap of Meeting #2 • Retail 101 Recap • Design Principles and Interactive Survey • Community Audience Feedback • Summary and Next Steps • Meeting Close TA'S � �t�i -Lfs. M MTfarG s1 - `w x,, So+4 4 6eaan!a 9�M+fNrr ' +* c-'' � � jj``�� � `�*/ � s. �taw� +�rtl - - -=--.- asr �f�i --• � G.o�fa�sf • w wrr d 4rk M'�rr . �pt�{ }i1.MIS k�'�14 � .. • t� f0�0 t+'HwI� 9 .... « ... . L+�, �rn.� � w..a,K +rr+s Os af+a+ c.a a...t rc..,,,,,,,gri+ ...�, y� Market Viability —I— Typologies Opportunity Sites Services, Amenities, Location, Quality Design Principles Market Viability: R_ ail 1 1 Recap.., L Downtown Dublin The Green at Park Place Dublin Land Company The Promenade Grafton Plaza Chen Property TOTAL 3,000,000 square feet 2,300,000 square feet 305,000 square feet 900,000 square feet 230,000 square feet 500,000 square feet* 786,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 388,000 square feet TBD 36,000 square feet ** TBD 5,721,000 square feet 2,728,000 square feet Basic Concepts Retailer Perspective • Visibility and access • Critical mass • Co- tenancy and anchors • Chain - specific factors • "Bell- weathers" and sales levels • Suitable spaces and sites — Different types of shopping centers • Possible deals (property owner) Shopping Center Typology • Neighborhood shopping center • Hybrid power /neighborhood center • Hybrid power /lifestyle center ( "power town ") J=CamP Parks RF Tn Gr cl Dublin o on os r Y Spnera of InAUmcp CpTmandal Devalapmenr cask Farce OpporNn,lY files I I ' F F F irs M OGty of DiNti, Right of Ways April 2014 Opportunity Sites ■ Downtown Dublin — Critical mass and co- tenancy • Hybrid power / neighborhood center (today) — Inferior freeway visibility and access — Automobile- dominated space • Walking to /from BART and where? UPPE LOWER LEVEL Opportunity Sites ■ The Green at Park Place — Freeway visibility and access — Proximity to Hacienda Crossing, Persimmon Place — Multiple day -parts W OR - 0 Opportunity Sites ■ Dublin Land Company — Freeway visibility and access — Multiple day -parts — Grocers as existing anchors — Potential for critical mass Opportunity Sites ■ The Promenade and Grafton Plaza — Inferior freeway access — Hidden from N -S arterials — Grafton Station history Lwntral Varkway A A 3 ! b 'soft Dur,�n tlwd 11 A-0ii Opportunity Sites ■ Chen Property — Freeway visibility and access — Proximity to Livermore Premium Outlets, Fallon Crossing • Outflanked by parcels closer to outlet mall — Surroundings far from full build -out i �$ n•, m � S i ...try '► r � +��tt�� � y�',� �!,� °. ! , r � rr, Eib ry, Design Principles 7197 4A *tit11 Range of Uses elk n 44 I -rf Aq'I } -� 3{ TI I g p) 0 f 1W 9 TI i fo ' �. _ �:� �``� * r , i I� � _ - � + ,~ � 7 __ a v � r i -.' - a. ! + � � - 1 t ` � � i � f + __ -+— _ _ �. ar, �. _. � - �� P r� jo am1Lla as Iat. it if as milli as as I1 VIII so 8 H 1 ■ ■ Materials, Textures and Character I- dv k, Nq Materials, Textures and Character g Amenities and Activities All --r- - I xw WIF F Amenities and Activities iL rim ii Landscaping Ih +�1 sit Connectivity and Access liw _ I a � Aft Connectivity and Access 6 EAC A ION Ur a AW ulRi"k 4' w✓�olesa.e "ii i F C.inccl 1 1 B E R Yl '.IBEU &ACS .. °.N: 620 8th Ave } 1 Request TAXI pickup here Parking r _ ► 44 ok Purpose • Test potential commercial typologies and configurations for Dublin • Review examples of: - Neighborhood shopping center - Hybrid power / neighborhood center - Hybrid power / lifestyle center ( "power town ") - Faux "Main Street" - Ethnic specialty center Process • Images will represent a range of possibilities • Do you like the idea shown for Dublin? • There are no right or wrong answers! • You will have a short time to review each image • Go with your "gut reaction!" Let's try it .. . h . rim W4 ; I" )OV � I TIW — I po Ready ... Set ... Go! Neighborhood shopping center • Supermarket - anchored strip mall - In -front parking field • Focus on convenience goods and services • Draws local residents (i.e. within 3 miles) • 30K to 125K square feet (3 to 12 acres) Neighborhood shopping center dw small STOP y. k4#' W�. ,'�Zz Neighborhood shopping center ALIAM Neighborhood shopping center H XI�AN �rwl",� "' �Rllt - �p��TER ,C ;JAR E '. ,rrrr, ,. r -� - -rdrea Am q .(`+�: Which neighborhood shopping center configuration do you prefer? Vt B ---,OMEN • Which neighborhood shopping center configuration do you prefer? - r �n Aw Hybrid power /neighborhood center (power center) • Strip of big and medium -box stores - In -front parking field • Also include neighborhood draws (e.g. grocer, pharmacy) • Represents a hedge against online retail Hybrid power/ neighborhood center "Z.` - ter...- .r *�� rK�e. � ',t� � ¢�� � ( •�', Hybrid power / neighborhood center AWO'r Hybrid power/ neighborhood center - ^- SAS s Which hybrid power / neighborhood center configuration do you prefer? 0 pro 1. A IV, 3 4 gap �6a� Hybrid power /lifestyle center (power town) • Central plaza - Most often centered on a multiplex, with in -line space filled by food / drink and teen retailers - Sometimes includes department store anchors • Main street "core" surrounded by power center - Surface parking between the two power centers • 500K square feet and up (50 acres) t Hybrid power / lifestyle center I I. i I i.R Iti- O"WANIM via, OF JOT I tip Hybrid power / lifestyle center Ila AM- �t � 4 ... TTY •..*'� � S ' f- 1. r" {F t3 1 1{ AL. � P Which hybrid power / lifestyle center configuration do you prefer? a , 1 � Ak _ +� Pr Ut s. � & ,r Faux "Main Street" • Urban areas possess "captive density" - Can include commodity brands - San Francisco is not a comparable • Suburban areas offer "destination /convenience" - Dining /entertainment and specialty shops - Mix of tenants create critical mass to drive foot traffic - Visible Parking within walking distance - Walk -in population insufficient - Zero - setback access not advised Faux "Main Street" t S i rY R 1 iJ 1A x } Faux "Main Street" t`iIIC' O A R A �ull I ti-T Vail. Fit rof Faux "Main Street" 7 L -I move uFe ii Which Faux "Main Street" concept do you prefer? Ar pr I r"V ti v YO Ethnic specialty center • Anchored by grocer, cinema, restaurant cluster, cultural center • Draws upon ethnic formats and customs • Requires corresponding ethnicity - Can pull from a distance • Allows for adaptive reuse of older Class B/C strips, vacant boxes - Not driven by prototype Ethnic specialty center ot sit rT HOT MIAN W dub, -lur ia " 7777'�� commercial Meeting #4 June 25, 2014 W11 f0 development task force city of dublin Tonight's Agenda • CDTF Process and Recap of Meeting #3 • Economic Incentives Recap and Discussion • Homework Assignment Recap • Open Discussion • Community Audience Feedback • Summary and Next Steps City's Actions to Stimulate Economic Investment Direct Economic Incentives • Sales Tax Reimbursement Program Offsetting physical improvement costs of project with rebate of new sales tax revenue • City offering up to 50% of new sales tax revenue (over $10 million for five years; over $50 million for 10 years) • Traffic Impact Fee Deferral Program Payment due just prior to building permit occupancy rather than at • Commercial Facade Improvement Grant Program City's Actions to Stimulate Economic Investment Direct Economic Incentives *Fee Financing through SCIP Program • Sewer Capacity Assistance Program • Small Business Assistance Program — G rants • Industrial Development Bonds City's Actions to Stimulate Economic Investment Indirect Economic Incentives *Small Business Assistance Program — Small Business Support Targeted Workshops (such as "Access to Capital" to link business owners with resources) SCORE / SBDC resources *Permitting assistance Site Selection City's Actions to Stimulate Economic Investment Indirect Economic Incentives *Promote Dublin's key strengths including: • Very low business taxes —only $50 for business registration • Strong market/superb location • Available sites • Educated Workforce • Clear zoning and permitting process *Targeted marketing for business attraction • International Council for Shopping Centers (ICSC) • Broker Roundtable events • Trade & Industry publications (San Francisco Business Times) City's Actions to Stimulate Economic Investment Indirect Economic Incentives *Targeted marketing for shopper & visitor attraction Visit Tri- Valley "Discover Dublin" Shop Local Holiday Campaign Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association How would you encourage developers, property owners, restaurants and shops to locate and invest in Dublin? How would you encourage shoppers, diners and visitors to choose Dublin? Homework Assignment Results 4 N It A M O N N a BRIGHTON OR SOS. fm � 90 z TA11ARACY, o CO os WWI i 6-TH ST GLEASON DR Company 4 Dublin Land Company 3 Promenade -4TM ST CmTk4L PW DUBLIN BL' Company 2 Chi ' 1 Question 1. Site Desirability We have learned that for Dublin to support the amount of future retail development currently entitled within the city limits, an additional population of 220,000 would be required within the trade area. Moreover, this assumes that no other new retail development would occur elsewhere to compete for that demand. Freeway access and visibility, automobile circulation and parking, pedestrian /transit /bicycle friendliness are also key factors for commercial development. Clearly, not all of the opportunity sites included in this study are equally capable of becoming viable commercially given the market factors and various site location constraints. At this point in the Task Force process, we would like each of you to take some time to consider the "desirability" of each of the five opportunity sites and to prioritize them in the order in which you believe they are most suitable for commercial development. an os r U 11aw N OCarte Perks RFTA = Ory of Worn Spnere of Influence ® C:- -anal Oavebp -1 Task Force Oppor4kiay 9fes OGry of Dublin R19fK Of Ways April 2014 Site Desirability Question 2. Commercial /Retail Typology Some commercial development types are more appropriate for the Dublin market than others — neighborhood shopping center; hybrid power neighborhood center; hybrid power lifestyle center; Faux "Main Street" ; ethnic specialty center. Other types, or formats, are less likely to be pursued here. On the following pages are some local Bay Area examples of the retail typology we have been discussing. With each example, we have included some supportive facts such as tenant mix, square footage and site acreage for you to consider in comparing these examples to the five opportunity sites in Dublin. (The tenants included in these examples are for comparison purposes only). Question 3. Range of Uses When we talk about "commercial development" we include not only retail, but office space as well. To clarify, retail uses involve the sale of finished goods (e.g., clothing, consumer products, groceries, and prepared food). Commercial uses involve the sale of goods and services (in addition to retail, this can include restaurants, barber shops, dry cleaning, etc). Office uses are intended for professional, administrative, or business related services. Range of Uses What land uses do you think make the most sense for each of the five development sites? Why? Question 4. Design Principle Elements Design elements are important, both to developers and consumers, and help to define and distinguish one commercial market from another. For retail- oriented typology, freeway access and visibility, automobile circulation and parking are very key design elements. There are however, other design principles important to all forms of development that are necessary in creating a sense of place and providing experiential qualities that draw people to a destination and entice them to stay. These include character - defining materials, amenities and landscaping, connectivity and access (e.g., physically and digitally). Materials, Textures and Character F TO a —0- it Materials, Textures and Character What character - defining elements of texture and materials would you like to see with future commercial development in Dublin? • Elements that create a sense of place • Contemporary design • Good lighting • Good signage Amenities Outdoor Cafe Seating / Lighting & �y W �M1 Event Space 3 v Open /Green Space / Seating'' - - -._ n' i W o, 4. pool Play Elements, a. eatu Amenities What kinds of amenities would you like to see with future commercial development in Dublin? • Gathering places • Play areas • Event spaces • Water features such as fountains Connectivity, Access and Sustainability Vol y . �.. r 4Az..,. r —= thways and Parking L t4-Landscaping - rt 4 raai-- T + 4a A n 4X � Bike- :r.��lSolar Panels - Stormwater Planters A�Connectivity, �Access and♦ Sustainability 'A dlir l { ok :I* A I,\ I►� I Oi.. I What aspects of connectivity, access and sustainability would you like to see with future commercial development in Dublin? • Pedestrian - friendly features — safe pathways with landscaped borders • Bicycle- friendly features — bike lanes, bike racks and storage • Sustainable landscaping • Solar panels • Replace "seas of asphalt" with low- profile parking garages „ . . �• E3i � 'V�+ �_olar Panels ~ '' Sto W" ater Planters Other comments • We need a mix of residential and commercial /retail on these sites • We need a greater variety of restaurants to attract residents and visitors • Improve traffic flow patterns within and around any future developments • More parking and less building density at each site. 0 I t 7 Meeting #4 June 25, 2014 commercial development task force city of dublin APPENDIX C. Supportive Documents - - - -------- - - - - -- ------------ - - j i i `��v • via � IL j v v C O. O �U C C N I O. \ o I • —� .I .G u .V 'd IIII91S — -- 2 IL 1A.,V IL a '\ 1 •• t O Downtown Dublin a``Qrl 7 Mg. Mll,n fi,i 5 - - ` ` T ' d 1 1 DM Development Assumptions General Plan Land Use Designation: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Land Area: 284 acres Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Retail 0.35 0.6 Transit Oriented 0.5 1.2 Village Parkway 0.35 0.35 Existing Difference Non- Residential Non- Residential Non- Residen- District Residential (Units) Residential (SF) Retail 737,100 100 543,850 400 (193,250) +300 Transit- 2,202,710 1,622,960 Oriented ( +150 hotel 1,100 ( +150 hotel 1,900 (579,750) +800 rooms) rooms) Village 20,730 100 20,730 200 -- +100 Parkway 3,035,540 2,262,540 Total (includes150 1,300 (includes150 2,500 (773,000) +1,200 hotel rooms) hotel rooms) Commercial Development Task Force CITY OF DUBLIN The Green at Park Place Dublin Blvd = �„ 0 n - -� CL `D C CL ' v � � Martinelli Way MOM- Ao r�rT Development Assumptions Existing Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designation: General Commercial Zoning: PD - Commercial Land Area: 27.5 acres Floor Area Ratio (FAR): o.2o -o.6o (239,581 sf — 718,740 sf) Proposed Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Zoning: Mixed Use Land Area: 27.5 acres Commercial Development Task Force CITY OF DUBLIN Existing ! • • • - Square feet/ Square fe Use units units 7A Retail 270,000 sf 5,000 sf Restaurant 35,000 sf 35,000 sf Total 305,000 sf 40,000 sf Residential — 400 units Commercial Development Task Force CITY OF DUBLIN Dublin Land Company Ll Emerald Glen 1134, i i IY. Co t 10V Existing; Entitlements General Plan Land Acres FAR Density Use Designation 0.20-0.60 General Commercial 60.3 — (525,223 - 1,576,001 sf) Neighborhood 0.25-0.60 Commercial 3.7 40,293 - 96,703 sf) High Density 3.2 _ 25.1+ units /acre Residential (80 +units) Medium High 5.3 _ 14.1 - 25 units /acre Density Residential (75 - 133 units) Medium Density 4.3 _ 6.1 - 14 units /acre Residential (26 - 60 units) 0.60 Max Public / Semi - Public 3.3 — (Up to 86,249 sf) Total 80.1 Development Assumptions 846,153 sf 56,410 sf 112 units 106 units 43 units Comm: 902,563 sf Res: 261 units Continued on Page z... Commercial Development Task Force CITY OF L DUBLIN PAGE z Dublin Land Company: Parcels 3 & 4 (SummerHill Homes Proposal) , �"Vv r Development Assumptions Existing Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designations: General Commercial High Density Residential Medium -High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Public / Semi - Public Zoning: PD Land Area: 23.77 acres Proposed Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning: PD Land Area: 23.77 acres Existing • • • Commercial Residential Commercial Residenti; (SF) (Units) 158 161 Development 170,000 single family & — single family multi - family Commercial Development Task Force CITY OF DUBLIN - -�- ,.., •ice, f T C 9 in � 1 � PAGE z Dublin Land Company: Parcels 3 & 4 (SummerHill Homes Proposal) , �"Vv r Development Assumptions Existing Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designations: General Commercial High Density Residential Medium -High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Public / Semi - Public Zoning: PD Land Area: 23.77 acres Proposed Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning: PD Land Area: 23.77 acres Existing • • • Commercial Residential Commercial Residenti; (SF) (Units) 158 161 Development 170,000 single family & — single family multi - family Commercial Development Task Force CITY OF DUBLIN The Promenade & Grafton Plaza Grafton Plaza Existing Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designations: Mixed Use 2/Campus Office Zoning: PD - Mixed Use Land Area: 25.3 acres Floor Area Ratio: 0.45 FAR (496,519 so - 50% Commercial, 50% Residential Development Assumptions Existing The Promenade Existing; Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Commercial & Public /Semi - Public Zoning: PD Land Area: z3 acres (NC 20 acres & P /SP 3 acres Proposed Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designation: Residential and /or Mixed Use Zoning: PD Land Area: 23 acres Commercial Residential Public / Commercial Residential Project Semi - Public (SF) (Units) (SF) Lk( TBD: Possibility of TBD: Attached Promenade 230,000 Up to 80 25,000 commercial / mixed and Detached use along Dublin Blvd Grafton 35,510 122 N/A N/A N/A Plaza Commercial Development Task Force Ell N/A go CITY OF DUBLIN Chen Property Development Assumptions Existing Use Square Feet Commercial 785,169 Commercial Development Task Force Existing Entitlements General Plan Land Use Designation: General Commercial Zoning: PD - General Commercial Land Area: 72.1 acres Floor Area Ratio (FAR): o.2o -o.6o (628,135 sf - 1,884,405 sf) CITY OF DUBLIN National Overview As of the close of Q3 2013, shopping center vacancy across the 60 major markets that we track in the United States stood at 8.7 %. This compares to a vacancy rate of 8.8% at the midyear point of 2013 and a vacancy rate of 9.6% one year ago. This is the lowest level of vacancy that the market has recorded since the Great Recession - retail shopping center vacancy in the United States peaked at 10.8% in Q2 2009. But while we are entering into the fourth year of consecutive occupancy gains, recovery in the overall retail sector has lagged behind that of most other commercial real estate property types. The centers that we track accounted for over 42.2 million square feet of occupancy growth over the past twelve months. Deliveries are also at their highest level since the Great Recession. We have tracked nearly 18 million square feet of new shopping center product that has come online over the past year. Forthe most part, these numbers have directly translated into growth. As little new construction is taking place on a speculative basis (and virtually no anchor or box space is being built at all without commitments in place before construction), we estimate that roughly 85% of that total-or about 15.3 million square feet- - consisted of space that was accounted for immediately upon delivery. Meanwhile, second generation space saw its occupancy levels increase by approximately 26.9 million square feet during the same period. Shopping Region Total Gross Total Vacancy Last 12 Months Under Leasable Vacant SF % Const. Area Net Deliveries Absorption Pacific 935,617,213 65,870,018 1'. 3,430,094 Mountain 481,232,546 48,245,654 0% 7,226,206 1,923,450 Great Plains 293,561,866 27,815,954 9.5% 1,845,339 893,342 509,967 Great Lakes 726,221,16E 79,558,885 0% 5,603,014 377,120 Texas South 671,2161332 60,016,840 8.9% 6,992,374 2,925,033 931,877 Central Southern US 193,742,090 22,882,282 11.8% 1,232,022 274,663 7,700 Southeast 1,186,563,516 104,272,110 8.8% 7,787,178 4,728,968 4,664,727 Northeast 777,640,354 49,782,019 6.4% 4,422,9231r 2,057,594 2,540,313 National 5,265,795,085 458,443,762 8.7% 42,280,213 17,966,642 14,385,248 Source: Cassidy Turley Research /Costar Neighborhoods On the Rebound Of course, not all shopping center types have performed the same. The biggest gains over the past year have come from community, neighborhood and strip centers. Vacancy for this product type now stands at 10.1 %. This producttypewas hardest hitduringthe recession. Many markets entered the downturn with a glut of unanchored strip product to begin with and this particular subtype of shopping center is most dependent upon mom - and -pop retailers -who largely went missing in action during the recession and who are only now slowly starting to drive modest levels of demand in the nation's strongest trade areas. Yet, the community /neighborhood /strip sector has seen occupancy levels increase by over 27.8 million square feet in the past year. Deliveries accounted for nearly 10.4 million square feet of new product over the last twelve months and about 8.8 million square feet of this space was occupied upon delivery. Meanwhile, second - generation space accounted for the remaining 19 million square feet of occupancy gains that we tracked over the past four quarters. Community / Neighborhood / Strip Center Statistics WMEE��=�E Pacific 637,576,599 52,082,014 8.2% 4,069,478 1,764,279 2,238,167 Mountain 323,619,598 37,813,038 11.7% 4,629,078 769,723 158,006 Great Plains 189,778,773 19,340,926 10.2% 1,512,079 234,180 58,528 Great Lakes 474,378,875 60,279,406 12.7% 3,993,432 1,517,181 318,825 Texas South Central 468,709,951 49,167,976 10.5% 4,998,628 2,143,312 393,746 Southern US 134,853,488 15,591,382 11.6% 1,093,908 138,663 2,400 Southeast 812,083,857 84,787,610 10.4% 4,479,826 2,400,019 2,573,235 Northeast 484,516,124 38,151,698 7.9% 3,058,895 1,398,701 1,067,813 National 3,525,517,265 357,214,050 10.1% 27,835,324 10,366,058 6,810,720 Source: Cassidy Turley Research /Costar Part of the resurgence of this property type has been the fact that food and service related retailersare drivingdemand currently. Whilethere is some consolidation occurring in the groceryworld, new smaller format concepts are more than making up for those losses and neighborhood centers are overwhelmingly where they land. The traditional tenant mix of the neighborhood and community centers have always been grocery or drug anchors, with a mix of restaurants and local services and generally fewer hard goods or big box retailers-which is where much of the contraction in the industry is still taking place. This will only strengthen in the coming year as demand trends will continue to shift towards retailers that don't compete with the Internet. Meanwhile, the return of new home development in the United States will mean more development -most of it in the form of new neighborhood or strip centers -as retailers return to following rooftops. Top Malls Continue to Strengthen Despite the fact that many traditional mall tenants are not currently in growth mode, malls continue to enjoy the lowest vacancy levels of any shopping center product type. We are currently tracking a national vacancy rate of just 4.8 %. This is down from Q2's reading of 4.9% and reflects a reduction from 5.8% one year ago. Malls have accounted for just under 1.8 million square feet of net absorption over the past year, while deliveries have added just under 900,000 square feet of new space to the marketplace. Mall properties still account for the lion's share of the nation's retail trophy assets and continue to benefit from a marketplace in which Class A space is seeing the highest levels of tenant interest and activity. However, these numbers don't tell the whole story. Most of the major markets that we track have reported the same trend across the board., Class A space availability is extremely tight and Class B malls are faring well in all but the weakest economies. However, Class B space still faces some challenges in some marketplaces and Class C mall properties in virtually every trade area (including those with the strongest local economies) are where the overwhelming majority of vacancy resides today. Our estimate is that vacancy for Class C malls throughout the United States is closer to the 8% range, while Class A vacancy is now just below the 2% mark. Returns by Property Type 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Multifamily Hotel Industrial Office Retail ■1 -Year Returns ■10 -Year Returns Source: Cassidy Turley Research, NCREIF Perhaps a more telling statistic on mall performance comes not from the leasing side of the equation, but from the investment world. The National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF) recently released a report that showed that retail properties have performed better than any other commercial real estate property type in terms of return on investment. They reported at the close of Q3 that (on an unleveraged basis) retail properties had averaged a 13.2% rate of return over the previous year and had yielded an average of 10.5% over the past decade. U.S. Mall Statistics Pacific 113,370,244 2,905,056 2.6% 724,221 345,838 154,408 Mountain 57,015,445 2,883,647 5.1% 321,096 38,331 1,514,000 Great Plains 41,593,229 2,575,383 6.2% 134,006 56,410 29,789 Great Lakes 95,688,878 7,583,729 7.9% (77,801) 6,500 - Texas South 75,423,970 3,565,354 4.7% 324,805 6,200 - Central Southern US 18,957,974 2,886,430 15.2% (226,842) - - Southeast 148,052,408 6,097,252 4.1% 343,397 194,987 - Northeast 117,021,531 3,312,614 2.8% 242,214 227,260 747,500 National 667,123,679 31,809,465 4.8% 1,785,096 875,526 2,445,697 Source: Cassidy Turley Research /Costar However, it is critical to note that NCREIF only tracks institutional grade properties -in other words, the cream of the crop. So these numbers are almost entirely driven by core trophy assets - mostly malls. Unfortunately, once you step outside the realm of Class A and Class B+ assets in most markets is where you begin to see the challenges facing the retail landscape. Retailer demand remains all about Class A and, in some markets, Class B space. Beyond that is where most of the nation's retail shopping center vacancy remains. It is where rental rate growth has largely remained flat or is still actually posting modest declines in some of the countries' weakest marketplaces. It is where nearly all of the weaknesses for the entire sector are concentrated. Specialty Centers; All About the Outlets National specialty center vacancy as of the end of Q3 2013 stood at 7.6 %. This product classification also includes lifestyle centers, outlet centers and theme retail projects. Vacancy has remained in essentially the same place for the past six months. One year ago, it stood at 8.0 %. Over the past year, we have tracked just under 4.8 million square feet of occupancy growth for this property type as roughly 4.5 million square feet of new product (nearly all of it in the form of outlet centers) was delivered to the marketplace. Specialty Center Statistics Last 12 Months WMEE�� Pacific 33,988,970 2,578,496 7.6% 558,964 567,795 922,422 Mountain 13,404,050 1,094,960 8.2% 1,050,051 1,083,867 245,585 Great Plains 10,170,540 1,302,454 12.8% 405,028 588,183 421,650 Great Lakes 22,144,834 1,189,997 5.4% 131,379 4,500 3,895 Texas South 20,783,225 1,409,055 6.8% 682,444 397,345 - Central Southern US 6,360,546 1,170,785 18.4% (160,986) - - Southeast 41,593,928 2,918,281 7.0% 1,472,487 1,456,387 1,243,081 Northeast 19,802,872 1,098,340 5.5% 632,264 409,000 330,000 National 168,248,965 12,762,368 7.6% 4,771,631 4,507,077 3,166,633 Source: Cassidy Turley Research /Costar Higher end lifestyle centers continue to do well and hold their own competing against Class A mall projects. However, there is no question that this product type was overbuilt in some trade areas. For years there has been a running joke in development circles that if you aren't sure how to position your new project, just throw in a fountain and you can call it a lifestyle center. And this may illustrate one of the challenges that this product type faces. The highest end product accounts for some of the nation's best performing trophy centers, but this sector of the marketplace was overbuilt heading into the downturn. As a result, some weaker projects have taken a lot longer to rebound. Thanks to the growing impact of e- commerce, many of the apparel and hard goods retailers who traditionally make up the tenant mix for lifestyle centers have slowed or reversed growth. Most absorption for this product type now is coming from dining or food related concepts (higher end grocers like Whole Foods are increasingly part of the standard tenant mixes at these centers). But if performance for lifestyle centers has been a mixed bag, demand remains white -hot for outlet center space. This is one of the few product types where we have seen developers build speculatively. In general, most of these projects lease -up before construction is done. Discount and outlet concepts are one of the few areas where we are seeing a lot of apparel players who are otherwise in no or slow growth mode looking to grow. For example, while Nordstrom will likely build no more than one full service department store over the next year, they are looking to expand their off -price Nordstrom Rack concept by as many as 60 stores over the next two years. Likewise, the recent acquisition of Nieman Marcus will probably result in increased expansion —not necessarily for the chain's namesake concept but for its off -price Last Call stores. Adaptation Keeping the Power in Power Centers If you look at it from a demand perspective, it would appear that power centers would be the product type in greatest peril. Power centers are all about big box retail, but nearly every single category big box user type is shrinking. This includes categories that are in sharp consolidation mode due to competition with the Internet (bookstores, consumer electronics, office supplies, etc.). Most of these chains are not only closing stores but also slashing footprints. But it also includes some strong categories like pet supplies —where most chains are generally in modest growth mode —but more are experimenting with smaller concepts of 10,000 square feet or less. The fact is that retailers are shrinking their box presence overall, whether we are talking about grocery stores, home improvement or just about any other category. This is the twilight of the big box age. Power Center Statistics EI Last 12 Months Pacific 150,681,400 8,304,452 5.5% 1,818,494 115,097 Mountain 87,193,453 6,454,009 7.4% 1,225,981 333,404 5,859 Great Plains 52,019,324 4,597,191 8.8% (205,774) 14,569 - Great Lakes 134,008,581 10,505,753 7.8% 1,556,004 597,697 54,400 Texas South 106,299,186 5,874,455 5.5% 986,497 378,176 538,131 Central Southern US 33,570,082 3,233,685 9.6% 525,942 136,000 5,300 Southeast 184,833,323 10,468,967 5.7% 1,491,468 677,575 848,411 Northeast 156,299,827 7,219,367 4.6% 489,550 22,633 395,000 National 904,905,176 56,657,879 6.3% 7,888,162 2,217,981 1,962,198 Source: Cassidy Turley Research /Costar The only exception to the rule would be sporting goods —which remains robustly in growth mode both in terms of units and footprints —due largely to a mix of successful experiential retail and limited competition from online sales (particularly when it comes to firearms). One could also argue that health clubs fit in here as well. Larger concepts have backfilled a substantial amount of vacant mid -size boxes (and larger), though due to the cost of converting space for this use, there is an equally strong argument that this is more about adaptive re -use. Regardless, against this backdrop, one would assume that power centers were taking it on the chin. But they are holding up well. And this isn't just because the best operators have taken creative approaches to leasing and have been willing to invest in expensive demising and upgrades of their space (which they have). But it is also because the very nature of power center space has changed. Call them power neighborhood centers or regional neighborhood centers or whatever you like. The fact is that the old paradigm of just throwing up some boxes, leasing to a few regional players and hoping for a strong 10 -mile trade area is dead. The new paradigm for power centers is about straddling both the power and community/ neighborhood center worlds. Despite this, the power centers that we track are reporting vacancy (as of Q3 2013) of just 6.3 %. This is down from a reading of 6.4% in Q2 and 7.0% a year ago. We've tracked just under 7.9 million square feet of occupancy growth for this product type over the past twelve months. During that same time, developers added nearly 900,000 square feet of new product to the marketplace. The question, of course, is with big box demand shrinking (both in terms of retailer demand for locations and actual footprint), why are power centers continuing to perform so well? Adaptation is the answer. While there remain disparities in performance within this sector that are nearly all based on class, there are a few common threads that we have seen with the best performing power centers. The first is that these landlordswere notafraid to spend moneytodemise larger, vacant boxes a few years back when big box vacancy became a major issue. Those who made the investment were able to chop up larger space and land new, more nimble junior box users. The second major trend has to do with embracing food users, particularly grocery tenants. The addition of grocery components makes perfect sense —small format grocery players have proven to be excellent tenants for power centers looking to backfill vacant Circuit City locations. But this play isn't just about getting empty space filled —it is about repositioning. The idea is simple., power centers used to be all about big box retailers with regional draws. Add some grocery components and now you have hedged your bets with both regional and local draws. The new power center is really a hybrid neighborhood center. Nearly all of the new development that we are tracking for this product type includes significant commitments in place from food anchors, as opposed to the old host of big box users. Target and Walmart Superstores, in particular, have proven to be extremely attractive tenants to land. Both offer strong neighborhood and regional draws in terms of shoppers, but they both also prove to be attractive anchors for inline tenants to follow. Construction Returning to Marketplace From 2002 to 2008 developers added nearly 140 million square feet of new shopping center space to the marketplace. Those numbers dropped precipitously during the Great Recession. From 2009 to 2012 we tracked just 23.2 million square feet of new product that was delivered. Mostly this was in the form of additional pad buildings at existing shopping centers, though outlet centers saw strong growth and there were a couple of regional malls —long in the works from before the downturn that were delivered as well. Yet, in the past year, we have tracked nearly 18 million square feet of new shopping space that was delivered to the marketplace. The development pipeline, so far, has overwhelmingly been about infill urban projects (whether new or redevelopment). But with the return of the nation's housing market and new home construction expected to pick up significantly in 2014, we anticipate that new construction levels will pick up further next year. Of the roughly 18 million square feet of new product delivered over the past year, nearly 60% of that has been at existing centers where expansions or redevelopment took place. In terms of product types, community /neighborhood /strip centers accounted for the lion's share of activity. We tracked just under 10.4 million square feet of product that has been delivered over the past year, accounting for just under 30% of all new construction. Specialty centers accounted for just over 4.5 million square feet of new product — nearly all of which was in the form of outlet centers—which remain white hot. Malls accounted for just under 2.5 million square feet of new space, while the nation's power center inventory grew by just under two million square feet. U.S. Shopping Center Development Shopping Center Deliveries 37 MSF 2002 - 2008 30 26.6 2 U MSF 2009 - 2012 2s 24.1 20 196 20.7 20.9 184 193 1 Q V MSF Last 12 Months LL 1].] 0) 14.2 4.0 ti 15- 10 ' 8.6 1 510 000000000 3.2 = 3.4 Nfm Source: Cassidy Turley Research /Costar We are now tracking 14.4 million square feet of new shopping space under construction in the United States. This is the largest amount of new space in the development pipeline that we have tracked since early 2009 when the pipeline was still emptying following the onset of the recession in September 2008. Once again, the community/ neighborhood /strip category leads the pack with over 6.8 million square feet of space under development. Specialty centers follow with nearly 3.2 million square feet of product under construction, while malls account for just over 2.4 million square feet of planned deliveries. Lastly, we are tracking just under two million square feet of new power center development. These projects have varying delivery timelines over the next six quarters. The Southeast U.S. leads the way with just under 4.7 million square feet of space under development. The Pacific region followswith 3.4 million squarefeet. There isjustover 2.5 million square feet of new development underway throughout the Northeast, while the Mountain region has roughly 1.9 million square feet of new projects in the works. The Great Lakes, Great Plains, Texas and South U.S. regions all have less than one million square feet of active construction projects in their respective pipelines. Proposed projects are up as well. The Directory of Major Malls is now tracking 36 major projects in the planning stages throughout the U.S. that are one million square feet in size or greater. The majority of these are mall or lifestyle center projects and a substantial number of them are mixed -use in nature. But despite, the uptick in new development activity, we have yet to see many developers willing to build speculatively and we don't expect that to change anytime soon. This certainly won't be the case in terms of anchor tenancy anytime within the next few years —if not throughout the entire foreseeable future. The building pattern for the next decade is likely to be based upon secure commitments in place to anchors, minimal speculative building on inline space and delivery in phases. Retail fundamentals may be improving, and the construction pipeline growing, but don't expect much in the way of risk taking any time soon. Class Acts Rule the Roost Overall retail vacancy has been on a downward trajectory going on four years now, but declines in vacancy have been relatively slow with changes measured more in basis than percentage points. Of course, recovery has been uneven both geographically and across product types. But across every market that we track and across every shopping center type we have also seen sharp divisions in performance on the basis of class. In virtually every market that we track, we found that retailer demand for Class A space was extremely robust and this held true in even the most challenged local economies. Of course, this is nothing new. Recovery started with Class A —even with a diminished pool of actively growing tenants this is where retailers look first for growth. Retailer demand has been on the upswing for four years now and though this demand has only increased incrementally each year, in a marketplace where there has been little in the way of new construction Class A options are now few and far between in most markets. Demand for quality space has now spilled over to Class B product in most major U.S. markets with vacancy for these shopping centers falling and rents finally starting to show some signs of growth (rents have been on the upswing for Class A product in most trade areas for well over two years now). But this trend has yet to spread to many secondary and tertiary markets — particularly in portions of the Midwest and South. It also hasn't, and likely won't, spread to Class C product—which will continue to remain challenged even in some of the nation's tightest vacancy marketplaces. Mall at Luxury Point Sayreville, NJ Lifestyle Specialty Yes 2,600,000 Bass Pro Shops O'Neill Properties Group Copper Ridge at Northgate Colorado Springs, CO Lifestyle Specialty Yes 2,000,000 Bass Pro Shops Northgate Properties Berry Farms Franklin, TN Lifestyle Specialty No 1,800,000 Boyle Investment Company Okatie Crossing Bluffton, SC Lifestyle Specialty No 1,600,000 Horne Properties The Shops at East Prairie Ames, IA Lifestyle Specialty No 1,500,000 Wolford Development Konterra Town Center East Laurel, MD Lifestyle Specialty Yes 1,500,000 Konterra Realty Parkside Town Commons Raleigh -Cary, NC Lifestyle Specialty Yes 1,500,000 Target, 02 Fitness, Frank Theatres Kite Realty Group The Falls Bristol, VA Lifestyle Specialty No 1,500,000 Cabela's Interstate Realty Advisors Columbia Crossing Columbia, IL Lifestyle Specialty Yes 1,500,000 G.J. Grewe Seaport Square Boston, MA Lifestyle Specialty No 1,500,000 WS Development The Shops at Summerlin Centre Las Vegas, NV Super Regional Center Yes 1,500,000 Dillard's, Macy's Howard Hughes Waller Town Center Waller, TX Lifestyle Specialty No 1,400,000 Cullinan Properties Ka Makana Ali'i Kapolei, HI Lifestyle Specialty No 1,400,000 DeBartolo Development The Commons at 7th Standard Bakersfield, CA Super Regional Center Yes 1,385,000 Bidart Bros. The Railyards Sacramento, CA Lifestyle Specialty No 1,300,000 Inland American Retail Mgmt. Estrella Falls Mall Goodyear, AZ Super Regional Center Yes 1,300,000 Macerich The Triangle Murrieta, CA Lifestyle Specialty No 1,300,000 Domenigoni Barton Properties The Pinnacle Bristol, TN Super Regional Center Yes 1,300,000 Bass Pro Shops, Belk, Regal Cinemas Johnson Commercial Development Delta Shores Sacramento, CA Lifestyle Specialty No 1,300,000 Merlone Geier The Bridges at Mint Hill Mint Hill, NC Lifestyle Specialty No 1,500,000 Belk Howard Hughes The overwhelming majority of shopping center vacancy that exists today throughout the United States is in Class B or C product. Even in the most economically challenged markets where the overall metrics indicate flat overall asking rents, Class A rents are climbing by as much as 5% or more annually. In mid - performing markets we have seen Class A rents climb by as much as 10% and we have seen increases of more than that in some of the hottest trade areas. Until enough new product is delivered to the marketplace to sate demand, expect this trend to continue. The shortage of Class A space is now starting to discourage growth in some trade areas. For example, we know of a number of retailers who have slowed or postponed planned expansion in the San Francisco Bay Area as they patiently wait for quality space to become available. We have heard similar anecdotal information from multiple markets on both coasts (demand remains white hot in Texas, however, because developers never fully stopped building here during the recession space options remains plentiful). This has proven beneficial to many trade areas that came late to the recovery but that are blossoming now — particularly for a number of cities in the Mountain region. Phoenix and Las Vegas were hammered by the recession but have seen retail demand and activity radically improve in the past 18 months. Denver is white -hot in terms of demand while Salt Lake City is also seeing strong activity. metros like Washington DC, New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Boston, Houston, Dallas and San Diego. But thanks to economic recovery picking up in a number of major secondary markets and the fact that retailers are now finding little room to grow in many of these markets, we have seen a number of upstart trade areas surpassing these cities in terms of actual occupancy growth. Looking Ahead Retailer demand next year will still be primarily about the economy or the Internet. Discounters and luxury players will be active but just as the middle class consumer will still largely be in frugality mode, mid - priced hard goods players will largely be inactive in terms of bricks and mortar growth. Meanwhile, food related users (restaurants and grocery) and service users will remain extremely active. "The overwhelming majority of shopping center vacancy that exists today throughout the United States is in Class B or C product. Even in the most economically challenged markets where the overall metrics indicate flat overall asking rents, Class A rents are climbing by as much as 5% or more annually. in mid - performing markets we have seen Class A rents climb by as much as 10% and we have seen increases of more than that in some of the hottest trade areas. Until In recent years, our review of top producing trade areas (in terms of enough new product is delivered to the marketplace to sate retailer demand and occupancy growth) have consistently included demand, expect this trend to continue." Though there will be closures and consolidations among a number of major chains, large scale bankruptcies will be fewer overall than what we saw this year or last. Space givebacks will be down slightly while demand will be up slightly. Neighborhood centers will see the greatest level of improvement; malls the least -but a rising tide will lift all boats. "...the most important economic trend impacting mom -and- pop demand is the return of housing appreciation. Home equity lines of credit are the initial line of funding for most (an estimated 75 %) of these start -ups. Though the numbers will be tepid to begin with, we will see small business creation gradually accelerating over the next 24 months. " The return of the housing market will remain the single greatest overriding economic story and the one with the most significance for retail. Rising home values will continue, though not at the whiplash pace of the past 18 months. Instead, we will begin to see housing values in most markets falling into more sustainable levels of growth. New home construction will ramp up; this will help to drive lower unemployment, greater wage growth and improved consumer spending. The real impact might not be clearly felt until 2015, but it will be felt. Shopping Centers (All Types) MMM 1. San Francisco, CA 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% (Includes SF Peninsula) 2. Hawaii 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3. Pittsburgh, PA 4.8% 4.7% 5.5% 4. New York Metro (NYC, Long Island, Southern CT) 4.9% 4.9% 5.1% 5. San Jose, CA 5.3% 5.4% 5.7% 6. Boston, MA 5.5% 5.2% 5.3% 7. Salt Lake City, UT 5.5% 5.3% 5.9% 8. San Diego, CA 5.6% 5.2% 5.8% 9. Oakland /East Bay, CA 5.6% 5.8% 5.8% 10. Orange County, CA 5.6% 5.8% 5.8% 11. Washington DC 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 12. Los Angeles, CA 5.9% 5.7% 6.0% 13. Santa Barbara, CA 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 14. Des Moines, IA 6.6% 6.5% 7.1% 15. Baltimore, MD 6.7% 6.5% 7.2% 16. Austin, TX 6.7% 6.6% 7.0% 17. Northern New Jersey 6.8% 6.7% 7.2% 18. Minneapolis /St. Paul, MN 7.0% 7.0% 7.6% 19. Miami, FL 7.0% 6.9% 7.1% 20. Seattle, WA 7.2% 7.0% 7.6% 21. Raleigh /Durham, NC 7.3% 7.2% 7.0% 22. Charleston, SC 7.3% 6.9% 6.9% 23. Denver, CO 7.7% 7.6% 8.3% 24. New Orleans, LA 7.8% 7.6% 8.8% 25. Portland, OR 7.9% 7.7% 8.1% Source: Cassidy Turley Research /Costar Most importantly, the return of increasing home values will translate into stronger consumer spending, less frugality among middle -class shopper and a resurgence of small business creation. In terms of retailer demand, mom - and -pop retail has been the missing link. These are the bread - and -butter tenant type for neighborhood and strip retail centers, but they also certainly help to increase the pool of demand for all retail space. While we have only just begun to see some signs of life from this sector (after nearly six years), the action has largely been limited so far to the nation's strongest local economies. That is because that is where we see the greatest strength in home values. This is why the most important economic trend impacting mom - and -pop demand is the return of housing appreciation. Home equity lines of credit are the initial line of funding for most (an estimated 75 %) of these start -ups. Though the numbers will be tepid to begin with, we will see small business creation gradually accelerating over the next 24 months. Look for continued incremental declines in overall shopping center vacancy heading into 2014. We anticipate that overall vacancy will fall to near the 7.9% mark by the close of next year, despite the fact that new construction will pick up considerably and 2014 will see many of the issues surrounding the shortage of Class A space alleviated. Regional Map ■ West ■ Midwest ■ South ■ Northeas Methodology Disclaimer Cassidy Turley's quarterly estimates are derived from a variety of data sources, including its own proprietary sample of market activity, historical inventory data from Bureau of Labor This report and other research materials Statistics Employment data, CoStar and other third party data sources. The market statistics may be found on our website at are calculated from a base building inventory made up of shopping center properties www.cassidyturley.com. This is a research deemed to be competitive in the local retail markets. The inventory is subject to revisions document of Cassidy Turley in Washington, due to resampling. Vacant space is defined as space that is available immediately or three DC. Questions related to information months (90 days) after the end of the quarter. Sublet space still occupied by the tenant is herein should be directed to the Research Department at 202 - 463 -2100. Information not counted as available space. contained herein has been obtained The figures provided for the current quarter are preliminary, and all information contained in from sources deemed reliable and no the report is subject to correction of errors and revisions based on additional data received. representation is made as to the accuracy thereof. Cassidy Turley is a leading commercial real estate services provider, Explanation of Terms with 400 million square feet managed on Total Inventory: The total amount of retail space within a shopping center. behalf of institutional, private and corporate Total Space Available: The sums of new, relet and sublet space that is unoccupied and clients and $22 billion in completed transactions for 2012. being actively marketed. Vacancy Rate: The amount of unoccupied space (new, relet and sublet) expressed as a percentage of total inventory. Absorption: The net change in occupied space between two points in time. (Total occupied space in the present quarter minus total occupied space from the previous quarter, quoted on a net, not gross, basis.) Asking Rents: Triple net average asking rents. Regional Map ■ West ■ Midwest ■ South ■ Northeas A Leader in Commercial Real Estate Services At Cassidy Turley, we are market leaders, industry leaders and community leaders. Nationwide, clients recognize us for the creative sophistication of our real estate advice as well as for the discipline and accuracy of our service delivery. We are a trusted partner and advocate, supporting our clients' overall business performance. In markets across the country, we are respected as a leading provider of commercial real estate services as well as for our community engagement. Our thorough understanding of local business practices and market dynamics, combined with our customer focus and service commitment, give our clients a distinct edge in commercial real estate across the globe. Local Market Leaders, Nationwide • Our professionals have deep ties to our communities and our industry, and a thorough Key Statistics understanding of local business leaders and practices, giving Cassidy Turley and our • More than 60 U.S. offices clients an edge. • 65 international offices* • Our in- depth, local market knowledge provides a comprehensive understanding of • More than 3,800 professionals market dynamics and enables us to effectively forecast market trends — providing insight to clients and helping them make informed real estate decisions. • More than 970 brokers • Our leadership position is recognized in the communities we serve. We are often rated • 2012 transactions in local business journals as a "Best Place to Work," and are honored for our many — Gross transaction volume local philanthropic efforts. $22 billion Industry Leadership — Gross capital markets • Named to Leaders List of 2013 Global Outsourcing 100 volume $9.2 billion • Over 80% of real estate executives familiar with our brand ranked it Very Good or • 400 million sf managed Excellent— Wall Street Journal survey portfolio on behalf of institutional, corporate and • Ranked a Top 5 Brand — Lipsey's 2013 Commercial Real Estate Brandy Survey private clients • Ranked in the Top 5 in Best Practices Index — Commercial Property Executive • More than 23,000 client • 2012 Greenest Company Index — Commercial Property Executive locations served • Named by the EPA a 2013 ENERGY STAR° Partner of the Year *Through GVA Partnership World -Class Expertise • Many of our associates have honed their skills in their respective markets for years — even decades — gaining an understanding of industry best practices and serving as thought leaders. • Cassidy Turley has served clients' needs outside of the United States since 1985. In order to better serve our clients in Europe and Asia - Pacific, Cassidy Turley is proud to partner with GVA, the founder and majority shareholder of GVA Worldwide, which serves key markets in over 25 countries. CITY OF DUBLIN Business Incentives Handout Dublin, A Great Place to Grow! The City of Dublin encourages the development of businesses. The City's Economic Development Department has compiled a list of incentives that can offer assistance (both financial and training) to help you develop your business in our community. CITY INCENTIVES Commercial Facade Improvement Grant Program The City offers a Commercial Facade Improvement Grant Program for commercial businesses located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area and the segment of Dublin Boulevard between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road. This grant would permit commercial property owners, or tenants with long -term leases (five or more years remaining on the lease at the time a Program application is submitted) to apply for either: 1) a mini -grant for reimbursement of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000); or 2) a matching grant, which would provide reimbursement for two - thirds (66 %) of eligible project costs, up to a maximum determined by the Fiscal Year budget cycle annually. The total cost of the improvement work must be more than five thousand dollars ($5,000). Receipt of a matching grant requires the approved applicant to contribute a minimum of one -third of the total cost of the facade improvement costs. Fee Deferral Program The City offers two Fee Deferral Programs, one for non - residential development projects and one for multi - family residential development projects within the Transit Districts. The non - residential development deferral allows development to pay the Traffic Impact Fee to the City just prior to occupancy. The multi - family residential development deferral allows development to pay the Traffic Impact Fees, Public Facilities Fees and Fire Facilities Fees just prior to occupancy. PACE Financing for Energy Upgrades The City has partnered with Figtree Energy Resource Company and California FIRST to offer Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation upgrades. Some examples on ways you can save money are: • Heating and Air Conditioning • Solar Thermal Water Heaters • Boilers and Chillers 0 Pool Equipment • Lighting 0 Programmable Thermostats • Energy Management Systems • Solar Photovoltaic Systems • Windows and Exterior Doors • Solar Reflective Roofing • Occupancy Sensors • Water- Efficient Plumbing Fixtures • Electric Vehicle Charging Stations • And Many More Dublin commercial property owners have the choice to work with Figtree Energy Resource Company or California FIRST for financing. Sales Tax Reimbursement Program For businesses that generate more than $10 million in taxable sales, the City has developed a program to help offset investments in improvements to the site or building that the business proposes to occupy. The City will reimburse a business up to 50% of their annual sales tax for a period of five years, up to the amount they invested in the property. For users that generate more than $50 million in taxable sales, the City will reimburse a business up to 50% for a period of 10 years. Example: Business A is expected to generate $20 million in taxable sales annually (attributable to the City of Dublin). Business A needs to invest $500,000 in building improvements. Business A enters into an agreement with the City to be reimbursed for their improvements. Business A generates the anticipated $20 million in year one. This results in $200,000 in new sales tax revenue to the City of Dublin. Of this amount, Business A is eligible for $100,000 in year one (50% of the new sales tax revenue to the City). Sewer Capacity Assistance Program In partnership with the Dublin San Ramon Services District ( DSRSD) (provider of water and sewer service), the City now offers financial assistance to businesses that require new or additional sewer capacity. As part of the Program, the City can provide a credit of up to 25% of the DSRSD sewer connection fees that would otherwise be paid by the applicant. Example: A prospective restaurant gets a fee estimate from DSRSD for sewer capacity in the amount of $300,000. The City of Dublin can contribute up to $75,000 in sewer capacity to that restaurant. For restaurant and entertainment users located within the Downtown Specific Plan area and the Eastern Dublin Transit Center, depending on the type, the City can allocate a higher percentage of credit. Contact the Economic Development Office for more information. In addition to the City program, DSRSD does offer a financing program of up to $100,000 for users that require sewer capacity. Small Business Assistance Program The City offers a Small Business Assistance Program to assist Dublin -based businesses with the cost of complying with federal, state and local laws relating to disability access requirements, trash enclosures, sewer connections and other such obligations imposed on small businesses. City staff is also available to provide the following services: • One -to -one assistance with zoning related questions • Site Selection For additional information, please contact: Hazel Wetherford, Senior Economic Development Analyst hazel.wetherford @dublin.ca.gov (925) 833 -6650 APPENDIX D. Homework Assignment and Summary commercial development task force city of dublin Summary of Homework Assignment RECEIVED FROM: • Sulayman Bimar • Steve Lockhart ✓ Jim LeQuin • Bill Schaub • Renata Flecchia Tyler • Stephen Wright • Robert Costa • Melissa Sladden • Kerrie Chabot Prashant Ravani Janine Thalblum Todd Padnos The following is a summary of the responses to the homework assignment distributed to Task Force members following the third meeting on June 5, 2014. The purpose of the assignment was to gather perspectives on a set of key issues highlighted during presentations and discussions at the prior meetings. The topics included desirability of the various opportunity sites, uses and retail format typologies appropriate for the sites, as well as design principles that would guide commercial development around Dublin. Nine Task Force members submitted their answers and comments to the assignment. Responses to the questions have been aggregated with some editing for clarity. The results will be synthesized to form a set of preliminary recommendations in fulfillment of the Task Force charge from the Dublin City Council. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 1 Question 1. Site Desirability in your opinion, what is the most desirable site for commercial development in Dublin? Why? Please list the remaining sites in order of preference in terms of desirability. Please describe what influenced your selections. The table below summarizes the ranking of each site's desirability. For example, Downtown Dublin was mentioned once as the most desirable commercial development site, three times as the second -most desirable, once as the fourth -most desirable and twice as the fifth -most desirable. * The total of responses in column 1 (most desirable) is greater than the number of respondents because some members selected more than one site. Dublin Land Company received the greatest number of mentions as most desirable, followed by equal numbers of votes for Downtown Dublin, The Green at Park Place, Promenade /Grafton Plaza, and the Chen Property. Comments describing the reasons for selecting the site(s) as most desirable include: • Dublin Land Company. It is needed to service the residents of the eastern side of Dublin and Tassajara Valley as it's on the "going- home" side. • Dublin Land Company would be where I would think is most desirable as this spot has close access to the freeway and is located right in between East and West Dublin, and by Emerald Green Park. • Dublin Land Company. Accessibility, visibility, size. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 2. I believe the DLC 2 site is most desirable given its location bordering Tassajara Rd and Dublin Blvd. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 is the best location for retail (tied to nearby parcel) due to proximity to the freeway and undeveloped land. Also, it is not too far from Pleasanton and Livermore, and is in an affluent area which could support the shops. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 1. (Same reasoning as above.) I do not think the freeway is an inhibitor, but rather an advantage. Walls can be built and landscaping done. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 3. (Same reasons as above.) Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 2 1* 2 3 4 5 Downtown ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ Dublin The Green at Park ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ Place Dublin Land ✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ Company ✓✓✓✓ The Promenade / ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ Grafton Plaza Chen ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ Property * The total of responses in column 1 (most desirable) is greater than the number of respondents because some members selected more than one site. Dublin Land Company received the greatest number of mentions as most desirable, followed by equal numbers of votes for Downtown Dublin, The Green at Park Place, Promenade /Grafton Plaza, and the Chen Property. Comments describing the reasons for selecting the site(s) as most desirable include: • Dublin Land Company. It is needed to service the residents of the eastern side of Dublin and Tassajara Valley as it's on the "going- home" side. • Dublin Land Company would be where I would think is most desirable as this spot has close access to the freeway and is located right in between East and West Dublin, and by Emerald Green Park. • Dublin Land Company. Accessibility, visibility, size. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 2. I believe the DLC 2 site is most desirable given its location bordering Tassajara Rd and Dublin Blvd. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 is the best location for retail (tied to nearby parcel) due to proximity to the freeway and undeveloped land. Also, it is not too far from Pleasanton and Livermore, and is in an affluent area which could support the shops. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 1. (Same reasoning as above.) I do not think the freeway is an inhibitor, but rather an advantage. Walls can be built and landscaping done. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 3. (Same reasons as above.) Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 2 • I think the four sites that border I -580 (The Green; Dublin Land Company; Grafton Plaza; and Chen Property) are the most desirable locations for commercial development. Freeway access and visibility is key to success and to keeping traffic off city streets. It would be nice to see at least one of these locations become Class A office space for a potential tech client. • Downtown Dublin. We should create a town center and there are a number of commercial vacancies. • Downtown Dublin. If Regional Street and /or Village Parkway were re- designed to have walkable retail with trendier shops and eateries this location would be wonderful; however it seems like it is too late to make this happen. • The Green at Park Place — Provides connectivity from BART to existing & established shopping center. Great accessibility, visibility to potential retailers. Opportunity for pedestrian - friendly design features. • Grafton Plaza. Near Livermore outlets which lack eateries, Target nearby as anchor is great draw. Promenade. There is lots of medium -high density housing to support this area and it is close to freeway which allows more foot traffic. It is undeveloped which means it can be designed to area needs. • Chen Property. Close to big shopping areas and needs less architectural and design overhead. Each opportunity site is shown below, with the array of ranked responses, followed by comments regarding the site. Downtown Dublin 1 1 2 3 4 5 ✓✓ I ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ • I would select "Downtown Dublin" for commercial re- development, with the inclusion of a town center, higher end retail, including more upscale restaurants. The area should be pedestrian- and cycling - friendly. And thought should be given to live /work /loft space on the former Honda site in an attempt to bring in crafts people and artists. • Downtown Dublin would be next on my list as we need a space that can truly be called downtown. There is enough space to build on that site as well. • Downtown is the most desirable for that pedestrian - friendly type of development. Regional Street is perfect for such redevelopment of this type. High degree of architectural design required. • Downtown Dublin. Retail as required as development grows. The real need is to renovate existing commercial to service expanding housing. • Too much demolition and rebuilding needed. • Downtown Dublin is 2nd given its existing foundation in the city and now proximity to the new BART station. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 3 The Green at Park Place 1 1 2 3 4 5 ✓✓ I ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ • It's kind of already done. • The Green at Park Place would be another area which would be good for development. Again, good freeway access, the introduction of Whole Foods and it being so close to Kaiser, Oracle and SAP for customers during the day. • Accessibility, visibility. • Need complementary retail for the neighboring centers already built or planned and specialties as a restaurant village. • Lastly, The Green has freeway visibility but it is very difficult to "easily" access it. Dublin Land Company (The Dublin Land Company property is mentioned both by specific parcel, as well as one property. The responses are displayed accordingly.) • Dublin Land Company is clearly in a good shopping area. Area 1 is most appealing; migrating to Parcels 2 and 3 for residential. Not sure what to do with Parcel 4. • I believe Promenade and the Dublin Land Company properties could be a mix of residential and retail, but not for at least five years. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 1 has the freeway exposure and opposite location to the potential retail development of Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 and existing Lowes. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 Dublin Land Co. ✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ Parcel 1 Dublin Land Co. ✓✓ ✓✓ Parcel 2 Dublin Land Co. ✓ ✓ Parcel 3 Dublin Land Co. ✓ Parcel 4 Dublin Land Co. ✓✓✓✓✓ ✓ (general) Dublin Land Co. ✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ Total ✓✓✓ • Dublin Land Company is clearly in a good shopping area. Area 1 is most appealing; migrating to Parcels 2 and 3 for residential. Not sure what to do with Parcel 4. • I believe Promenade and the Dublin Land Company properties could be a mix of residential and retail, but not for at least five years. • Dublin Land Company Parcel 1 has the freeway exposure and opposite location to the potential retail development of Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 and existing Lowes. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 4 Promenade and Grafton Plaza 1 2 1 3 4 5 ✓✓ IvV ✓✓✓✓ • I believe Promenade and the Dublin Land Company properties could be a mix of residential and retail, but not for at least five years. • Promenade /Grafton Plaza to add restaurants and round out neighborhood services. • Grafton Plaza and Promenade has the potential for growth if done correctly. • The Promenade offers an existing "mass" of nearby residents looking for the downtown conveniences to shop for daily needs. Chen Property 1 1 2 3 4 5 ✓✓ I ✓✓ I I I ✓✓ • Needed for neighborhoods developing in the far eastern side of Dublin. • Accessibility, visibility, size. • Chen property is close enough for development as a mixed use space. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 5 2. Commercial /Retail Typology On which of the five development sites in Dublin do you think this type of retail would make the most sense? Why? The five typologies, or formats, shown were determined to be those most likely to be applicable to Dublin. For purposes of this exercise, the typologies had the following characteristics: Neighborhood Shopping Center • Supermarket- anchored strip mall • In -front parking field • Focus on convenience goods and services • Draws local residents (i.e. within 3 miles) • 30K to 125K square feet (3 to 12 acres) Example: Waterford Place, Dublin Hybrid Power /Neighborhood Center • Strip of big and medium -box stores (power center) • In -front parking field • Also include neighborhood draws (e.g. grocer) • Represents a hedge against online channel Example: El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito Ethnic Specialty Center • Anchored by grocer, cinema, restaurant cluster, cultural center • Draws on formats and customs of home country • Requires corresponding ethnicity • Can pull from a distance • Allows for adaptive reuse of older Class B/C strips, vacant boxes • Not driven by prototype Example: Uffert's Center, Dublin "Faux" Main Street • Requires either... 1. "Captive" density (urban) • Can include commodity brands • San Francisco not comparable 2. Destination (suburban) ■ Dining /entertainment and specialty ■ Needs critical mass to drive foot traffic ■ Parking just within walking distance 3. Convenience (suburban) • Walk -in population insufficient • Needs clearly visible parking • Zero - setback access not advised Example: Fourth Street, Berkeley Hybrid Power /Lifestyle Center (aka "Power Town ") • "Main Street" core surrounded by power center • Surface parking between the two • "Main Street" or central plaza • Most often centered on a multiplex, with in -line space filled by food / drink and teen retailers • Sometimes anchored by a department store • 500K square feet and up (50 acres) Example: Hacienda Crossings, Dublin Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 6 The table below indicates the types of commercial retail Task Force members felt would be most appropriate for each of the five opportunity sites. (The Dublin Land Company property is mentioned both by specific parcel, as well as one property.) For each typology there may be more than nine selections, because a member selected more than one site for that type. Questions and comments generated include: Neighborhood Shopping Center • Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 could mirror this type of development becoming the hinge between commercial and residential sites. • Easily, DLC2 is the most likely site given its proximity to Waterford Center. • I think the downtown area would be a good placement for those additions, and have some opening to enable some walkways and additional spaces for biking in that area. • The Green at Park Place, Dublin Land Company, Promenade /Grafton Plaza sites — due to nearby residential areas. • Chen because that area needs these types of services and retailers. "Faux" Main Street • The Promenade seems most likely to create this retail shop. • I think this mix could possibly work on either of the Dublin Land parcels. • The Green — upscale walkable restaurants and shops for transit residents. • The Dublin Land Company property would be an excellent site for Main Street -type location, as there is enough room to make this happen with the spacing of parking, accessible from cars and bikes. • Downtown Dublin site — to encourage a walking downtown; i.e., foot traffic. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 7 TYPOLOGY Opportunity Neighborhood "Faux" Main Hybrid Power Hybrid Power Ethnic Specialty Site Shopping Ctr. Street Nbad. Ctr. Lifestyle Ctr. Ctr. Downtown Dublin ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ The Green at Park ✓ ✓ ✓✓ Place Dublin Land Co. ✓ ✓ ✓ Parcel 1 Dublin Land Co. ✓ ✓✓ ✓ Parcel 2 Dublin Land Co. Parcel 3 Dublin Land Co. Parcel 4 Dublin Land Co. ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ The Promenade/ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ Grafton Plaza Chen Property ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ Questions and comments generated include: Neighborhood Shopping Center • Dublin Land Company Parcel 2 could mirror this type of development becoming the hinge between commercial and residential sites. • Easily, DLC2 is the most likely site given its proximity to Waterford Center. • I think the downtown area would be a good placement for those additions, and have some opening to enable some walkways and additional spaces for biking in that area. • The Green at Park Place, Dublin Land Company, Promenade /Grafton Plaza sites — due to nearby residential areas. • Chen because that area needs these types of services and retailers. "Faux" Main Street • The Promenade seems most likely to create this retail shop. • I think this mix could possibly work on either of the Dublin Land parcels. • The Green — upscale walkable restaurants and shops for transit residents. • The Dublin Land Company property would be an excellent site for Main Street -type location, as there is enough room to make this happen with the spacing of parking, accessible from cars and bikes. • Downtown Dublin site — to encourage a walking downtown; i.e., foot traffic. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 7 Hybrid Power Neighborhood Center • Downtown — Established retail hub, connectivity to 580/680. • Downtown Dublin could develop this location since it is now in existence and can draw from BART. • This kind of mix already is accessible in existing commercial areas on the west and east side. Possibly this would work on the Chen property if there is residential development to support it. • Dublin Land Company — great for residents and people going to Contra Costa County. • Downtown Dublin would work for this type of development as there is the space for it; or you have Dublin Land Company or the Chen Property. • Chen site — due to the size of the parcel. • Promenade — this is a nice complement to the area. Hybrid Power Lifestyle Center • Chen — to capitalize on surrounding shopping. • Not an option for development in Dublin. However, a true lifestyle center would be more appropriate in the property across Hacienda Drive -- "the Green ". • Grafton Plaza could become this Hybrid center; it has Lowes and assorted restaurants now and can handle additional mixed use entities. • Dublin Land Company and /or Chen sites due to the land size. Ethnic Specialty Retail Center • Downtown Dublin would be a good location, and perhaps centerpiece, of a redeveloped downtown Dublin. • This might also work in the Downtown Dublin site. • The Green is somewhat isolated and could become a specific ethnic center. • The Green at Park Place, with maybe some mixed use given proximity to transit. • Grafton Plaza — to serve neighborhood. • Promenade /Grafton sites — due to the demographics in the area and size of the sites. • The Chen property would be good for the ethnic approach, and I think it would be highly successful in that area due to the new home developments. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 8 3. Range of Uses What type of uses do you think are most appropriate for each of the five opportunity sites? Why? For this question, Task Force members indicated which uses they felt would be appropriate for each opportunity site. Some sites were envisioned for a range of uses; others were more targeted. "Residential" in this exercise means exclusively residential; "Mixed -Use" means a mix of residential and other uses. Comments regarding Questions and comments generated include: Retail • I don't think we need another massive retail -only center, unless it is re- imagined with a faux main street, fountain, specialty shops, etc. • Chen, due to its proximity to other centers. • Dublin Land Company to support residential. • All sites could be considered. Office • One of the properties bordering I -580 (The Green, Dublin Land Company Parcel 1, Chen) or, perhaps, one of the Dublin Land Company parcels. • All sites OK, except for downtown. • The Green could focus on this identity since it is a bit tucked away from immediate street access. Residential I don't feel the task force got enough information on residential to address this. The residential market is very finicky, and I worry that in the future we could end up with a lot of "underwater" residential here. • Dublin Land Company — needed to support retail. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 9 TYPE OF USE Opportunity Site Retail Office Residential Mixed -Use Downtown Dublin ✓✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ The Green at Park Place ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓✓ Dublin Land Co. Parcel 1 ✓ ✓ ✓✓ Dublin Land Co. Parcel 2 ✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ Dublin Land Co. Parcel 3 ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ Dublin Land Co. Parcel 4 ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ Dublin Land Co. ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ The Promenade/ Grafton Plaza ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ Chen Property ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ Questions and comments generated include: Retail • I don't think we need another massive retail -only center, unless it is re- imagined with a faux main street, fountain, specialty shops, etc. • Chen, due to its proximity to other centers. • Dublin Land Company to support residential. • All sites could be considered. Office • One of the properties bordering I -580 (The Green, Dublin Land Company Parcel 1, Chen) or, perhaps, one of the Dublin Land Company parcels. • All sites OK, except for downtown. • The Green could focus on this identity since it is a bit tucked away from immediate street access. Residential I don't feel the task force got enough information on residential to address this. The residential market is very finicky, and I worry that in the future we could end up with a lot of "underwater" residential here. • Dublin Land Company — needed to support retail. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 9 Mixed -Use • Promenade -- Retail, office. • The Green — next to BART; Downtown near BART. • All sites OK. • The Promenade could support mixed -use, since it seems to need a specific "draw" to entice people to make the extra effort to reach it. 4. Design Principle Elements Please indicate what design principles you would suggest to maximize the viability of the opportunity sites. This question was divided into three sections: Materials, Textures and Character; Amenities; and Connectivity, Access and Sustainability. Task Force Members' comments are shown under each section. A. Materuals, Textures and Character What character - defining elements of texture and materials would you like to see with future commercial development in Dublin? • Modern materials, facades setbacks, green walls, recessed upper stories creating terraces /balconies. • Elements that create a sense of place are critical. At least one of these areas should have it. Contemporary street design, lighting, parking garage, emphasis on walkable /cycling. The bottom photograph's architecture (Alaska Drive, Lakewood, Colorado) is what I would like to see. • Depends upon the area. Chen, not much. Downtown lots of rich materials and design reliefs. Base, body and roof. Limited use of stucco covered boxes. • Modern architecture, good lighting, good signage. • I would like to see something new and trendy. I like how Emeryville BayStreet is set up with the mix use and the look of a walkway. More than just shopping but a place for the family to come and hang out for hours shop eat and walk around to enjoy the location. • Stone finish seems to work well in Dublin along with contemporary metal fixtures. E. Amenitues What kinds of amenities would you like to see with future commercial development in Dublin? • Rockville (Md.) Town Center is a good example of combining retail, a town center look and feel, with a play element. It is anchored by a Gordon Biersch, has a specialty bakery, coffee, ethnic restaurants, the town library, gym, two 3 -story parking garages and housing above the retail. The Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 --Page 10 height of the buildings protects against the elements (wind in Dublin's case), the center has a play element, with fountains, and the restaurants border the square element so they can open to outdoor seating in nice weather. A small, specialty grocery store also is included. • Downtown needs open space and walkability. Power shopping requires cars and people. • Pedestrian friendly gathering spots, outdoor dining, landscape features. • I think the landscaping is key to make it feel like a place you want to be, play elements for the children is important, and open space where you can picnic with the family or just hang out and enjoy the people around you shopping and relaxing during the day. A place where you can make it a day event rather then a rushed "Let's shop and go home." • Would like to see outdoor cafe seating /lighting, open /green space/ seating, landscaping features, and event space. • Outdoor cafes, event space, water features. • Dublin has been very successful and effective in going GREEN, so open space and colorful / durable landscape are important features. C. Connectivity, Access and Sustainability What aspects of connectivity, access and sustainability would you like to see with future commercial development in Dublin? • Pedestrian - friendly features should be required in any planned development. Sustainability features are required by code (i.e., stormwater planters). Bike lanes, bike racks and storage, safe pedestrian pathways and sidewalks with landscaped borders should be included in any proposed development along with outdoor seating and amenities to encourage outdoor activities, giving space to cafes opening onto outdoor seating areas, performance areas, benches, fountains, landscaping, and trees. • We need a heart, a soul. Many of the elements shown in the pictures are fine. Wakkability and cycling are important. But I also think it's important to get rid of the massive expanse of asphalt by building low- profile (3- story) garages. This would also open up the retail /commercial possibilities. Solar panels over more of the parking in the city also is critical, especially as solar power reaches parity with other electricity sources. • All this looks fine but we have to get serious about biking and even some walking. I don't see many folks with cars doing that. Strong emotional appeal but little real demand. How many task force members ride bikes? • Walkable parking areas that include sustainable landscaping, designated bike lanes. • I think pathways are super important (safe ones) for both pedestrians and bikers to bring their bikes and families, but a place that has to be realistic and making sure there is ample parking. • Would like to see pathways, parking lot landscaping, solar panels. • Pathways and parking lot landscaping, walkability, bikes and solar panels. • Bikeways need to be incorporated into all developments, keeping with the GREEN image of Dublin. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 -- Page 11 5. Other Comments • One issue that I don't think we've tackled is the mix of residential and commercial /retail on these sites. This is critical to the forward look for Dublin. And we should address a timeline for this development. If it all happened in the next 3 to 5 years that would be a bad thing for the community. I hope we get a chance to discuss this at our next meeting. • I think that we have done a great job to date with fewer missteps than I would have thought through the eight years that I was involved. • We need a greater variety of restaurants to attract residents and visitors; better design of garbage and recycling enclosures. • The City needs to do a better job in configuring traffic flow patterns within and around any future developments. More parking and less building density at each site. • Dublin is now on the map and needs to incorporate the smart ideas derived from this task force committee. Commercial Development Task Force Summary of Homework Assignment Results 6125114 --Page 12 W a L 0 0 •L 0 •� N co _a) N L c L 0-0 O .L V) V ro +j +j O3 E DL- 0 a� U i OD E E 0 U O a) N 0 i � O � U E -r- 4- Q a) a) a =3 m ` cn co p � > 4-j a) Q cu cu O j D O% N E_ 0= •� U Q U cu C: O a) � U >' a) 0 0 ca a) a) 0= cn N +2 ca cn O a) 0= -r- a) _ I -a Q p a) 70 ca j �' cn a) 0 0= � a) ca ca a) O ca O }, + -r- (U a) (u �' Z Q a) ca 0= - c c ° O ° U E n a :3 � cu CU O � 0 a) 32 N N a) a) U U O p (u Q 4- 'j a) i a) Q. U p U Q- C) 0) co ° N ,ca 0 cn N O (a 0 (a c 00 Q cn ' -C -0 CU U CU o� O O +Q+ O N a) Q Q ca 4-1 ca p (U > (a 4- -0 `~ x N 6--1 > U ° C: a) () a) O a) a) U) cu O a) +� N O D O 0 a) 0 CU QC: a) cu 1- 0)O Q O O cn >' O a) N E 4-1 a) cn a) Q U p ca = a:+ 0= -0 ca p ca ca can > O M v = cn cn ° a "� a� O C , �L. cn �� co o i c o cn C O c U- c H o ° o cu co " 2 c� ) ) c c o a oc 'a u- E c Er ca 22- 2 cn 0- � w� a o-0 L cu O Q Q i O L 0 H O N N � c �; N (U +� N i N 4- cu Q O .N N N cn O > — Q p CU '� O O C: N (_� i IW N > p N U O O to U .N . a) O O N � 3 N `" � a) � U to N E a V N N U cu cn cu N �= 0 N 4-0 N C\j N >' N U }' 4- 0 7 U 0 0 i O � c > O O � E c N 0- a, a 4-1 N >,70 -a O O � �� C: C � >� a,o�; � aC "�o 3 cn O 4-0 -r- cn cn C -0 O E .O ca N 0 N a) '- -a U O N Q �= cn Q Q U ca ca 4— O � 0 � N >, �O i O CU i N U U � N i `� O N t G1 o Q Q >O ca N p N �' p cn U) N N E a) c: �= > _ O O N _L O C: 2 CU N O cu N _ N � C: >'�_ :3 �+ U ca O N N L_ N N N — � p .� U � __ _ .N O (U O U Q O ._ N V �� O a:+ CU O CU 0 E U " N i� O O V O N p G) � ' O O ca ca p O ._ >+ N =3 }' > �_ V cu > ca v in m O - >, C1 3U " >� Um0°i EL- 0 W 2+ N ry Q A o° S b e s a p O s r � � a a rc U a® d N Q 0 g 8 e S Y 1 a a s z a 0 Q U V 00 N O N W _ 0 CU CU W — CU U X Q 0 N O CU 0 O U to p U (u N C� Q N O Q `- 0 t 2%, N � > CD U CU 0 O N V N O N Q U- Q O N N U N+ L o 4-0 cn a) ^ A O N i N p to C N U N �� E N N } O N U c0 O Q 3: � N =3 0 (u O Q ( c U . >% O E O N N O 4- . — ` G1 O v _>+ o 0 — (a m cu (u N � � U . � cn N _ C: . U N N a) �, Q O N }' U) N O x N O '> Q Q c (a to N 0 Q > � a)-1.- N O O 0 N O O cn 0) � O N Q E O ca LL c Q > a) (� -Q CD 0) CU cam CQ C/) Q v V FD N 0 O � X 0 E 0 U N O� N U 0 0 ._ N N I _ � � N i Q 0 E 0 N U O U) 0 O 0 N � O�+� N X . L� a) 0 -- N ca N Aw- f o o� a —1 ti � F� l + _�- _p #w !�. d Ir Or ve 5 T - •r U ANc / A �I U .CL CL O cn O Z Rr }, N ,WA �NN 5`X 3fl�fll{ s-t 00- 00- LO Co -� O O }_•� nW7VJ i O CO }' O O N L Er � •V O Cl) �� M Tx C = � I c EiOS ' Dr (D #!^ U t4 U cu O G0 {p ,{ . cu pp cuY N O C: Co-- (D (D C N O. N 1C • N �UU 0 C/) (D � +� cn mLL 3: L 0 cn 3fl�fll{ s-t 00- 00- LO Co -� O O }_•� nW7VJ i O CO }' O O N L Er � •V O Cl) �� M Tx C = � I c EiOS ' Dr (D #!^ U t4 U cu O G0 {p ,{ . L U L D ^ W U .CL CL O V! O i L z B.r n 17,n�'= `[iron +night*= r L - f� _- I O � I CL N ' I� 1 rL OWN CI- CL J141rIiU `�� -. O - - - _sand yford, '� - Ile # _� p h J AMC k . • _ ,,�. � -. � � *fit � � � *. I C7C Amy I- � 3 4s k� lo s r i 40. d6�'• : 5' �� �• ,, • ti fu un ID 4,. a 9} a yi 10, 4 4J f ION c O LO ED Vy N a� ark 7 w in ELI _ rh �tt r ■ ri.l F r 17% 13L v t. LA ILI IL i ate. _ V _� + } ♦ 1 '_ ti ®r. V to - � F L41 c IL 40 h y 5 C", k UMr.q fl a a' c {g A n' L3� AI?'- L� .i W G } 4-Z 3 J. rr ' v}[_ • _ •. ate.. O 4 } C6 0). j i C/) 00 (n N rt c O O - U O 4-0 3 .— N � .'{ N �` U }' Co N m N �Y O O U ca O o` CL LL z m }' C: N J i m N L . (m m O � /(1) r �=a -0 O O LL wit low or K _ q WWE NF CL L e ti� s �_ 5 T:* Iik r 44 -i �+ f Le e od PC KU un i 5 � [ O' "-' 4 r+1 _ w aa'� c c°se- L a W 4-0 ED rt N S p > r I [ O y 1 '• L �4-0 +� 0 Q C:L. . co ` O f � 5 p.. 'x'75 ' a - '� • 5 IL S CRT it 5 ai# 9F5fiy rt � -�,W t' p f 4 AV 4 * � }k Ly 4-0 r O _ ; k Pp co co FL laic, 4-0 O },�+ ti 7 u 2. ui 5L. W s ' d� jr (, .. �+ m { C) C/) E v' i� 52 p0 vJ � Ei d L N a CO IP w O (� C/) V # ; c O 0 N Z _.- . O ' _ ( co 3: CD O Co -r Co O :se =3 O LO N N tom O � i ca o i � Q 0 O Cl) cn 4 � xr OL Lf) or f:- 'Js,S i - - d4k- . r i0rtrdZ" _ fJ � m Co w dr ' ~ r ru 7 0 rt- a5 T ' K LLJ w O 'A # rL Y O y� 4* i • jW r + IA t.y TXX �: ' ■ i � JJiJy � �Y Ji ifs y W40 16 ''�%._..: f {mss . _ ` .w: r v. i'y" A � t .x • __ # r� �� r df M■ i 4 _ Nv sue; - � w �5,�, Tt dF U4 �If •. • a ,} r .4r =L En I €��� ' � � ``J �•rJ i •y• O co r co (D _ _ x - �� co i UC -} Y 4 JS 0 MILL C a }v m .Co z cn E cn N 0S ��FI ��� N m cn O CL Co - X> O = U C/) U Co Co Cm z •gym (� U c >.. CE =3 co cm � >1 E2675 L = H cn U P Q) or^^ O vJ 0 a� o Oi U- a � O CU O O C 0 N LL M d.� m I ' "' k is 5_ i" � to m �I A i1 4 F ,1 m i Q L Cif _ ' AL � ,••;� F+. }.� - - } -� 4� CL -'R dr • 151} L} ,, * •,,ma�,yy ^�_ - ;ti m 11A 'rtes d Vf. ��• �,.r � � 1117 • q ARIA db •cnal 'FT ru co �. JOK ILLId,�j.'f,i ^' r, { 9 L} 2 E I. TI cn = jiT 1 I� 3 k L 11 - is •� T 1 to m �I 1 1 to Y V I I 2 O3 to m �I 1 1 to Y Ulu - I I L L L 'T. 144 . an AL LY V_ fee, j? Ili �I'I • v r -e e dr j Aj mill 4r h f" tk Lc tk Li WiL w LY V_ fee, j? Ili �I'I • v r -e e dr j Aj mill a) a) M) O U U a..r � a) L O -,-.i ca E -r— .V - 0 U :. Fir CU C/� CU ca N p , Y ' r () =3 ca cu O U Q - C cn 'E Q 0 O -E =3,5� ^� 3 CU (a - O :3 0 Q U O Q Q •� N (u N 1 O 0 a) a••r N ca +� O }, -0 ca U •(/� (�• a� }, > a) s U ca Q CU 0) cn � c�a CL i p 0� 0 y ca >, o (1) �-0 (1) N -+ U (a (a }' W a� 0 a) a) p a) o U) Gi Gi }� >1 O a� '' v '' ca - . V cu _ a) � L- ��� v o N LU w _y ;, U W C _ C/) N U) (u N _ a) U_ W 70 N > a) N U Q O cn O cOn a> >% 0 N . ca � � a a) a) a cn 0 70 0i N N U 0 U O N 0) 0) •— � >, C—: 0 N N O O N >,70 N O =3 � Q O (u C� Q ,- O a) a) N +� 0 Q O to V U t/A N 0 O � N 0 E- � -0 0 CD � N � }' 70 W N -0 N t/) O 0 4 = L V E ca � > N O a) CDL N 0 N�" Q = N > N E j •n O _ O cn 0 E = t/1 ca a) U a) 70 0 `~ O Q 0 -0 L- U N U O O 0 C =3 Q 0) N M (u = Q _ (u m .Q 1 0 •— C'i cu 0 -0 0 -0 .i •— Q O E CL N ca •0 c: N ca X �� a) 0 — N N v ♦+ 3: 0 O 0 N N 0 O a cu � ca ca � U . E M 0 ■ ee OWk .. W 1- R 1 .ar~ , CIO lie E f► � L N� V1 N N u O t rT N NI J u .N Q mom N N Q g•_ ,� �Al I r' �r r_ s i" a W U is J O a� N rT Q U) •- N N c C +� O Q `� N O _ f► � L N� V1 N N u O t rT N NI J u .N Q mom N N Q g•_ ,� �Al I r' �r r_ s i" a W U i+ .,. I r M■ Pea 70 c O N Q � O N ca N O >% � ca W � ca Q -0 ca N a O N E � >, 4 .� 4-0 N a -a 0) O ca _ 70 O Q v) N N > N C — -0 =3 O .(D a 70 > C N >> 4 N N C/ � � ca cn 0� L 0 M _� N ate+ cn . � — N LO = .- N � cn N = O U (a (a N Q U 0) p� i O(D O a � Q Q cn ca c p a O Q I Q C N V V Q N a) Vi O N C: p o O 0 N p ca N O > C CU O U) N 7 C C: ca CU -a W 0 -12, cn � @ ,ca O .0 Q CU O N O N > a) � 0) cu Q a) .� Fn > O N cn V N O N 0. i o a) ch C.) .E- >> =3 Q .� ai N O 0) O U V� cu E — _0 N N O Q > ,� m M � i p N 0� cn � N .--, co a..r C: :3 U) (u U) N N O. F .� N cm cm in Q cn U a O E a p 7-0 ca -.-, ca �-- -i�- --Ik� L- W Wil AmOr Q 4-0 is C r 4-0 U) 0 A Alill -i�- --Ik� L- W Wil AmOr Q 4-0 is C r 4-0 UFO Iff loom, 7r= IIL 4-0 4-0 UFO Iff loom, 7r= IIL N aD r 3 4 M1 Y� CL 4 LL ` r� Q W W ca a • 1 >t r i , Q�� o� ca - _ S - 0 0 v w 1k ' N N '�' i` • 0 lie. b. • < wl 3p. jN <-z " '— 1 .,� w CIO AW � F co CIO CIO o a cL tmf w cI ^^++ y I 4 -3: .� - 1 :.. f: CA rV s ...,� I J 0 i 0 V L rem u 70 c (a W N W W 0) c (a 0) N N (a O cn N C: E Z E -1 O 0 U C: N O N >% Q � O (u N N > _0 N > -0 O (U Q U N cn N (u E N E 0-0 U O O N cn N N C: N O C: O X cu 4- O O O Z 70 Q 4— a) Q C/) L � O a) L (u N cu N S 0) � • cn cn ca Q N N � N O N E V N i a) O a..r cn s N N cu m 00 � r N a � U cu 0 � U � N N W (u = N a) Q N E N .0)0 N cn 0) _ (U U .N C: t E O i O N N CU _ -0 a) 0) tt� G) — N _ � CU N E cu cn N L C: a) O ca a..� > p I O _ cO co C: cfl C.0 C I C4 co A > M co DO co LO U� 0 N N >, m `— cu