HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 ScarlettCt Moratorium CITY CLERK
File # ~~[~~-~---~-~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 6, 2002
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Urgency Ordinance in Scarlett
Court Area
Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Urgency Ordinance
2. ' Scarlett Court Area Map
3. Notice Sent to Tenants and Property Owners within the
Scarlett Court Area
4. Letter from Property Owner
5. February 1, 2000 Agenda Statement regarding
Redevelopment Feasibility Study with Attachments
6. June 18, 2002, Agenda Statement
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Receive Staff presentation;
3. Receive Public Testimony and Close Public Hearing;
4. Determine if ministerial and discretionary actions could
negatively impact the outcome of the desired Specific Plan;
and
5(A). If the scope and exceptions proposed in draft Ordinance
(Attachment 1) are determined to be appropriate Staff
recommends that the City Council waive the reading and
adopt an Urgency Ordinance which will impose a
moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions
(subject to the exceptions mentioned below); or
5(B). If the scope and exceptions proposed by Staff are not
appropriate than direct Staff to modify MoratOrium
Ordinance; or
5(C). If the City CounCil determines that no negative impact will
result on the anticipated Specific Plan, then take no
additional action; and
6. Review the previous Redevelopment Study and provide Staff
with appropriate direction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact
COPIES TO: Property/Business Owners
Project Planner
ITEM NO. ~
G:\PA#\2002\Scarlett Court Sp\ccstaffreport 7-31 Scarlett Court. doc ~/~'~'
DESCRIPTION:
During the June 18th 2002, City Council meeting, the Council voted to initiate and define the Scarlett
Court area Specific Plan and directed Staff to provide notification to the tenants and property owners
within the Scarlett Court Area that the City Council is considering a moratorium for the area. On July 3,
2002, Staff sent out the notices to all known Tenants and Property Owners within the Specific Plan area.
In addition, on July 5th, the Economic Development Director hand delivered the notices to all tenants that
were open for business that day. Subsequent to the notices being sent, Staff received one letter of concern
from the General Manager of E1 Monte RV (see Attachment 4), and has received several phone calls from
tenants regarding the prospective moratorium. In addition, the Council directed Staff to review the
Redevelopment feasibility Study, dated January 25, 2000.
ISSUES
Moratorium
Staff is concerned, that without knowing the outcome of the Specific Plan study (which was authorized on
June 18, 2002), which would include land use, economic analysis, and a circulation analysis; ministerial
and discretionary actions, which modify the appearance or allow vacant buildings to be retenanted Could
negatively impact the outcome of the desired Specific Plan. An example of a ministerial action negatively
impacting the area would be a warehouse use leasin~ a vacant building and making no site or facility
improvements. An example of a discretionary action impacting the area would be approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for a new building within the area without
consideration of the Specific Plan. Such actions within the Area during the time that the City completes
the Specific Plan could ultimately frustrate the City's long term efforts to ensure the area is properly
developed as properties become suitable for reuse.
If the City Council determines that a negative impact will result from ministerial and discretionary actions
(as described above), the Council should adopt the attached interim ordinance (Attachment 1) which
would impose a moratorium on any discretionary action including: site development review or conditional
use permits; or ministerial actions including: building permits which modify the appearance or potential
use of a building or a business license for a ne.w use or permit the resumption of the last use of a property
that has been vacant for more than a year prior to the permit application. Staff proposes exceptions, which
WOuld exempt all current discretionary projects that have been submitted including two Master Sign
Programs for the new Nissan Dealer and Volkswagen Dealer (to date no building permits have been
submitted within the area). Specifically, Staff proposes 3 exceptions to the moratorium on future
ministerial and discretionary actions: (1) any discretionary action (and its associated building permit)
submitted prior to today's date; (2) emergency repair work deemed necessary by the Building Official for
the safety of the occupants; and (3) proposed new auto sales franchises. New auto sales franchises are
being proposed from exemption for two reasons: (1) currently there is a high proportion of the existing
auto dealers within the area; and (2) currently the M-1 zoning permits new and used auto dealers, subject
to the Planning Commissisn approving a conditional use permit. The proposed urgency ordinance would
temporarily modify the current zoning regulations and would require a conditional use permit to be
approved by the City Council, instead of the Planning Commission during the moratorium period, for the
new auto sales franchise uses. This modification would allow the City Council to evaluate a proposed
new auto dealer and determine if it would be consistent with the Council's goals for the area.
Applications for all permits would be accepted and processed during the moratorium period, as required
by state law, but Would not be approved.
Concern o_f Business regarding the MoratoriUm
Several property and business owners have called and one has written with concerns regarding the
proposed moratorium. Specifically, the concerns include:
(1) How long the moratorium will be in effect;
(2) Will the moratorium prohibit transfer of my existing business to subsequent purchasers;
(3) Will the moratorium prohibit leasing existing vacant tenant space; and
(4) Will the moratorium prohibit the new construction that I have planned for my business?
To respond to these specific issues: (1) How long the moratorium will be in effect? The moratorium is
anticipated to be in effect until the Specific Plan is completed in approximately a year and a half (State
law allows the moratorium to be in effect for up to two years, maximum; (2) Will the moratorium prohibit
transfer of my existing business to subsequent purchasers? The proposed text of the moratorium in
Attachment 1 states that only building permits which modify the appearance or potential use of a building
would be prohibited, therefore transferring the ownership of an existing use would not be prohibited; (3)
Will the moratorium prohibit leasing existing vacant tenant space? Leasing existing vacant tenant space
would not be prohibited as long as 2 conditions were met: (a) granting the new business license would not
result in modification to the existing use of the space; (b) the existing space was not vacant longer than
one-year prior to applying for the business license; and (4) Will the moratorium prohibit the new
construction that I have planned for my business? The moratorium; as it is written, would prohibit new
construction if it does not meet the three exceptions listed above.
Moratorium Process
The interim ordinance would take effect immediately if adopted by a four-fifths vote by the City Council.
State law limits the initial term of the ordinance to 45 days. State law also requires the ordinance to
include a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare, and
that the approval of ministerial or discretionary actions in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance
would result in a threat to public health, safety or welfare. State law allows the City Council to extend the
ordinance by 10 months and 15 days, and again by one year (for a total of two years), following a noticed
public hearing. Any subsequent extension shall require a four-fifths vote for adoption. No more than two
extensions may be adopted. Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the
City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition, which
led to the adoption of the ordinance. Should the City Council establish a moratorium through the
adoption of this urgency ordinance, the above mentioned written report would be brought back to the
Council on September 17, 2002.
Environmental Review
The proposed moratorium ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly
or ultimately; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Specific
Plan. The proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15308 of the State
CEQA Guidelines because it is a regulatory action taken by the City, in accordance with Government
Code section 65858, to assure maintenance and protection of the environment pending completion of the
contemplated Specific Plan.
Redevelopment
The City Council directed Staff at the June 18, 2002, meeting to review the conclusions from the
Redevelopment Feasibility Study, (Attachment 5). The Redevelopment Feasibility Study (Study) was
completed in January of 2000 by the consulting firm, Rosenow Spevacek Group (RSG), and was
presented to the City Council in February of 2000. The Study evaluated 8 areas within the City, one of
which was the Scarlett Drive area,(I-580 to Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd to Scarlett Dr.).
The first step RSG used in evaluating the eight areas was determining whether the areas meet the required
findings of physical and economic blight. Based on the conclusions of RSG (and as outlined in the Study)
only the Scarlett Drive area met the State required feasibility findings of physical and economic blight.
The next step used by RSG in determining whether the establishment of a project area for the Scarlett
Court Area is appropriate, was evaluate the financial viability of this project area. To determine the
financial viability it was necessary to complete the following: (1) determine the total cost necessary to set
up the Redevelopment Agency; (2) estimate potential costs to consolidate properties (the fundamental
function of the Agency to facilitate change); and (3) calculate the potential tax increment revenues from
ultimate development within the Area.
The total costs associated with setting up the Redevelopment Agency could average from $200,000 to
$300,000. These costs are necessary to pay for legal counsel, environmental review, redevelopment
document preparation and other tasks. RSG also noted that amount could double if the establishment of a
project area was legally challenged.
RSG estimated in 1999 that for the proposed Agency to participate in the redevelopment of approximately
10 properties within the Scarlett Court area (which would include land purchase, relocation, loss of
goodwill, demolition, and etc.) would cost approximately $30.9 million (which would be required as an
advance to the Agency from the City's General Fund). RSG also calculated that $15.7 million of the
$30.9 million advance would be paid back by land sales (assuming the Agency resells the land for $16 per
gross square foot).
Most redevelopment activities are traditionally funded by tax increment revenues, which are revenues
generated by increases in assessed values over the base year value. Redevelopment Agencies can incur
debt, to fund redevelOpment activities (such as infrastructure improvements or property consolidation),
based on the anticipated future stream of revenue produced by the tax increment. RSG calculated the
potential tax increment revenue from the area by assuming that project development would occur similar
to the current development pattern (i.e. not a significant land use change) would be approximately $15
million over a 45-year collection period (with a net present value of 4.2 million). However given the
pass-through and set-aside requirements, the actual amount to the Agency would be reduced to $7.4-
million over the 45-year period (with a net present value of $2.2 million).
Accounting for the set up costs, administrative costs, land acquisitibns, housing set aside, and property tax
pass through, over the 45-year life of the project area, the establishment of a project area and
consolidation of properties would result in a required subsidy of in excess of $15 million (see table).
Adoption and Administrative Costs $ (1,750,000)
Required Advance from City's General Fund $ (30,932,789)
Land Sale Proceeds $ 15,245,285
Gross Tax Increment $ 4,213,929
Pass Through to taxing entities $ (1,157,340)
Housing Fund Set aside (20% of Tax Increment) $ (842,786)
Net Agency Non Housing Revenue (-adoption/admin, pass through, set aside) $ 463,804
Required Subsidy $ (15,223, 700)
all numbers are Net Present Value and assume a discount rate of 5%
RSG concluded the establishment of a redevelopment agency would not generate sufficient tax increment
revenues due to the small area and therefore would not.recommend establishing a redevelopment agency.
Staff has contacted RSG regarding revisiting the Scarlett Court analysis to reevaluate the blight conditions
and the financial feasibility given current market conditions, RSG estimated a proposal for that work
would range from $5,000 to $10,000. If the City Council desires to reevaluate the establishing a project
area or reevaluate the boundaries of the project area, Staff would request RSG to submit a new proposal
for review and approval by the Council at a later date.
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Open Public Hearing; (2) receive Staff presentation; (3) receive public testimony and close public
hearing and determine if ministerial and discretionary actions could negatively impact the outcome of the
desired Specific Plan; and 5(A) if the scope and exceptions proposed in draft Ordinance (Attachment 1)
are determined to be appropriate Staff recommends that the City Council waive the reading and adopt, an
Urgency Ordinance which will impose a moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions (subject
to the exceptions mentioned above); or 5(B) if the scope and exceptions proposed by Staff are not
appropriate than direct Staff to modify Moratorium Ordinance; or 5(C) if the City Council determines that
no negative impact will result on the anticipated Specific Plan, then take no additional action; (6) review
the previous Redevelopment Study and provide Staff with appropriate direction
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE MAKING FINDINGS AND ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM
ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS AND
PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE SCARLETT COURT AREA PENDING THE
'COMPLETION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the use or non-use of each parcel of real property in Scarlett Court, shown on Exhibit
A hereto, and the manner of using those parcels, affects the value and potential development of other
property in the surrounding area, also shown on Exhibit A hereto; and
WHEREAS, unsightly or inappropriate land use on one parcel can discourage or prevent desired
land uses in the surrounding area, negatively affecting the aesthetics of the City, decreasing the number of
jobs and revenue for City services, frequently leading to the degradation of structures as failed businesses
are not replaced, and increasing the likelihood that inconsistent and sub-optimal land uses will move into
an area, further degrading it; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Boulevard, a major thoroughfare, was recently improved to provide
additional frontage to parcels along Scarlett Court; and
WHEREAS, the Scarlett Court area has many large and underutilized parcels which have
inadequate access and do not take advantage of the recent extension of Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the uses within the Scarlett Court area face inward and do not use
their frontage onto Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, several parcels within the Scarlett Court area have lot depths in excess of 1000 feet
which renders many retail uses ineffective; and
WHEREAS, Dolan's Lumber ceased operating ai 6365 Scarlett Court in approximately June,
2001; and
WHEREAS, During the Goals and Objectives session for FisCal Year 02/03, the City Council
requested Staff, as a high priority item, to initiate a Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, the City Council authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan for the
Scarlett Court Area to assess the best uses for the properties in the Scarlett Court Area, how to encourage '
those uses to take advantage of their frontage on Dublin Boulevard, and how to encourage beneficial re-
use of properties that are currently underutilized; and
WHEREAS, a number of franchise car dealerships already exist in the Scarlett Court Area; and
G:XPA#~2002\Scarlett Court Sp\Scarlett Court r~ritorium ord-revised7.24.doc Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that similar uses should be encouraged to develop in the
Scarlett Court Area to improve the appearance of businesses in the area, provide jobs and revenue, and to
take appropriate advantage of the properties in the Area fronting on Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan study to determine
the best means of accomplishing those goals for the development of the Scarlett Court Area; and
WHEREAS, untimely changes of uses within the Area during the time that the City completes the
Specific Plan could ultimately frustrate the City's long term efforts to ensure the area is properly
developed as properties become suitable for reuse, either by allowing the initiation of uses incompatible
with those recommended by the Specific Plan study or by directly preventing the use of properties as
recommended in the study; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that allowing development to
continue to occur in a disorganized fashion poses a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety and welfare because it will likely cause land use incompatibilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits,
variances, building permits, or any other applicable discretionary permit, except for building permits and
discretionary permits submitted prior August 6, 2002, which would allow the modification of the
properties within the Scarlett Court area, therefore would result in that threat to public health, safety and
welfare.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, ADOPTED AS AN
INTERIM ORDINANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858:
1) The City shall not approve any applications or permits for ministerial actions, including a business
license for a new use, which would result in the modification of the existing use or the resumption of the
last use of property that has been vacant longer than one year prior to applying for the business license.
The City shall not approve any applications or permits for ministerial and discretionary actions including
but not limited to site development review, subdivisions, use permits, rezonings, general plan
amendments, variances, building permits which modify the appearance or potential use of a building, or
any other applicable entitlement in the Scarlett Court area (shown on Exhibit A hereto), so long as this
ordinance is in effect, excepting from the ordinance the following: (1) any discretionary action (and its
associated building permit required to implement the approved action) submitted prior to August 6, 2002;
(2) emergency repair work deemed necessary by the Building Official for the safety of the occupants; and
(3) proposed new auto sales franchises, subject to the City Council approving a conditional use permit.
The City shall, nevertheless, accept and process applications for such entitlements.
2) This ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or
ultimately; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Specific
Plan. This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15308 of the State CEQA
Guidelines because it is a regulatory action taken by the City, in accordance with Government Code
section 65858, to assure maintenance and protection of the environment pending completion of the
2
contemplated Specific Plan.
3) If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this
end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have
passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, claus, e, or phrase hereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or
phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
4) This ordinanCe shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least four-fifths
vote of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five days from the date of adoption unless
extended by the City Council as provided for in Government Code section 65858.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of August 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
City Clerk
Scarlett Court Area Map
Zoning
PD ~~
PD
" ' 141t I~.U. ~
0-2
Attachment 2~,
.CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
The.Dublin City Council will hold a public meeting and consider the following:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City Council will consider adopting an urgency ordinance, which would place a temporary
moratorium on ministerial and discretionary actions including: site development review, conditional
use permits, building permits and/or new business license(s) for a new tenant. The City Council will
also consider the scope and the exemptions of the proposed moratorium. On June 18, 2002, .the
City Council authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area to assess the best
- uses for the properties in the Scadett Court Area.
LOCATION: The proposed area consists of approximately 52 acres of land and is bounded on the west by
Dougherty Road, the North by Dublin Blvd., the south by 1-580 right-of-way, and the east by the Iron
Horse TraiJ right-of-way (see below)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines under Section 15378.
The City Council hearing on the project is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, August 6, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center
Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin.
If you have any questions regarding this project, contact Andy. Byde, Senior Planner at the Bublin Planning Department or ~ali (925)
833-6610.
. '..' " .... 3eri '7- ~lannin~ 191ana~er
Dublin Blvd
- ~ca Code (925) ' City M~agcr 833-6650 - City Council 833-6650 · Pcrso~el 833-6605 · Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630. P~ks A Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-66?0
Planing/Code Snforccment 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention ~uraau 833-6606
El Monte RV
6301 Scadett Court
Dublin, CA 94568
July 12, 2002
Andy Byde
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Byde:
I am wdting in regards to the notice we received July 8, 2002, regarding the City Council's intentions of
adopting an urgency ordinance, which would place a temporary moratorium on ministerial and
discretionary action including: site development review, conditional use permits, building permits and/pr
new business license(s). This is of particular concern for E1 Monte RV, located at 6301 Scarlett Court,
Dublin, as we are in the process of submitting plans for a new 5400 sq ft commercial service building.
The proposed building js to replace our 16,700 sq ft service building demolished by the City of Dublin
for the widening of Dublin Boulevard last year. We have nearly completed the preliminary planning
phase of the project as we have already completed our Architectural, Structural, and Soils Engineering
reports. The new construction plans will be submitted to the City of Dublin, Plan Check within the next
30 days once our Waste Management Plan and Waste Reduction and Recycling Forms are
completed. Construction of the proposed building would commence immediately fOllowing the City's
approval of our building plans.
I understand the City Council will consider the scope and the exemptions of the proposed moratorium
on August 6, 2002, and trust that our proposed building would be exempt from the moratorium. Should
the City Council have questions regarding our plans, would be available to address the council at the
City Council meeting scheduled for August 6, 2002.
Sincerely,
Don Price
El Monte RV - General Manager
Cc: Dublin City Council
..,.,,,,.,,.-- ATTACHMENT.
6301 Scarlett Court, Dublin, CA 94568 USA
(925) 803-0331 · 1-888-810-3410 · FAX: (925) 803-0778
Los Angeles · San Francisco · Las Vegas ° New York Vancouver Orlando
',. ~'~ CITY CLERK
File # L._II/-/II o1-1 / II o l
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 1, 2000
SUBJECT: Redevelopment Feasibility Study
· Report Prepared by: Christopher L. Foss,
· -, Economic Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Redevelopment Feasibility Study dated January 25, 2000
RECOMMENDATION: ~ It is staffs recommendation that the City Council receive the report
,,.~ ~,/~ and take no further action.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No fiscal impact.
DESCRIPTION: The City Council has identified the preparation of a Redevelopment
Feasibility Study as a high priority for the FY 1999-2000 Goals and Objectives.
BACKGROUND: In 1945, the California Legislature enacted legislation, the California
Redevelopment Act, which provided local governmental entities with the tools to redevelop urban areas
that had fallen into disrepair both physically and economically, generally considered "blight." California
Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code section 33000 et seq. ("Redevelopment Law")
permits cities to adopt and implement redevelopment plans by providing the legal and financial tools to
mitigate certain physical and economic blighting conditions. The legislation also required.that, before a
legislative body (i.e. City Council) can pass an ordinance declaring the need for redevelopment, a
redevelopment feasibility study must be undertaken to determine the degree ofblight, if any, that exists in
the community.
As part of the City of Dublin's FY 1999-2000 Goals and Objectives (D-4), staff was directed to engage a
consultant to complete the necessary feasibility analysis. On October 5, 1999, the City Council approved
a contract for $33,895 with the Rosenow Spevacek Group to perform said feasibility analysis. The
contract called for RSG to study six defined areas:
1. Western Dublin BART Station (Golden Gate Drive south of Dublin Boulevard)
2. Dublin Place Shopping Center (Montgomery Wards/Target, etc.)
3. Village Parkway (between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard)
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. ~
H/cc-forms/agdastmt. doc
.............. ATTACHMENT
, 4. Donlon Square Center (Donlon and Dublin)*
5. Shamrock Village Shopping Center (northeaSt comer of San Ramon and Amador Valley) f
6. San Ramon Village Shopping Center (southeaSt comer of Alcosta and San Ramon Road)
7. Dublin Boulevard (Sierra Court to Dougherty Road)*
8. Scarlett Drive area (1-580 to Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty to Scarlett Court)
(* added subsequent to discussion with City Staff)
The Redevelopment Feasibility Analysis was designed to assess the legal and financial implications of
formulating a redevelopment' project area inclusive of the eight areas defined above. The current
California Redevelopment Law (California Redevelopment Law Reform Act- AB 1290 - adopted 1994)
mandates that the feaSibility findings include both physical and economic blight (Health and Safety Code
Section 33031)..Specifically, the law requires that conditions set forth in Section 33031 must be so
prevalent and substantial as to cause a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to the extent
that it causes a serious physical and economic burden to the community. The law expects that the burden
could not be reversed or corrected by private development, governmental action or both, without
redevelopment. It is a far stronger burden of Pr0of of blight than was required prior to 1994.
California Redevelopment Law (Section 33320.1) requires prospective redevelopment project areas to
meet several criteria including urbanization and blight. The law requires that not less than 80% of the
proposed project area be urbanized - the Dublin study areas meet .that criteria aS all 273 acres are
urbanized aS they are all surrounded by developed prOperty on three sides. The law also requires that the
project areaS must also be blighted, both physically and economically. Section 33031 of the law provides
specific defmiti0ns. CaSe law has found that'the blight must predominate and impact the entire area to be
considered legal.
REpoRT FINDINGS:
RSG did a preliminary study of potential blighting Conditions in the eight identified subareas in Dublin. It
should be noted that in order to'prepare and adopt a redevelopment plan involving a study area, blighting
conditions would need to be further documented, along with a more extensive analysis of their burden on
the community and the inability of the private sector or the City to alleviate these conditions without
redevelopment RSG began the study in November, 1999 with a windshield survey of the designated
areaS in which RSG staff noted physical blighting conditions and property vacancies. RSG also studied
ownership and parcel configurations from the Alameda County Assessor's Office as well as interviewed
local real estate brokers. RSG also completed a financial feasibility analysis to determine the amount of
tax increment revenue that could be generated from the proposed project area. By way Of background,
most redevelopment activities are traditionally funded by tax increment revenues. Tax increment
revenues are property tax revenues generated by increases 'in assessed values over an established base year
value. Redevelopment law allows for redevelopment agencies to 'collect those property tax increases over
the baSe year value (property tax value at date of project area establishment). In essence, future tax
revenues are redistributed when a project area is created.
The tax increment revenue is distributed baSed on a mandatory formula that requires: a) 20% of the tax
revenue be deposited into a low and moderate income housing fund to provide and/or improve the
community's affordable housing and b) statutory payments to each of the taxing agencies that collect
property taxes from the project area. The mandatory "pass through" of tax increment revenue generally
requires that $0.31 of every $1.00 of tax increment revenue be allocated to affected property tax agencies,
$.020 be allocated to the 20% set-aside housing fund, and $0.49 be retained for non-housing purposes.
The report findings are as follows:
1. RSG concluded that the formation of a redevelOpment project area within the Study Areas would
generally not be legal or financially viable at this time.
2. RSG's research and analysis could not document both the physical and economic blighting
conditions required by Redevelopment Law, in subareas 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7.
3. RSG concluded that subarea 8 (Scarlett Drive) exhibits some examples of both physical and
economic blight, but the area does not represent a redevelopment project area that is large enough
to facilitate an economically viable redevelopment program.
4. RSG concluded that redevelopment may be a necessary tool in five to ten years, if any of the
subareas experience worsening physical and economic conditions.
5. RSG 'recommends that the City continue to invest in streetscape improvements, work with
property owners to improve properties~ and implement marketing programs to stimulate patronage
and investment and reinvestment in the subareas.
Of.the eight subareas studied by RSG, only subarea 8 - Scarlett Court - reflected a Concentration of
blighted properties. The blighting conditions noted by RSG included dilapidation and deterioration of
certain industrial buildings, limited economic viability of certain buildings due to inadequate parking and
obsolete buildings, and properties with a history of hazardous contamination that could ultimately affect
property value(s). Despite the fact that subarea 8 contains examples of both blighting conditions required
by redevelopment law, RSG found that the financial feasibility of creating a redevelopment project area
using only subarea 8 would'be very difficult to implement for three major reasons. First, they found that
the small size of the area (21 parcels - 45 acres) and'the limited amount of developable area could stymie
the tax increment revenue growth necessary for the project' area. Second, there are costs involved in the
establishment of a redevelopment project area. The redevelopment plan adoption process calls for
environmental review, redevelopment document preparation, retention of legal counsel, and substantial
public noticing and public hearing requirements. The total costs could range from $200,000 to $300,000
and could double if legally challenged. Third, a redeVelopment agency incurs annual operating costs that
could average from $50,000 to $200,000 .annually to complete audits and annual reports, adoption of
implementation and housing plans, and the administration of the tax increment revenues. RSG would not
recommend proceeding with the redevelopment 'project area due to the potential high costs of
implementation.
RSG reviewed the financial implications of subarea 8 given two development scenarios: status quo and
office development (highest and best use). RSG found that subarea 8 would create a modest amount of
tax increment revenue over the 45-year e011ection period allowed by redevelopment law. RSG estimates
that the status quo project would collect $15 million over the 45-year period; whereas $70.7 million would
be collected over the same period with new office development. Statutory payments (20% set-aside and
mandatory pass-through) reduce that figure to $7 million and $37 million, respectively. Those numbers
are further discounted when figured at present value to equal $2.2 million and $11.8 million, respectively,
in today's dollars.
RSG further studied the potential costs to the Agency to participate .in the redevelopment of
approximately 10 Searlett Court properties in order to aSsembly, consolidate, and write-down the costs of
the land for future development. These costs involve land purchase, relocation, loss of goodwill,
demolition, and fixtures and equipment costs which RSG estimates to be apProximately $30.9 million. In
order to effectuate this project, the City would be required to advance to the Agency the $30.9 million
acquisition costs. The advance would be repaid by land sale proceeds (approximately $15.7 million ~ $16
pe~ square foot), and the project Would have an appr ximately $15~2 million-shortfall that would require a /~) ~'~ 51
redevelopment or General Fund subsidy. This shortfall would require all of the tax increment funding for
the 45-year life of the project area ($10. I million) as well as a subsidy from the General Fund or another
source(s).
RSG also found that the adoption of a redevelopment project area would also have a detrimental effect on
the City's General Fund. The City currently collects 25% of the property taxes with the subarea g. If the
project area were established, the City would lose approximately $3.0 million over the 45-year life of the
project ($0.85 million in 'today's dollars) to the Redevelopment Agency , an amount equal to the
difference between the City's share of taxes without redevelopment and the amounts required by law to be
paid to the City's General Fund if the area were a redevelopment project area.
ANALYSIS
RSG found that only one of the eight subareas studied as Part of the Redevelopment Feasibility Analysis
met the stringent legal requirements of blight as determined by California Redevelopment Law. Due to
the 'lack of size of the .qualifying subarea (Scarlett Court), RSG has determined that the area would be
unable to generate sufficient tax increment revenues to meet the purpose and goals of establishing a
redevelopment agency. For thOse reasons, staff would concur with the RSG's findings and recommend
that the City Council take no further action on this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
It is staff s recommendation that the City Council receiv~ the Rosenow Spevacek Group report and take
no further action.
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
January 26, 2000..
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Califomia 94568
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Aha, California 92705
Phone: (714) 5411-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E-Mail: RSGIncCA@aol.com
ATTACHMENT
R developrnent Feasibility Stu
City of Dublin
Introduction ........................................................................
Why Redevelopment is Being Considered ....................................... 2
Legal Requ,rements ............................................................. 3
Urbanization ..................................................... ~ .................................... 4
Blighting Conditions. ............................................ ~ .............................. 4
Bli.qhtin.q Conditions in Study Area ................................................... 6
'Subarea '1 .................................................................................... 6
Subarea 2 ................................................................................ ... 8
Subarea 3 .................................................................................... 9
Subarea 4 ............................................................ . ......................
Subarea 5 ................................................................................. .
.Subarea 6 .................. ~ ............................................................... 13
Subarea 7 ..................................................................................
Subarea 8 ................ ~ ................................................................. '/5
FiScal Implications .................. , ....... ,., ............................. 17
Tax Increment Proiecfions ..................................... ; .......................... 17
Economic Feasibility .......................................................................... 23
Fiscal Impact on City's General Fund .............................................. 26
COnclusions .............. : ....................... ................................ 29
C:\WIN DOWS\TEMP~STUDY2.DOC
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
City of Dublin
The City of Dublin ("City") is in the process of formulating three specific
plans to facilitate the continUed economic viability of certain commercial
areas in' the City. To implement these specific plans, the City is
investigating vadous financing mechanisms, including the creation of a
redevelopment project pursuant to the California Community
Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.
("Law,). The Law permits cities to adopt and implement redevelopment
plans by providing legal and financial tools to mitigate specific physical and
economic blighting conditions.
This redevelopment feasibility Study ("Study") assesses the legal and
financial implications of formulating a redevelopment project area inclusive
of the three specific plan areas, and other commercial and industrial areas
in older sections of the City. The 273-acre redevelopment study area
("Study Area") includes the following 8 subareas:
· Specific Plan Areas:
t) West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area, generally bounded by
Dublin Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, Interstate 580 and San
Ramon Road
2) Downtown Core Specific Plan Area, generally inclusive of the
Dublin Place Center and other commercial properties along
Amador Plaza Road, from Amador Valley Boulevard to Dublin
Boulevard.
3) Village Parkway Specific Plan Area, generally inclusive of
properties immediately east and west of Village Parkway, between
Amador Valley Road and Dublin Boulevard.
· Other Study Areas:
4) Donlon Square Center, located on Dublin Boulevard at Donlon
Way.
s). Shamrock Village and Dublin Plaza centers along Amador Valley
Road and Regional Street.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 1
CITY OF DUBLIN
s)An unnamed neighborhood shopping center at San Ramon Road
and Alcosta Boulevard.
7)Various commercial properties along Dublin Boulevard, between
Sierra Court and Doughedy Road. '
s) Industrial and commercial properties generally bounded by Dublin
Boulevard, the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, Interstate
580, and Scadett Court
A map of the Study Area is included at the end of this Study as Exhibit A.
Why Redevelopment is Being'Considered
Based on RSG's discussions with City staff, a field inspection of the Study
Area and review of the eco.nomic opportunities in the area, redevelopment
is being considered to achieve three fundamental goals, as listed below:
· To facilitate implementation of la.de and streetscape improvements
through the West Dubin BART, Downtown Core and Village Parkway
Specific Plans
·To encourage the revitalization of Study Area properties to protect the
community's economic base
·To employ Iow and moderate income housing tax increment funds into
a Citywide housing rehabilitation program.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 2
Redevelopment .Feasibility Study
City of Dublin
in 1945, the Community Redevelopment Act was enacted by the
California State Legislature to enable 'local governments to redevelop
urban areas, that for many reasons, have suffered from unsafe, unfit,
deteriorated, and economically dislocated buildings and properties. The
initial growth in redevelopment was slow with only 46 redevelopment
agencies established by 1965. Today, it is estimated that over 400
redevelopment agencies exist with approximately 780 project areas.
Redevelopment was traditionally intended for severe conditions of blight
such as that existing in inner city areas like Bunker Hill in' Los Angeles and
the Embarcadero area :of San Francisco. Over the yearn, as
redevelopment became more popular, cities used redevelopment as a
funding mechanism in areas that did not meet the traditional views of
blight. In the 1970s and 1980s, many cities placed suburban and semi-
rural areas into redevelopment by arguing that these areas lacked public
infrastructure. A public backlash developed in the early 1990s resulting in
legislation that clarified the definition of blight. In 1993, the State
Legislature adopted the Community Redevelopment Law Reform ACt (AB
1290); this legislation, mandated findings of both physical and economic
blight.
Prior to AB 1290, a blighted area was characterized by one or more
conditions set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 33031 and 33032,
causing a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area that it
constituted a physical, social, or economic burden on the community. The
definition of blight was so vague that it allowed project areas to be
characterized as blighted without the presence of substantial physical
deterioration.
Under AB 1290, the definition of blight was amended for project areas
adopted after January 1, 1994. As it exists today, Health and Safety Code
33031 provides that a blighted area must contain both physical and
economic blight. Specifically, the conditions set forth in Section 33031
must be so prevalent and substantial to cause a reduction of, or lack of,
proper utilization of the area to the extent that it constitutes a serious
physical and economic burden on the community. This burden cannot be
expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise, governmental
action, or both, without redevelopment. '
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. ' PAGE 3
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
The implications of AB 1290 cannot be overlooked; new project areas must conform
to a significanlly higher threshold of blight and urbanization than what was previously
permitted by Law. Indeed, many project areas created prior to redevelopment reform
in 1994 could not meet today's legal requirements. As a result, it is much more
difficult to create a redevelopment project area under today's legal requirements.
Section 33320.1 of the Law mandates that not less than 80% of the land in
a redevelopment project area is urbanized. Urbanized properties are
defined as developed (or formedy developed) parcels, parcels of irregular
form under mixed ownership, and properties that are an integral part of an
urban area (i.e. substantially surrounded by developed proPerty).
Applying these criteda to the Study Area, RSG determined that the Study
Area in fact exceeds the 80% urbanization threshold. RSG estimates that '
approximately all 273 acres (100%) of the Study Area are urbanized,
because Study Area parcels are either developed, or an integral part of an
urban area, because they are surrounded by developed property on three
or more sides.
Blighting GondWons
Pursuant to Section 33320.1 of the Law, redevelopment project areas
must also be blighted. Indeed, the courts have found that the elimination
of blight is the public purpose that justifies the use of redevelopment tools,
including the expenditure of public funds, acquiring property, and imposing
land use controls. As defined by Section 33031 of the Law, blight
encompasses physical and economic conditions that cannot be alleviated
by pdvate enterprise, governmental action or both, without redevelopment.
Section 33031 also provides defines these physical and economic
conditions as 'follows:
Physical blight is defined as: ·
[] Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to occupy, live,
or work. These conditions include serious building code violations,
numerous structures that are dilapidated or severely deteriorated,
numerous structures that exhibit defective design or physical
construction, faulty or 'inadequate utilities, or-other similar factors.
[] Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or reuse of
buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by substandard
ROSENOW SPEVACEKGROUP, INC. PAGE 4
CITY OF DUBLIN
building design, inadequate parcel size, nearby insufficient parking, or
other similar factors.
·Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with one another, and
prohibit the economic development of adjoining parcels
· Lots subdivided into irregular shapes, and are inadequately sized for
proper usefulness and development. Further, these lots are. often
under multiple ownership.
Economic blight is defined as:
· Depreciating or stagnant property values or impaired investments.
Properties whose Value is *impacted by hazardous wastes and
materials also fall under this category..
· Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally Iow lease rates, high
turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an
area developed for urban use and served by utilities.
· The'lack of commercial facilities that are normally found in
neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and
other lending institutionS.
· Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other
businesses that cater excluSively to adults and generate public safety
and welfare problems.
·A high cdme rate that constitutes a seriOus threat to the public safety
and welfare.
In addition to the aforementioned conditions, inadequate public
infrastructure is also considered a condition of blight when other physical
conditions are present.
While the Law does not quanlJfy the portion of the Project Area that should be
blighted, case law has generally found that blight must predominate and impact the
entire redevelopment project area. Further, the Agency cannot include property
solely for the puq~ose of collecting additional tax increment revenue; properties within
a redevelopment project area must be either blighted or necessary for effective
redevelopment of the project area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 5
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
Blighting Conditions in Study Area
In November 1999, RSG conducted a windshield field insPection of the
StUdy Area, during which RSG noted examples of physical blighting
conditions and vacancies. In addition, RSG surveyed 10 real estate
Professionals active in the Study Area (see list in Exhibit B), studied
ownership and parcel configurations obtained from the County Assessor's
office, obtained statistics on police calls for service, investigated the extent
of documented hazardous contamination, and interviewed City staff.
In aggregate, RSG estimates that approximately 15 parcels, or 10% of the
Study Area's 149 parcels, are characterized with one or more blighting
conditions. Examples of blighted properties were primarily concentrated in
Subarea 8, which is the Scarlett .Court industrial area. In general, the
conditions noted within the Study Area include the following:
t)' Dilapidation and DeterioratiOn, specifiCally limited to certain industrial
properties along Scariett Court in Subarea 8.
2) Conditions hinderin.q the economic viability of buildings and lots,
specifically limited to inadequate parking and obsolete structures in
Subarea 8.
3) Potentially impaired investments due to history of hazardous
contamination, identified' on approximately 8 proPerties located in the
Study Area, including 2 in Subarea 8. (A list of properties with a history
of hazardous contamination is included on Exhibit C) Of the 8
properties identified, 6 are currently under remediation.
In order to prepare and adopt a redevelopment plan involving the Study Area,
blighting conditions would need to be further documented, along with a more
extensive analysis of their burden on lhe community and the inability of the private
sector or the City to alleviate these conditions without redevelopment.
RSG has described below any blighting Conditions within each Subarea:
Subarea 1
Subarea 1, which is coterminous with the proposed boundaries of the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Area, encompasses retail, office, hotel
and industrial uses.. With the development of the West Dublin BART
station at Golden Gate Drive, the City is looking to redevelop surrounding
properties with uses that compliment the new transit center development.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 6
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
Physical Conditions:
[] The Law establishes somewhat high thresholds of what constitutes
physical blight.. Overall, properties' in Subarea 1 are in sound
condition and cannot be described as dilapidated or deteriorated.
City Code Enforcement did not identify any serious code violations
in this Subarea, or any 'other portions of the Study Area. While
some of the 20-30 year old structures within this area would appear
to benefit from a facelift to modernize their appearance, this
circumstance alone does not justify redevelopment.
[] Many prOperties within this area have been, or are planned to be,
privately, redeveloped. Examples include a proposed 42,000
square, foot office complex addition on the comer of Dublin
Boulevard and San Ramon Road, a successful fagade
improvement of a commercial center at 7884 Dublin Boulevard, the
Outback Steakhouse restaurant, and the $60 million BART Project
at Golden Gate Drive. These circumstances provide ample
evidence that private enterprise can undertake revitalization efforts
without redevelopment.
· There were no examples of incompatible uses that prohibited the
economic development of this area, nor any evidence of lots of
irregular shape, form, and size under multiple ownership.
Economic Conditions:
· RSG's field survey did not identify any examples of high turnover or
vacancies within Subarea 1, and property lease rates in this area
average $1.25 per square foot (triple net) for retail property and
$1.95 per square foot for office property, rates which local brokers
characterized as typical of the Tri-Valley area. (See Exhibit D for a
summary of RSG's lease rate survey)
· There was no evidence of high business turnovers in Subarea 1;
while data was not available to analyze property value spec'~cally
within the Study Area, RSG believes that property values are
comparable to other Tri-Valley properties.
· Research of the California Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) listing of known contaminated sites did not identify any
contaminated properties in Subarea 1; neither property
representatives nor. RSG could identify other examples of impaired
ownership in this area.
· The area does not contain residential uses, so there was no
evidence of residential overcrowding.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 7
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
·The area does not contain a concentration of businesses that cater
exclusively to adults; such as adult businesses and bars.
· Finally, both analysis of Shedff department statistics and follow-up
discussions with police services staff indicate that the Study Area,
like the balance of the City, does not suffer from high crime rates..
In light of the absence of any indications of blight, it is RSG's conclusion
that Subarea 1 does not qualify for inclusion in a redevelopment project
area.
Subarea 2
Subarea 2 incorporates the Downtown Core Specific Plan Area along
Amador Plaza Road. One of staffs initial concerns about this area was
that the mixed ownership of the Dublin Place Center seemed to inhibit
efforts to create a contemporary uniform design for the entire center.
Physical Conditions:
· The field survey did not note any examples of serious structural
problems in this Subarea. Some of the facades were tired, but this
condition did not appear to affect the ability of businesses to remain
in place.
· The tenants are quality, national tenants that have not indicated
any intention to relocate from the area. City staff reports that Home
Depot has plans to construct a '95,000 square foot EXPO Design
Center on the vacant parcel between the Montgomery Wards and
Target buildings.
· Parking at properties alOng Amador Plaza Road, while' somewhat
banal in-character, appeared to supply sufficient capacity for the
businesses in the area
· Buildings at 'the Dublin Place Center are poorly laid out and the
entire center suffers from a disjointed site plan. These conditions
are apparently caused in part by the fact that ownership of the 7
parcels that compdse the center is divided among 5 different
entities.
· There was no evidence of incompatible uses in this retail district.
Economic Conditions:
· With the entrance of Home Depot's EXPO Design Center into this
area, there are no examples of substantial vacancies, high
business turnover rates, or abnormally Iow lease rates in the area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 8
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILFrY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
(Although a few retail vacancies were noted at the Dublin Place
Center during the field survey, follow up conversations with retail
brokers indicated that .many of these spaces had been since
leased) RSG's survey of commercial brokers indicates that the
area commands retail rents of approximately $1.00 - $1.30 per
square foot, which brokers considered to be average for larger
shopping districts in the Tri-Valley area.
· Only one property within the area (Montgomery .Wards Auto
Center) had a record of contamination according to Califomia EPA.
However, this sole occurrence does not appear to impair the
utilization of this or surrounding parcels.
· The area does not contain residential uses, so there was no
evidence of residential overcrowding.
·The area does not contain a concentration of businesses that cater
exclusively to adults, such as adult businesses and bars.
·Again, the Study Area overall does not include what the City's
Police Services department would consider to be high crime areas.
While Subarea .2 would benefit from a consolidated revitalization effort to
update facades and streetscape to today's standards, it is RSG's
conclusion that this condition alone does not qualify the area for inclusion
in a redevelopment project.
Subarea 3
Subarea 3 contains a mix of office, auto, and retail uses along Village
Parkway. City staff indicateS that land uses and lot configurations along
Village Parkway cause an excessive relianCe on automobiles for patrons.
The City is seeking tools to work with the area's .multiple owners to
address erratic land use patterns by transitioning the area into a
pedestrian-Oriented retail district.
Physical Conditions:
· While RSG did not identify properties with sedous structural
conditions, several properties along Village Parkway, including the
strip center a the northwest corner of Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard, Would benef~ from repainting, updated fa~de
treatments, and improved signage.
· Access between parcels was difficult, because many properties did
not permit vehicular movement without using Village Parkway.
This condition was observed at parcels northeast of the intersection
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, PAGE 9
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
of Dublin Boulevard .and Village Parkway, as well as properties
west of Village Parkway.
= Some properties contained a mix of industrial, auto service and
commercial uses on the same site. Lots where these situations
existed appeared to be overcrowded, lacking parking, onsite
landscaping and trash enclosures. Examples include 6842 Village'
Parkway and 7080 Village Parkway. However, these problems are
evidently isolated and not detrimental to the overall character of this
district. According to City staff, this area has not been frequently
cited by code enforcement.
Economic Conditions:
= Based on RSG's discussions with real estate representatives
familiar with Subarea 3, lease rates in this area remain relatively
high. Retail properties lease rates range from $1.25 to $2.00 per
square foot, which is comparable to rents for space of this type in
the Tri-Valley area.
· RSG did not observe a particularly high concentration of vacancies
in Subarea 3. Brokers also commented that the area is desirable
and does not suffer from high business turnovers or stagnant
property values. The strip center on the northwest comer of
Amador Valley BouleVard and Village Parkway had 2 of 8 spaces
vacant in November 1999. ElseWhere in Subarea 3, commercial
space was generally filled.
· Automotive uses in Subarea 3 have been found by California EPA
as having onsite contamination, including properties at 7249 Village
Parkway, 7197 Village Parkway, and 9194 Village Parkway. The
extent of the identified contamination has not been fully
investigated, and additional research may be warranted to
determine the extent'of this problem and the willingness of the
principals to undertake remediation.
· The area does not contain residential uses, so there was no
evidence of residential overcrowding.
· The area does not contain a concentration of businesses that cater
exclusively to adults, such as adult buSinesses and bars.
· Again~ high crime rates were not a factor throughout the Study
Area.
VVhile Subarea 3 does have some physical blighting conditions, it does not
meet the Law's requirements that project areas contain both physical and
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 10
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
economic blight. The apparent absence of economic factors, such as high
vacancy rates, abnormally Iow property values or Iow lease rates, would
prohibit the City from including this area in a redevelopment project area at
this time.
Subarea 4
The Donlon Square Center comprises Subarea 4. The 40,000 square foot
shopping center is anchored by a building supply store.
Physical COnditions:
= Like many of the retail buildings in the Study Area, the Donlon
Square Center needs a minor facelift to modernize the fa(;ade.
However, the overall structural condition of the Property .appeared
sound.
· The entire shopping center lies on a single parcel with adequate
parking, although onsite landscaping could improve the aesthetic
character of the property.
·RSG did not observe any conditions that caused the property to be
incompatible With surrounding uses.
Economic Conditions:
= The retail space was fully occupied at the time of the field
inspection, and there were no apparent economic conditions that
impaired investment. ,
· The area does not contain residential uses, so there was no
evidence of residential, overcrowding.
· The area does not contain a concentration of businesses that cater
exClusively to adults, such as adult businesses and bars.
= Local brokers did not believe that this area suffered from
particularly high business turnover rates or stagnant property
values.
· EPA did not identify any contaminated sites within Subarea 4.
Subarea 4 does not COntain any of the blighting conditions as prescribed
by Law that would qualify its incluSion ina redevelopment project area.
Subarea 5
Subarea 5 includes retail and office uses along Regional Street,' San
Ramon Road, and Amador Valley Boulevard. Two 30-year old retail
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 11
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
centers anchor the district, including the 51,200 square foot Shamrock
Village center and the 191,900 square foot Dublin Plaza center.
Physical Conditions:
· As relatively older retail centers, Shamrock Village and Dublin
Plaza do not feature contemporary facades and on site
improvements found in today's retail developments. However,
RSG observed that these centers and other structures in this
Subarea are of generally sound condition.
· Parking and access appeared to be adequate, with the exception of
the 50,900 square foot Almond Plaza center at 7180 Regional
Street. This center's u-shaped design and somewhat high lot
coverage (approximately 26%) caused the center to be somewhat
more congested than nearby properties. However, the center's
poor physical layout did not appear to hinder the economically
viable use of the center; given the high occupancy"rates of this
development, the center seemed to be quite viable for continued
commercial use.
·RSG did not observe any conditions that caused the prOperty to be
incompatible with surrounding uses.
·Parcels in Subarea 5 are not of irregular form, shape and size, so
this blighting condition cannot be documented in this. area.
Econorn~c .Conditions:
· Only a few vacancies were observed during the field inspection,
including a closed fast food restaurant at 7122 Regional Street.
Follow-up phone calls with area brokers indicated that spaces in
this area typically do not stay vacant for more than 60 days.
· Rents are generally competitive with similar space in the Tri-Valley
Area. Dublin Plaza Center leases for $1.10 per square foot, which
is not abnormally Iow for the retail centers of that age and design in
the area. Other retail properties in the area lease for as much as
$1.75 per square foot.
· Only o.ne property had any record of contamination in Subarea 5.
This service station at 7007 San Ramon Road is currently
processing a site work plan for remediation according the Califomia
EPA.
· Subarea 5 contained only two small Vacant lots, which .cannot be
characterized as excessive and therefore blighted under the Law.
Also, there were no signs or' indications from brokers that the area
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 12
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
suffered from high business turnover'rates, stagnant property
values, or a lack of commercial facilities.
· The area does not contain residential uses, so there was no
evidence of residential overcrowding.
· The area does not contain a concentration of businesses that cater
exclusively to adults, such as adult businesses and bars.
· Subarea 5 is not considered a high crime area by the Sheriff's
department.
RSG could not identify serious blighting conditions in Subarea 5 to
recommend its inclusion in a redevelopment project area at this time.
Subarea 6
Subarea 6 includes a small neighborhood shopping center constructed in
about 1970. The former anchor tenant, a Lucky grocery store, shuttered
its location a few years ago in favor of a newer center nearby. The
grocery space is currently occupied by a furniture store. The City is
considering including this area in a redevelopment project area to facilitate
the rejuvenation of this center.
Physical Conditions:
· The fagade and signage of this development are obsolete by
today's standards. Renovating the entire center may be complex,
since the center's ownership is split between three different parties.
Also, since Lucky Stores is retaining ownership of the former
grocery space, they may not be motivated in investing into a center
in which they no longer operate a store.
· 'RSG estimates that the center is approximately 50,000 square'feet
in size, which is about half of the size of today's neighborhood
shopping centers. Because of its small size, attracting and
retaining anchor tenants may be difficult in the future if the space is
vacated. However, the center's property representative indicates
that center benefits from its location to the nearby retail center
across Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. Demonstration of
substandard design, as defined by Law, is difficult in this instance
since the center is currently occupied and in generally sound
condition.
· Parking at the center was not considered to be inadequate; there
were a number of unused parking stalls observed during the field
survey.
ROSENOW'SPEVACEK GROUP~ INC. PAGE 1.3
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
·The neighborhood shopping center is compatible with surrounding
commercial and residential uses.
' · No.other physical conditions were noted in the field survey.
Economic Conditions:
· Two of the eight spaces in the center were vacant at the time of the
field survey; these vacancies amounted to approximately 10% of
the entire area of the center.
· Property representatives indicated that the center lease rates are
comparable to other spaces in Dublin, ranging from $1.25 to $1.50
per square foot.
· Subarea 6 has no vacant lots, nor any evidence of high business
turnover rates, stagnant property values, or a lack of commercial
facilities.
· The area does not contain residential uses, so there was no
evidence of residential overcrowding.
·The area does not contain a concentration of businesses that cater
exclusively to adults, such as adult businesses and bars.
· RSG's research of other economic blighting factors found that this
Subarea does not suffer from high crime or hazardous
contamination.
Although the center is generally in sound condition and well occupied, the
Lucky's closure, lack of modemization, and dated design suggest this
property may be in decline. However, because these conditions have not
yet led to a consistent pattern of failures, declining lease rates, or
vacancies, RSG does not recommend including Subarea 6 in a
redevelopment project area.
Subarea 7
Subarea 7 includes industrial and retail properties along the north side of
Dublin Boulevard, from Sierra Court to Dougherty Road. This area was
studied because the 104,000 square foot retail discount store on the
comer of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road appeared to need fagade
improvements.
Physical Conditions:
· Properties along Dublin Boulevard were of mixed character,
featuring inconsistent uses and design for this gateway to the
ROSENOW. SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 14
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
community. Overall, though, the buildings in the area appeared to
be structurally sound.
· Multiple ownership of commercial properties immediately northeast
of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court was
evident, a condition which could inhibit use of these properties. At
the. time of the field inspection, though, RSG did not note any
vacancies or serious nuisances.that were created as a result of the
configuration of parcels and ownership in this area.
· No other physical conditions were noted in the field survey.
Econbmic Conditions:
· The entire Subarea 7 appeared to be fully leased, and brokers
commented that the area commands relatively high lease rates
($1.40 to $1.45 per square foot). The high rents are attributed to
the utilization of this industrial space for off~ce/service uses.
· There was no evidence of impaired investments in the area,
although one property (6401 Dublin Boulevard) was identified as
having hazardous contamination by California EPA. However,
California EPA reports that remediation efforts are underway.
·The area does not contain residential uses, so there was no
evidence of residential overcrowding. -
·The area does not contain a concentration of businesses that cater
exclusively to adults, such as adult businesses and bars.
Subarea 7 does not contain sufficient examples of physical and economic
blight necessary to recommend its inclusion in a redevelopment project
area at this time..
Subarea 8
Subarea 8 contains approximately 15 blighted, parcels, including older
industrial and automotive uses along Scarlett Court. City staff has
indicated that the inclusion of this 21-parcel area in a redevelopment
project area is desired to facilitate recycling and cleanup of some of the
obsolete uses and upgrade this gateway to the City.
Physical Conditions:
· Structural deterioration was evident on four properties along
Scadett Court. Conditions noted included deferred maintenance,
deteriorated facades, and minor exterior damage.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, PAGE 15
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
· Some properties suffered from poorly configured lots that lacked
sufficient spaCe for onsite parking and loading/unloading activities,
including a multi-tenant auto service use immediately southwest of
Scarlett Court. Asa result, the street was cluttered with vehicles
that inhibited traffic flows.
· Another condition noted was the unscreened storage of wood and
debris along Dublin Boulevard. Open storage of this material was
clearly visible from Dublin Boulevard and adjoining hotel and
commercial uses. City staff reports that this condition is a nuisance
to surrounding property owners.
Economic Conditions:
· The majority of this area is owner occupied, so lease rate
information was not available. Discussions with local real estate
brokers indicated that the area is prime for revitalization as
surrounding areas develop.
· Due to its proximity to Interstate 580, the East Dublin BART Station,
and appreciating east Dublin properties, property values in this
area are relatively high, ranging from $15 to $25 per square foot. It
is, likely that an acquisition and redevelopment program could be
costly.
· Hazardous contamination was documented on two parcels within
the Survey Area; several brokers expressed concerns that
additional contamination could be identified, as older industrial
properties are recycled.
Subarea 8 contains both physical and econOmic conditions that meat the
basis for proceeding with a redevelopment project. However, because of
its small size and lack of redevelopment potential, implementation of a
redevelopment program in this area alone is not believed to be.
economically viable. The economic feasibility of redevelopment in the
Study Area is discussed in the next section.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 16
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
City of Dublin
The successful implementation of most redevelopment programs will
require a significant amount of capital. Redevelopment is traditionally
funded through tax increment financing. Redevelopment agencies do not
have the authority to raise taxes' or impose neW assessments. Instead,
tax increment financing allows for a redistribution of future properly tax
revenue to a redevelopment agency.
Tax increment revenue is property tax revenue generated by 'increases in
assessed values over an established .base year value. When a
redevelopment project area is established, the county auditor-controller
sums up the existing value of all properties within the project area; this
Value is called the base year value. As subsequent year assessed values
within the project area increase due to the reassessments provided for by
Proposition 13 (property improvements and/or sales, and an up to 2%
inflation adjustment), the resulting property tax revenue generated from
this incremental increase in assessed value over the base year Value is
allocated to a redevelopment agency to fund redevelopment activities.
The chart below graphically depicts how tax increment is generated.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Investment ~ I I V&lultlon ActrUel tO
I ~ , ! Oth.rAg.nGiee
I I I
YEARS
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 17
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBUN
The underlying philosophy of tax increment financing is that without
redevelopment, property tax revenues within a redevelopment project area
would remain generally fiat or even decline. However, when
redevelopment powers are utilized in a proactive mode, such actions
should result in an increase in property values.
When a redevelopment program and project area are established, all of
the property tax revenues generated from any future increase in the
assessed value of properties is allocated to the redevelopment agency.
Upon receipt, an agency is statutodly required to: 1) deposit 20% of the
tax increment revenue into a Iow and moderate income housing fund in
order to improve and expand the community's supply of affordable
housing, and 2) remit statutory payments to each of the taxing agencies
who collect property taxes from the project area. With respect to the latter,
a legally prescribed formula is established that calls for payments equal to
25% of the remaining 80% nonhousing tax increment revenue during the
first ten years of a redevelopment project. Beginning in the 11th year and
again in the 31st year of a redevelopment project, these amounts increase
pursuant to a statutory formula. In general, over the 45-year time period
that a redevelopment agency may collect tax increment revenue, $0.31 of
every $1'.00 of tax increment revenue is allocated to affected taxing
agencies; the redevelopment agency retains $0.20 for affordable housing
programs and $0.49 for nonhousing programs.
The chart below, depicts the dispOsition of. the three pdmary ways tax
increment revenue is distributed.
Disposition of Tax Increment Revenues
Statutory
Payments (to
Affected Taxing
Agency Agencies)
Nonhousing 31%
Fund Revenue
49%
Housing
Fund Revenue
20%
AB 1290, adopted in 1993, changed the CRL by imposing upon
redevelopment project areas new limits and financing provisions, as well
as requiring mandatory pass throughs of tax increment to affected taxing
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 18
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBIUTY STUDY CITY Of DUBLIN
agencies. In general, these'new provisions have had a somewhat
negative impact on the ,nancial feasibility of new redevelopment project
areas. Two provisions that have the greatest financial impact on new
project area formations are: (1) the 20 year time limit on incurring
(nonhousing fund) debt, and (2) the provision for mandatory tax increment
pass throughs. The mandatory pass through provision allocates
approximately 31% of all tax increment generated from a project area over
the 45 year term for collecting tax increment to its taxing agencies. These
funds are passed through to the affected taxing agencies (excluding the
City) on a formula basis specified in the CRL that increases the
percentage allocated to the taxing agencies over time. The second
provision limiting the amount of time an agency has to incur debt severely
limits the dollars available to invest in the redevelopment of a project area,
particularly as it' relates to bonding capacity. These limits can be extended
through the amendment of a redevelopment plan. However, an
amendment of this type would require the resubstantiation of blight.
Tax Increment Projections
Tables 1-A and I-B presents tax increment revenue projections for those
portions of the Study Area that contain sufficient blighting conditions to
proceed With a project area formatiOn, specifically Subarea 8 (Scadett
Court). These projectionS incorporate the following assumptions as,
summarized below:
'~) 1999-00 Base Yeai~'value: The base year value is established by the
Alameda County Auditor-Controller. If the City completes the 9-12
month process to adopt a redevelopment plan by July 20, 2001, the
base year value of the Study Area would be based on the 2000-01
equalized assessment roll, and begin collecting property tax increment
revenue in fiscal year 2002-03. RSG estimated the base year value
using the 1999-00 secured assessment roll, and the annual 2%
inflationary adjustment permitted by Proposition 13. No unsecured or
nonunitary utility values were included in the base year values.
2) Assessed Value Growth Ratesi RSG applied a conservative 2%
assessed value growth rate to estimate future assessed values.
3) Development Potential: RSG incorporated certain development
assumptions into the tax increment forecast to account for
development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized
proPerties in the Study Area over the 45' year pedod the
Redevelopment Agency could collect tax increment revenue. As
shown on Tables 2a and 2b, the projects incorporated into the forecast
were based on consultations with City staff.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 19
REDEVELOPMENT FEAsIBILFI'Y STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
Projected Tax Increm~t Revenues- Subarea 8 Only (~o Office Reuse) TABLE 1-A
New Payments to Houslmj. Nonhousing
Development TotalAssessed Gress Tax Taxing Fund Fund Totalto
Year (Par Table 2a) Value Increment Entities Revenue Revenue Agency
1999-00 23,380,454
Base 2000-01 23,965,000
1 2001-02 24,565,000
2,2002-03 2,100,000 27,280,000 33,150 6,630 6,630 1g,890 26,520
3 2003-04 3,000,000 30,960,000 69,950 13,990 13,990 41,970 55,960
4 200405 2,500,000 34,235,000 102,700 20,540 26,540 61,620 82,160
5 2005`06 35,095,003 111,250 22,250 22,250 66,750 ' 89,000
6 2006-07 35,965,000 120,000 24,000 24,000 72,000 96,000
7 2007-08 35,865,000 129,000. 25,800 25,800 77,400 103,200
8 2008-09 37,765,000 135,200 27,640 27,640 82,920 110,560
9 2009-10 38,730,000 147,650 29,530 29,530 88,590 118,120
10 2010-!1 39,700,000 157,350 31,470 31,470 94,410 125,880
11 2011-12 40,695,000 167,300 33,460 33,460 100,380 133,840
12 20t2-13 41,710,000 177,450 37,195 35,490 104,765 140,265
13 2013-14 42,755,000 187,900 41,041 37,580 109,279 146,859
14 2014-15 43,826,000 198,600 44,978 39,720 113,902 153,622
15 2015-16 44,920,000 209,550 49,008 41,910 118,632 160,542
16 2016-17 46,045,000 220,800 53,148 44,160 123,492 167,652
17 2017-18 47,195,000 232,300 57,380 46,460 128,460 174,920
18 2018-19 48,375,000 244,100 61,722 48,820 133,558 182,378
19 2019-20 49,565,000 256,200 66,175 51,240 135,785 190,025
20 202021 50,825,000 288,600 70,738 53,720 144,142 197,862
21 2021-22 52095,000 281,300 75,412 56,260 149,628 205,888
22 2022-23 53,395,000 294,300 80,196 58,860 155,244 214,104
23 2023-24 54,730,.0~ 307,650 85,109 61,530 161,011 222,541
24 202425 56,100,000 321,350 90,150 94,270 166,930 231,200
25 2025-26 37,500,000 335,350 95,302 67,070 172,978 240,948
26 2026-27 58,935,000 349,700 100,583 69,940 179,177 249,117
27 2027-28' 60,410,000 364,450 106,011 72,890 185,549 256,439
28 2026-29 61,920,000 379,550 111,568 75,910 192,072 267,982
29 2029-30 63,470,000 395,050 117,272 79,010 198,768 277,778
30 2030-31 65,055,000 410,900 123,105 82,180 205,615 287,795
31 2031-32 66,680,000 427,150 129,065 65,430 212,635 298,065
32 2032-33 68,345,000 443,800 137,077 88,760 217,963 306,723
33 2033-34 70,055,000 450,900 145,265 92,180 223,435 315,615
34 2034-35 71,865,000 478,400 153,685 95,680 229,035 324,715
35 2035.35 73,600,000 '496,350 162,301 99,270 234,779 334,049
36 2036-37 75,440,000 514,750 171/133 102,950 240,667 343,617
37 2037-38 77,325,000 533,600 180,181 106,720 246,699 353,419
38 2038-39 79,260,000 552,950 189,489 110,590 252,891 363,481
39 2039-40 81,240,000 572,750 198,973 114,550 259,227 373,777
40 2040-41 83,270,000 593,050 208,717 118,610 265,723 384,333
41 2041-42 85,350,000 613,850 218,701 122,770 272,379 395,149
42 2042-43 87,485,000 635,200 228,949 127,040 279,211 406~.51
43 2043-44 89,670,000 657,050 239,437 131,410. 288,203 417,613
44 2044-45 91,910,000 679,450 250,189 135,890 293,371 429,281
45 204548 94,210,000 702,450 261,229 140,490 300,731 441,221
Cumulative 14,973,350 4,575,813 2,994,670 7,402,887 10,397,537
NPVat5% 4,213,929 1,157,340 842,786 2,213,804 3,056,590
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 20
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
Projected Tax Increment Revenues. Subarea 8 Only TABLE
Inclusive of Pro-active Redevelopment and Reuse for Office Development
New Statutory
Development Total Payments to Nonhousing
(Per Table Assessed Incremental Gross Tax Taxing Housing Fund Fund Total to
Year 2b) Value Value Increment , Entities Revenue Revenue Agency
1999-00 0 23,380;454
Base 2000-01 23,965,000
1 2001-02 24,505,000
2 2002-03 2,100,000 27,280,000 3,3i5,000 33,150 6,630 6,630 t9,890 26,520
3 2003-04 3,000,000 30,960,000 6,995,000 69,950 13,990 13,990 41,970 55,960
4 2004-05 2,500,000 34,235,000 10,270,000 102,700 20,540 20,540 61,620 82,160
5 200506 79,600,000 114,690,000 90,725,000 907,250 181,450 181,450 544,350 725,800
6 200607 117,555,000 93,590,000 935,900 187,180 187,180 561,540 748,720
7 2007-08 120,495,000 96,500,000 965,300 193,060 193,060 579,180 772,240
8 200509 123,505,000 99,540,000 995,400 199,080 199,080 597,240 796,320
9 2009-10 126,595,000 102,630,000 1,026,300 205,260 205,260 615,780 821,040
10 2010-11 129,760,000 105,795,000 1,0571950 211,590 211,590 634,770 846,360
11 2011-12 133,005,000 109,040,000 1,090,400 218,080` 218,080 654,240 872,320
12 2012-13 136,330,000 112,385,000 1,123,650 230,316 224,730 668,604 893,334
13 2013-14 139,740,000 115,775,000 1,'157,750 242,865 231,550 683,335 914,885
14 2014-15 143,235,000 119,270,000 1,192,700 255,726 238,540 698,434 938,974
15 2015-16 146,815,000 122,850,000 .1,228,500 268,901 245,700 713,899' 959,599
16 2016-17 150,485,000 126,520,000 1,265,200 282,406 250,040 729,754 982,794
17 2017-18 154,245,000 130,280,000 1,302,800 296,243 260,560 745,997 1,006,557
18 2018-19 158,100,000 134,135,000 1,341,350 310,430 268,270 762,650 1,030,920
19 2019-20 162,055,000 138,090,000 1,380,900 324,984 276,180 779,736 1,055,916
20 2020-21 166,105,000 142,140,000 1,421,400 339,888 284,280 797,232 1,081,512
21 2021-22 170,260,000 !.46,205,000 1,462,950 355J78 292,590 815,182 1,107,772
22 2022-23 174,515,000 ~150,550,000 1,505,500 370,837 301,100 833,563 1,134,663
23 2023-24 · 178,880,000 154,915,000 1,549,150 386,900 309,830 652,420 1,162,250
24 2024-25 183,350,000 159,385,000 1,593,850' 403,350 318,770 871,730 1,193,500
25 2025-26 187,935,000 163,970,000 1,639,700.. 420,222 327,940 891,538 1,219,478
26 2026-27 192,635,000 168,670,000 1,686,700 437,518 337,340 911,842 1,249,182
27 2027-28 197,450,000 173,485,000 1,734,850 455,238 346,970 932,642 1,279,812
28 2028-29 202,385,000 178,420,000 1,784,200 473,398 356,840 953,962 1,310,802
29 2029-30 207,445,000 ;183,480,000 '1,834,800 492,019 365,960 975,821 1,342,781
30 2030-31 212,630,000 188,665,000 1,886,650 511,100 377,330 998,220 1,375,550
31 2031-32 217,945,000 193,980,000 1,939,800 530,659 387,960 1,021J81 1,409,141
32 2032-33 223,395,000 199,430,000 '1,994,300 556,819 398,860 1,038,621 1,437,481
33 2033-34 228,980,000 205,015,000 2,050,150 583,627 410,030 1,056,493 1,466,523
34 2034-35 234,705,000 210,740,000 2,107,400 611,107 421,480 1,074,813 1,496,293
35 2035-36 240,575,000 216,610,000 2,166,100 639,283 433,220 1,093,597 1,526,817
36 2036-37 246,590,000 222,625,000 2,226,250 668,155 445,250 1,112,845 1,558,095
37 2037-38 252,755,000 228,790,000 2,287,900 697,747 ~ 457,580 1,132,573 1,590,153
38 2038-39 259,075,000 235,110,000 2,351,100 728,083 470,220 1,152,797 1,623,017
39 2039-40 265,550,000 241,585,000 2,415,850 759,163 483,170' 1,173,517 1,656,687
40 2040-41 272,190,000 248,225,000 2,482,250 791,035 496,450 1,194,765 1,691,215
41 2041-42 278,905,000 255,030,000 2,550,300 823,699 510,060 1,216,541 1,726,601
42 2042-43 285,970,000 262,005,000 2,620,050 857,179 524,010 1,238,861 1,762,871
43 2043-44 293,120,000 269,155,000 2,691,550 891,499 538,310 1,261,741 1,800,051
44 2044-45 300,450,000 278,485,000 2,704,850 926,683 552,970 1,285,197 1,838,167
45 2045-46 307,960,000' 283,995,000 2,839,950 962,731 567,990 1,309,229 1,877,219
Cumulative 70,764,700 19,321,852 14,152,940 37,289,908 51,442,848
NPVat5% 21,478,199 5,323,896 4,295,640 11,858,663 16,154,303
ROSENOWSPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Cl'rY OF DUBLIN
Development Assumptions used in Tax Increment Projections TABLE 2-A
Inflation
Assumed Year Building SF or Value/SF Adjustment Total Project
Subarea Location Development Completed Units or Unit 1/ Value
8 ScadettDrive AutoSales 2001 19,500 $ 108 1.02 $ 2,100,000
8 ScarlettDrive Auto Sales 2002 27,000 $ 108 1.04 $ 3,000,000
8 ScadettDrive Retail/Motorcycles 2003 21,500 $ 108 1.06 $ 2,500,000
Optional Development-Redevdopment of Given Properties -- -- TABLE 2-B
8 ScarlettCourt, Office Reuse of 2004 490,000 $ 150 1.08 $79,600,000
west of Scarlett Industrial Properties
Drive along Scarlstt Court
1/ Assumes 2.0% annual infl~onaryincrease in building costs
Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates that Subarea 8 would
generate a modest amount of tax increment revenue oVer the 45-year
collection period provided by Law. Cumulatively, RSG estimates per
Table l-A, that the AgenCY would generate approximately $15 million in
gross tax increment revenue over the duration of the Plan to fund
mandated housing set aside depoSits, statutory payments to affected
taxing agencies, and nonhousing programs. Based upon Table 1-B which
includes the assumption of a proactive redevelopment effort that would
produce a large office development, the Agency would generate
.approximately $70.7 million in.gross revenues.
The Lawrequires that not less than 20% of this tax increment revenue, or
$3.0 million and $1.4.1 million, respectively, be deposited into the Agency's
Iow and moderate income housing fund. Also, the Law stipulates that
another portion (approximately $4.6 million, and $19.2 million,
respectively) of the tax increment revenue is to be distributed to the
affected .taxing agencies for statutory pass through payments. The
remaining tax increment revenue of $7.4 million and $37.3 million,
respectively; would be available to fund nonhousing programs within the
redevelopment project area over the 45 year term of collection. In
today's dollars, assuming a 5% discount rate, the net present value of the
projected Study Area housing .resources equal $0.8 million or $4.3 million,
while the nonhousing revenues equal $2.2 million or $11.9 million,
respectively.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 22
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
Adoption and Administrative Costs
The City should also consider the costs involved in forming a
redevelopment project area. The redevelopment plan adoption precess
entails envirenmental reView, redevelopment document preparation, legal
counsel participation, and substantial public noticing and public hearings.
VVithout legal challenges, the costs to form a redevelopment project area
can range from $200,000 to $300,000. If the plan adoption is challenged,
these costs could be doubled.
Finally, the operation of the Agency must also be considered. By Law, .the
Agency will need to complete an audit and various annual reports, adopt
implementation and housing plans, .and administer tax increment funds.
RSG's experience indicates that these costs could average between
$50,000 to $200,000 annually. Over 45 years, the Agency could incur as
much as $1.5 million (in today's dollars) in annual administrative costs.
Available Funding for Nonhousing Projects
As a result of the $1.8 million of upfront adoption costs and ongoing
administrative costs, the Agency's ultimate nonhousing funding available
for project implementation costs would be reduced. In today's dollars, the
Agency' available nonhousing funds would equal appreximately $0.4
million without the development of an offce project along Scadett Drive, or
$10.1 million with the Scadett preject.
Economic Feasibility
RSG assessed the economic feasibility of a redevelopment project area
without and with redevelopment of a hypothetical office project along
Scadett Court, west of Scadett Ddve. (An office reuse was assUmed given
the fact that similar uses are in demand to the east and is considered to be
the highest and best use of this preperty.) ' Revenue prejections without
and with the office project are presented on Tables 1-A and l-B,
respectively. As shown in these two forecasts, the office project would
generate significantly more tax increment revenue for Agency nonhousing
projects.
Howeverl while an office project would increase the secured assessed
value of the project area by approximately $79.6 million and increase the
present value of the nonhousing preperty tax revenues (net of adoption
and administrative costs) from $0.4 million to $10.1 million, the Agency
would need to participate in the redevelopment of about 10 Scadett Court
parcels in order to assemble; consolidate, and write-down the costs of the
land.
' ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 23
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
Gosts to Implement Office Project
in order to accomplish a project of this scale, a total of $30.9 million of
acquisition, relocation, and other costs would need to be financed upfront.
(Table 3 presents estimates of the potential, costs to acquire and
consolidate the Scarlett Court site.) This cost is approximately twice, as
much as the land is worth on the open market. Since the Agency would
not have' these funds available, this cost would need to be advanced by
the City General Fund, or some other source.
The $30.9 million project advance would be paid, in part, by land sales
proceeds and Agency nonhousing funds. These two 'sources would
account for approximately $25.8 million, including sales proceeds of $15.7
million (assuming a sales price of $16 per square foot) and all nonhousing
funds generated over the 45-year term of the Redevelopment Plan, net of
adoption/administration costs, of $10.1 million.
The remaining $5.1 million of project costs would need to be underwritten
by the City General Fund, or another source, without reimbursement from
the Agency. In addition, the Agency would have no more funds to
implement any other nonhousing redevelopment projects over the 45-year
duration of the Redevelopment Plan.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 24
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
Estimated Redevelopment Costs TABLE 3
Office Reuse of $cade~ Ct. Area
Cost Per
Total Cost 1/ SF FOOTNOTES:
1/Include pmlimina'y cost estimates for the following:
INITIAL AGENCY COSTS/1 $ 30,932,789 31.55
(Includes acquisition, relocation, demolition, Address Business(es)
6500 Scarlett Ct. Miracle Auto Painting
and goodwill.)
6380 Scarlett CL Smog Station
LAND SALE PROCEEDS /2 $ 15,687,504 $ 16.00 Gil's Body Work
All Glass
REQUIRED SUBSIDY $ t5,245,285 $ 15.55 6451ScadettCt. GooddmicsPromotionslnc.
To be funded by the following sources: Repo Connection
All Agency nonhousing revenue 10,108,663 6389 Scarlett Ct. Kobold Supply
(net of adoption/admin costs) 6363 Scadett Ct. Dolan Lumber
Other sources, to be determined 5,136,622 6331 Scarlett Ct. No. California Heat Pump Inc,
Taylor Drywall
PEP Wholesale
6341 Scarlstt Ct, Viking Distribution Co,
Brown and Fessler
Harvey ImpO~S
6355 Scarlett Ct. RUUD Heating and Coding
Diablo Engine and Machine
Fairway Packaging
Larry ~n Distribution
Mail Service Cqmpany
AA Fire System
6301 Scarlett Ct. El Monte RV Center
6265'Scarlett Ct. U-Haul Center of Dublin
2/Assumes cleared site sell at comparable market
($16 per square foot)
Concl.sions on Economic Feasibility of Redevelopment
A summary of the Agency's potential revenues and expenditures
associated with adoption arid implementation of a redevelopment program
involving Subarea 8 is presented in Table 4 below. Because of the
potential high cost of implementing a successful redevelopment program
in Subarea 8, RSG would not recommend proceeding with a
redevelopment projec~ area in this area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 25
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN
Initial and Ongoing Redevelopment Costs - Subarea 6 Only ?ABLE 4
Budget Item Without With
Scarlett Ct. Scarlett Ct.
(Expressed in Current DOllars) Project Project
Adoption of Redevelopment Plan $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Project Implementation Costs
Scarlett Court Redevelopment/Office Project 1/ 0 15,245,285
Agency Administrative Costs 2/ 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total Adoption/Implementation Costs $ 1,750,000 $ 16,995,285
(Ovar45Yaars)TotalNonhousingTaxlncrementRevenuss $ 2,213,804 $ 11,858,663
Redevelopment Surplus/(Shortfall to be absorbed $ 463,804 $ (5,136,622)
by City General Fund or other sources)
11 Per Table 3. Excludes financing costs.
2/Assumes $75,000 per year for Ag.ency administriative, legal and accounting costs
3/ From Table 1
Fiscal Impact on City's General Fund
RedeVelopment financing essentially caps the amount of property tax
dollars collected by affected taxing agencies that collect taxes within the
redevelopment project area. The affected taxing agencies, along with
their respective shares of the current property tax levy, are identified in
Table 5 below. The City General Fund collects approximately 25% of the
property taxes within the Study Area today.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 26
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
Affected Taxing Agencies - Dublin Redevelopment Study Area TABLE 5
Tax Levy
Current Tax ERAF (Used for
Taxing Agency Levy Adjustment 1/ RDA)
General Levy
County of Aiameda 0.158119 (0.152772) 0,310891
Chabot/Las Positas Community College District 0.027498 0.027498
Dublin Joint Unified School District 0.250842 0.250842
County Superintendent of Schools 0.011444 0.011444
County Library 0,024350 (0.025671) 0.050021
County Flood Control 0.015181 (0.010024) 0.025205
Bay Area Quality Air Management District 0.002278 0.002278
Mosquito Abatement 0,000938 (0,000581) 0.001519
Bay Area Rapid Transit 0.006690 0,006890
East Bay Regional Park 0.031993 0.031993
Alameda County Res. Con. 0.000253 (0.000048) 0.000301
City of Dublin 0.254536 (0.026781) 0.281317
Educational Rev. Aug. Fund (ERAF) 0.215877 0.215877
Subtotal ' 1.000000 1.000000
Override Levy
Dublin Joint Unified School District .0.071900 0.071900
East Bay Regional Park 0.008800 0.008800
Total Tax Levy 1.080100 1.080700
11 Section 97.4 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires that disbursements to the Education
Revenue Augmentation Fund be paid from tax revenues from non-radevelopment areas.
Loss of Future General Fund Property Tax Growth
If Subarea 8 were incorporated into a redevelopment project area, the
amount of property taxes collected by the City General Fund would be
capped for the next 45 years, while the majority of future incremental
increases in property tax revenues are diverted to the Redevelopment'
Agency. (By Law, the Agency would be required to share approximately
20% of the City's 25% share of property tax increment revenues with the
General Fund if the area was incorporated into a redevelopment project
area) Estimates of the amount of General. Fund revenues lost are
enumerated in Table 6 below.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 27
REDEVELOPMENT. FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
Fiscal Impact of Redevelopment on City General Fund TABLE 6
Property Taxes Revenues from Redevelopment Area
(Cumulative)
SUBAREA S. WITHOUT OFRCE REUSE 5Years 10 Years 20 Yearn 45 Years
Without Redevelopment $ 80,701 $ 256,890 $ 807,401 $ 3,811,256
With Redevelopment (Statutory Payments) 16,140 51,378 161,480 762,251
Net lmpact on City $ (64,561) $ {205,512) $ (645,921) $(3,049,005)
(Net Impact- Discounted at 5%) (56,051) (155,802) (370,452) (858,077)
Property Taxes Revenues from RedeveloPment Area
(Cumulative)
SUBAREA 8- WITH OFFICE REUSE 5 Years 10 Years 20 Years 45 Years
Without Redevelopment 283,311 1,551,117 ' 4,734,000 18,012,161
With ~',edevelopment (Statutory Payments) 56,662 310,223 946,800 3,602,432
Net Impact on City (226,649) (1,240,893) (3,787,200) (14,409,729)
(Net Impact- Discounted at 5%) (189,401) (909,767) (2,162,283) (4,373,579)
Over the-next 45 years, RSG estimates the City would lose approximately
$3.0 million ($0.9 million in today's dollars) to the Redevelopment Agency
without the office project, and $14.4 million ($4.4 million in today's dollars)
With the office project. These amounts represent the difference between
the City's share of the incremental increase in property taxes without
redevelopment, and the' amounts required by Law to be paid to the City
General Fund if the area was in a redevelopment project area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 28
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
City of ~ubii~
Based on the analysis contained in this feasibility study, RSG concludes
that formation of a redevelopment project area within the Study Area
would generally not be legally or financially viable at this time. More
specific conclusions are itemized below:
= The Law requires that redevelopment projects contain both physical
and economic blight that cannot be alleviated by the pr'n/ate sector,
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.
· Based on RSG's research and analysis documented in this Study,
both physical and economic blighting conditions,, as defined by
Redevelopment Law, cannot be documented within Subareas 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7.
· Subarea 8 exhibits some examples of both physical and economic
'blight, but do not constitute a redevelopment project area that is large
enough to facilitate successful and timely implementation of an
economically viable redevelopment program..
· Redevelopment may be a necessary tool in fn/e or ten years, if the
Study Area experiences physical degradation and economic conditions
worsen.
· in the meantime, RSG recommends that the City continue to invest in
Study Area streetscape imprOvements, work with property owners to
upgrade properties, and implement marketing programs to stimulate
patronage and reinvestment in the Study Area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 29
Redev~opment Feasibility Study
City of DUblin
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
City of Dublin
Chds Adams Commercial CB Commercial
Colleen Brooks . Retail/Office BrOker David Malcolm Property Management
Mike Costa Retail/Office Broker BT Commerdal
'Patric Davis 'Retail/Office Broker Lee & Associates
Charlotte Femandez Retail/Office Broker Alcosta & Assodates
Mike Fumy Industrial Broker CB Commercial
Brett Holden Industrial Broker Lee & Associates
Jim Lange Retail/offce Broker Lance Properties
Pete Klein Retail/Office Broker Corrie companies
Brooks Mothom Retail/Office Broker Grubb & Ellis
ROSENOW.SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
,Redevelopment Feasibility Study
City of Dublin
2 6900 Amador Valley (Montgomery Wards) Contaminated
3 7249 Village Parkway Pollution Characterization
3 7197 Village Parkway Pollution Characte 'nzation
3 7194 Village Parkway Site Work Plan Underway
5 7007 San Ramon Remediation Plan
7 6401 Dublin (Unocal) Site Plan Underway
8 6301 Scarlett Court Contaminated
8 6393 Scarlett Court Site Plan Remediation
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
Redevelo t Fea bility Gtudy
City of Dublin
TRI-VAI ~ FY'AREA $1.25 - $2.00 $0.65 - $1.45 (gross)
Study Area Combined $1.00 - $2.00 $1.40 - $1.45 (gross)
Subarea 1 $1.25 Not Applicable
Subarea 2 $1.10 - $1.30 Not Applicable
Subarea 3 $1.20 - $2.00 Not Applicable
Sub~_rea 4 Not Available Not Applicable
St~b_~rea 5 $1.10 - $1.25 Not Applicable
S;J_h~rea 6 $1.25 - $1.50 Not Applicable
Subarea 7 Not Applicable $1.40 - $1.45 (gross)
Subarea 8 Not Applicable Predominantly Owner
Occupied - Not Available
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC,
CITY CLERK
File # / I
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 18, 2002
SUBJECT: Authorization for initiation ora Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court
Area and provide direction to Staff for future actions
Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planne~'
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution authbrizing initiation of Specific Plan
2. prOposed Specific Plan Area
3. Scarlett Court Area Zoning Map
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive Staff presentation'
' ,,"7 ,.,-.,-- 2. Provide direction to Staff regarding the proposed boundaries of
the Specific Plan;
3. AuthoriZe initiation of Specific Plan Study for the Scarlett Court
Area;
4. Provide direction to 'Staff if a moratorium is a desired for the
area; and
5. If the City Council directs Staff to remm with a moratorium then
provide direction to Staff regarding the appropriate scope of the
moratoriUm.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact
DESCRIPTION:
During the Goals and Objectives session for Fiscal Year 02/03, the City CoUncil requested Staff, as a high
priority item, to initiate a Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area (see Attachment 2). The area has a
General Pian designation of Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage (F.A.R: .25 to .40). The General
Plan designation anticipates retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home
Or construction materials storage. The zoning for the entire area is M-1 (Light Industrial), which allows
warehousing, industrial and Other similar uses (see Zoning Map, Attachment 3). The M-1 zoning was
originally established under tile County jurisdiction and has remained unchanged since the City was
incorporated. The Scarlett Court area contains the following uses: building material sales, light industrial
uses, outdoor storage, mini storage, auto repair, and new/used automobile sales. The predominant use
within the area is auto related. The area has many large and underutilized parcels, including Dolan's
Lumber, which was located at 6365 Scarlett Court and ceased operating in approximately June of 2001.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owners
Project Planner ~
ITEM NO.~
G:kPA#~2002~Scarlett Court Sp\ccstaffreport 6.12 Scarlett Court. doc :
ATTACHMENT
Some of the existing uses, including building material sales and mini storage, are not currently permitted
with.in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District~ which renders these uses legal non-conforming and
subject to the limitations set forth in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to the eastern extension of Dublin Blvd., the Area had access served solely by Scarier Court, which
is parallel to Dougherty Road in the western portion of the area and parallel' to 1-580 along the eastern
portion of the area. Although Dublin Blvd. has been extended for over 7 years within this area, only two
parcels currently utilize this frontage.
ISSUES
Specific Plan Boundaries
Staff has preliminarily identified the proposed boundaries for the Scarlett Court area. The proposed area
consists of approximately 26 parcels, consisting of approximately 52 acres of land and is bounded on the
west by Dougherty Road, the North by Dublin Blvd., the south by 1-580 fight-of-way, and the east by the
Iron Home Trail right-of-way (see Attachment 2). Before preparing the request for proposals (RFP) and
the preliminary budget, the boundaries for the Specific Plan Study should be identified. Staffrequests that
the City Council provide direction to Staff regarding the proposed boundaries of the Specific Plan, as
identified on Attachment 2.
Specific Plan Initiation
Pursuant to City Council's goal of initiating a Specific Plan for the Area, Staffis requesting authorization
to initiate a Specific Plan study for the area. Staff will be preparing a work program, anticipated budget,
and 'RFPs to send out to consultants. Staff anticipates the necessary consultants would be: an economic
consultant to determine demand for particular uses; a traffic consultant to evaluate circulation patterns;
and a design consultant to assist in preparing design guidelines for the area. Staff will return shortly to the
City Council to request authorization to send out the RFPs and present a draft work program and
anticipated budget amount:
Moratorium
Staff is concerned, that without knowing the outcome of the Specific Plan study, which would include
land use, economic analysis, and a circulation analysis, building modifications, new uses, and other
ministerial and discretionary actions 'could negatively impact the outcome of the desired Specific Plan.
An example of a ministerial action negatively impacting the area woUld be a warehouse facility leasing an
available site and making no site or facility improvements. Approval of such uses within the Area during
the time that the City completes the Specific Plan could ultimately frustrate the City's long term efforts to
ensure the area is properly developed as properties become suitable for reuse.
Staff requests that the City Council provide direction as to the appropriateness of enacting a moratorium
for the area. If the. City Council determines that a negative impact will result from ministerial and
discretionary actions, occurring within the area, the Council should direct Staff to prepare a moratorium on
any discretionary actions including: site development review or conditional use permits; or ministerial
actions including: building permits or a business license for a new tenant. If the City Council directs Staff
to prepare such a moratorium, appropriate exemptions could include: (1) any building permit submitted
prior to the effective date of the moratorium; (2) any discretionary action (and its associated building
permit) submitted prior to effective date of the moratorium; (3) work or modifications to a building which
will not modify the appearance or potential use of a building or other work deemed necesiary by the
Building Official for the safety of the occupants; and (4) proposed new auto sales franchises.
2
New auto sales franchises could be exempted for two reasons: (1) currently there is a high proportion of
the existing auto dealers within the area; and (2) currently the M-1 zoning permits new and used auto
dealers, subject to the Planning Commission approving a conditional use permit. A potential modification
to the current zoning regulations could require a conditional use permit to be approved by the City
Council, instead of the Planning Commission while the moratorium is in place. This modification would
allow the City Council to evaluate a proposed new auto dehler and determine if it would be consistent
with the Council's goals for the area.
If the City Council directs Staff to remm to the next Council meeting with a moratorium, the interim
ordinance would take effect immediately if adopted by a four-fifths vote by the City Council. State law
limits the initial term of the ordinance to 45 days. State law also requires the ordinance to include a
finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare, and that the
approval of ministerial or discretionary actions in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance would result
in a threat to public health,, safety or welfare. State law allows the City Council to extend the ordinance by
10 months and 15 days, and again 'by one year (for a total of two 'years), following a noticed public
hearing. Any subsequent extension shall require a four-fifths Vote for adoption. No more than two
extensions may be adopted. Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim °rdinance or any extension, the
City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition, which
led to the adoption of the ordinance. Should the City Council direct Staff to return to the July 2, 2002
Council meeting with a moratorium, the above mentioned written report would be brought back to the
Council on August 6, 2002.
Staff requests that the City Council provide direction as to the appropriateness of a m6ratorium. If a
moratoritim is desired', provide diiection to Staff regarding the scope and the exemptions of the proposed
moratorium.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council: (1) receive Staff presentation; (2) provide direction to Staff regarding
the proposed boundaries of the Specific Plan; (3) authorize initiation of Specific Plan Study for the
Scarlett Court Area; (4) provide direction to Staff if a moratorium is a desired for the area; and (5) if the
City Council directs Staff to return with a moratorium then provide direction to Staff regarding the
appropriate scope of the moratorium.
RESOLUTION NO. 106 - 02
A RESOLIYrION OF TwE CITY COUNCIL
OF ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
AUTHORrLUNG THE INITIATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR THE SCARLETT COURT AREA
WltEREAS, during the Goals & Objectives meeting for Fiscal Year 2002-03, the City Council
requested Staff~ as a high priOrity item, to initiate a Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area; and
WltEREAS, unsightly or inappropriate land use on one parcel can discourage or prevent desired
land uses in the surrounding area, negatively affecting the aesthetics of the City, decreasing the number of
jobs and revenue for City services, frequently leading to the degradation of structures as failed businesses
are not replaced, and increasing the likelihood that inconsistent and sub-optimal land uses will move into an
area, further degrading it; and
Wlt-EREAS, Dublin Boulevard, a major thoroughfare, was recently improved to provide additional
frontage to parcels along Scarlett Court; and
WI~REAS, the Scarlett Court Area has many large and underutilized parcels which have
inadequate access and do not take advantage of the recent extension of Dublin Boulevard; and
WltEREAS, Section 65453(a) of the State of California Government Code states that a Specific
Plan may be prepared, as deemed necessary by the legislative body; and
'.WltEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendation, and
testimony herein above set forth and is in support of a Specific Plan to determine the appropriate land use
for the property.
NOW, Tmr~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TItAT the Dublin City Council does hereby initiate a
Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area for all of the area located west of Dougherty Road, North of
Dublin Blvd., South ofi-580 right-of-way, and east of the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way.
PASSED, APPROVED, ANI) ADOPTED this 18th day of~Iune 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Dubl
PROPOSED
MORATORIUM
AREA
Attachment 2 0~
Zoning Map
Attachment 3'