Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 CaCreeksidePDAgmt : ,;,:,'~;';'?;:~';;;I~:~~i...,..." ." ~._'"'w,l~ '0 ,.,..y CLERK .: FHe #n~fOlf0-r01f2Jl . .,i.;..' ,.., '. . .AGENDA STATe"eNT. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 14, 1996 . SUBJECT: EXHIBITS ATTACHED: :. . Public Hearing: P A 95;'048. CalifomiaCreeksid~ Plfumed Development and Development f\greem.int .' tti- (R~rt Prepared by Dennis ~. Sr.;P~er). / Exhibit A: Project Plans", / Exhibit B: MitigationM()nitoring:Pro~ (;notattached, in Planning , Departtnentfiles) / Exhibit C: Planning Comtnission,MlltJ.Jtcs:D:01l1, April 16, 1996 / Exhibit D:PlanningCommissiQ~$~~.from April 16, 1996, (withoutattacfuttent$) '. /Exhibit E: Resolu~on ,A~vin,g and'~9Jisbiug Findings and . ,,(Jcmeral Ptovisions ,an4.Condltionsof Approval fOJ: a 'PD,Pl~ De\1elo~:a..orUng /Exhibit F: OrdinanCe A:Q1~ the Umna Otdinance to permit Rezoning . . ' / Exhibit G: Ordinan(;e .pproving t~evelopment Agreem.entand Development A1PWment(.Attac~rnent.1. to ExQibit G) __ Exhibit H:. Fiscal Analysis dated,OC<<thet..lS, 1992. .. ., ',',. '. RECOl\fMENDATION:~ 1) OpeJ)public,luming, andrcceivestatfPresentatic>.n " '\ 2) Take ~ony fronlAppli_,_~lic 3) ClosePublic.Hearitig , '.." ::>. ,':. ' 4) Deliberate .. . .' : . , -5) Waive R~nll1gandlntrodUce O~~ "PPl'Ovmg PDRezone (ExhibitF) .,'. . 6) . Waive R,eadingand IntrodueeOrdin,en~ apprOving DeVelopm~~.Agreemem.t(Exbi~~~G) . t ,~ The Eastern DUblin specific Plm requires~t *'VelopIDent in the area pay for its .needed ~ttuct'tWe.The responsibility to provide capital improveJpODt$'falls totQe devdopet;.. A~. analysis . performed at the time .tl1eSp.clfic Plari ._~ indicates that, 'after several initial YW'S ot:shortfall~~;DublinWi11 provide more revenues ~ itwillroqQirbin~~ for public services. The. means qffinar1cins,~~t~ce of lighting and landscapms is.119t Yet determine4,d~ to a potential ballot measure this Fall. t:'ot at ~~ qet1li1Q(f~~~ see Fiscal An,alysis section of Agenda StateJnent. . ,. . . . . . , '.. , ., . ,/.. " . . ---~~--~------~---------~~.~-~--~~-~-~-~-~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~-~~--~-- ~. . " .COPIES TO: .' P.t~bQl~ .. .....1. ...., '._~ . . Matt,Ko'art".. · ha BoJUe Dinriblltioa .... ..rsEMNO.U FINANCIAL STATEMENT: i<~;~~':':~..'.;\X.::.\,; 'r:.; './,lj! DESCRIPTION: .,:..- Kaufman and Broad of Northern California and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority are requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone of approximately 35.4 gross acres of land (Assessor's Parcel Number 946..15..1-10) designated Planned Development Business Park Industrial District to 26;8 gross acres zoned Planned Development Single Family Residential District (l54 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) fronting on Dublin Boulevard, and to 8.6 gross acres zoned Planned Development Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per acre) fronting on the Transit Spine and the unnamed collector street. The proposed Planned Development would allow for a 277 dwelling unit residential project consisting of 1 S4 single family homes and 123 townhouses. A Development Agreement between Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin is part of the project. The Developl11ent Agreement includes traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees, phasing of infrastructure construction and future creek improvements among other items. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for this project. ANALYSIS Planned DevelQp111ent RezoniUi The Applicants are'requesting approval of a Planned Development' (PD) Rezoning to establish the General I:: Provisions and Development Regulations that would implement the retail/office land use designation for the approximately 3S.4 acre project area. The Project P1ans{Exhibit A) contain a Land Use and Development Plan represented by the Tentative Map dated received Aprill 0, 1996, Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan dated received April 2, 1996, and the written statements provided by the Applicant dated received Aprill; 1996, and on file. The General Provisions and Development Regulations and Conditions of Approval, as recommended by the Planning Commission, are set forth in full in Exhibit E; Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general requirements and proqedures of the Dublin Zoning Oniinanee R..l District will be applied to the PD Single Family Residential designated lands, and of the Roo) District will be applied to the PD Medium-High Density Residential designated lands in tbisPD District. Single Family detached houses are allowed in the PD Single Family portion of the project and Multifamily Townhouse units and Multifamily condominium units are permitted in the PD Multifamily portion of the project. Prohibited uses include field crops, orchards, plant nurseries, greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant matetiws for sale, and hospitals. Conditional uses are those allowed by the R..l aridR..3 districts unless 'otherwise prohibited by,the PD Rezone. For a more detailed analysis of the Planned Development proposal,scc the April 16, 1996, Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit D) . This project has been reviewed by other City Departments and affected agencies. Their comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit E). '.:. ..,',- 2 "".-~. .~ .; i..'.'~.;:'" ;,,;" DevelQpment ~~reement: One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific'Plin'eal1sJor1be'City to enter into development agreements with developers in the plan area. The purpose afa development a~ent is to provide security to the developer thatthe City will not chaDgeitszoning 'andotJ'ter laws applicable to the project for a'specified. periQdof time and, on the other han~provide a mecbanitm to the City to obtain commitments from the developer the City might not. otherwise be able_obtain.. Thedevelopment agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific Plan. goal that new devc10pntent fund the cost Qf infrastructure is met. Development agreements are authorized by statutes (Government Code ~()n 6$8~ eI.'Stq.). Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code is the City's enabling, ordinance anc;l provides the; procedure for adoption of a'development'agreement. Attached to this Staff Report is a Development Agreement (Attachrnentl to Exhibit G) between the City of Dublin, the Swplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda and Kau1hian'and Broad of North em California. The Development Agreement sets forth the agreements:betwcen the ibtee entities in relation to many items, including, but not limited to, infrastructureconstruCtioo and ph~cijng,paYl1lent of public facilities, noise, and traffic impact fees and, future ~k im.prov:emtmts~ The peveJ~ent Agreement contains provisions relating to ongoing maintenance of lighting and<J.d~apib.g...~tbroush1;he . provision of either a Lighting and Landspape Ma~ce:Di$1rlotor'an.meorporatea Master.Property Owner's. Association. If the use ofLightingandLandscaping~temmce'Districts,iS no longer.available due to a decision by the Voters, another mechanism. for ongoml main~ ofUghtiug and landscaping must be found. A Master ~roperty Owner's Association (MP<}A)'CoUldbandle this. In general an MPOA would be ~ incorporated ,entity that would assess prOperty<Qwn<<$ and use th~:'Amdsto,main~ lighting and ~capingwithin the' Santa Rita properties. Dttailed <provisiOns, itfthe,,~loprlientAgreement relating to the MPOA were not available at the timeofthe'l'reparationof.~<;it8ff~"butwill be included iri:tbeMay 28, 1996, staff report for yourco~C>n. ' . , ' The Development Agreen1entbecomes effectiv:efor.a tennaffiveye.fitm1thcdate it is recorded. The DovolopmentA:greememt runs with the land,and the rights. thFel:U1Ciercanbe;8ssiPikt;:The'maiB.jK)ints of the Development Agreement relating to road, signals, fees,: ~'~ improveD1~~andmaintenance can be found in the April 16, 1996, Planning CommisSion Sta1fl.eport(ExbibitD) . C~ae~ to'~.:OevelQp~@J1t Aareement: Several minOI' changes have been made to the 'Development A~ent ~cc the ~lstn"i~ Commission recommended its approval. State Statutes and the City' B i.mPl~ oI'dillalloed,Q;I)c>t\require that these changes be,referred back to the Planning Commission. Theehaigesthatluwebee'lmadeare1I1.h1or and :~~$1i~ve.Alt:changes, with the exception to.those re1adng,tothe~ P,roperty Owner's Assoclation.tbat have been madesiuce. the PlanniilgCcnmnission~ are Shown on Attachment 1 to Exhibit G. They are indicated.by italicizing andboldiDraddjtionsand~I;Out'deIeti9ns. .TheJanguage relating to the Master Property Owner's Association, will be ihc1udediri'_'Sttffi~:fOr.May 28, 1996. There is a possibility that additional minor changes Dl&Y be made subsoqqeattdp!epatationQftbis Agenda Statement and prior to the City Council~. Iftbat ~ ~~~,~distri~ at tbetp.eeting and' the changes explained'by the City Attomey ~ <. . , 3 'Jti'> "" Fiscal Analysis: Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require that development in the area pays for its needed infrastructure. The Applicants have not requested City financing assistance for their on-site infrastructure ..: needs. Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval of this project require that Applicants enter into a Development Agreement with the City and pay traffic and public facilities impact fees. These requirements insure that the Applicants are paying their fair share of off-site public infrastructure needed in Eastern Dublin without using General Fund moneys. In addition, provisions have been made in the Development Agreement relating to ongoing maintenance of lighting and landscaping areas through the provision of either a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District or an incorporated Master Property Owner's Association as mentioned above. This project, like others in Eastern Dublin, will require provision of public services. Moneys for provision of these public services will come from the City's General Fund. A detailed Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. That Analysis examined the impacts of development in Eastern Dublin in relation to use of General Fund moneys for provision of public services. The Analysis found that after several years of shortfall, Eastern Dublin would provide more revenues than it would require in expenditures for public services. In addition to the original fiscal analysis for the Specific Plan, an updated fiscal analysis for the Specific Plan area presently within the City and proposed to be included in the City as part of the City's first Eastern Dublin Annexation has been prepared. This fiscal analysis also included the direct fiscal impacts of the California Creekside Project. The fiscal analysis (Exhibit H) of the Coturty-Approved Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange ..:. Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Alameda County for Development of the Santa Rita Property, dated October 15, 1992, prepared by Economic ResW'Ch Associates, analyzed revenues and expenditures for the Eastern Dublin area. That report predicted shortfalls for Fiscal Years 96-97, 97-98, 98-99, 1999.. 2000,2000..2001 of$33,000, $140,000, $250,000, $439,000 and $370,000 respectively. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002, revenues will exceed expenditures and that year will show a surplus of ... $1,102,000. Surpluses will rise dramatically after that to a predicted $24,815,000 in Fiscal Year 20 If>> 2011. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project is consistent with the fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION Pl~UC HEARINGS: The Planning.Contmissionheld a public hearing on the project, on April 15, 1996, unanimously approved the Tentative Map and Site Development Review, and recommended that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone and the Development Agreement The Agenda Statement for that meeting is attached as Exhibit D to this report. The minutes for April 16, 1996, are attached as Exhibit C. . RijCOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends thatthe City Council: waive reading and introduce the Ordinance approving the PD Rezone (Exhibit E), and waive reading and introduce the Ordinance approving the Development 4 .' ". , , " '" ' ''1k , ", "', , , ~:\and 9Qntinl,le the public hearingtOiMay i8,1996~ at 7':00 p:iliJtoconmder adoption 0' . '. coo ordinances and to allowdiscussionQ(potentiaH1Qienamentsto the Development Agreement. ., ' .. g:pa9s048\ccagstmt i~ . ,...,.... " .. ,~, ' t' , )" '.. . ~ .".':' .,.,," ,'l " ~ '.: . "'< s - ::", .1 .. " .. D . i i \ .. 6 21 /1/ ,. ~I :: ~! 15 0' o ul <( '" o ;~ 0: zJ co ~l ~ ii ~ ~I :E !!1i ~ EI <( 11/. ~ ~I r ~ j I ~ @2) ~ -. ~~ lJ. c::::::J Do ~ ,~d ~ r:::;-J t:;'\ ~ ~a @@ E::::J CS2) / f; ci ~ ~ > _ N III U a::: IU CL. at < /, (/ .Regular Meeting April 16, 1996* A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Jennings. . **.* * ***** ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson and Lockhart; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Zika **** * ***** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. **** * *"'**'" ADDmONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 1996 and Special Study Session of March 19, 1996 were approved as submitted. .: ***'" '" ***** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None **** * "'.*** WRI'ITEN COMMUNICATIONS None *"'** '" "'''''''** PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 P A 95-048 California Creekside Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Tentative Map and Site Development Review. The applicant is requesting a Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Tentative Map and Site Development Review to place 154 single family dwellings and 123 townhomes on approximately 35.4 gross acres. The property is located north of Dublin Boulevard, west ofTassajara Creek and south of the transit spine. em. Jennings asked for the staffreport. Mr. Peabody, Community Development Director gave a brief description of the project He stated this is the :first ~roject to combine a PJ? ~ezo~g, Tentative ~ and Sit~ Development Review in to one set of hearings at the sam. time. He stated that this Item will go on to the City Council for approval. '. " ' .' Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] 32 AprI 16, 1996 EXHIBIT C :? .:, . ~ . Dennis Carrington, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. He stated this project would be located West of Tassajara Creek and North of Dublin Boulevard. The project would be rezoning.35.4 acres of land designated Planned Development Business Park and Industrial to 26.8 acres of Planned Development Single Family Residential. He stated there were two changes on the PD Resolutions. One on page 41 of 129 of the staffreport to the PD Rezone Resolution, "Comer Lot," side yard set backs, should say "Street" side yard set backs. The other change was on page 43 of 129, of the staff report, the top sentence, "Comer Lot" side yard set backs should be deleted. Matt Koart, Vice President of Kaufman and Broad, gave a description on how they got to the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the County of Alameda owned a large area in Eastern Dublin. He stated that Alameda County issued requests for proposals from developers including Kaufman & Broad. He stated how the project was laid out, and pointed out various key points of the project, including how the townhomes would be placed on the lots, and where landscaping would be located on the project site. Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the public and Planning Commission. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing on the Planned Development portion of the project. There was consensus to pass this item on to the City Council. Mr. Canington gave a report on the tentative map. He stated that the proposal would subdivide 813 acres. He indicated there were issues of concern regarding flooding along Tassajara Creek, and stated the City recommended the finished floor of the units be one foot above the 100 year flood line. He stated there would be a requirement that the developers work together on utilities. He indicated the staffreport outlined the street improvements to Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and the transit spine. He stated the County of Alameda had an agreement with Dublin San Ramon Services District on utilities. He also stated the schools would be available and serviced by Dublin Unified School District and the Fire service would be available if the conditions were met. .,:" em. Jennings asked for testimony from the Applicant Matt Koart introduced some of his staff in the audience available to answer questions. He commended his staff and thanked them for their hard work. Cm. Lockhart asked if the end of the cul-de-sacs would become part of the property? ~ Mr. Koart stated that what they preferred was for the landscaped ends of the cul-de-sacs to be maintained by the City. to provide access to the creek. They want a creek plan to be approved quickly, so that the creek could be vegetated and maintained. He stated that initially the area was to become part of a landscape district. He stated that Kaufman & Broad thought the area should be maintained by the City. If the City did not want to maintain the area. he felt the property lines should be divided so they would be split and maintained by the homeowners. He stated Kaufman & Broad would provide the irrigation. em. Lockhart asked if the area could be maintained by a homeowners association? Mr. Koart stated that there would be an association for the townhomes, but not the single family dwellings. em. Johnson asked what the set backs were from the creek? Mr. Koart stated about 150-200 square feet. .~ Mr. Peabody stated regarding the issue of allowing access to the creek or shutting off access to the creek, the City Council needs to make the decision on maintenance in Eastern Dublin of improvements along Dublin Boulevard and the transit spine. He stated it could be done 3 ways; 1) the City assumes the responsibility for the trail and all the landscaping along Dublin Boulevard; 2) it could be part of a Lighting and Landscaping District or; 3) a homeowners association. Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] 33 Aprl16, 1996 if Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the public. She asked about the City assuming the responsibility for the trail, the Lighting and Landscaping District or the homeowners association. Would it hold up the project from going to., City Council? .' Mr. Peabody stated that the project would be addressed by City Council as scheduled. Cm. Lockhart asked if the City had considered placing a district for the landscaping area along the creek? Mr. Peabody stated that Cm. Lockhart's question would have to be addressed by the City Council. Cm. Jennings stated they reached consensus to approve the tentative map. She opened the public hearing for the Site Development Review. Mr. Carrington gave the staff report for the Site Development Review portion of the project. He stated the site development review would regulate the design with regard to architecture. He indicated they would have front porches, provide trim on the comers of the homes and belly boards that define the stories of the structures. He stated this project would require plot plans for each lot showing where the homes sit on the lots in comparison to neighboring lots. He stated there would be a requirement for a final landscaping and irrigation plan. He stated that there were many conditions of approval that relate to development and design. He felt this would be an attractive project for the community. Mr. Peabody added that the applicant had done an excellent job in providing a variety of designs, and providing extra touches that would improve the overall image of the project Matt Koart indicated they went to great lengths to abide by the intent of the Specific Plan. He stated they were proud of this project. Cm. Jennings asked about underground garages on the two story units. .: Mr. Koart explained there would be the appearance of an underground garage, but they would not be grading and actually placing the garages underground. em. Jennings asked about the incline of the garages. Mr. Koart stated the garages would be at a grade. The townhome owners would not be driving through the single family dwelling area. They have direct access to their townhomes.' He explained how they would walk up a flight of stairs from the inside of their garage into their units. He stated it was a two story design from a building code perspective. Cm. Geist asked where the garage entrance would be and if there was landscaping in the area. Mr. Koart said the garages would be in the rear of the structure. He showed where the landscaping would be along the garage area. He explained how the structure was designed and that every unit had a covered two story garage. Cm. Lockhart asked if there was parking in the driveways of the garages. Mr. Koart stated no, there were no driveways for parking but there was guest parking on site and some street parking. Cm. Jennings asked if the plants that were chosen were drought tolerant? Mr. Koart stated yes, the City had a Drought Ordinance covering that issue. em. Jennings asked if there were any questions from the public or from stafi? With no response, she stated there Me consensus on the Site Development Review. She opened the public hearing on the Development Agreement ",., Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] 34 Apr116, 1996 ~ . Mr. Carrington gave a staff report on the Development Agreement. He stated that the Development Agreement was a 3 party agreement with the City of Dublin, County of Alameda Swplus Property Authority, and Kaufman and Broad. He pointed out the Development Agreement would required the County to prepare a stream management program. Mr. Carrington stated the development agreement was required by the Specific Plan for each development within Eastern Dublin and would last for 5 years from the date of recording. It would require road improvements to the surrounding roads. He pointed out the many fees addressed in the Development Agreement and that one important issue would be the creek improvements and maintenance for Tassajara Creek that nms along the east side of the project. He stated the County must prepare a stream restoration plan and make creek improvements within 36 months from the time the Development Agreement was recorded. He stated the ownership and maintenance will be determined. by the City Council at a future date. Mr. Koart had no comments on the Development Agreement Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the public and the Planning Conunission. Hearing none, there was consensus on the Development Agreement to pass it on to the City Council. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing on the Development Agreement. She requested a motion on Exhibit B the draft Resolution recommending the City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone and Development Agreement and Exhibit C the draft Resolutions approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review. On motion by Cm. Geist, with the modification to pages 41 and 44, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: Resolution No. 95-10 ." APPROVING PA 95-48 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE ClTY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR P A 95~48 CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE Resolution No. 95-11 APPROVING PA 95-48 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 95~48 CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE There was a 5 minute recess to set up for the next project 8.2 P A 95~29 . Trumark Homes General Plan Amendment. A General Plan Amendment Study for a 8.9 ! acre site along the Southern Pacific right~f-way. west of Dougherty Road; changing the General Plan Designation for the site from "Transportation Corridor" to "Medium Density Residential" (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre). The medium density residential designation would permit single family residential development at approximately 12 units to the acre. em Jennings opened the public hearing. .:. Cm. Jennings stated she had met with a representative from Trumark Homes. Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] 35 Aprl16, 1996 ~ em. Lockhart stated he had also met with a representative from Trurnark Homes prior to the meeting. em. Jennings asked for the staff report. . Jeri R.am, Associate Planner, gave a history of the project. She stated the project was a 92 lot residential project which included a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review. She stated that the City Council had approved the initiation of the General Plan Amendment Study in July, 1995. The process of the General Plan Amendment was in two parts. The first was to determine if the General Plan Amendment would be feasible for the site and the second was the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. She stated that issues addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration included land use compatibility, and transportation and standards. One issue that was monitored closely was hazards and risks of upset. There were three potential hazards. One potential hazard was the presence of a pressured petroleum pipeline north of the site, the second potential hazard was the presence of a water treatment facility operated by Dublin San Ramon Services District immediately southeast of the site and the third was the presence of large number of industrial users south of the site within the Sierra Business park. She stated that they did a study on noise in the area and had an acoustical analysis prepared. She indicated that the public agencies contacted were able to service the project with the exception of the Dublin Unified School District but the Environmental Impact Report addressed alternatives to that concern. The Mitigated Declaration was submitted for public review which the City received comments on and the comments are in the packets. She indicated that two letters with comments on the project were received today and are not in the packets. She went over the comments received and stated staff's response to the comments. She stated the applicant requested the third access area along the creek be eliminated. Staff recommended the third access be left in at this time. The applicant also requested that the requirement for the landscaping along Dougherty Road be reduced to 5 feet, instead of 10 feet Staff recommended it be changed to 8 feet. Another letter of concern was received from MCE Corporation. They had a concern that their equipment would start early in the morning and cause a potential noise problem for the residents of the project. She stated mitigation measure 17 be revised to require disclosure of industrial uses adjacent to the subdivision at the time of sale and it be written into the CC&R's The Alameda County Public Works Agency notified the City that they had policies to provide a light rail system along the Iron Horse T~ Also, they requested to the project was to construct a sound wall to provide for future noise that would be associated ." with the light rail. Staff did not feel that it should be a requirement of the project. There was not a request or ' , : ' proposal for light rail at this time, and, therefore, felt it should not be made a requirement of the project. Staff recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as revised this evening. Cm. Lockhart asked if Attachment 1 was an old design of the site plan? Ms. Ram stated this was the plan the applicant was working with. but while working with the En*onmental Impact Report, they have had to make some changes to the plan. Cm. Jennings asked about the White Paper going to the Department of Real Estate, would there be any specifications to the size of type for the disclosure regarding industrial uses. Mr. Peabody stated that they would require the developer to put information in their sales office. There were ways of getting the information out and they would work with the applicant to see that the information was made available. Cm. Johnson asked about any restrictions from the City regarding the hOUTS of production to eliminate the noise levels after certain hOUTS. Ms. Ram stated that 75 decibels for industrial zoning was the maximum noise at the property line, 60 decibels in the external yards of the residence and 45 decibels inside the units. Cm. Geist asked what sound would be equivalent to 75 decibels? Jeffrey Pack, President of Edward Pack and Associates in Sunnyvale was the acoustical consultant for the project. He. stated the 75 decibel is based on a 24 hour average, and there was a complicated formula to arrive at that number. :'., Mr. Pack indicated that 75 decibel is fairly noisy and that is the limit that is allowable for an industrial use at the . . ' . Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] 36 Aprl16, 1996 'l .., property line. If you stand at the building setbacks of the Kaufman & Broad project along Dublin Boulevard nex1 to the freeway, that was about 75 decibel. Although the freeway was 24 hours of noise. this area would only produce that type of noise during the day. At nighttime, it would produce less noise. Cm. Jennings asked if the 45 decibels for the interior included the windows? Mr. Pack stated that it did include the windows. Cm. Johnson asked if there was anything in the Noise Ordinance regarding hours of operation for the industrial area? Ms. Ram stated there was nothing in the Noise Ordinance that says anything about hours of operation, however, there may be something in the specific approvals of each project that may address that. The Ordinance does state that if it were annoying, it would be considered a nuisance. Cm. Johnson stated it was the responsibility of the builder to make sure potential buyers of these units were aware that the industrial area was there first, and they could not come back to the City and complain about someone pounding fenders at 6:00 am. Mr. Pack stated that they have proposed the intensive mitigation to address the decibel levels for the project. Cm. Lockhart asked the decibel level for a light rail train. Mr. Pack stated a BART train was about 75 decibels at 50 feet from the tracks. ,.. ~. ..'.::. '. Mike Maples, Trumark Homes, stated they were excited about this project. He felt it was a great place for an in-fill project. He stated when you have an in-fill site, you do tend to have issues that staff needed to mitigate because of the surrounding uses. He stated the noise issue was looked at and felt they bad arrived to an acceptable noise level. He stated they had met with the commercial users in the area, and most were glad to have the project there. He asked that the sound wall be the minimum of 5 feet with an average of 8 feet along Dougherty Road. Cm. Lockhart asked if they had a concern on the number of units for the project. Mr. Maples stated the number of units were no longer a concern. Cm. Jennings asked for any comments from the public. Pricilla Brown, Attorney for the Dublin Unified School District, was appreciative that Jeri Ram, Associate Planner took a good look at the comments on the Negative Declaration and included them in the packets. Dublin Unified School District stated they were not clear if the recommendation to City Council would also include approval of the General Plan Amendment. She wanted to clarify that the need for school facilities would have to be considered as approval of the General Plan Amendment regardless of the CEQA issues. em. Lockhart asked if the issues addressed by the School District were resolved. Ms. Ram stated that the School District was concerned that the City was not looking at schools in relation to the General Plan Amendment The City looks at that as public services when the CEQA analysis is done. em. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Lockhart. seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the Planning COnmllssion unanimously adopted: .. Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] 37 Aprl16, 1996 r \ Resolution No. 95-12 APPROVING PA 95-29 .' RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PA 95-029, THE TRUMARK HOMES PROJECT 8.3 PA 95-39 Valley Christian Center PJayfieJd Expansion An Application for Site Development Review for Valley Christian Center, 10800 Dublin Boulevard, to expand its playfield facilities by approximately 3.8 acres. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated one of the condition of approval would be the request to amend the Hansen Ranch Development Agreement. There would be a lot line adjustment to transfer a piece ofland that belongs to Hansen Ranch over to Valley Christian Center. She showed the grading plan and where they would be cutting into the slope. She stated staff looked at the aesthetic impacts when the Negative Declaration was done and there weren't any significant impacts to the area. The use was consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of open space as well as the Hansen Ranch Planned Development zoning of open space. She stated that to mitigate safety concerns, the applicant agreed to put a fence aroWld the playfield. Ms. Ram indicated that staff recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and for the Site Development Review for the project Cm. Lockhart asked if it affected the Hansen Ranch Project General Plan Amendment. ' . Ms. Ram stated. no, the only change would be to remove the portion of the property that is currently part of Hansen . Ranch. The zoning would remain the same. Roger Mahany, Valley Christian Center, had a comment, he stated they had been blessed with good neighbors and the neighbors were willing to work with them. Cm. Jennings closed the public he3ring. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Geist, and with a vote of 4-0, Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: Resolution No. 95-13 APPROVING PA 95-39 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 95-039 VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER SCHOOL PLAYFIELD EXPANSION NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Jennings stated the trucks were still parking at the old Lucky's shopping center and the furniture was getting .' bigger at the Oak Warehouse. Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] 38 Aprl16, 1996 .' .-..'.' " . -, Mr. Peabody stated that a letter was sent to the property owner but the owner was out of town. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone from the City was taking a look at A-frame signs. He felt that the number of A-frame signs had increased and wanted to know if anything was being done. Mr. Peabody stated the City responds to A.frame signs only on a complaint basis. He stated that the City had not received any complaints on that issue. Cm. Johnson stated he was making a complaint regarding the A-frames throughout Dublin and some of the other not so appealing signs. He felt the vinyl signs tend to look sloppy if they are up between two trees and sag which makes them hard to read. Mr. Peabody stated that the City operates on a complaint basis only. The issue needs to be brought to the attention of the City Council. Mr. Peabody congratulated the Commission on getting through the first big meeting. The next Planning Commission meeting will include the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and the implementation measures regarding East Dublin. We have received a letter from San Ramon inviting the Planning Commission to a seminar on land use issues. He asked if anyone would be interested in attending the half day session in June. He stated that he would bring the information on the seminar to the next Planning Commission meeting; ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjowned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I ~~ Regular Meeting [4-16pcmi] Aprl16, 1996 39 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDASTATEMENTffiTAFFREPORT Meeting Date: April 16, 1996 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff ~ Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: PA 95-048, California Creekside RECOMMEND A TJON: Adopt Draft Resolution (Exhibit B) for PA 95-048, California Creekside recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone, and Development Agreement (Exhibit D); and Adopt Draft Resolution approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review, (Exhibit C) for PA 95-048, as recommended by Staff; or: Direct Staff to revise the Draft Resolutions as amended; or: Continue these matters until a date certain, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Request for a Tentative Map, Site Development Review, PD Planned Development, and Development Agreement to allow a residential development consisting of 154 single-family dwellings (one and two story homes ranging in size from 1346 square feet to 1986 square feet) and 123 townhouses (two story units with underground garage ranging in size from 1,162 square feet to 1,549 square feet) on approximately 35.4 gross acres in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. APPLICANT: Matthew Koart Kaufinan & Broad of Northern California 3130 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 300 San Ramon, CA 94583 PROPERTY OWNER: Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County 224 West Winton Avenue, Room 151 Havward, CA 94544 LOCATION: On the North side of Dublin Boulevard, West ofTassajara Creek, South of the Transit Spine/Central Parkway, and East of a collector street. ASSESSOR PARCEL: 946-15-1-4 (por) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density (0-6.0 du/ac), Medium Density (6.1-14.0 du/ac), and Medium High Density Residential (14.1-25.0 du/ac). ITEM NO~ COPIES TO: Applicant Owner PA File r""r-.r f Or: /2 ~ __r:'_.........../.--. ,~ EXHIBIT If) . ."' .' ' '"!I.I' ',gJ- . D .. ...-. e" . /I SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNA TION: Single Family (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Medium Density (6.1-14.0 du/ac), and Medium High Density Residential (14.1-25.0 du/ac). EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial Land Use: Vacant, site of old Animal Shelter. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING, AND LAND USE: North: General Plan: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac), Public/Semi- Public (elementary school); Specific Plan: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac), Public/Semi- Public (elementary school); Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial; Land Use: Vacant. South: General Plan: General Commercial; Specific Plan: General Commercial; Zoning: PD General Commercial; Land Use: Proposed Developer's Diversified Shopping Center. East: General Plan: Low Density Residential (0-6.0 du/ac),and Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac); Specific Plan: Single Family (0-6.0 du/ac), and Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac); Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial; Land Use: Vacant (current site of vacant Naval Hospitals). West: General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial; Specific Plan: Neighborhood Commercial; Zoning: PD Business Park Industrial; Land Use: Vacant. SITE mSTORY: The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were approved by the City Council on May 10, 1993. At that time, the site was designated Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Medium High Density Residential on the General Plan. Prior to that time, the site had been used for agricultural and storage purposes by the U. S. Anny, and as the site of the old County Animal Shelter. The property to the south is the site of the proposed Developer's Diversified Shopping Center, which proposes 800,000 square feet of retail space. The Planned Development Rezone for this project was approved by the City Council on January 31, 1995. The Site Development Review was approved by the City Council on August 22, 1995, and revised on March 26, 1996. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An analysis by staff of the project found that the project is exempt according to Section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. That analysis showed that the proposed residential project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93, and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994. The analysis indicated that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the California 2 .'f,,",::- :")-(.;: /zq l ...\...:~:... _iZ..__ ti: .t. ...~!""~ Ji Creekside project that were not addressed in the FEIR. Further, that analysis found that the project is in confonnity with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. ." CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN An analysis of the project in light ofal\ of the elements of the City General Plan detennined that the project is consistent with the General Plan. An analysis of the project in light of al\ of the Action Programs and Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan detennined that the project is consistent with the Specific Plan. For a more detailed explanation, please see Exhibit E. ANALYSIS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that "Planned Development Plans" be prepared in greater detail than the Specific Plan, in keeping with Zoning Ordinance requirements (Sections 8-31.0 to 8-31.19 and Section 8-57.0). The plan must show the location and arrangement of all proposed uses, specifY the circulation system, define parcels, refme the development standards, specify the infrastructure requirements and their sequencing, reflect the applicable mitigation measures of the FEIR, and include master neighborhood landscape plans. Planned Development plans must be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as amended by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. For the purposes of this project the Land Use and Development Plan required by the Ordinance is represented by the Tentative Map, the Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan and the written statement supplied by the Applicant. The PD Planned Development General Provisions and Development Standards, and Conditions of Approval relating to the Planned Development are included in the Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Planned Development Rezone and the Development Agreement (Exhibit C). The Planned Development District is to be established to provide for and regulate the development of the California Creekside Subdivision. Development is required to be generally consistent with the Land Use Development Plan. This approval changes 35.4 gross acres of the old zoning category (pD Business Park Industrial) to PD zones which will be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirements. The new PD zoning would be 26.8 gross acres zoned PD Single Family Residential District (154 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) and 8.6 gross acres zoned PD Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per acre), for a total maximum of277 dwelling units. .'. The proposed Planned Development Rezone would establish the following general provisions and development standards for this project: Except as specifically modified in the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance R-I District will be applied to the PD Single Family designated lands, and of the R-3 District will be applied to the PD Medium-High Density Residential designated lands in the PD District. . 3 PM'~;: ~ r.-:; JZ,D ~_ r.-.......___ \~: -n_l_ (.; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SETBACK STANDARDS " .', SETBACKS SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY FRONT YARD Property line to garage face 18 feet I 0 feet Property line to habitable space .15 feet 10 feet Property line to porch face NA 4 feet From common area parcel lines NA o feet From adjacent buildings NA 15 feet SIDE YARD To property line 5 feet 5 feet From common area parcel lines NA o feet From adjacent buildings NA 15 feet STREET SIDE YARD To property line 1 0 feet 10 feet REAR YARD To property line 12 feet 12 feet From common area parcel lines NA o feet From garage face to garage face NA 30 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES To property line 5 feet 5 feet MAIN BUILDING HEIGHT 30 feet/Two Stories 35 feet/Two StorieslUnderground Garage ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT 15 feet 15 feet PARKING Two enclosed spaces and two on Two enclosed spaces and 51 guest . driveway apron - .~ spaces PD Single Family Residential Permitted uses: Residential development limited to single-family detached houses Prohibited uses: Field crops, orchards, plant nurseries, greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant materials for sale, and hospitals Conditional uses: All conditional uses in the R~1 District are conditional uses in the PD Single Family Residential District with the exception of prohibited uses listed above Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows: Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and frreplaces) may encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum of five (5) feet into a required rear yard setback. PD Multi~Family Residential Permitted Uses: Multifamily Townhouse units and Multifamily Condominium units Prohibited Structures: Accessory Structures are not permitted Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-3 District are conditional uses in the PD Multi-Family . Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above. 4 P ,-''' i r.-I z. 9 2''::,;'; - ,- 'F ___ , , " 11 Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Multi-Family district are as follows. Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows: . Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and fireplaces) may encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum offive (5) feet into a required rear yard setback. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to enter into development agreements with developers in the plan area. The purpose of a development agreement is to provide security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time and, on the other hand, provide a mechanism to the City to obtain commitments from the developer the City might not otherwise be able to obtain. The development agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific Plan goal that new development fund the costs of infrastructure and service is met. Attached to this Staff Report is a Development Agreement (Exhibit D) between the City of Dublin, the Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda and Kaufman and Broad of Northern California. The Development Agreement sets forth the agreements between the three entities in relation to many items, including, but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing, payment of public facilities, noise and traffic impact fees and future creek improvements. The Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five years from the date it is recorded. The Development Agreement runs with the land and the rights thereunder can be assigned. The main points of the Development Agreement can be found in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement and are highlighted below: Roads: ,:. The Developer and/or Alameda County have agreed to construct road improvements along Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine, the collector street on the west side of the project, and to Tassajara Road. Dublin Boulevard. The ultimate north half of Dublin Boulevard must be constructed along the project boundary. The improvements will consist of three travel lanes, a bike lane, a landscaped median island, curb, gutter, a sidewalk, a regional trail and landscaping. Dublin Boulevard from the BART station to Hacienda Drive will be realigned and improved by the Developer and/or Alameda County to four lanes if the project begins construction after the Tri-Valley Crossings project and the Dublin Ranch Phase 1 project have been constructed. Transit Spine. The Transit Spine on the north side of the project will be constructed with a travel lane, bike lane, parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side. The north side of the Transit Spine will be constructed to include a travel lane. A landscaped median island will be constructed along the right-of-way. Collector Street. The Collector Street will be paved forty feet wide from curb to curb, with sidewalk, landscaping and curb and gutter on the west side of the street. Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 will be widened by Alameda County to four lanes at the time the average daily traffic (ADD on this segment exceeds 15,000 vehicles unless it has been widened by another Eastern Dublin Developer. The Developer will construct improvements to Dublin Boulevard and the Transit Spine and make other improvements beyond twenty feet from the curb. The Development Agreement describes these as "oversized improvements" and provides the County will receive a credit against the Traffic Impact Fee if these improvements are constructed. :. 5 !:": ~:;: b r,~/l y i r.:...,~ ___ ..J. _.. .' . . I? Signals: The Developer and/or Alameda County will install traffic signals at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard with a left turn lane, and at the intersection of DubIin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive with a left turn lane unless they have already been installed by the developer of the Tri-Valley Crossings project. The Developer and/or Alameda County will install traffic signals at the two main access roads into the project from Dublin Boulevard opposite the Tri-Valley Crossings project. Traffic Impact Fees. The Developer will pay a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) for each residential unit in the project in the amount set forth in the City's Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin in effect a the time the fee is payable. The TIF for a single. family residential unit in property designated for one to fourteen units is $4,182 and for units designated 14.1 units to 25 units per acre (as are these townhouse units) is $2,928, and is payable not later than the date of the final inspection of the unit. Traffic Impact Fee to reimburse Pleasanton for freeway interchanges. The Developer and/or Alameda County will pay the Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee established by the City if it is effective at the time of inspection of the fmal inspection of the first residence. The current fee is $214.60 per single family dwelling in this project and $150.22 per townhouse unit in this project payable at fmal inspection of the first unit. Public Facilities Fee. The public facilities fee for neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities, libraries and buildout of the Civic Center will be paid by the Developer and/or Alameda County. Resolution No. 11-96 adopted by the City Council on March 26, 1996, requires a fee of $4,029 per single family dwelling in this project and $2518 per townhouse unit in this project payable at the time of fmal inspection of the dwelling unit. The County is also required to dedicate 3.69 acres of land to the City for the City Park located east of Tassajara Creek. This dedication will satisfy the Developer's obligation under the City's "Quimby Act Ordinance" for community park land and neighborhood park land and Jhall be a credit against the portion of the Public Facilities Fee for the project for community parks land and neighborhood parks land. Noise Mitigation Fee. The Developer will pay a Noise Mitigation Fee as set forth is City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, adopted by the City Council on March 26, 1996. The fee is $4.74 per single-family unit and $3.32 per townhouse unit. This Section implements Mitigation Measure 3.1017.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Eastern Dublin. School Impact Fee The Developer and/or Alameda County will pay school impact fees in accordance with the "Agreement to Provide School Facilities Mitigation" between the Alameda County and the Dublin Unified School District. The fee is currently $4.44 per square foot for single family/low density homes in this development and $1.73 per square foot for the townhouses in this development. Regional Transportation Impact Fee. In the event that the City Council adopts a Regional Transportation Impact Fee to pay for regional transportation improvements in the Tri.Valley area, the Developer will pay the fee in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 6 N. ,'~ Je r.:- /" ~ . c.'. ... v 1 _,. }~~i- _ ,.I~ ....___ I Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees. The Developer will pay the Rental Availability In-lieu fee of $986.24 per rental unit not provided, as required by the Rental Availability Ordinance (RAO). The City Council has directed Staff to prepare an ordinance repealing the RAO and to amend the Housing Element of the General Plan to remove reference to the RAO. The Rental In-Lieu Fee will be charged until the time the ordinance repealing the RAO becomes effective and the General Plan is amended. When and if the RAO is removed, the fee will be returned with interest. ..': The project will be subject to the proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, provided that the Developer will have the right, in-lieu of providing the required percentage of affordable units required by the ordinance, to pay a fee of not more than $1.00 per square foot for single-family homes and $.75 per square foot for attached homes. Specific Plan Implementation Fee. The Developer will pay a Specific Plan Implementation Fee prior to approval of the fmal map for the project. The amount of the fee will be the project's pro rata share on an acreage basis of the City's then current costs for implementation of the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures of the fmal Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan. Creek Improvements and maintenance. The County is required to prepare a Stream Restoration Plan in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, and the Drainage Plan for the County property, for the portion of Tassajara Creek under the ownership of the County. The plan will be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and will include landscaping. The County must make the creek improvements within 36 months of the date the Development Agreement is recorded. Within that same period of time the County will also dedicate property on both sides of the creek to the appropriate entity, as determined by the City Council, which will own and maintain it. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone and Development Agreement, for P A 96-048, California Creekside. TENTATIVE MAP The developer has submitted Tentative Map 6822 proposing to subdivide an existing 813 gross acre remainder parcel created by Tentative Parcel Map 6879 into 154 single-family lots and 48 parcels containing 123 airspace condominium townhouses. The 48 parcels and Parcel A will be held in common by the owners of the 123 townhouses. The developer is also proposing that three open space lots at the end of cuI de sac streets be dedicated to the City. If the City accepts dedication of these lots, the City would be responsible for maintenance of the lots and liable for potential litigation with regard to them. Staff has included a condition of approval that the developer submit a replacement map showing the three lots as being made part of the adjacent residential lots. The maintenance of these areas would be the responsibility of the owner of the residential lot of which they are a part. The approved Tentative Map must conform generally to the Tentative Map prepared by Ruggieri-Jensen and Associates dated received by the Planning Department on April 10, 1996. The project consists of conventional single-family homes on 50 foot by 80 foot lots. The primary access to the single family homes will be from Dublin Boulevard. Single-family homes will back up onto Dublin Boulevard and will be protected from Dublin Boulevard by a sound wall. The townhouse units will have an internal circulation system and be located in 37 buildings offout or six units each. Project issues and associated conditions of approval are as follows: . 7 ;'!:"'c '7 r:7' Ie 9 :.....~.I~::-.... ...(..,-. .'; 4~____.. .... .",. ... e: . {I Flooding Tassajara Creek flows along the east side of the project. A condition of approval has been included requiring the developer to prove to the City that this subdivision is protected from a 1 DO-year stonn event. The pad elevations must be one foot above the 1 OO~year flood. Relationship to Developer's Diversified Shopping Center Conditions of approval require that the two streets within the project along Dublin Boulevard align with the two entrances into the shopping center along Dublin Boulevard and that the developer work with the developer of the shopping center to provide adequate access and utility cOlUlections. Further, the developer is responsible for widening the existing, or extending the new alignment for, Dublin Boulevard from the BART easterly access road to Hacienda Drive (at Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Tri-Valley Crossings Shopping Center) to four lanes if this project develops after the Tri- Valley Crossings and Dublin Ranch projects have been completed. Street Improvements Street improvements for Dublin Boulevard, the Transit Spine, the Collector Street and Tassajara Road are as described in the section on the Development Agreement above. Regional Trail A condition of approval requires that a trail (part of the regional trail system) be incorporated into and as part of the sidewalk system along the Dublin Boulevard frontage. This trail will connect to the eventual Iron Horse Trail located on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission right-of-way adjacent to the Southern Pacific right-of- way. Utilities/Fire/Schools Required fire and water service will be provided to the subdivision pursuant to letters dated March 27, 1996, from DRF A, and March 14, 1996, from DSRSD if conditions are met and fees paid. Sewer service for this subdivision will be provided pursuant to an agreement between Alameda County and DSRSD. The developer has entered into an agreement to provide school facilities mitigation with the Dublin Unified School District assuring school capacity. Phased Occupancy Plan A condition of approval requires that, if occupancy is requested to occur in phases, then all physical improvements within each phase will be required to be completed prior to occupancy of units within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor work items approved by the Planing Department. This will ensure that homeowners have adequate vehicular access and that no units are occupied until the adjoining area is fmished, safe, provided with all reasonably expected services and amenities, and completely separated from remaining additional construction activity. Noise Mitigation An acoustical analysis perfonned for this project included several requirements to ensure that residences in the project meet City noise standards. These requirements have been incorporated into conditions of approval. They include airtight patio fencing for townhouse units closest to Dublin Boulevard; that glass sections of buildings facing Dublin Boulevard meet sound insulating criteria; and that air conditioning be provided for dwellings along the west and south sides of the development. 8 ".~~ I) --/29 .:f.:..;;i: ~.Q..-.. ~~<~. ..~... (c SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that Site Development Review occur at the subdivision map stage. the purpose of the site development review process is to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and structural development. It addresses building location, architectural and landscape design and theme, vehicular and pedestrian access, on-site circulation, parking and traffic impacts. . Architecture The single-family residential dwelIing units wiII confonn to architectural plans prepared by Kaufman & Broad dated Received April 9, 1996, by the City of Dublin Planning Department. The one and two story homes wi\l be in the Craftsman style, will have attractive architectural detailing, porches, front facade trim carried around the comer of the structure, horizontal belly-boards defming stories, and trim-outs around windows and vents. The townhouses will confonn to architectural plans prepared by Kaufman & Broad dated Received December 18, 1996, by the City of Dublin Planning Department. The townhouses will also be in the Craftsman style. The four and six unit, two-story buildings, with underground garages will have attractive architectural detailing similar to that of the single-family homes. Staffhas reviewed the design of the dwellings with the developer and feels that the designs incorporate design features that will make this development an attractive community. Plotting Plan The developer submitted a plotting plan for phase I of the development showing the single-family dwelling unit models and orientation (left or right) on a plotting plan dated received AprillO, 1996. A condition of approval requires that plotting for units in Phase I confonn to that plan in order to ensure privacy, ensure that homes are well sited on each lot, that there is a good mix of one and two-story homes, and provide a variety of architectural design, Additionally, plotting plans for each phase must be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval prior to submitting for building permits. . Landscaping The Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan provides for a wide variety of street trees, shrubs, vines, perennials and ground covers. Pop-out tree planters have been incorporated into the plan to provide variety to the street scene. A condition of approval requires the submittal of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan prior to the issuance of building pennits. Street trees must be of a mirihnum 15 gallon size. Exact tree locations and varieties and shrub, vine, espalier, and groundcover varieties wiII be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan must confonn to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Design Features The Site Development Review contains conditions relating to design. Automatic garage door openers are required for the townhouses. The homes must have a back-lighted illuminated house number. Front yards of single-family dwellings must be landscaped. All common areas of the townhouse portion of the project must be landscaped. All mail-box units must be at the back of the curb. No three car garages will be located on a comer lot. Exterior lighting will be provided for stairwells, and dwelling entrances, and must be of a design and placement to not cause glare onto adjoining properties. Reflective glass will not be allowed on east facing windows in order to control the effects of glare. Maintenance of Open Space/Landscaping The City is responsible for maintenance of landscaping within the rights-of-way of streets that it accepts for dedication. Outside the right-of. way, the Developer will be responsible for maintenance. At the time the City Council considers the Planned Development and Development Agreement for this project, it will detennine the . 9 il.CE _'1_ (;:: .l2? ~.. .: ..~. .""" " . /1 most appropriate means of provision of maintenance, whether it be a Homeowner's Association; Lighting, Landscaping and Maintenance District; or other means. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution adopting the Tentative Map and Site Development (Exhibit B) Review for PA 96-048, California Creekside. RECOMMENDA TIONS: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation, 2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public, 3) Close public hearing and deliberate, 4) Adopt Draft Resolution (Exhibit B) for PA 95-048, California Creekside recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone, and Development Agreement (Exhibit D); and Adopt Draft Resolution approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review, (Exhibit C) for PA 95M048, as recommended by Staff; or: Direct Staff to revise the Draft Resolutions as amended; or: Continue these matters until a date certain, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Project Plans Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone and Development Agreement for P A 95-048, California Creekside Draft Resolution approving the Tentative Map and Site Development Review for PA 95M048, California Creekside Draft Development Agreement General Plan Conformity and Specific Plan Confonnity for PA 95-048, California Creekside Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: BacklP'ound Attachments: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Applicant's Written Statement Typical Public Works Conditions of Approval for CommerciaVIndustrial Site Development Review or Conditional Use Permit Development Site Development Review Standard Conditions Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement Typical Parking Striping Detail City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: g:pa95-048\pcstfrpt 10 ~'{';',::,A'F'\ r.,..I?~ . d, &'. " '- -,' . .. - .......--.. 4JI ...........-..;., III: J RESOLUTION NO. -96 A RESOLUTION OF mE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN e: APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING P A 95-048, CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE WHEREAS, Kaufman & Broad of Northern California have requested approval of a Planned Development Rezoning to establish General Provisions and Development Regulations for a residential development consisting of 154 single family dwellings and 123 townhouses on approximately 35.4 gross acres (APN 946-15-1-10 (por)) in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, a complete application for a Planned Development Rezoning is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City has found, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, that the proposed residential project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93, and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 (the "EIR"), and has further found that the proposed project is consistent with the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on April 16, 1996 and did adopt Resolution 96-10 recommending that the City Council approve and establish findings, general provisions, and development standards for a Planned Development Rezoning, and recommending that the City Council adopt a Development Agreement for P A 95-048 California Creekside; and .co and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submined recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Rezone: 1. The Planned Development Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD District Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development Rezone will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of providing General Provisions which set forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of pennined and conditionally pennined uses, and Development Standards; which will be compatible with existing vacant and proposed commercial, office and residential uses in the immediate vicinity, and which enhance development of the Specific Plan area; and 2. The Planned Development Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public . improvement as all applicable regulations will be met; and 1 EXHIBIT E J.t .'. 3. The Planned Development Rezoning will not overburden public services as the Dublin San Ramon Services District has stated that public services are available; and 4. The Planned Development Rezoning will be consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation of Single Family Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential; and 5. The Planned Development Rezoning will provide efficient use of the land pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that includes preservation of significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape features along Tassajara Creek with minimum alteration of natural land fooos; and 6. The Planned Development Rezoning will provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities through Conditions of Approval; and 7. The Planned Development Rezoning will create an attractive, efficient and safe environment through Conditions of Approval; and 8.' The Planned Development Rezoning will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and is in confoooance with Sections 8.31.0 to 8-31.19 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and 9. The Planned Development Rezoning will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area because it will be developed pursuant to Conditions of Approval and site development review; and ...':.. :.> 10. The Planned Development Rezoning will create attractive, efficient and safe development because it will be developed pursuant to Conditions of Approval and site development review. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve a Planned Development Rezoning including the following General Provisions and Development Standards for P A 95-048, California Creekside, which constitute regulations for the use, improvement and maintenance of the 35.4::1: acre parcel 946-15-1-10 (por) subject to the following Conditions of Approval: GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Pull'ose This approval is for a Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning for PA 95-048, California Creekside. This PD District Rezone includes a Land Use and Development Plan which is represented by the Tentative Map dated received April 10, 1996, Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan dated received April 2, 1996 (Both Labeled Exhibit A), and the written statements provided by the Applicant dated received April 1, 1996 and on file. The PD District Rezone allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies and action programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More particularly, the PD District Rezone is intended to ensure the following policies are met: .: 1. The approval of this Planned Development Rezone shall be pursuant to the teoo set forth in the Development Agreement approved by the City of Dublin on , 1996, and recorded on 2 I' 1 , 1996. In the event of conflict between the terms of the Development Agreement and the following conditions, the terms of the Development Agreement shall prevail. [PW, PL]. e: 2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to create a range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the community. 3. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment. 4. Dev'elop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities. 5. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile. B. Dublin Zonin~ Ordinance - Applicable Requirements Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance R.I District shall be applied to the PD Single Family Residential designated lands, and of the R-3 District shall be applied to the PD Medium- High Density Residential designated lands in this PD District. C. General Provisions and Development Standards 1. Intent: This Planned Development District is to be established to provide for and regulate the development of the California Creekside Subdivision. Development shall be generally consistent with the Land Use Development Plan. This approval rezones 35.4 gross acres currently.zoned Business Park Industrial to 26.8 gross acres zoned PD Single Family Residential District (154 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) and 8.6 gross acres zoned PD Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per acre), for a total maximum of277 dwelling units. e.' 2.. PD Single Family Residential Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted in the PD Single Family Residential district:. A. Residential development limited to: I. Single Family Detached houses Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the PD Single Family Residential district: 1. Field Crops 2. Orchards 3. Plant Nurseries 4. Greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant materials for sale 5. Hospital Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-l District are conditional uses in the PD Single Family Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above. e 3 ?-" .' Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Single Family district are as follows. SETBACKS AND YARDS A. Minimum Sin~le Family Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for single family detached houses and accessory structures shall be as follows: Front Setbacks: Eighteen (18) foot minimum from the property line to the garage face Fifteen (15) foot minimum from the property line to the habitable portion of the house Sideyard Setbacks: Five (5) foot minimum from the property line Street Sideyard Setbacks: Ten (10) foot minimum from the property line. Rear Yard Setbacks: Twelve (12) foot minimum from the property line Accessory Structures: Five (5) foot minimum from the property line B. Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows: ..: Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and fIreplaces) may encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum of fIve (5) feet into a required rear yard setback. C. BuiJdin~ Hei~ht Restrictions: Buildings are to be limited to a maximum of two (2) stories and a height of thirty (30) feet measured at the topmost point of the structure. This height limitation shall not apply to chimneys. Accessory structures are limited to a maximum height of fIfteen (15) feet. D. Parkin~: The number of parking spaces required for each single family detached house shall be two (2) garage spaces and two (2) spaces in the driveway apron. 2. PD Multi-Family Residential Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are pennitted in the PD Multi-Family Residential district: A. Residential development limited to: 1. Multifamily Townhouse units 2. Multifamily Condominium units .,: 4 'Jr Prohibited Structures: Accessory Structures are not pennitted except for common area facilities such as pool equipment, restroom buildings, trash enclosures, and similar structures. . Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the PD Multi~Family Residential district: I. Field Crops 2. Orchards 3. Plant Nurseries 4. Greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant materials for sale 5. Hospital Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-3 District are conditional uses in the PD Multi-Family Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above. Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Multi-Family district are as follows. SETBACKS AND YARDS A. Minimum Multi-Family Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for multi-family attached houses and accessory structures shall be as follows: Front Setbacks: Sideyard Setbacks: Rear Yard Setbacks: Accessory Structures: Ten (10) foot minimum from the public street right- of way to the garage face Ten (10) foot minimum from the public street right- of way to the habitable portion of the house Four (4) foot minimum from the public street right~of way to the porch face Zero (0) foot minimum from common area parcel lines Fifteen (IS) foot minimum from adjacent buildings . Five (5) foot minimum from the public street right~of way Zero (0) foot minimum from common area parcel lines Fifteen (15) foot minimum from adjacent buildings Twelve (12) foot minimum from the public street right~ofway Zero (0) foot minimum from common area parcel lines Thirty (30) foot minimum from garage face to garage face Five (5) foot minimum from the public street right-of way when permitted . 5 ~s B. Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows: . Architectural projections (such as eves, columns, balconies, awnings, steps, and fireplaces) may encroach up to a maximum of two (2) feet into a required front, rear, or side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum of five (5) feet into a required rear yard setback. C. Building Height Restrictions: Buildings are to be limited to a maximwn of two (2) habitable stories and underground garage, and a height ofthirty~five (35) feet measured at the topmost point of the structure. This height limitation shall not apply to chimneys. D. Parking: The nwnber of parking spaces required for each multi-family detached house shall be two (2) garage spaces. Fifty-one (51) guest parking spaces shall be provided as shown in Exhibit A. PLANNED E>EYELOPMENT REZONE CONDITIONS OF APPROY AL: .---.,... " -.: Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancv of any building. and shall be subject to Plannin~ Department review and &pproval. The following codes represent those departments/a~encies responsible for monitoring compliance of the Conditions of Approval. (PL) Planning. [BJ Building. [PO] Police. rpWl Public Work~ [ADMl Administration/City Attorney. [FIN] Finance. [F] Dougherty Re~ional Fire Authority. [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO] Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Zone 7), 1. The Land Use and Development Plan is conceptual in nature. No fonnal amendment of this PD Rezone will be required as long as the materials submitted for the Tentative Map and Site Development Review are in substantial confonnance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Community Development Director shall detennine confonnance or non- confonnance and appropriate processing procedures for modifYing this PD Rezone (i.e. staff approval, Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Pennit, or City Council approval of new PD Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not found to be in substantial confonnance with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A subsequent PD rezone may address all or a portion of the area covered ~y this PD Rezone. [PL] 2. Additions to residences in this project are prohibited. [PL] 3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable grading guidelines as indicated on page 103 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [PW, PL] 4. All project construction shall confonn to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building pennit. [B] 5. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e.g. Applicant shall submit a preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verifY the presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be completed by a :)iologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application. (222, 230) [PL] ." 6 ). 6. Applicant shall comply with all DRFA fire standards, including minimum standards for emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees, including a Fire Capital Impact Fee. (74, 77)[F] .' 7. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, stonn drain, recycled water, and potable water system infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. (39, 40)[PL, PW] 8. Any proposed modifications or alterations to Tassajara Creek shall be approved by the City of Dublin and any required pennitting agencies and shall be consistent with the policies of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and FEIR the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program and the Master Drainage Plan. (41)[PW, PL] 9. The garbage service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting ofpetrucible solid waste as well as source-separated recyclable materials generated by the residents within this project. (279)[PL] 10. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements. [ADM] II. The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area will be restricted to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to reduce potential impacts to wildlife. A written statement from the developer shall be submitted to the Community Development Director to that effect prior to issuance of the Grading Pennit. (221 ) [PL] 12. The applicant shall comply wtth the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements. (103,279)[ADM] e: 13. The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Envirorunental Impact Report (FEIR), respectively, that have not been made specific Conditions of Approval of this PD Rezone. [PL] PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk G;\P A95-048\ccpdres e 7 ;1' ORDINANCE NO. -96 . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD, WEST OF TASSAJARA CREEK, SOUTH OF THE TRANSIT SPINE AND EAST OF AN UNNAMED COLLECTOR STREET (APN 946-15-1-10(POR)) ..-...-..............------.....--..........------...--.....-........-----...-........--...-...-----..........------...------.............--...----......---....---------..-..-..--..........---------- The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: Section 1 Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner: Approximately 35.4 gross acres generally located north of Dublin Boulevard, west of Tassajara Creek, south of the Transit Spine, and east of an unnamed collector street, more specifically described as Assessor's Parcel Number 946-15-1-10 (por), are hereby rezoned from Planned Development Business Park Industrifll to 26.8 gross acres zoned Planned Development Single Family Residential District (154 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) fronting on Dublin Boulevard, and to 8.6 gross acres zoned Planned Development Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per acre) fronting on the Transit Spine and the unnamed collector street; and P A 95-048, California Creekside, as shown and described on Exhibit A (Rezone Application), and Exhibit E (Resolution Approving and Establishing Findings, General Provisions and Conditions of Approval), on file with the City of Dublin Department of Community Development, and hereby adopted as the regulations for the future use, improvement, and maintenance of the property within this District. A map of the rezoning area is outlined below: ,- ~~- ~.......;;;>i" -' --- .'"C'..,:. " - Ext~ Plannlne A.... .~ EXHIBIT F Section 2 This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once, with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against same, in a local newspaper published in Alameda County and available in the City of Dublin. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 28th day of May, 1996, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor A TrEST: City Clerk g:pa95048\ordl ,-Cf, . :,. .-. .- .'.'.--.. .. .,.,.,. " . )1 ORDINANCE NO. -96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING TIlE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 95-048, CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section], REClI ALS A. The proposed California Creekside Planned Development (P A 95-048) ("project") is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") in an area which is designated on the General Plan Land Use Element Map as "Low Density Residential", "Medium Density Residential", and "Medium-High Density Residential" and in an area which is designated on the Specific Plan as "Single Family Residential", "Medium Density Residential", and "Medium-High Density Residential" . B. A Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93. C. Implementing actions of the Specific Plan, including Chapter II thereof, require that all projects within the Specific Plan area enter into development agreements with the City, D. Kaufman and Broad of Northern California and the Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda have filed an application requesting approval of a development agreement for the California Creekside project. E. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, and the Surplus Property Authority of the County of Alameda ("Development Agreement") has been presented to the City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment]. F. A public hearing on the Proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning commission on April 16, 1996, for which public notice was given as provided by law. G. , The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Development Agreement, which. recommendation includes the Planning Commission's determinations with respect to the matters set forth in Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code. H. A number of minor modifications to the Development Agreement have been made since the Planning Commission made its recommendation, which modifications the Council finds need not be referred back to the Planning Commission. I. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on May 14, 1996, for which public notice was given as provided by law. J. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning commission (planning Commission Resolution 96-10), including the Planning commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the public hearing. K. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an analysis by staff found that the project is exempt according to Section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. That analysis showed that the proposed residential project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FErn.) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51- EXHIBIT ~ ,0 93, and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994. The analysis indicated that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the California Creekside project that were not addressed in the FEIR. Further, that analysis found that the project is in conformity with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. e> Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINA TIONS Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin's General Plan, (c) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, (d) the Specific Plan, (e) the EIR, (f) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, as amended by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, and in the Specific Plan in that (a) the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the site are "Low Density Residential", "Single Family Residential", "Medium Density Residential", and "Medium~High Density Residential", and the project is a residential development consistent with the "Low Density Residential", "Single Family Residential", "Medium Density Residential", and "Medium-High Density Residential" designations, (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to provision of infrastructure and public services, and (c) the Development Agreement includes provisions relating to fmancing, construction and maintenance of public facilities, reimbursement for oversizing infrastructure and similar provisions set forth in the Specific Plan. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use. districts in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning adopted specifically for the California Creekside project. e 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use policies in that the California Creekside project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan and the General Plan which have planned for residential development at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the project will proceed in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring program for the project prepared by Staff and will comply with all programs and policies of the Specific Plan. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan and with the Specific Plan. Section 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Attachment 1) and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Section 4. RECORDA nON Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is executed by the Mayor, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. e ;( .:': Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 28th day of May, 1996, by vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MAYOR A TrEST: CITY CLERK ... , ' .: G:pa95048ord2 Recording Requested by: City of Dublin When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Space above this line for Recorder's Use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. For the East Dublin Residential Project [California Creekside] I April 4, 1996 J:t . . '. .'.., " .., .: ., .~ THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this day of _, 1996, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORlTY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a Public Corporation (hereafter "COUNTY"), and KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation (hereafter "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of ~~ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12. RECITALS A. California Government Code ~~ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.12") authorize the CITY to enter into an Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property; and B. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is applicable to the Property; and C. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires DEVELOPER to enter into a development agreement; and D. DEVELOPER desires to develop and holds legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 35.4 acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Property"; and E. COUNTY is the owner of real property in the City consisting of approximately 620 acres, which includes the Property described in Exhibit A; F. DEVELOPER proposes the development of the Property with 154 single-family detac~ed homes and 123 townhomes; (the "Project"); and G. DEVELOPER has applied for, and CITY has approved, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including a PD District rezoning and Land Use and Development Plan (Ord. No. _), tentative map (Res. No._), site development review, (Res. No. _)] (collectively, together 2 April 4, 1996 ~1 \vith any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued v\rith respect to the Project, the "Project Approvals"); and . H. Development of the Property by DEVELOPER may be subject to certain future discretionary approvals, which, if granted, shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals as each such approval becomes effective; and 1. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of said Project; and J. The Master Development Agreement approved by CITY Resolution No. 144-95 was used as the format for negotiating this Agreement; and K. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.12; and 1. CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein; and '.. M. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City has found, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15182, that the Project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which was certified by the Council by Resolution No. 51-93, and the Addenda dated May 4, ,1993 and August 22, 1994 (the "EIR") and found that the EIR was adequate for this Agreement; and N. Ordinance No. effect on On [date], the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted approving this Development Agreement. The ordinance took [ date]. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER agree as follows: 3 April 4, 1996 ;'. .' .> .~ -;~ AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"). 2. Interest of Developer. The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in that it has a contract or option to purchase the Property from COUNTY in fee simple. DEVELOPER shall have no obligation hereunder unless and until it purchases the Property and takes title to the Property or any portion thereof. 3. Relationship of City. Count~ and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER and that neither the COUNTY nor DEVELOPER is an agent of CITY. CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making CITY, COUNTY and/or DEVELOPER joint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date and Term. 4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which this Agreement is recorded in the Office of the Alameda County Recorder. 4.2 Term. The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the effective date and extend five (5) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. 5. Use of the Property. 5.1 Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to 4 April 4. 1996 ?k any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. .' 5.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals. 5.3 Additional Conditions. Provisions for the following ("Additional Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5.3.1 Subsequent Discretionary Approvals. Conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions. (These conditions do not affect Developer's responsibility to obtain all other land use approvals required by the ordinances of the City of Dublin.) Not Applicable 5.3.2 Mitigation Conditions. Additional or modified .. conditions agreed upon by the parties in order to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise relating to development of the Project. See Exhibit B 5.3.3 Phasing. Timing. Provisions that the Project be constructed in specified phases, that construction shall commence within a specified time, and that the Project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. See Exhibit B 5.3.4 Financing Plan. Financial plans which identify necessary capital improvements such as streets and utilities and sources of funding. See Exhibit B 5.3.5 Reimbursement. Terms relating to subsequent 5 April 4, 1996 . e':: .': .: /' reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public facilities. See Exhibit B 5.3.6 Fees. Dedications. Terms relating to payment of fees or dedication of property. See Exhibit B 5.3.7. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous terms. See Exhibit B 6. Applicable Rules. Regulations and Official Policies. 6.1 Rules re Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the effective date of this Agreement. . 6.2 Rules re Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary Project Approval. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by DEVELOPER shall be those in force and effect at the time of the app~icable permit approval. 6.3 Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Codes (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical) and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. 7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 7.1 New Rules and RegJ1lations. During the term of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force 6 April 4, 1996 " and effect on the effective date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if the application of .': such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent or materially delay development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals. 7.2 Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the CITY from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. 7.3 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of CITY, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, CITY agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code ~ 8558. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees. Assessments and Taxes. .. 8.1 Fees. Exactions. Dedications. CITY and DEVELOPER agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development -bf the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project and complying with the Specific Plan shall be those set forth in PD Ordinance Number , TM Res. No. _, SDR Res. No. , and in this Agreement. CITY shall not impose or require payment of any other fees, dedications of land, or construction of any public improvements or facilities, in connection with any subsequent discretionary approval for the Property, except as set forth in those approvals and this Agreement. 8.2 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 7 April 4, 1996 . . -:; .' ~ I 8.3 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (I) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent developmen( in accordance with this Agreement. 8.4 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Property. 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the effective date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.12. 9.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of State law and Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91. 9.3 Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the pennitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by DEVELOPER as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. 9.4 Amendment of Project Approvals. Any amendment of Project Approvals relating to: (a) the permitted use of the Property; (b) provision for 8 April 4. 1996 Lf& reservation or dedication ofland; (c) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; e: (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (f) monetary contributions by the DEVELOPER; or (g) public improvements to be constructed by DEVELOPER shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Any other amendment of the Project Approvals, or any of them, shall not require amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment of the Project Approval(s) relates specifically to some provision of this Agreement. 9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.12. Any fees paid pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by CITY. 10. Term of Project Approvals. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the, term of the tentative map described in Recital G above shall automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement. The term of any other Project Approval shall be extended only if so provided in Exhibit B. II. Annual Review. e. 11.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be June I, 1997, and each June 1, thereafter. 11.2 Initiation of Review. The CITYs Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.12.140 of Chapter 8.12, by giving to DEVELOPER thirty (30) days' written notice that the CITY intends to undertake such review. DEVELOPER shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement for the purposes stated in Government Code Section 65865.1. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the DEVELOPER. 11.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, CITY shall deposit 9 April 4, 1996 e ..". .' ...". .,i e: ~I in the mail and fax to COUNTY and DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least three (3) days prior to any annual review. 11.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in connection with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 12. Default. 12.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in CITY's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 12.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so .long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any d~fault. 12.3 No Damages Against CITY. In no event sh311 damages be awarded against CITY upon an event of default or upon tennination of this Agreement. 13. Estoppel Certificate. Any party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations 10 April 4, 1996 VI/ under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return . such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by COUNTY or DEVELOPER upon payment of CITYs costs. Failure to execute an estoppel certificate shall not be deemed a default. 14. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure. 14.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 14.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this . Agreement to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 14.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If CITY receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given DEVELOPER hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to DEVELOPER, any notice given to DEVELOPER with respect to any claim by CITY that DEVELOPER has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to DEVELOPER to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the CITY's notice. CITY, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon 11 April 4, 1996 .~' .~' .'., -:i .:: ~'; request of DEVELOPER or a Mortgagee. 15. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If CITY, COUNTY or DEVELOPER initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. DEVELOPER shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse CITY for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by CITY in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 17. Transfers and Assignments. 17.1 Right to Assign. DEVELOPER'S rights hereunder may be transferred, sold or assigned in conjunction with the transfer, sale, or assignment of all or a portion of the Property subject hereto at any time during the term of this Agreement, provided that no transfer, sale or assignment of DEVELOPER's rights hereunder shall occur without the prior written notice to CITY and approval by the City Council, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The City Council shall consider the matter within 30 days after DEVELOPER's notice. 17.2 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of DEVELOPER's rights and interests hereunder pursuant to the preceding subparagraph of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Council approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Council expressly assumes the obligations of DEVELOPER under this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released with respect to all such 12 April 4, 1996 q~ assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, e:, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Council approval. 17.3 Termination of Agreement Upon Sale of Individual Lots to Public. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the burdens of this Agreement shall terminate ,as to any lot which has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulle") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or sold to the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon and without the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be released from and no longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue to run as to any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the termination of this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement shall terminate as to such lot. 18. Agreement Runs with the Land. .All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons e acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by .,. . operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. .All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 19. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 13 April 4. 1996 . .-- - e", " , " e::, tit? 20. Indemnification. DEVELOPER and COUNTY agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the-DEVELOPER or COUNTY, respectively, or any actions or inactions of DEVELOPER's their respective!'contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to mean that DEVELOPER or COUNTY[shall defend, indemnify or hold CITY or its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees and representatives harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage arising from or alleged to have arisen from, the maintenance or repair by CITY of improvements that have been offered for dedication and accepted by CITY for maintenance. 21. Insurance. 21.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per claim. The policy so maintained by DEVELOPER shall name the CITY as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. 21.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement DEVELOPER shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by DEVELOPER for work at the Project site. DEVELOPER shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from DEVELOPER's failure to maintain any such insurance. 21.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall furnish CITY satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 21.1 and 21.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the CITY at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or 14 April 4, 1996 ~(p reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the CITY, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives . and to DEVELOPER and each contractor and subcontractor performing work on the Project. 22. Sewer and Water DEVELOPER acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency not within the control of CITY. 23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 . Notices required to be given to COUNTY shall be addressed as follows: County Administrator County of Alameda 1221 Oak Street, Room 555 Alameda, CA 94612 and Patrick Cashman Project Director SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY 225 W. Winton Avenue, Room 151 Hayward, California 9454 and Adolph Martinelli Director of Planning County of Alameda 399 Elmhurst Street 15 April 4, 1996 . -, .'. -- . .: '1 ' Hayward, CA 94544 Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed as follows: Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. Attn: Matthew Koart, Vice President 3130 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 300 San Ramon, CA 94583 A party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. 25. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 26. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Additional Conditions Exhibit C Offsite Street Improvements 27. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in 3 duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 28. Recordation. CITY shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten days following execution by all parties. 29. Meaning of "DEVELOPER" and/or "COUNTY' DEVELOPER and COUNTY will provide CITY with memorandum signed by both parties spedfying which party will be obligated to perform the obligations herein. This memorandum will be provided prior to issuance of the first 16 April 4, 1996 qY> grading permit for the ProJ'ect, and will be incorporated into this Agreement at such time. .' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN: By: Mayor Date: SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA By: Date: Its: KAUFMAN & BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.: By: Date: . Name: Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: City Attorney Date: County Counsel EH$:rja 17 April 4. 1 996 . . .'. .: J :\WPD\MNR$W\114\AGREE\DEVELOPM.K&B (NOTARlZATION ATTACHED) 18 April 4, 1996 41 State of California ) ss. County of Alameda On before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC 7[J . .' . 51 .~". , . EXHIBIT A Description of the Property [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] .. . , EXHIBIT B Additional Conditions . The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above. Subparagraph 5.3.1 -- Subsequent Discretionary Approvals None. Subparagraph 5.3.2 -- Mitigation Conditions Subsection a. Infrastructure Sequencing Program The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the Project is set forth below. Offsite improvements are depicted in Exhibit C. (i) Roads: The following improvements shall be constructed by DEVELOPER prior to final inspection for the first building permit for the Project. .' Certain of the improvements are required for the Project. Other improvements which are not required by the Project (hereafter "Oversized Improvements") shall be constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY as provided ~below. COUNTY shall be entitled to credits for the Oversized Improvements, as set forth below. A. Project Specific Improvements Prior to final inspection for the first building permit for the Project, the project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of dedication) identified in the Traffic Study for the California Creekside Proposed Residential Development, dated February 1996 prepared for Kaufman & Broad by TJKM Transportation Consultants shall be completed by DEVELOPER. B. Dublin Boulevard between West and East Edges of Proj ect: / i' (it j Dublin Boulevard is currently a two lane roadway lying along the . April 4, 1996 . .; . ,4; south boundary of the Property. The ultimate north half of the street shall be constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY along the Project boundary, consisting generally of three 12' travel lanes, one 8' bike lane, a 24' wide landscaped median island (with curbs) and a minimum 30' wide setback area which shall include curb, gutter, a 12' wide trail and landscaping. Transitions shall be provided at the west and east ends of the project from the new roadway section to existing Dublin Boulevard. Two of the 12' travel lanes and the median improvements are Oversized Improvements for which COUNTY shall receive a credit pursuant to in Subparagraph 5.3.5. C. Transit Spine The Transit Spine is a new street that is planned to ultimately extend from Hacienda Drive east to Tassajara Road. The following portions of the Transit Spine shall be constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY: Along the north boundary of the Project, the south half of the Transit Spine shall be constructed to include a 14' travel lane, 6' bike lane, and 8' parking lane. The north half of the Transit Spine shall be constructed to include a 20' travel lane. A 30' landscaped median island (with curbs) shall be constructed along the centerline of the right of way. The south half improvements shall include curb, gutter, landscaping and sidewalk. The north half improvements shall include headerboard and earth drainage ditch. COUNTY shall receive credit for dedication of 38' of right-of-way, 16' of road improvements and 14' of landscaped median (as shown on Exhibit C) pursuant to Subparagraph 5.3.5. D. Collector Street A collector street shall be constructed with the Project along the west boundary of the Project between Dublin Boulevard and the Transit Spine. The collector street shall generally include a paved area 40' from face of curb (east side) to face of headerboard (west side), with sidewalk, landscaping and curb and gutter on the east side of the street and headerboard and earth drainage ditch on the west side of the street. E. Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 The COUNTY shall widen Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 to four lanes at the time average daily traffic (ADT) on this segment of Tassajara Road exceeds 15,000 vehicles unless Tassajara Road has already 11 April 4, 1996 5'1 been widened by another Eastern Dublin developer. If constructed by COUNTY, COUNTY shall receive credit against the Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin ("Traffic Impact Fee") for the foregoing improvements pursuant to Subparagraph 5.3.5. .' , ' F. Traffic Signals ~. Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall install traffic signals at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard together with left-turn lane unless the signals have already been installed by the developer of the Tri-Valley Crossings Project/Santa Rita Commercial Center (PA 95-013 [TM], PA 95-026 [SDR] and PA 96-026 [SDR] ["Tri-Valley Crossings Project"].). If constructed by DEVELOPER, COUNTY shall receive credit against the Traffic Impact Fee for the foregoing improvements pursuant to Subparagraph 5.3.5. G. Traffic Signals ~- Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall install traffic signals at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard together with a left turn .:, lane unless the signals have already been installed by the developer of the Tri-Valley Crossings Project. If constructed as part of this Project, COUNTY shall receive credit against the Traffic Impact Fee for the foregoing improvements pursuant to Subparagraph 5.3.5. H. Dublin Boulevard West of the Project The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall widen existing Dublin Boulevard or extend the new alignment for Dublin Boulevard from the BART easterly access road to Hacienda Drive (at Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Tri-Valley Crossings Project) to four lanes if the Project begins construction after the Tri-Valley Crossings Project (or any phase of it) and the Dublin Ranch Phase I Project (P A 95- 030) have been constructed. If constructed as part of this Project, COUNTY shall receive credit against the Traffic Impact Fee for the foregoing improvements pursuant to Subparagraph 5.3.5. I. Traffic Signals at Project's Two Main Entrances The DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall install traffic ~ignals at Hi April 4, 1996 .. .' .:: ... 7? the two main access roads into the Project from Dublin Boulevard opposite the Tri- Valley Crossings Project's entrances to accommodate the traffic to the Project. The traffic signal at the Collector Street shall be constructed at the ultimate location on the Collector Street to accommodate twelve (12) feet of widening to the west. (ii) Sewer The Dublin San Ramon Services District has prepared a report ("Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Final Report" dated December, 1993, prepared by G. S. Do~son &Associates [the "DSRSD Report"]) which determines the sizes and approximate locations of pipelines to provide potable water facilities, wastewater collection facilities and recycled water facilities within the Eastern Dublin area at ultimate buildout. All references hereinafter to the DSRSD Report shall be to the report as it is periodically updated and in effect at the time of the applicable improvements and as such report is interpreted and applied by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, all sanitary sewer improvements to serve all building sites in the Project (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. (Hi) Water Prior to combustible construction and/or storage of combustible materials on site, sufficient water storage and pressure shall be available at the site to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. Prior to issuance of the first building pennit for the Project, all potable water system components to serve all building sites in the Project (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be complete and in working order to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Prior to occupancy of any portion of the Project, recycled water lines shall be installed on site and within adjacent roadways to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District consistent with the DSRSD policy for recycled water and all recycled water connection fees shall be paid. IV April 4, 1996 7b (iv) Storm Drainage . COUNTY has retained a consultant (Brian Kangas Foulk) to prepare a master drainage plan (the "Drainage Plan") showing the routes and sizes of major storm drainage facilities for all of COUNTYs approximate 620 acres. All references hereinafter to the Drainage Plan shall be to the plan as periodically updated and in effect at the time of the applicable improvements and as such report is interpreted and applied by CITY. Prior to final inspection of the first building permit for the Project, the storm drainage systems to the site as well as on site drainage systems to the areas to be occupied shall be complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department applying CITYs and Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7) standards and policies which are in force and effect at the time of issuance ,of the permit for the proposed improvements and shall be consistent with the Drainage Plan. The site shall also be protected from storm flow from off site and shall have erosion control measures in place to protect downstream facilities and properties from erosion and unclean storm water consistent with the Drainage Plan. (v) Other Utilities (e.g. gas. electricity) . Construction shall be complete prior to final inspection of the first building permit. Subsection b. Miscellaneous (i) Completion May be Deferred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY's Public Works Director may, in his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director that assures completion, allow DEVELOPER to defer completion of discrete portions of any of the above public improvements until after final inspection of the first building permit for the Project if the Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. (ii) Improvement Agreement Prior to constructing the Improvements described in Subparagraph v April 4, 1996 . e:: ?I 5.3.2(a) above, DEVELOPER shall submit plans and specifications to CITY's Public Works Director for review and approval and shall enter into an improvement agreement with CITY for construction and dedication of the public facilities. All such improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City's standards and policies which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the permit for the proposed improvements. (iii) Bonds Prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement, DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall provide a performance bond and labor and materials bond or other adequate security to insure that the Improvements described in Subparagraph 5.3.2 above will be constructed prior to final inspection of the first unit. The performance bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimate of the cost to construct the improvements (including design, engineering, administration, and inspection) and the labor and materials bond shall be in an amount equal to 50% of the engineer's estimate. The bonds shall be written by a surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by CITIs City Manager. .,' Subparagraph 5.3.3 -- Phasing. Timing . DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY intend to construct the Project in phases. Each succeeding phase will be constructed to function in harmony with the previous phase(s). With the exception of the road improvements descrioed in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(i), this Agreement contains no requirements that DEVELOPER must initiate or complete development of any phase within any period of time set by CITY. It is the intention of this provision that DEVELOPER be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules. Subparagraph 5.3.4 -- Financing Plan Except as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.2(b)(i) (Completion May Be Deferred), DEVELOPER will provide all infrastructure described in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(i) of this Agreement prior to final inspection of the first building permit for the Project. VI April 4, 1996 7~ DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY intends to install all street improvements necessary for the Project at its own cost (subject to credits for any Oversized . Improvements as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.5 below). Other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer, potable water, and recycled water services to the Project will be made available by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. COUNTY has entered into an "Area Wide Facilities Agreement" with the Dublin San Ramon Services District to pay for the cost of extending such services to the Project. Such services shall be provided as set forth in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(ii) and (iii) above. Subpar~graph 5.3.5 -- Reimbursement Subsection a. Credits for Oversized Improvements. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall construct certain Oversized Improvements in addition to the Project Specific Improvements. DEVELOPER and COUNTY are parties to an agreement that provides that COUNTY will get credit against Traffic Impact Fees for construction of any Oversized Roadway Improvements. COUNTY shall be entitled to a credit against Traffic Impact Fees for the .,:' Project for construction of any such Oversized Improvements as provided below. The Credits shall be given at the time DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY enters into an improvement agreement with CITY for construction of the applicable Improvements. The amount of the credits shall be determined at such time by the Public Works Director using the costs of construction and right-of-way values used by the CITY in calculating and establishing the Traffic Impact Fee. The amount of the Credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation nor shall interest accrue on the amount of the Credit. No Credit shall be given unless the improvement constructed is one of the improvements described in the resolution establishing the Traffic Impact Fee and is constructed in its ultimate location. (i) Credit for Dublin Boulevard Fronting the Project , Credit shall be given for two of the 12' travel lanes and the median improvements, together with the right-of-way for the two travel lanes and the median (for a total of 48' of right-of-way) unless the roadway has already been improved and dedicated as a part of other development. Vll April 4, 1996 . .. .': .~ .., , ' tjtt (ii) Credit for Transit Spine Credit shall be given for dedication of 38' of right-of-way along the north boundary of the Project, for 16' of road improvements and for 14' of landscaped median (second paragraph of Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(i)(C)) as shown on Exhibit C. (iii) Credit for Tassajara Road. Traffic Signals and Dublin Boulevard West of the Project Credit shall be given for the improvements described in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(i)(E), (F), (G) and (H), if constructed. Subparagraph 5.3.6 -- Fees. Dedications Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fees. DEVELOPER shall pay a Traffic Impact Fee for each residential unit in the Project in the amount set forth in the City's Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin as in effect at the time such Fee is payable pursuant to the resolution establishing the amount of the Traffic Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin. For example, pursuant to City of Dublin Resolution No. 41-96, the fee for a single-family residential unit on property designated for one to 14 units per acre is $4,182 and is payable not later than the date of final inspection of the unit. Likewise, the fee for a single-family residential unit on property designated for 14 to 25 units per acre is $2,928, and for a unit on property designated for over 25 units per acre is $2,509. The total Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") shall be reduced, however, by the Credits for Oversized Improvements provided in Subparagraph 5.3.5 when the Oversized Improvements are constructed or guaranteed. When the Credits have been exhausted, thereafter DEVELOPER will pay the applicable TIF in accordance with the Resolution No. 1-95, as adopted January 9, 1995, or any subsequent resolution which revises the amount of the TIF. If the amount of the Credits exceeds the amount of the TIF, COUNTY shall be entitled to use the unused Credits in the manner provided by separate agreement between the COUNTY and CITY to be entered into within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. ' viii April 4, 1996 bD Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton for Freeway Interchanges. .:: DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall pay the Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 11-96 if such Fee is effective at the time of final inspection of the first unit. DEVELOPER and COUNTY shall be released from its obligation, as set forth in the preceding sentence, if a lawsuit is filed challenging the Project approvals, this Agreement, the City's compliance with CEQA for the project, the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee or any other aspect of the development of the Property. Subsection c. . Public Facilities Fees. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 32-96, adopted by the City Council on March 26, 1996, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, not later than 12 months of the effective date of this Agreement COUNTY shall dedicate to CITY in fee simple 3.69 .. acres of land for the City Park located east of Tassajara Creek. The exact location of the land to be dedicated shall be determined by CITY. The land to be dedicated and underlying groundwater shall be free of hazardous substances. The dedication of 3.69 acres by COUNTY shall satisfy DEVELOPER's obligation under Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 (CITY's "Quimby Act Ordinance") for community park land and neighborhood park land and shall be a credit against the portion of the Public Facilities Fee for the Project for "Community Parks, Land" and "Neighborhood Parks, Land." Subsection d. Noise Mitigation Fee. DEVELOPER shall pay a Noise Mitigation Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, adopted by the City Council on March 26, 1996. Subsection e. School Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fees. School impact fees shall be paid by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY in accordance with Government Code section 53080 and the "Agreement to Provide School Facilities Mitigation" between COUNTY and the Dublin Unified School District, as adopted by the Board of Trustees of the School District on March 20, .:; . ' IX April 4, 1996 .'; .- . {PI 1996. Any fire capital impact fees shall be paid by DEVELOPER in accordance with applicable requirements of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority or its successors. Subsection f. Regional Transportation Impact Fee. In the event that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council recommends and the City Council adopts a Regional Transportation Impact Fee to pay for regional transportation improvements in the Tri-Valley area, DEVELOPER will pay any such fee in effect at the time of issuance of any building permits for the Project. Subsection g. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees CITY currently has a Rental Availability Ordinance (RAO) and is in the process of preparing and adopting an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) pursuant to CIITs Housing Element. Both the RAO and IZO are authorized by the General Plan. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY will pay the Rental Availability In-Lieu Fee in effect at the time of final inspection of each unit if DEVELOPER elects not to malce rental units available for rental pursuant to the Rental Availability Ordinance, unless the RAG has been repealed prior to such time. If DEVELOPER is required to pay the In-Lieu Fee and CITY later repeals the General Plan requirement which the RAO implements (General Plan ~ 6.3 (III)(E)), CITY will refund any In-Lieu Fees paid by DEVELOPER. The Project will be subject to the proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, provided that'DEVELOPER shall have the right in lieu of providing the required percentage of affordable units required by such ordinance to pay a fee in the amounts set forth in such ordinance, and provided further that the in lieu fee for the Project shall not exceed $1.00 per square foot for single-family detached homes and $.75 per square foot for attached homes. Subsection h. Specific Plan Implementation Fee Prior to approval of its final map, DEVELOPER shall pay a "Specific Plan Implementation Fee". The amount of the fee shall be the Project's pro rata share on an acreage basis of CITY's then current costs for implementation of the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures of the final Environmental Impact Report for the x Apri14,1996 b~ Specific Plan. .'. .' Subsection i. Dedications DEVELOPER agrees to dedicate the property required for road improvements described in Subparagraph 5.3.2 above to CITY in fee simple free and both the land and groundwater shall be free of hazardous substances. Subparagraph 5.3.7 -- Miscellaneous Subsection a. Creek Improvements. , COUNTY shall prepare a Stream Restoration Plan in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program and the Drainage Plan for the portion of Tassajara Creek under COUNTY ownership. Such Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of CITY and shall include landscaping. COUNTY shall make the improvements to Tassajara Creek identified in the Plan within 36 months of the effective date of this Agreement, unless CITY agrees in writing to a later date. Not later than 36 months of the effective date of the Agreement, COUNTY shall dedicate property on both sides of Tassajara Creek pursuant to the requirements of e.: the Plan and Program, to the appropriate entity (as determined by the City Council) which will own and maintain such areas pursuant to the Plan and Program. The amount of land to be dedicated shall be determined by CITY consistent with the Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. Subsection b. Waiver of Protest. COUNTY and DEVELOPER waive any right to protest the inclusion of the Property or any portion of it in a Landscape and Lighting Assessment District or similar assessment district for maintenance of trails and/or landscaping areas along Tassajara Creek, Dublin Boulevard, the 2-lane collector street running north/south on the westerly edge of the Property and the Transit Spine and further waive any right to protest the annual assessment for such maintenance. Subsection c. Dedication of Additional Park Land COUNTY may dedicate to CITY in fee simple all or a portion of the land required for the City Park located on COUNTY's remaining land. If COUNTY exercises this option, the value of the land to be dedicated shall be determined by . agreement between COUNTY and CITY but in no event shall such value per acre be . . greater than the per acre value assumed by CITY in calculating the amount of its Xl April 4, 1996 .<-:-- e:, ....., '.' e to'') Public Facilities Fee. CITY shall not be obligated to accept any such land until CITY and COUNTY have agreed on the value of the land to be dedicated and CITY has determined that the land and groundwater are free of hazardous substances and that the land is appropriate for park andlor community facility uses. If COUNTY dedicates any land, COUNTY or its successor(s) may be entitled to a credit against payment of the Public Facilities Fee for other projects on its remaining land in the amount of the agreed upon value of the land. J :\WPD\MNRSW\1 J 4\AGREE\DVLP-K&B.EXB xii April 4, J 996 . - - o. _ . ^ c ~ e ~ ~ l>Q <: ~ 00 C I'<J ~ ~'i:" ~ ell ~~ c- := i3 .0 .~ ~~ M i-I_ 0\ CO 0\ .... l>Q , - ~.5 : ... c ' ~.;o .: ... ~ , -j:Q'N e " I ~ o ~ :_ N"" ~O! -...... V"l~ N ... ... ~ QQ ~ <: ~ .... <: .5 :0 ~ o E ~ Vi ~ y .5 :0 ~ Q - o ... >,'- ,~ ~ u"; ,,< ~- o i3 titi: ::r: = (I):: O\C)-g ~....:!O =<:c ~U~ .otl)... ~fi:~ UJ U j <: j:Q UJ tI) Z tu c.. >< UJ id tIJ :> Z tIJ > tu IX: 10 ~ - OOOONOO-OO - V"l ~ - 0000000000 ~ '<t' ~ - - "" -0000000000 ~ ~ - ... = ~oooooooooo ... = 8 = .... - 0000000000 - ~ - 0000000000 ~ - 0000000000 '0 C tf ~~~~e~';~C)= U~UU~U~~cE- =ccc=c=c~... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ell OOOOOOOOE-O C' .!i! U ~ <Ii S o ~ (; ti5 M - t--NIO ON t--t--V"l0 - o 000000000 o 000000000 o 000000000 o 000000000 o 000000000 o 000000000 ... '0 C ~ ~ < 8E 'E 1IJ ...E lIJS ClIJ tl)O- tl)lIJE ~ 1IJ ~ellJ ~ ....i~ ~C'=O e<; ='lIJell :>~~ tlJg.!!lCl~ E- 0 ell ,!:! ':::::3 >, => ,..... ~ --ca..? 00...,:;; -gt:cI/$'Ccl/$ Z';~ c..~1IJ~ ~ ... .- 1IJ ......:: e oS ... 1IJ'OC) lIJS::-S- ........ c:: ==...-01 GJ ..c: .::: ~ >< 0 =' '0 .:: ... e =' 8 1IJ ~Oj:Qc..~OE-U ::r: o ~ = o ;> ~ IX: '; o E- \0 '<t' o o o o o o U l>Q '0 ~ j:Q I:lO ,5 iii ... &. o "; o E- - M M '-' c o o o c o E=' U u: tu Cl r:: o '-' tI) ::J ..J c.. 0::: :> tI) ..J <: U tI) fi: ..J 0( ::> Z z 0( ..-, M M '-' o o o o o o t-- M! 0 00 V'l "<T \ONO\ MA 00 _A ........... r<"l (,00') "" ..., II E=' U E tu Cl 0::: o ......... tI) ;:J ..J c.. 0::: ;:J tI) ..J <: U tI) E tLl > E:: <( ..J :> ::E :J U Cl'{~ C:OO "<T @) L1 >- 0\...... ..... 0 .:: UJ I'<J :> ... ..Jg. <( u >@) E-- Z ~ W2 > ... UJ~ O::,-......l Cl,.o< E->E- UJCl,.Q ZZE- " :I: .. If~~ iirf1~ ~~ c.:;~:i!'~m r"(.\.'........~=-'"fI' .-.... ".\l,j., ~..:..o.-i,ifL; ~~ ~~;~4J:~~ r.;;:..'~ t'li .... . i lrik; . - ~ II'i ~ 1IJ C "0 ~ 1.0 r<"l ~ .' ... t"l N ...... .- U N ~ .... b' .... ... ~ ctl 'g ... .( .c u ... ell 1IJ ~ 0::: .!;! E o c o u UJ ij u ... :I o tI) ." lit . . ^ ... c C,) e C,) C,) ... ~ o('i:' u CU cou :;>< .c:- ~ ~ ~ .- ~u.. CU.... E-- 0 c~ .... .- - C .D ._ =' ~ o~ S II u c;;~ ~Q ... -... .... CU ... o N g: - It"l~ N ... '" =' ;..Q .( iO ~ .5 ::0 ::::I o = ... u ... '" ~ V .5 ::0 =' o .... o '" >,.- :.::: ~ ue; c "0( ~- o ~ iiii: x= tI):: 0(.D .'~ ~ Ci 0( S -u~ .DtI)'" ~ti:~ M 8 N "'g""f' Ml"V'lV'l f'1O _ II"lN"" -t"'l 0 V'l..,.-M- M ...... .....cA.~... N g N O\g\Of't"'lV'l""MV'l1O o \ONO\ O\N 10 N~ co~ M _ -- - 8 N N8Mf'N""Mf'''''CO co O\Nf' ..,._ ..,. f' co~ M _ - ~ N .- Ol"'-OV'll"'-\ONN_N_ 8NOV'lN"" 0\.... t"'l _II"lN t"'l "" - 0\ , o ~ - "''''OOOONV'll'''-NO\ CO\OV'l M V'l _ cONN ... '" c 8 0\ 0\ 0\ - ..5 '-' eo g: - ~8~O~-~.qo-eo -- l" 0\ 0\ - "'ONOo\OMNO..,. ..,.0..,. _ .... "0 C ::::I u.. '2'2'2'2'2'2'2'2u~ u u u u u u u C,) ~ ~ c c c c c c c = ~ '" u C,) u u C,) u C,) u ... CU OOooooc.:n:>E--O tI.l U ~ ...J 0( m UJ tI) Z ll.1 t:l.. >:: ll.1 ~ ll.1 ::> z ~ ll.1 0::: c C,) .... 't) 0::: ~ ~ ~e;- r: c CU ... c.. ~ :l U u~a~ :l.., C~CUO "'5 cC,) - CU ... C,) > '-' E-O E-- = :i.5 u ~ ti: ~ tI):iu>,u~u..O:::::::Iu~ ll.1:: lI'l t:.;;; CU t: S' 5"O~ ......E-O::> u cE--:l >8~ .,.J "Oc..cuu8uC,) '" z ~ = e ~ ,!:3 E; 0::: ~ OCU ll.1 u CUt:l.._.c:... 1:10'" u :>c.."'-ugu...u.-u ll.10~~ocu,;:~-S~c; o:::,:t;~o:::::r:~O.sO:>fi5 u c; ci5 u e o ::t ...... ...... o IO~ ..,.0..,. ""0""'10 NO IOII"lNNMr--M- ..,.-O_O\-..,.""t"'l - eo eo r-- M- -r--IOIO..,.eoMMO Oo\lO..,.eoOeoO M 10M MNN 0\ CO N t"'l~ MV'lIl"l""V'leoO\r--O Ml"--IOM-1I"l N V'lM NN- V'l 0\ N~ ...... O\eoO\t'--NNOgo ..,...,.NIO..,.II"l"" - MN --_ o 10 10 r---IrlMr--O\-II"lO O\M-NNo\O\IO NN 0\ 10 M -\ON N"" Neo..,.O V'l__II"l_V'l..,.M -- eo .... N OO_IO....eo-COOO M 10M MNN - lI'l "0 C ::::I u.. ~ lI'l 8 = .t;: u ~ ~ e = ~ tI) oc.. tl)4,)e e:- ll.1Su ~ ~'t)~ ~E~ cuc~i)~ -' 4,) c ~ sa 'Q Q u E- E; CU :;: ........l >,:> :=:: 0 ::E .D 5 _~ .-:= ? ..... co ::::I"'~c~ ffi '2 .5 C,) ': &. ~ S:::l .c: 4,)"00 ull'l:::l ... &:l.c::::;:C,).c:c;.:::ee; >< U :l 0 ,:: .... ~ ::::I 8 u UJomc..u..OE-U ::r: U ::::I = ~ 0::: ..... cO .... o E- N ...... 0\ t"'l~ 0\ eo N N t'-- ...... oo~ .... t'-- N N~ - 0\ ..,. 00 0\ t'-- ..,. II"l N M ... u co "0 :l ro t>J) -5 ~ &. o e; ~ g: o N~ 8 t'--~ ..,. 0\ 0\ ..,.- ...... - o 10 N~ N l" ..,.~ ...... N o - .... 00 \0 .- o t'-- t"'l '-' ..-., 0\ 00 - '-' .- 0\ M ..,. '-' ..-., o - .... '-' ..-., o V'l ~ ..-., I"'- o - '-' .- o ..,. - '-' p u u: UJ o 0::: o '-' p u u: UJ o 0::: o '-' tI) ::> ...J c.. 0::: ::> tI) ...J ~ VJ u: UJ > 3 :> ::E ::> U VJ ::> ...J c.. 0::: :> V) ~ u VJ ti: ~ z ~ be;; - .!>:: ~ ~ U C "0 ~ 10 t"'l o - ~ M N - ..- U N ~ ~ - ~ - .0 'ij o ... :( ...,e: c,) .. .0 4.l ... U p::: !j 's o c 8 ttI 8 .. ::t ~ ^ - s::: u 00 e 8 S N ... co <"i:' C,) fll ClOU ;>- ..c- t-- ~ ~ 8 UJ'- N M~ '- e: 0 = ~ ;:: '= ,t:l ._ :::;I co ~ QU ~ s:::a:l N ~ II ~~ Wo .:: "- ~ lrl ~ ~ ~ - Iri N - '" ~ 8 < N ;,; ~ .S :0 :l Q = ... U ~ fll UJ V .5 :0 :::I Q '- ~.~ .: .; U fll "'< ~- o l3 ri~ :I: = en= <.0 O\u:l =..JO -<E ~u~ ,t:ltl)'" r::-_"l E-o~w UJ U Z j < Q:l tIJ tI) Z tIJ Q., >< UJ ~ uJ ;:J Z tIJ > tIJ p:.: o - o N 1.0000 t--oo ("'IOO_'<1"N lrl("'l-NlrlNlrl_No\ t--N-l.""l'<1" __ l.""l lrl~ I.O~ _ 8 N lrlg-t--II")-t--gN_ '<1" -N-Nf"l Nil") N-'-("'I'<1" o~- l.""l II") ~ 1.0- _ N~OOt--NO\t--OO\O o -Nt----O\__ t-- _l.""ll.""l 0\ l.""l '<1"~ II")~ ..-.. ~~8~ _Ot--- lio"! ~~ lrl~ - 0\ ~ t--0\t--1.00\t--0 NN....O\t---t-- l.""l("'l t-- N - --8'<1" =1.0 N ""~ .... C;; l.""l~"'; r= 8 t--0\"<t1.Ot--"<t0\ Nt--_t--I.O_N tf'lN 1.0 N ..:: ........ t--8~t--"<tNI.Ot--NOO M ,., N M _ lrl lrl - 00 OOOO-tf'lN V'l _ N~M~ O\g"<tt--O\OV'll.Oot-- N -NOO-("'I-v_"<t NI.OI.Otf'l- '<1" _ N~tf'l~ "l:l r= :::I ~ .........-IIIIc;_....~.........-III ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U fll uuuuuuuu;::::E-- r=r=r=s:::r=r=r=='i;'" u u u u u u u u ... fll OOOOOOOOE--O C' .~ 43 ~ l< ~ l<f)' ~ r= "" ... Q., ~ :l U uu~e ",g '" r=><fllO UU ~ ~~ ell ... _ > ;;- E- E-o = ~.::: 2 U ti: ~ ,^ u u >. u l< tI...... :l u >< ~. l< '" - .- fll t: . = "l:l fll ~~:;J g,l:!E-o::l S ~8E-o z e- 'g e ~ .~ 8 ~ ~ u : tIJ &. fllQ.,_ts... ~"'uO ~ou-;~;~s~:a~ -...-uO"'-r=-U~ p:.:Q.,~P::::r:tI.O-O>tI) u '; - en o e o ::t: t-- 0\ If'l.. '<1" ....OOMOOlrlNNOOO 00t--t--'<1"-_0\0\ 'OT-vNOO-VV"lMO\ ..,,-..4'" ("t')....f(IIIIIIII4,.. ...................... o I""l t--~ M .... -v"<t-OOOI.ONMI.OO 'OT1""lt--'OTt--t--1.00 l""l'OTO\OOMI""lNO\ .,.; ('f ......"' .....~ ...; V"l t-- t--~ N .... 1.0000"<T00t---MNO OOOI.O'OTI""lI""lM.... N~MI.OOOMN_OO ~ N.........- ................... N .... t';.. - .... MMOOOOOI.OO\t--O 1.O'OTV"l"<T0\000\_ OI""lMOONOO'lt-- .-;" ('""f" ...; ...-4" N 0'1 - ~ I""l-V"l"<t-MNOOOOO OO\O\NIrlN"<TO O\N~O\NO\OOI.O ..... 00 V"l - 00 0011")1.0 "<t-N"<tN-O V"l"<Tt--N-t---- t-- N 1.0_ 0\ N t-- t-- II") .... 1.0 & t-- -t--O"<t-"<t-"<tNO -O\V"lNt--Nt--_ 1.0 - M~ 0\ - 1.0 II") "<t .... '" '0 == &: < '" u _ u r= 'E u ==fl ~~ ~ueue ~ uSu ..... '- ...u... ~~: ~=~i)~ E-<>; u.2jCl43 ~ r~ "'=' ~ '; ~ ~ ..... ~ ..::; .g t: ~ '2 Z-C>.O Q.,ou=~ hi e.5 Q.,... e .t:: .....U"l:l8 ..."'= - e:: =::::.- u~;':::: ec; ""'u=o....... ::laU tIJOQ:lQ.,U:O~U :I: U ::l = o ~ P:: -; "0 E-- l"'- 0'1 ("'1_ - - N - V"l o~ - - N 1.0 O\~ "<t- o l"'-~ 00 lrl "<t- t--~ 1.0 M - 00 lrl~ N 1.0 OO~ "<t - u co '0 ::l Q:l co .5 .... fll ... &. o -; ~ {,b 8 N~ ("'I Irl - oo~ "<T N . 00 - N~ ("'I lrl - I.O~ - N "<T II") .... M~ 00 0\ ("'I tJti - 00 8 M -v "<T N~ ....... - 1.0 1.0 "<T ,~ M "<T N N~ N- .... - .lo: ;:t vi ;:t u = '0 U ~ ~ o - -- N N ... I""l N - -- U N ~ - 0- .... e., Irl 0 ..". 0\ M t-- N~ 0\ V'l -v -v ~ l"'- ""=- N~ t-- p U ti: UJ Cl P:: o '-' CI) ::> ..J Q., ~ ;:J CI) ..J ~ CI) ~ ...J -( ::> z z < p u - u. UJ Cl ~ o '-' CI') ::> .....J t:1. 0::: ::> CI') ,.J (j tI) u: ~ E:: :s ::> :::E a ~ u ... :::I o CI) ~ fll 'u o ~ 'ti ... fll U '" C) 0::: .~ e o r= o u t.:J .