HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 Zoning Ord Amendmentsor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
November 20, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'
CITY CLERK
File #450 -20
SUBJECT: Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. to
evaluate proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Prepared by Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On February 7, 2012, the City Council received an informational report on the status of parking
in Area G of Dublin Ranch and directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1)
establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2)
require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and 3) eliminate
the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. Staff presented the
proposed amendments to the Planning Commission on July 10, 2012, and based on feedback
received from the development community, is recommending that the City Council direct Staff to
enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems to evaluate the
economic impacts of the proposed amendments on future residential projects.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The cost to engage Economic & Planning Systems to conduct further analysis of proposed
zoning ordinance amendments is $48,500. This is proposed as a not to exceed contract
amount. Funding for these services were not included in the adopted FY 2012 -2013 budget, as
the need is being recommended based on input received during public review of the zoning
ordinance amendments. In order to appropriate funds for this expense, Staff recommends a
budget transfer from the General Fund Contingent Reserve line item. This appropriation of
contingency funds will reduce the balance remaining to $79,500.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution approving a Consulting Services
Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. to evaluate proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments; and 2) Approve the Budget Transfer.
Submitted By
Community Development
Director
Reviewed By
Administrative Services
Director
(9/,
Reviewed y
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 7.2
DESCRIPTION:
Background
At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the
status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report
and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1)
establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2)
require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and 3) eliminate
the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements.
On July 10, 2012, Staff presented proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning
Commission (Attachment 2). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received
input from a local developer who expressed concerns regarding the proposed multi - family
accessory storage requirement (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission weighed the
developer's concerns and recommended modifications to the proposed Amendments.
Following the Planning Commission meeting, two local developers expressed concerns over the
increased parking requirements for condominiums and the inability to use tandem parking as
required parking. One of the concerns expressed by the developers is that the proposed
changes to the parking ordinance will limit their ability to construct for -sale residential projects
on in -fill sites as well as limit their ability to achieve residential densities greater than 15 -18
dwelling units per acre on in -fill sites. As a result, fewer units would be constructed, thereby
lowering land values and limiting opportunities for first -time homebuyers. Another concern
expressed is that the increase in required parking is contrary to Senate Bill 375 and parking
trends in surrounding jurisdictions. The City of Livermore was cited as requiring 1 guest parking
space for every 4 units in contrast to Dublin's proposed 1 guest parking space per unit. The
developers also expressed concerns over eliminating tandem parking especially for smaller, 1-
bedroom units. They believe that maintaining flexibility with the use of tandem parking on in -fill
sites could produce affordable by- design for -sale housing for first -time homebuyers. Ultimately,
the developers foresee the changes to the parking ordinance as inhibiting the development of
for -sale housing on in -fill sites and facilitating the development of higher density rental housing.
Representatives of the development community have expressed concerns that proposed
changes to the parking ordinance will result in unintended consequences that should be further
evaluated. If the City Council wants to proceed with the proposed changes, Staff is
recommending that the proposed Amendments be further analyzed by a consultant specializing
in economics and land use planning before the Amendments are presented to the City Council
for consideration.
Consulting Services Agreement
Staff received a proposal from Economic & Planning Systems, Inc (EPS) to evaluate the
proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and their impact on development densities for new
residential projects. EPS would review current parking regulation trends including prevailing
policies in surrounding Tri- Valley cities and conduct 2 -3 developer meetings to discuss project
feasibility under the proposed Amendments. Physical impacts to the form and density of
development as well as pro forma impacts will be evaluated. If it is found that project densities
could be negatively impacted, EPS would identify specific sites that would be impacted and the
Page 2 of 4
policy implications to the City's Housing Element, including the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, as well as the City's impact fee program.
EPS has extensive experience in economic development planning and is currently working on
the City's Economic Development Strategy and Economic Development Element for the
General Plan. EPS would be assisted by Berkeley -based GDeS Architecture and Planning who
has a strong fundamental understanding of parking strategies and effects on project design.
The proposed Scope of Work is divided into two Tasks with Task 1 analyzing the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments in terms of their impact on project density and the developer
pro forma. If it is found that project feasibility would not be negatively impacted, the budget
would be reduced substantially and Staff would proceed with presenting the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendments to the City Council. If project feasibility would be impacted, Task 2
would evaluate the implications of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments in terms
development impact fee receipts and the City's ability to achieve the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA). A Resolution approving a Consulting Services Agreement with EPS is
included as Attachment 4 with the Consulting Services Agreement included as Exhibit A. Staff
will begin working with EPS on the stakeholder engagement process. EPS estimates that it will
take approximately 3 months to complete
If the City Council decides to proceed with the consultant services, funds will need to be
appropriated in the contract services line item of the Planning Department Budget. The analysis
will be performed by EPS at contract amount not to exceed $48,500. The funding is proposed
to be accommodated with a budget change transferring funds from the General Fund budgeted
contingency line item. This action is described in the Budget Change / Transfer (Attachment 5).
This transfer will reduce the balance in the contingency line item to $79,500.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Public Notice advertising the July 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting was published in
the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. The Public Notice was
also provided to all persons who have expressed an interested in being notified of meetings.
The Staff Report for the July 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting was also made available
on the City's website. Based on developer feedback at the Planning Commission meeting, a
letter was mailed on July 25, 2012 to fifty -five members of the development community
summarizing the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and soliciting additional feedback.
Based on the feedback that the July 25th letter generated, Staff mailed another letter on August
13, 2012 advising the development community that the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would be further analyzed before being presented to the City Council for
consideration. Should the City Council proceed with approving a Consulting Services
Agreement with EPS, Staff and EPS will meet with members of the development community to
solicit additional input on the proposed Amendments. The development community will be
included on all future Public Notices regarding the proposed Amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 10, 2012
3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2012.
4. Resolution approving a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic
Page 3 of 4
& Planning Systems, Inc. to evaluate proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, with the Consulting Services Agreement included as
Exhibit A.
5. Budget Change / Transfer Form
Page 4 of 4
or
sir wti�
19 82
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
February 7, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager`x ° °r
Area G Parking Report
Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
CITY CLERK
File #570 -20
The City Council will receive information on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this review.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and /or provide Staff with direction on
whether or not to research steps that could be taken to minimize parking challenges in Area G
and in future unentitled higher density residential neighborhoods.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Planning Manager Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
At the City Council meeting on October 18, 2011, Councilmember Biddle requested that an item
be placed on a future City Council Agenda to discuss the status of the parking in Area G of
Dublin Ranch (see Attachment 1). Area G, commonly referred to as "Dublin Ranch Villages," is
bounded by Central Parkway to the North, Dublin Boulevard to the South, Keegan Street to the
East and Brannigan Street to the West. The overall area is comprised of 1,396 approved and
constructed medium -high and high density for sale condominiums (the Villas, the Cottages, the
Courtyards and the Terraces), a 5 acre Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons), a 2 acre
Neighborhood Square (Devaney Square), and a 23 acre neighborhood retail commercial
property (commonly referred to as "The Promenade ") bisects the area and is as yet
undeveloped. Three of the projects are constructed and completely occupied and the fourth
neighborhood (the Terraces) is still selling.
Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 7.1
The four residential projects located within Area G comply and exceed the parking requirements
that are established in the City of Dublin Zoning Code (Section 8.76.080). The required parking
for condominiums is shown below.
Condominiums:
- 1 Bedroom Units: One (1) covered or garage space per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per
unit
- 2+ Bedrooms: Two (2) covered or garage spaces per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per
unit
The Cottages and The Villas
Two neighborhoods comprise the westerly half of Area G: "The Cottages" is designated as a
Medium -High Density development and is comprised of 200 side -by -side and stacked flat
condominium units. "The Villas" is designated as a High Density development and is comprised
of 289 stacked flat and side -by -side condominium units. The following table illustrates the
required and actual number of parking spaces for these two projects.
Page 2 of 8
Table 1: "The Cottages" and "The Villas"
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
One bedroom units
0
0
0
(23 units @ 1 space /unit)
23
23
0
Two bedroom+ units
562
562*
0
(177 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
354
354*
0
Guest Parking
141 1
146 1
+5
0.5 space /unit
100
108 **
+8
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
One bedroom units
0
0
0
(112 units @ 1 space /unit)
112
112
0
Two bedroom+ units
562
562*
0
(177 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
354
354
0
Guest Parking
141 1
146 1
+5
0.5 space /unit
145
161 **
+16
*103 tandem garages = 206 parking spaces (described below)
*There are an additional 22 on- street parking spaces along the Chancery and Finnian frontages
of Devaney Square.
"The Cottages" and "The Villas" comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance with respect to
parking and, due to restriping of Brannigan Street before occupancies, excess guest parking
was achieved adjacent to DeVaney Square.
Tandem Parking: There are no tandem garage parking spaces in "The Villas." However, "The
Cottages" have 103 garages in a tandem configuration (total of 206 parking spaces allowing for
85 two bedroom units and 18 one bedroom units).
The Courtyards and The Terraces
Two neighborhoods comprise the easterly half of Area G: "The Courtyards" is designated as a
Medium -High Density development and is comprised of 281 side -by -side and stacked
townhome condominium units. "The Terraces" is designated as a High Density development
and is comprised of 626 stacked flat podium condominium units.
Table 2: "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces"
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
One bedroom units
0
0
0
Two bedroom+ units
(281 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
562
562*
0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
141 1
146 1
+5
I Garage I Required I Provided I Excess Parking I
Page 3 of 8
One bedroom units
(92 units @ 1 space /unit)
92
92
0
Two bedroom+ units
(534 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
1068
1068 **
0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
313
1 330 * **
1 +17
*The Couryards: 258 tandem garages = 516 parking spaces
* *The Terraces: 137 tandem parking spaces in parking structure
—There are an additional 71 on- street parking spaces along the Maguire and Finnian frontages of
Bray Common.
There is an excess of 22 guest parking stalls for "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces"
The provision of guest parking on the east half of Area G did not take into account any parking
adjacent to the Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons). The frontage on Maguire, Finnian and
Keegan yields approximately 71 additional on- street parking stalls. Currently these uncounted
stalls are being utilized by residents for overnight and guest parking. It should be noted that
there would be a total of 93 additional parking spaces (71 on- street spaces, an additional 5
spaces on "the Courtyards, and 17 spaces on "The Terraces. ") beyond those that are required
by the Ordinance for the east half of Area G.
Tandem Parking: "The Courtyards" have a total of 258 tandem garages accommodating 516
garage parking spaces. "The Terraces" has a total of 137 tandem parking spaces within the
parking garage.
The Homeowners Association, managed by Massingham Associates, continues to encourage
the residents to park both their cars in the designated garage and keep the garages free from
storage (see Attachment 2). The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) state "that
you must keep your garage clear enough to park the number of vehicles in it that it was
designed to hold."
Contributing Issues to Parking Concerns
While there is a myriad of factors that could contribute to the parking issues in Area G, Staff
feels that there are three primary contributing issues that appear to affect the parking conditions
in Area G.
Tandem Parking: The City of Dublin Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking in multi - family
projects. Additionally, the Planning Commission, in review of the projects acknowledged the
tandem parking design solutions in the graphics provided for review. In many instances the
residents of Area G are using their tandem garages to park two cars however, due to the
inconvenience of having to move one car to get to the other, some residents choose to find
parking on- street or within private parking courts. Over time, the unused second car space
becomes an area for storage.
Multiple Cars: Most residents have only one or two cars which can be adequately parked in their
garages; however, some residents have a third car, a business truck or recreational vehicle
which can displace parking. When this happens, guest parking is used to accommodate the
additional vehicles.
Page 4 of 8
One - Bedroom Units: In accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.080)
Parking Requirements, one - bedroom condominium units (of which we have 227, including 23 in
the Cottages, and 112 in the Villas, and 92 in the Terraces) are only required to have one
parking stall and 0.5 guest stalls per unit. It is entirely possible that there are two people, with 2
cars living in these one bedroom units. The second car is then relegated to the guest parking
stalls located on the private streets, public streets or one of the guest stalls provided on site in
designated parking courts. By contrast, the Zoning Ordinance requirements for apartment
parking is one covered or garage stall for each unit regardless of bedroom count and one
unreserved guest parking stall for each unit resulting in more required spaces per one bedroom
unit and less required spaces per two bedroom unit than required for condominiums. It is
actually conceivable that an apartment project can provide more parking than a condominium
project.
Comparative Projects
California Highlands: For comparison, Staff reviewed California Highlands, a 246 unit
condominium project which was developed over 10 years ago and is located near the Dublin
Boulevard extension to Schaefer Ranch. The Planned Development Zoning requirement is to
provide 15% of the overall parking for guest parking, resulting in one guest parking stall for
approximately each 8 units. However, the guest parking was provided at a ratio of one guest
parking stall for each 3 condominium units, thus exceeding the minimum parking requirement as
noted in Table 3 below. No known guest parking issues have been raised at California
Highlands. As noted above, the ratio in Area G slightly exceeds 1 guest parking stall for every 2
condominium units.
Table 3: California Highlands
One and two bedroom units
(246 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 492 492 0
Guest Parking
246 x 15% 37 84 +47
Sorrento West: Sorrento west is comprised of 5 neighborhoods. Neighborhood 1 is a
traditional single - family detached product with a standard 2 car garage. Guest parking is on
public and private streets and is provided at the required ratio of 1 guest space for each
residential unit. This product does not compare with a product in Area G. The following table
illustrates the required and actual number of parking spaces for the remaining 4 neighborhoods
in Sorrento West.
Table 4: Sorrento West
Tro'v[ (117 Uinits
Garage Required Provided Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(117 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 234 234* 0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit 59 79 +20
*18 tandem garages = 36 parking spaces
Firenze (ss Units ......
Page 5 of 8
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(66 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
132
165
+33*
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
33
42
+9
*An extra 3rd car tandem space provided on 33 units
Siena (4 Uni ......
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(64 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
128
192
+64*
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
32
79
+47
*An extra 2 -car garage space (tandem 4 -car) provided on 32 units
MAI (r6 UnitS)
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(96 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
192
192
0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
48
48
0
Excess guest parking in Sorrento West is 78 stalls; however, Sorrento West is developed at a
Medium Density land use where the neighborhoods in Area G were developed at a more urban
Medium -High and High Density Land use. Sorrento West requires a parking permit to parking in
the guest parking spaces overnight. Additionally the additional 3 and 4 car garage spaces in the
attached Firenze and Siena product provide uncounted excess resident parking which provides
additional parking for homeowners with extra personal vehicles.
Currently, the City has not received concerns regarding parking in Sorrento West. The Milano
and Amalfi projects are complete but not completely sold and the Firenze and Siena
neighborhoods are almost complete with unsold units. Trevi still has two buildings to construct.
The CC &R's for Sorrento West have identical language as Area G regarding parking the
number of vehicles in the garage and not allowing storage to obstruct vehicle parking.
Massingham Associates (the same property manager as Area G) has been issuing Community
Bulletins, in a similar manner to Area G, stating these requirements.
Potential Options for Area G:
The following is a discussion of potential options for the homeowner's association and /or the
City to pursue in order to address the parking concerns within Area G.
Potential Action by the Homeowner's Association
1. Increase the amount of guest parking. This option would require the HOA to identify
locations where it is practical to add additional on -site parking, prepare improvement
plans and process an amendment to the existing Site Development Review permit.
However, there are limited opportunities to create additional parking spaces because the
Page 6 of 8
development is at a relatively high density and the improvements have already been
constructed.
2. Require a parking permit for all vehicles that are parked overnight in the on -site guest
parking spaces. This would force the residents to park their vehicles in their garages,
leaving the guest spaces open to visitors. This would require an amendment to the
CC &Rs by vote of the property owners. It would also require enforcement by the HOA,
which could include citation or towing of vehicles. However, this could result in additional
vehicles parked off -site on public streets.
3. Establish a protocol that residents cannot park company owned vehicles anywhere in
Area G. Many companies find it cheaper to have employees drive their company vehicle
to and from work rather than provide space to leave company vehicles. This would
require a vote of the owners to amend the CC &Rs.
The City is limited in its ability to require action by the property owners and their HOA.
However, Staff could work with the HOA to try and implement measures as directed by the City
Council.
Potential Action by the City
1. Enforce the rule prohibiting vehicles to be parked in the public right -of -way for more than
72 hours. This would force the residents to use their garage spaces for their vehicles. As
a result, this option would help make street parking available for guests and help to
ensure that street parking is not used for long vehicle storage. This would require
increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this requirement.
However, this option would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the
residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G.
2. Prohibit overnight parking on surrounding streets. This would force the residents to use
their garage spaces for their vehicles. This would also help make street parking
unattractive to residents thus freeing up spaces for guest parking. This option would
require increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this
requirement. This would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the
residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G.
3. Staff could meet with Massingham Associates, the management company for the various
homeowner's associations, to discuss the parking issue and methods to address the
concerns using existing rules.
Staff could evaluate the viability of enforcing these measures as directed by the City Council. In
which case, Staff would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of
these measures and the fiscal impacts.
Potential Options for City -Wide consideration:
1. Establish consistency in the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for condominiums
and apartments related to amount of parking provided for one bedroom units and
required guest parking.
2. Evaluate a requirement to provide a minimum square foot area for personal storage for
all attached products.
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of tandem parking stalls and consider policy alternatives to
restrict the amount of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements, or prohibit
the use of tandem parking for compliance with required garage parking (additional stalls
could be allowed as tandem as long as the required stalls are not).
Page 7 of 8
Staff could further evaluate these options as directed by the City Council. In which case, Staff
would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of these measures
and the fiscal impacts.
Conclusions
Some of the residents of Area G have raised concerns regarding the perceived lack of guest
parking within their neighborhoods. The parking provided at the Villages (Area G) is consistent
with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Area G has more guest parking than a similar project, the
California Highlands. There may be reasons beyond the City's regulations for these problems,
such as the displacement of the automobile by storage, the inconvenience of tandem parking
and households with multiple cars which were detailed above. Without the ability to conduct
studies which include going on to private property, it would be difficult to ascertain these
reasons. However, the City Council could direct Staff to analyze alternatives to address these
issues with future development projects, as outlined in this Staff Report.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
This is a public meeting item. Although we are not required to notice public meetings, the City
Council has previously provided staff with direction to notify the affected neighbors on any
issues relative to Area G. In an attempt to implement the City Council's direction, Staff provided
a notice of this Public Meeting to Massingham and Associates who are the property managers
for all of the Homeowner's Associations in Area G and Sorrento West. Massingham Associates
posted the Public Meeting Notice at each of the mail kiosks in each of the projects they manage
the week of January 23, 2012, which is the legal posting place for messages in each of the
neighborhoods. Additionally the notice was placed in the Board Members' meeting packets and
announced at the Homeowner's meetings over the last three weeks. The notice was also
published on the HOA web site for each neighborhood.
Staff surveyed all of the posting locations on January 31, 2012 and the notices were all clearly
visible with the exception of The Terraces. The Notice had not been posted at The Terraces. As
a result, the HOA immediately posted the notice at The Terraces.
Additionally, a Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several
locations throughout the City.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from October 18, 2011 City Council meeting
2. Massingham notices distributed to the Cottage and Villas Residents
Page 8 of 8
Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report
7:25:51 PM 8.2 (920 -10)
Director of Parks and Community Service Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised
that In November 2008, the City Council adopted the Parks and Community Services Strategic
Plan. Staff would present an annual report on the strategic objectives accomplished during
Fiscal Year 2010 -2011. This item was first agendized for the October 4, 2011 City Council
meeting. By consensus, the City Council moved this item to the October 18, 2011 City Council
meeting
Mayor Sbranti asked when the connection would be open from the East Bay Regional Park
District's ( EBRPD) Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon Creek Trail.
Ms. Lowart stated she would follow up on whether any event was planned by EBRPD for the
opening of the connection between its Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon
Creek Trail.
The City Council commented on the growth of the Parks and Community Services' activities. It
was vibrant and an asset to the community.
The City Council received the report.
OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB 1234)
7:38:38 PM
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she had nothing to report.
Cm. Biddle stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, an Alameda County
Transportation Commission meeting, an Alameda County Housing Authority meeting and the
School of Imagination ribbon cutting.
Vm. Hart stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School of
Imagination ribbon cutting.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7
VOLUME 30 G`�yOFDtjB�,y
REGULAR MEETING u, a.
OCTOBER 18, 2011 '� -182
��I���°
Cm. Swalwell stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, and the Johnny Garlic's
Restaurant ribbon cutting.
Mayor Sbranti stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School
of Imagination ribbon cutting. He stated he attended the City of Dublin — Dublin San Ramon
Services District Liaison Committee meeting, the Alameda County Mayor's Conference, and the
Residential Realtors Roundtable. He asked Dublin residents to participate in the Dublin Reads
event.
Cm. Biddle asked Staff to update the parking study done a few years ago regarding the
Promenade development. Included should be what did the parking code mean. Also looking
into how the parking was managed. What was permitted to park there? Was storage
permitted? Were there assigned spaces? In terms of similar complexes, how did they manage
their parking and what problems did they have. Also look at solutions how the management of
complexes could manage their parking or what the City could do to help resolve the situation
there; how much could the City do regarding parking issues versus the how much the
management of the complexes could do.
Ms. Pattillo asked if Cm. Biddle wanted it as an informational piece to the City Council. She
knew something had been done several years ago and it was more of a cursory look at the
parking situation as it related to the Promenade. Did he want Staff to look at each
Homeowner's Association (HOA) as well?
Cm. Biddle stated just those HOAs within Dublin with a similar type of housing as the
Promenade. Did they have the same type of parking situational problems?
City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could begin with a cursory look at was done with the
Promenade. She confirmed that what Cm. Biddle was asking for was to update the study that
had been done a few years back as an informational piece, and also understand if there were
any comparisons within the City of Dublin as it related to density and types of housing and see if
there were any parking issues. Was he also looking for how each HOA managed their parking?
Cm. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what was their system. What were their parking
rules? What was and was not permitted?
City Manager Pattillo asked Cm. Biddle if he wanted to see what role the City had.
Mr. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what could the City's role be in solving the parking
issue, if any.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked if he was asking if there was permitted parking.
Cm. Biddle stated he wanted to know what the management of the complexes could do, as well
as the City, in solving parking problems.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8
VOLUME 30 Of 1D)
REGULAR MEETING ti
OCTOBER 18, 2011 '����
C'4LIFpR�lD
City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could build off what was done before, and how it was planned,
including the previous parking study, HOA discussion, looking at the designation, and what role
the City had as it related to parking. She might ask for clarification at a later date if needed.
ADJOURNMENT
10.1
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
7:57:39 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops.
Minutes prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk.
j,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9
VOLUME 30 Gl�yoepUB�m
REGULAR MEETING n� ,
�
OCTOBER 18, 2011 ��
L.
• =-4 M121=- iimp
Eric Lars Hanson
Mary Warren
Paul Cardoso
HT Astrov
F-,T-TTS=. 41,1ST1711117-1 17
Farmers Insurance Cc/ Greg Norris Agency
415-389-8200
(Coverage for main buildings and common area)
Unit owners are encouraged to obtain 'H06 coverage to
protect inside of unit and owner liability
Proudly Managed by
1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
1W=1
A I IM I MRTA 141 @1 IONSK8 11 W P1*1 1 ITS 1 IN 1101401 It
Dublin Police Dispatch:
Report suspicious activity: 925-462-1212
•
'. =$. alrslme-14741V
Association Insurance
Gregg Norris Insurance Co.
415-389-8200
Financial Information 12/31/20
Operating Cash: $112,153.02 1
Proudly Managed by
Massin�-��R-NAcg-oc�tes Managementlnc,
1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
Greg Thibodeaux- Manager
Veronica Lewis- Community Assistant
Phone: 925-405-4728
Email: VeronicaL(cbMassingham.com
Dublin Police Dispatch:
Report suspicious activity: 925-462-121
(They WANT You to Call! You May Stay Anonyrnol
MARCH 2011
ffel M M 94 0 =0- 4
R 0 1 tp
While a compliance campaign was undertaken 2 years ago, due to
increasing abuses it is again time to refresh remind everyone of the
requirements and penalties:
residents • !!, not use their garage be subject !
- Those monetary fines per the Fine Policy of the Community up to
$150 per
We kindly ask all owners and residents to assure compliance with the
community"s CC&Rs and rules to make the community a more livable
place, and to void violation atus/ fines. THANK
�b
� Gds
Cottages at Dublin Ranch
Garag��.Park na, Requirement
.............
To: All Cottages ResideniM
***Keep in mind that parking iti a firehane or across any garage door
subjects you to .immediate towing with a minimum charge of $300!***
eame
N,�
J jo in
US
Often during the hectic nucove in period, individuals don't have time to read
all, the paperwork that cartie with die properly, including all the rules a�nd
regi,dations. So below iss a reminder t� of some of the most criticat:
The Villas at Dublin Ranch Villages
Ggage P arking_ Requirement
From: Your board of Directors and Massingham & Associates Management
mllmmvmlt�-
* **Keep in mind that parking in a fire lane or across any garage door
subjects you to immediate towing with a minimum charge of $300!***
BUILDING, MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT
7120 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
8.3 PLPA- 2012 -00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions),
Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and
Loading Regulations)
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub wanted to make sure the proposed size of the storage area is 3 ft X 5ft X 6ft.
Ms. Delgado responded yes; the proposal is 90 cubic feet which is approximately the size of a
bathtub with a height of 6 feet for personal storage.
Cm. Schaub felt that most garages have wasted space above the cars. He stated there are a
lot of people that have added racks in the garage that fit directly above the cars. He asked if the
developer installed those types of racks, would that suffice.
Ms. Delgado answered yes; the size was only meant to be an example but can be in any
configuration that equals 90 cubic feet.
Cm. Schaub asked if installing the rack would meet the 90 cubic foot requirement.
Ms. Delgado answered yes.
Cm. Schaub felt that would only address those units that had private parking. He felt in podium
parking the developer would need to have the ability to install them and thought that was
possible.
Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission has discussed this issue with a developer in the past
Cm. Schaub agreed and felt the rack could be an option.
Cm. Brown felt the racks are a good idea and recently installed two similar racks in his own
home. He recommended adding ceiling storage as an example to include in the definition.
Ms. Delgado responded the definition currently allows for the storage to be within an attached or
detached individual garage. She stated that whether the storage is provided on the ground or
overhead, both would be acceptable options as long as they meet the 90 cubic foot requirement.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could eliminate tandem parking. He felt that the
Commission is trying to get people to park in their garage properly and allow for guest parking
on the street.
Mr. Baker stated that this amendment would eliminate tandem parking as part of the required
parking. He stated that, in some of the developments with side -by -side garages, the developer
provides a third tandem space as extra parking. This amendment would allow developers to
continue providing bonus parking. If tandem parking was eliminated completely, the bonus
parking would not be allowed.
Tfanning Cbmm s ` n -7ufy 10, 2012
ufarWeetir 61
Cm. Schaub felt the bonus parking did not have to be called tandem parking.
Mr. Baker responded that the way the amendment is written, whatever the bonus parking is
called, it still allows the bonus parking but it would not allow tandem parking as part of the
required parking.
Cm. Brown stated he is in support of eliminating tandem parking to meet minimum parking
requirements. He asked if a study had been done that showed whether a developer would not
continue with a project if they were not allowed to include tandem parking as part of the required
parking. He asked if eliminating tandem parking would increase their development costs.
Cm. Schaub felt it would only take 2 or 3 units out of a project.
Cm. Brown asked if there has ever been an objection by a developer.
Mr. Baker answered he was not aware of any developer that had backed out of a project over
tandem parking. He stated that the format of parking impacts the footprint of buildings. He
stated the Jordan project was an example where there was a mix of side -by -side and tandem
parking. Eliminating the tandem parking would require some changes to the design which could
impact the units and the site plan.
Cm. Schaub felt, if the Commission had eliminated the tandem parking from the Jordan project,
the developer could have moved two of the buildings and only lost two units.
Chair Wehrenberg felt they have eliminated tandem parking because after the City Council
review of the Jordan project they did not want to see tandem parking again.
Cm. Schaub felt that there were some projects with tandem parking that were approved some
time ago but have not yet been built. He asked if there are any projects left in that category.
Mr. Baker answered there are a few
Cm. Brown asked Ms. Delgado to explain the elimination of the paragraph regarding guest
parking in the chart in the Staff Report.
Ms. Delgado responded that the row in the parking table Cm. Brown is referring to is the guest
parking requirement for condominiums that requires 1 guest parking space for every two units.
Staff is proposing to replace that with 1 guest parking space per unit and the language has been
added to each row based on bedroom size.
Cm. Schaub asked if the result of the change is more parking.
Ms. Delgado answered yes. It would increase the condominium parking requirement to match
the requirement for apartments. She stated the apartment standards will remain the same.
Cm. Schaub asked how condominiums are treated when a condo map is approved but the
building is operated as apartments.
01(anning Commission Jufy 10, 2012
&,qular544e =tang 62
Mr. Baker answered if there is a condo map on the project then they are technically
condominiums. The proposed parking requirements for condominiums and apartments are the
same except for the 2- bedroom condo which has 1 additional space.
Cm. Schaub felt 90 cubic feet of storage space is too small. He proposed that it be at least 200
cubic feet especially if the units will be in garages.
Chair Wehrenberg felt a 200 cubic foot requirement would make it mandatory for the developers
to include the rack in the garage in order to meet the requirement.
Cm. Brown felt it would help eliminate using balconies for storage which makes the street look
terrible. He agreed with Cm. Schaub that the minimum requirement should be larger.
Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. O'Keefe also agreed the minimum storage space should be larger.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke regarding the amendment. He stated his company developed
Elan and Dublin Station which were completed in 2008. Last year, the Planning Commission
approved the 2nd phase which is now under construction between Dublin Station and the BART
Station. He was speaking on behalf of the other people who want to develop apartments in
Dublin. He felt there is an unintended consequence of this amendment. He understands the
issue of parking and storage and agrees there is a problem, but apartment projects don't have
that problem. He understood the problem to be residents using parking spaces for storage
instead of parking. He stated that, in Dublin Station, there is no problem because of the
common garage which has no individual, enclosed parking spaces. He stated they handle
storage by providing locked storage in dead spaces in the building or in the garage. He
mentioned the reference to using balconies for Storage and stated they don't have many of
balconies and are very rigorous about not allowing people to store anything on them. He asked
what problem the amendment is trying to solve for apartment projects. He stated that storage is
not a problem and proposed to exclude from the amendment the projects that do not provide
dedicated garages.
Cm. Schaub asked if the project that is under construction at the East BART station has a condo
map.
Mr. White responded that most apartment projects have condo maps.
Cm. Schaub stated that, under that condition, they would still have to provide storage.
Mr. White felt that it didn't matter whether it was an apartment complex or a condo but what type
of building that it is. He felt that in open parking there wasn't the problem of misusing the
parking spaces for storage.
Cm. Schaub asked if it would be difficult to provide lockers above the cars.
Mr. White stated that 10% of the residents at Dublin Station utilize the storage provided and felt
requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for every unit is not needed.
0� Vrdng cbmmgMion quay 10, 201'
= gjufar5Veeting 63
Cm. Schaub felt that just because they don't have it doesn't mean they don't need it. He stated
the Commission is trying to create projects where young people can live and asked how much
of a problem it be would to add storage.
Mr. White felt it will make the project bigger than it would otherwise be and they would have to
provide more space in the garage to access the storage. He felt it wasn't possible to add the
storage because everything has to be ADA accessible, even the bike parking must be
accessible. He stated that if the City requires storage it will have to be ADA accessible storage.
He felt there was no problem with storage whether an apartment or condo.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White what he would like the Commission to do.
Mr. White suggested differentiating storage requirements by type of parking; common parking or
individual garages.
Mr. Baker felt Mr. White was suggesting that storage be required only where there are individual
private parking garages.
Mr. White agreed.
Cm. Brown referred to Mr. White's question about "what problem are they trying to solve." He
stated that his vision was to solve the problem by making storage available for units with a
dedicated private garage.
Cm. Schaub asked, if the storage units are required above the parking spaces, are they
required to be accessible.
Mr. White answered that 5% of the parking stalls must be accessible and some percentage of
the bike storage must be accessible.
Cm. Schaub felt that the Commission was trying to find a solution and found an ADA problem.
Mr. White felt that the accessibility issue is only part of it and asked again what problem we are
trying to solve.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White if he was suggesting that projects with open /podium parking
should be exempted from the amendment.
Mr. White stated if it doesn't have dedicated, assigned, enclosed garages then it should be
exempt.
Mr. Baker stated the intent was to address the issue of residents using their enclosed private
garage for storage and this proposed change would require storage for units with enclosed
private garages and help to alleviate the parking issue.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed with exempting the parking garage.
Cm. Schaub agreed and asked Ms. Delgado her opinion of the proposed change.
P&nning Cbmnfd�sio ury 10, 2012
fgular5,Veeti 64
Ms. Delgado felt it would be acceptable.
Cm. Schaub asked the Commission if they agreed with increasing the amount of storage from
90 to 200 cubic feet minimum.
Cm. Schaub felt that if there is a condo map on the project and it has enclosed garage type
parking; they should be required to provide 200 cubic feet of storage.
Ms. Delgado wanted to clarify that Staff is not distinguishing on this standard between
apartments and condos but indicating on multi - family projects, within certain zoning districts,
where the higher density units occur.
Mr. Baker confirmed that the Commission would like to have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of
storage per unit that has private enclosed garage type parking spaces. He stated Staff could
modify the footnote on page 4 of 7 in the second table to address that issue.
Cm. O'Keefe appreciated Mr. White coming to the meeting and sharing his concerns.
Cm. Schaub also appreciated Mr. White's input.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -0 -1 with Cm.
Bhuthimethee being absent, with the modifications to the chart requiring 200 cubic feet of
storage for units with private, enclosed parking spaces, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS),
CHAPTER 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND
LOADING REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Cm. Schaub stated he walked around the Sorrento development to see how it looked.
He mentioned the "alley- loaded" projects; he was concerned to see how little space there
was between the units. He was also surprised to see the front of one unit facing the back
of another unit. He felt the Commission missed those small details. He suggested that
the other Commissioners walk around to see what was built after the Planning
Commission approves it.
canning Comm s,sion `Juf 10, 2012
ft; urar51fee,ing 65
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. TO
EVALUATE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO
TANDEM PARKING, CONDOMINIUM GUEST PARKING AND
MULTI - FAMILY ACCESSORY STORAGE
PLPA- 2012 -00028
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin received a report on parking conditions in
Area G of Dublin Ranch and directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to
tandem parking, condominium guest parking and multi - family accessory storage; and
WHEREAS, Staff presented proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning
Commission on July 10, 2012 at which time the Planning Commission received testimony from a
local developer regarding the implications of requiring multi - family accessory storage; and
WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission meeting Staff received additional comments
from the development community citing concerns with the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
and their potential effect on residential development densities; and
WHEREAS, Staff is recommending that the proposed Amendments be further analyzed by a
consultant specializing in economics and land use planning before the Amendments are presented
to the City Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc (EPS) has submitted a proposal to evaluate
the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and their impact on development densities for new
residential projects; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve a Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Dublin and Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc., attached as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the
Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto and to undertake such further action as
may be necessary and desirable to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2012, by the
following vote-
AYES-
NOES-
ABSENT-
ABSTAIN-
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of Dublin ( "City ") and
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., a California Corporation ( "Consultant ") as of November 20, 2012,
Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant
shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A at the time and
place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of
this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above
and shall end 6 months thereafter, and Consultant shall complete the work described in
Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or
extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the
services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City's right to terminate the
Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this
Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent
practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in
which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products
required by this Agreement in a substantial, first -class manner and shall conform to the
standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform
services pursuant to this Agreement. in the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any
time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons,
Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City,
reassign such person or persons.
1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance
provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant the hourly sum set forth in the
Compensation Schedule contained in Exhibit B, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be
contained in Consultant's proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this
Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, attached as
Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail, City shall pay Consultant for
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments
specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 1 of 13
specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than
one person.
Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this
Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder,
including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties
further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions
and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City
therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the
term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs
incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
• Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice,
etc.;
• The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
• A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior
billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and
the percentage of completion;
• At City's option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time
entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing
the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and
each reimbursable expense;
• The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant
and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services
hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by
Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant
reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time
necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A;
e The Consultant's signature.
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for
services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall
have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements
above to pay Consultant.
2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this
Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a
final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 2 of 13
2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever
incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make
no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum
amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement,
unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly
executed change order or amendment.
2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed
the amounts shown on the Compensation Schedule contained in Exhibit B.
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Payment shall be limited to the hourly rates contained in
Exhibit B. No reimbursable expenses shall be paid,
2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes
incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this
Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all
outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as
of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and
timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any
services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of
authorization from the Contract Administrator.
Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole
cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services
required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed
in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein,
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be
reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and
the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall
be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve
incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long - distance telephone or other
communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall procure "occurrence coverage" insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 3 of 13
Consultant shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this
section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to the City. Consultant shall maintain the
insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such
insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to
commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the
subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be
submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution.
4.1 Workers` Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain
Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any
and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers'
Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of
not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative,
Consultant may rely on a self - insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if
the program of self - insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor
Code. Determination of whether a self- insurance program meets the standards of the
Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if
insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self - insurance is provided, shall
waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and
volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement,
In the event that any coverage required by this section is cancelled, suspended, voided or
reduced in coverage or in limits, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at
Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five days after
Consultant is notified of said cancellation, suspension, voiding or reduction.
4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.
4.2.1 General re uirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain
commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this
Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00)
per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work
contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an
Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be
performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least
twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be
limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury,
including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from
activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non -
owned automobiles.
4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form
CG 0001 (ed. 11188) or Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (ed. 1173)
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 4 of 13
covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form
number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability.
Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office
Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12190) Code 8 and 9 ("any auto "). No
endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the
insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy:
City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered
as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising
out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the
insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed
operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied, or used by
Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant.
The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or
volunteers.
The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not
on a claims -made basis.
C. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with
respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers,
and that no insurance or self - insurance maintained by the City shall be
called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.
d. Any failure of CONSULTANT to comply with reporting provisions of the
policy shall not affect coverage provided to CITY and its officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers.
e. In the event that coverage required by this section is canceled,
suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or in limits, Consultant shall
provide written notice to City at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity
and in no case later than five (5) days after Consultant is notified of the
cancellation, suspension, voiding or reduction.
4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall
maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for
licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less
than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors
and omissions.
4.3.1 Any deductible or self - insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 5 of 13
4.3.2 In the event that coverage required by this section is canceled, suspended, voided
or reduced in coverage or in limits, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at
Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five (5) days after
Consultant is notified of the cancellation, suspension, voiding or reduction,
4.3.3 The policy must contain a cross liability or severability of interest clause.
4.3.4 The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverages are
written on a claims -made form;
a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the
date of the Agreement.
b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be
provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the
work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates.
C. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another
claims -made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of
this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for
a minimum of five years after completion of the Agreement or the work.
The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and
expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant
cancels or does not renew the coverage.
d, A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City
prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.
4.4 All Policies Requirements.
4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers= All insurance required by this section is to be placed
with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.
4.4.2 Verification_ of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and with original
endorsements effecting coverage required herein. The certificates and
endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized
by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The City reserves the right to
require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
4.4.3 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein,
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 6 of 13
4.4.4 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance
requirements, upon a determination that the coverages, scope, limits, and forms of
such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City's interests
are otherwise fully protected.
4.4.5 Deductibles and Self- Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and
obtain the approval of City for the self - insured retentions and deductibles before
beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement.
During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written
authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles
or self - insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in
deductible or self - insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant
procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of
them.
4.4.6 Notice of Reduction in Coverage In the event that any coverage required by
this section is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any other manner,
Consultant shall provide written notice to City at Consultant's earliest possible
opportunity and in no case later than five days after Consultant is notified of the
change in coverage.
4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide
or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time
herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which
are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for
Consultant's breach:
• Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for
such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
• Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment
that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold
any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements
hereof; and/or
• Terminate this Agreement.
Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall
indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions,
damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to
property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 7 of 13
or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or its employees,
subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character
of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage
to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its
officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees,
subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or
violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the
duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance
certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability
under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall
apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been
determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the
provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration,
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services
under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions
for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the
payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of
City.
Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the
right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered
pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3;
however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other
City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant
and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this
Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and
all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including
but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for
employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
6.2 Consultant No Agent_ Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no
authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an
agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement
to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section T. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 8 of 13
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with
all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by
fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors
shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of
such fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and
its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications,
and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective
professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its
employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect
at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are
legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing,
Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.
7.5 Nondiscrimination and Egual Opportunit . Consultant shall not discriminate, on the
basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or
disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any
employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant
in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this
Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws,
policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in
employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this
Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required
of Consultant thereby.
Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by
the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written
notification to Consultant.
Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to City and
shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services
performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of
such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs,
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 9 of 13
computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or
prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement.
8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this
Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a
written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and
agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide
Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this
Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no
obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred
during the extension period.
8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the
parties.
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this
Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a
determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized
personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this
Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant.
Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written
approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the
performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted
in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all
provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive
the termination of this Agreement.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms
of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following;
8.61 Immediately terminate the Agreement;
8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any
other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement;
8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not
finished by Consultant; or
8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work
described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that
City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had
completed the work.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 10 of 13
Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data, maps,
models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications,
records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that
Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters
covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver
those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and
agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described
above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are
not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until
final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are
confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both
parties,
9.2 Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books
of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents
evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged
to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period
required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement,
9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this
Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit,
and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of
the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds
expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the
Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the
request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final
payment under the Agreement.
Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Attorneys` Fees. if a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for
declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which
that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a
separate action brought for that purpose.
10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this
Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the
state courts of California in the County of Alameda or in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.
10.3 Severabilit . If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so
adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 11 of 13
provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this
Agreement.
10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this
Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term
of this Agreement,
10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.
10.6 Use of Recycled products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written
studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or
less cost than virgin paper,
10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within
the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place
Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act,
codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.
Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this
Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this
Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.
Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12)
months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an
employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months,
Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this
Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of
Government Code §1090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be
entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including
reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any
sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it
May be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if
applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or
interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.
10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the Community
Development Director ( "Contract Administrator "). All correspondence shall be directed to
or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee.
10.10 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to.
Consulting Services Agreement between !November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc, Page 12 of 13
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Attn: David Zehnder
2296 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 96833
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:
City of Dublin
Attn: Community Development Director
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator,
the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of
construction drawings shall be stamped /sealed and signed by the licensed professional
responsible for the report /design preparation. The stamp /seal shall be in a block entitled
"Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with reporUdesign responsibility," as in the
following example.
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, represents the entire and integrated
agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Joni Pattillo, City Manager
Attest:
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
John Bakker, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
David Zehnder, Managing Principal
l
Jamie Gomes, Managing Principal
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), appreciates the opportunity to assist the City of Dublin (City) in
evaluating the economic impacts of modified residential parking ratios.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
It is EPS's understanding that the City is seeking assistance in evaluating a proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment (ZOA) that would result in:
1. Eliminating the ability to use tandem parking for required parking in residential developments.
2. Increasing the guest parking requirement for condominium projects from 0.5 spacelunit to 1 space /unit,
3. Requiring a minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage for multifamily projects that have private,
enclosed garages assigned to individual units.
EPS proposes a two - phased approach to the project:
Task 1 will analyze the ZOA in terms of likely impacts on project density and the developer pro forma
Task 2 will evaluate implications of the ZOA in terms of development impact fee receipts and ability to meet
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). If the findings of Task 1 indicate minimal potential for
financial feasibility impacts, the scope of Task 2 may be streamlined or even eliminated.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1: Evaluate Developer Pro Forma Impact
Task 1.1: Initiate Project
EPS will meet with the City to review the proposed ZOA, discuss initial developer responses, further
understand City staff rationale and perspectives, tour key projects and districts, and refine the schedule of
meetings and deliverables.
Task 1.2. Identify Parking Requirement Trends
EPS will provide an overview of current parking regulation trends in similar exurban contexts, leveraging
Urban Land Institute (ULI) case -study information, in -house knowledge, and other sources. This overview
will include reference to prevailing policies in Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon.
Task 1.3. Conduct Developer Meetings
EPS will meet with two or three residential developers with a Tri- Valley presence to discuss residential
supply and demand trends, with a specific emphasis on consumer parking preferences and how product
design has been tailored to meeting these preferences. The rationale for the ZOA and likely impacts on
product design, probable cost impacts, ability to pass costs on to the consumer, and potential impacts on
overall feasibility will be discussed. EPS will work with these developers to obtain any available pro forma
data for past, current, or future projects.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc, -- Exhibit A Page 1 of 2
Task 1.9: Identify Physical Impacts
EPS will identify probable changes to the form and density of development for up to three housing
prototypes, as a foundational element of the pro forma analysis described below.
Task 1.5: Analyze Pro Forma Impacts
EPS will evaluate development economics to determine probable cost, revenue, and overall profitability
impacts for up to three housing prototypes, informed by empirical data contributed by developers in Task
1.3, in -house knowledge of the regional residential market, and probable design changes identified in Task
1.4. Conclusions will be documented in the form of a concise memorandum and presented to City staff.
Task 2: Identify Economic and Policy Implications of Proposed ZOA
This task would be carried out only in the case that substantial feasibility issues are likely to result from the
proposed ZOA as a result of the Task 1 analysis. Three primary areas of potential impact are addressed
below (other unintended consequences also would be identified).
Task 21: Analyze Site
Based on identified economic impacts by product type, EPS will advise on specific projects and areas of
the City that are most likely to be affected by the proposed ZOA, including discussion as to how physical
design changes may affect circulation, unit density, and neighborhood character.
Task 2.2.• Evaluate Housing Element and RHNA Implications
EPS will work with City staff to evaluate policy implications associated with the General Plan Housing
Element and RHNA. It is anticipated that EPS will communicate likely changes in density according to
product type and location in Dublin, along with initial findings indicating primary policy concerns. Detailed
analysis, revisions to policy documents, or additional policy - related actions and meetings in this regard
would be addressed under a separate scope of work or contract addendum.
Task 2.3: Estimate Impact Fee Implications
In the case that feasibility issues related to the proposed ZOA would change the pace and total number of
units paying development impact fees to the City, EPS will estimate the financial impact thereof. It is
assumed that the City has a baseline projection of development and impact fee receipts. EPS will use this
information and provide high and low estimates of reduced impact fee revenue. Before documenting
findings, EPS will confer with staff to better understand possible implications for capital facility funding to
disclose the potential need for supplemental capital funding or the possibility of project delays.
Task 3: Produce Documents and Attend Meetings
At the culmination of Task 1, EPS will produce a memorandum describing the ZOA's likely feasibility and
development form impacts, At the culmination of Task 2 (as needed), a second document will be issued,
building on the initial memorandum to report overall findings,
In addition to the initial kick -off meeting discussed in Task 1.1, a second meeting will be held at the
conclusion of Task 1 to discuss feasibility issues, with a third meeting held just before the conclusion of
Task 2 to discuss overall findings. In addition, EPS will make a presentation to the Planning Commission
or the City Council.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. — Exhibit A Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
Personnel, Schedule, and Budget
Managing Principal David Zehnder will serve as Principal -in- Charge of this project and will oversee all
aspects of the effort. David will be assisted by Vice President Ben Sigman, Senior Associate Jesse
Walker, or other EPS personnel.
EPS will be assisted by Berkeley -based GDeS Architecture and Planning (GDeS), represented by Principal
Joseph DeCredico, GDeS has assisted EPS on many similar assignments and has a strong fundamental
understanding of parking strategies and effects on project design. GDeS will serve as a subcontractor to
EPS.
The project is expected to require 12 weeks and can be completed for a budget not -to- exceed $48,500, as
follows:
As discussed previously, if Task 1 conclusions indicate minimal potential for economic feasibility issues,
budget would be reduced substantially.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. — Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
EPS
GDeS
Total
Task 1: Evaluate Developer Pro Forma Impact
Staffing
$15,000
$7,500
$22,500
Documents and Meeting Support
$5,000
$2,000
$7,000
Subtotal
$20,000
$9,500
$29,500
Task 2: Identify Economic & Policy Implications of Proposed ZOA
Staffing
$12,500
$3,000
$15,500
Documents and Meeting Support
$2,500
$1,000
$3,500
Subtotal
$15,000
$4,000
$99,000
Total Project
$35,000
$93,500
$48,500
As discussed previously, if Task 1 conclusions indicate minimal potential for economic feasibility issues,
budget would be reduced substantially.
Consulting Services Agreement between November 20, 2012
City of Dublin and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. — Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
CITY OF DUBLIN
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013
CHANGE FORM #
New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required):
From Unappropriated Reserves
From New Revenues
Budget Transfers:
XX From Budgeted Contingent Reserve
Within Same Department Activity
Between Departments (City Council Approval Reqd)
Other
DECREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT! AMOUNT
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY:
At the November 20, 2012 the City Council adopted a resolution approving a consulting services
agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. to evaluate proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments. The need for these services was identified based on input during the public review
of the proposed ordinance changes. Since funding for the agreement was not included in the
FY2012 -2013 budget, the City Council was requested to authorize the transfer of funds from the
Budgeted Contingency line item. The balance in the Budgeted Contingency account after this
budget change is $79,500.
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on: Date: 11/20/2012
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #(Finance Use Only) # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##
Posted By: Date:
City Council Minutes Excerpt Attached
G:IBudgetChangesl5 2012 -137 11_20_12_ Zoning _ Ordinance_ Amendments.docx
Reviewed By:
ATTACHMENT 5
Name: EXPENDITURE: General Fund —
Name: EXPENDITURE: General Fund —
Budgeted Contingency
Planning Services— Contract Services
Account #: 1001.1901.81101
$48,500
Account #: 1001.8101.64001
$48,500
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY:
At the November 20, 2012 the City Council adopted a resolution approving a consulting services
agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. to evaluate proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments. The need for these services was identified based on input during the public review
of the proposed ordinance changes. Since funding for the agreement was not included in the
FY2012 -2013 budget, the City Council was requested to authorize the transfer of funds from the
Budgeted Contingency line item. The balance in the Budgeted Contingency account after this
budget change is $79,500.
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on: Date: 11/20/2012
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #(Finance Use Only) # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##
Posted By: Date:
City Council Minutes Excerpt Attached
G:IBudgetChangesl5 2012 -137 11_20_12_ Zoning _ Ordinance_ Amendments.docx
Reviewed By:
ATTACHMENT 5