Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Sorrento East PD Rezone Attch 4-7G~ ~ ~y . 19I ~~ `82 ~~~~i ~~~~~~/l IFOR DATE: TO: STAFF REPORT 30©~ X51 PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2010 Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-002 Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area F) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone Amendment, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps 7982 & 7983, and Amendments to Vesting Tentative Map 7652, 7653, 7654, 7655 & 7656 for Neighborhoods 6 through 11, Development Agreement Amendment, and adoption of a CEQA Addendum. Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Rezone Amendment, Site Development Review, new and amended Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, Amendment #1 to the Sorrento East Development Agreement, and a CEQA Addendum to reduce the number of dwelling units from 694 to 581. The proposed project would slightly reconfigure the approved street pattern, to change the product design from mostly attached single family housing to detached single family housing, and to add a sixth neighborhood. The Applicant's proposal increases parking, revises the development standards to conform to the new product type and introduces revised design guidelines for various neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a. Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. Resolution recommending the City Council adopt and Ordinance approving a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone amendment. c. Resolution approving Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps 7982 & 7983, and Amendments to Vesting Tentative Maps 7652-7656 for Neighborhoods 6 through 11. d. Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving an amended Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and SR Structured Lot Op 'on I, LLC egent Properties). . _... Submitted By: a 'wed By Consulting Planner Planning Manager COPIES TO: Applicant File Page 1 of 25 G:IPA#120081PA 08-002 Regents Land Inv Son'ento EastlPlanning CommissionlPCSR SORRENTO EAST Final.doc Attachment 4 DESCRIPTION: ~dt~.$~1 The proposed project, known as "Sorrento East Dublin Ranch Area F," (Sorrento East) is part of a project approved in 2005 as Sorrento at Dublin Ranch Area F East & Area F West (PA 04-042). The project is located within the Dublin Ranch in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Sorrento EastNVest was approved as a 105-acre project comprised of 1,112 units located north of Central Parkway, south of Gleason Drive, east of Brannigan Street, and west of Lockhart Street. Sorrento East and Sorrento West are separated by Grafton Street which runs north and south between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway. Sorrento East is the area of approximately 68 acres (excluding the elementary school) east of Grafton Street. i"~~ .~ rri ..~--- -~~A1: w~tS% - ~- . ,~' '7 U~iiLIN RAlf(~~ gItIOT: DUI3I.L'~' 1-580 VICINITY MAP .J ~:` A(iBtJN .~ Y ~~ ,,Mu °'% ,~„ ~: PR47ECt AREA Laxarxr srxerr A ox,~rrav 3 l s,xe~t °` .. -_ Lam.. The topography generally slopes from the north and northeast to the south and southwest. The elevation along Grafton Street falls approximately 65 feet. The project site has been mass graded pursuant to the existing entitlements and therefore is vacant. No plant materials or rock outcroppings exist on the site. Surrounding land uses include: (A) North (across Gleason Drive) -Verona, asingle-family low-density residential project within Dublin Ranch Area F. (B) South (across Central Parkway) 1) (portion of) Area G of Dublin Ranch -including: a) The Courtyards, amedium-high density residential community, and b) The Promenade (currently vacant), to be developed as a mixed-use "main street" feature for Dublin Ranch along the extension of Grafton Street. 2) (portion of} Area B of Dublin Ranch -developed as The Groves, ahigh-density residential neighborhood which incorporates Senior Citizen housing along with other affordable and market-rate multi-family housing. Page 2 of 25 (C) East (across Lockhart Street) -vacant land which is being developed as the City of Dublin Sports Park (Community Park). ~nZ~ ~, I (D) West (across Grafton Street) -Sorrento Area F West, medium-density residential and recreational uses, approved originally as Neighborhoods 1 through 5 of Sorrento at Dublin Ranch, with construction nearly complete. Background In 2005 the area south of Gleason Drive was subject to approval of a PD Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project known as Sorrento East & West (PA 04-042) (Ordinance No. 24-05). This approval also included a Site Development Review and a number of Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution 05-52) for a total of 1,112 units to be developed within ten neighborhoods representing different residential products. Sorrento West was approved as approximately 45 acres encompassed by Master Vesting Tentative Map 7641 and Vesting Tentative Maps 7642 through 7646 providing for 423 units (subsequently adjusted to 418 units) within Neighborhoods 1 through 5. Sorrento East was approved as approximately 80 acres encompassed by Master Vesting Tentative Map 7651 along with Vesting Tentative Maps 7652 through 7656 providing for 688 units (subsequently adjusted to 694 units) within Neighborhoods 6 through 10. Sorrento West is under construction and nearing completion of all 418 units. On October 2, 2007, the City approved a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and SR Structured Lot Option I, LLC for Sorrento East (Ord. 20-07). Currenf Application The current application includes a request for a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone Amendment, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps 7982 8~ 7983, and Amendments to Vesting Tentative Map 7652, 7653, 7654, 7655 & 7656 for Neighborhoods 6 through 11, Development Agreement Amendment, and adoption of a CEQA Addendum for Sorrento East. In general, the differences between the project approved in 2005 and the project currently proposed are described as follows: • Number of Units/Neighborhoods -The number of units for Sorrento East was approved at 694 units within five neighbofioods (Neighborhoods 6 through 10) which provided a variety of housing types. The current request proposes to construct 581 units within six neighborhoods (Neighborhood 6 through 11 }, resulting in an overall reduction of 113 units. • Neighborhood LayoutlReconfiguration - The previously approved project was built around a park in the easterly part of the site. Sorrento East is proposed to reorient the neighborhoods towards a centralized park. The new park configuration would improve usability, enhance visual and physical access, and allow for more effective grading. • Product Mix -The proposed project would increase the number of single family detached units from 11 % in the previously approved project to 88%. - The three configurations of the single-family detached residential units include: a) Paseo-Green Court, b) Front-Loaded Detached, and c) Alley-Loaded Detached. - The two forms of attached units are: a) Tuck-Under Townhouses and b) stacked flats within the townhouse structures. Page 3 of 25 • Floor Plans and Elevations - The (architectural styles) have been changed adopted previously. Like the previously be a maximum of 3 stories. • Access 8~ Circulation floor plans and exterior building elevations but still reflect the theme of an Italian hill town approved structures, the proposed units would ~~~~~~'~ Most interior streets would be realigned and incorporate sidewalks separated by parkways. Backbone streets, Capoterra Way and Lee Thompson Street, are proposed to be realigned to improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation within and through the project. The approved central open space element and pedestrian corridor in Neighborhood 8 would be enlarged to facilitate the pedestrian bridge and trail crossing over Grafton Street, connecting the neighborhoods and park space within Sorrento East to those in Sorrento West. • Recreation and Open Space Areas (Public and Private) Neighborhood Park gross acreage is proposed to be increased by 0.1 acre. A private recreation facility similar to Sorrento West is proposed to provide a similar amenity for the Sorrento East residents. • Grading ~ Infrastructure -Infrastructure layouts are proposed to be reconfigured to accommodate the new street and neighborhood designs. The grading concept is proposed to be modified to reflect the proposed changes in the site plan. Approved retaining walls are proposed to be replaced with slope banks to improve the appearance of streetscapes. ._ {, - . ~ _._ -~ ~- _ .~ - ~ .~ .. __. .. _._ .: ~ Y ~ ~~l7 Page 4 of 25 ANALYSIS: STAGE 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE - The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone reduces the total number of units for Sorrento East by 113 from 694 to 581. Therefore, the unit count for Sorrento East and West combined would be reduced from 1,112 units to 999 units. Under the PD zoning approved previously, the combined density of Sorrento East and West would be 10.59 units per acre. By reducing the number of units in Sorrento East as proposed to 581 units, the overall density of Sorrento East and West combined would be reduced to 9.7 units per acre. All units are intended to be sold as lots or condominiums. Table 1: Sorrento East and West -Area-wide Density Distribution Medium Density Residential includes rivate recreation area Acres Acres ross ~'~ net Units Density (gross) Density net Sorrento East 62.3 54.9 581 9.3 du./ac 10.6 du/ac. Sorrento West 41.1 418 10.2 du./ac Total combined/avera a 103.4 999 9.7 du./ac Notes: `" Based on new amended Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Site Development Review The area for Neighbofioods 6 through 10 of the previous approval would be reconfigured as Neighborhoods 6 through 11 under the project layout currently proposed, Table Z: Sorrento East -Neighborhood Summary PA 04-042 PA 08-002 Units Units Acres Acres Density Density (net) Neighborhood -Unit Typet't +/- fir (gross) (net) (gross) 6 -Detached/Green Court 75 +27 102 10.8 9.2 9.4 du/ac 11.1 du/ac 7 -Detached/Green Court 94 +1 95 10.0 8.5 9.5 du/ac 11.2 du/ac 8 -Detached/Green Court 148 -10 138 11.4 10.8 12.1 du/ac 12.8 du/ac 9 - TownhomesRuck-Under and/or Stacked Flats 117 -49 68 6.6 4.9 10.3 du/ac 13.9 du/ac 10 -Sin le Famil Detached 260 -148 112 14.9 13.2 7.5 du/ac 8.5 du/ac 11 -Sin le Famil Detached n/a +66 66 7.4 7.2 8.9 du/ac 9.2 du/ac Pedestrian Corridor 0 .6 .5 Communi Recreational Facili 0 .6 .6 Total 694 -113 581 62.3 54.9 Density 11.12 du/ac 9.3 du/ac 10.6 du/ac Notes: tai Unit Type is discussed below under Stage 2 PD Rezone c2- Acreage is inGuded as Medium Density Residential STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE -The Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone would amend Ordinance 24-05 and would address modifications to: 1) the overall layout and neighborhood configuration; 2) Development Standards/Regulations; 3) building size and areas; 4) access and circulation; and 5) system of open space, greenbelts, and public or common areas. The Stage 2 Development Plan most importantly addresses: * Residential Design Guidelines Development Regulations and Standards " Streetscape Lot sizes * Neighborhoods Building Heights * Residential Unit Types Private Open Space and Yard areas * Architectural Styles Parking Page 5 of 25 305 ~ ~ Residential Design Guidelines -Residential Design Guidelines are provided in the last 38 pages of the Stage 1 & Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone Amendment book, dated "December 18, 2009, included with Attachment 1. They address Building Form, Materials & Color and architectural details and treatments for each Residential product type in each Neighborhood. The emphasis is on offering an affordable development concept as an alternative to attached homes by utilizing: clustering, private open space and enhancement of units visible from adjacent streets. Streetscape -The streetscape theme including all forms of entry monuments, entry walls, pedestrian bridge, and street furniture will draw from various Italian elements relating back to classic landscape and hardscape design elements associated with Italian hill towns. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 1, Design Guidelines tab, page 1 thru 18). The focal point is the existing Pedestrian Bridge which connects Sorrento West with Sorrento East across Grafton Street (midway between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive) to the pedestrian corridors in each area. The landing of the pedestrian bridge in Sorrento East will include design element similar to those of the existing bridge such, as stucco veneer walls, concrete railings, and caps. The design incorporates several retaining walls to accommodate the height difference between the bridge and the pedestrian corridor. (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Landscape Architecture tab, Page L6.0). Neighborhoods - A general description of each of the six neighborhoods (including housing type, floor plans, and available architectural styles) is provided with the discussion under the Site Development Review. A comparison of the past and currently requested approvals is summarized, as follows: Table 3: Sorrento East -Past and Proposed Unit Type and Distribution PA 04-042 (previous approval) No. of % of PA 08-002 (proposed) No. of % of Units Total Units Total 6 Detached 2-story 75 du 11 % Detached 2 & 3-story 102 du 18% Cluster homes Paseo- Green Court cluster homes 7 Tuck-under Townhomes g4 du 14% Detached 2 t3< 3-story 95 du 16% Paseo- Green Court cluster homes $ Alley-loaded Townhomes 148 du 21 % Detached 2 & 3-story 138 du 24% Paseo-Green Court cluster homes Large tuck-under 5 l~ 6-unit buildings of attached 9 Townhomes 117 du 17% Townhouses and Stacked Flats 68 du 12% with Tuck-under Arkin 10 Multi-level Buildings 260 du 37% 2 8~ 3-Story Single Family Detached 112 du 19% above Podium structure Front-Loaded and Alle -Loaded 11 n/a 2 & 3-story Single Family Detached 66 du 11 Front-Loaded Total 694 du 100% 581 du 100% Residential Unit Types -Sorrento East would create a community predominantly of single - family detached residential units/lots. With the previous approval, only the 75 units in Neighborhood 6 were proposed for 2-story single-family detached residences arranged in clusters of five units. The detached residential component represented only 11 % of the previously approved project. Currently, 513 units (or 88%) of the 581 units are proposed as detached with 68 units all within Neighborhood 9 (or 12% of the total) to be built as attached townhouses or stacked flats. Page 6 of 25 The 513 detached single-family units would be constructed in three different configurations. These neighborhoods and home types offer a range of home sizes, affordability and amenities. The detached units provide increased private open space. The unit types are briefly described, as follows: Detached • PASEO-G1'2EEN COURT -Green courts or cluster courts are designed to have dwelling unit entries accessed from a common central green space or paseo that is separated from vehicular traffic (Neighborhoods 6, 7 & 8). • FRONT-LOADED DETACHED -These homes face onto a neighborhood street with garage access taken from the street (Neighborhoods 10 & 11). • ALLEY-LOADED DETACHED -These homes face onto a Green Court or Paseo with garage access taken from alley along the rear of the units (Neighborhood 10). Attached • TOWNHOUSE -The townhouses are attached 3-story units in groups of five or six units with at least one common wall and ground level tuck under parking accessed from the rear of the units (Neighborhood 9). Living space is in a flat or split pad configuration. • STACKED FLAT -The stacked flats would be located on flat or split pads within the townhouse or attached unit structures. Approximately 36 units in Neighborhood 9 are proposed as stacked flats (multi-level), and 32 are townhouses with ground floor access and multi-level walk-up space. Architectural Styles -Architectural styles and color palettes were presented with the original approval of Sorrento East and West which were intended to establish standards for neighborhood quality and identity. With the underlying theme of an Italian hill town, architectural styles were assigned to the Neighborhoods in Sorrento East, as follows: Neighborhood 6 = Lombardy, Neighborhood 7 =Tuscan, Neighborhood 8 =Roman, Neighborhood 9 =Rustic Tuscan, and Neighborhood 10 =Roman. The current project proposes the following architectural styles grouped by Neighborhood and residential product type which are described in the Architectural Styles beginning on pages 28 and ending on page 38 at the end of the Design Guidelines tab of Exhibit B to Attachment 1. Table 4: Architectural Styles Detached Single Family Residential: Att h d Paseo-Green Court (cluster homes) Front or Alley Loaded ac e Neighborhoods 6 & 7 Neighborhood 8 Neighborhoods 10 Sz 11 ~ Neighborhood 9 (A) Lombardy (A) Florentine (A) Country Italian Rustic Tuscan (B) Tuscany (B) Veneto (B) Village Italian (C) Provence (C) Romagna (C) Rustic Italian (D) Coastal Italian (10 only) Page 7 of 25 ~a~~~ ~~ I Development Regulations/Standards -The matrix of Development Regulations/Standards for the six neighborhoods proposed for Sorrento East (Neighborhoods 6 through 11) have been identified by the unit type. The matrix of Development Regulations is included after the "Land Use Criteria" tab in the Planned Development Booklet (See Exhibit B to Attachment 1). Even though the currently proposed plan does not include Podium structures, the Development Regulations for this type of building are included. if podium structures are again contemplated in later phases, only a new or amended Site Development Review and tract map would be required rather than a subsequent amendment to the Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning Ordinance. Lot Size -The standard adopted previously established a minimum lot size of 1,800 square feet for the 75 detached single-family cluster homes in Neighborhood 6. Under the development regulations currently proposed, the detached single family homes in Neighborhoods 10 and 11 (178 units) would have a minimum lot size of 2,100 square feet. The Paseo-Green Court cluster homes in Neighborhoods 6, 7, and 8 (335 units) would have a minimum lot size of 1,300 square feet. Building Heights -Maximum building height within the Sorrento East Project is 3 stories for all detached single-family units and 3 stories + garage or living quarters in basement or below grade due to slope contours. While the stories permitted have increased, the height in feet is the same or slightly less than previously adopted. Private Open Space/Yard Area -Private open space is required for residential products. Availability of private outdoor lifestyle space is one objective for modifying the plan and increasing the number of detached units. The Development Regulations establish the minimum area and dimensions for that space. All detached units have private yard area. Exterior private space for the attached units in Neighborhood 9 is provided by patios and/or decks. Table 5: Private Yard Area Nei hborhood # and T e Area T e Minimum Dimension/S uare feet 6, 7.8 -Green Court Yard 8 feet or 100 s uare feet 9 -Attached Deck 6 feet X 5 feet/30 s uare feet min. 10,11 -Individual lot Yard 8 feet X 10 feet/150 s uare feet min. Yard/private open space will vary based on site specific condition. However, the typical yard/private open space would exceed these requirements as shown on Table 3 (page 8) of Exhibit B to Attachment 1, PD Amendment tab. Parking - As with the prior approval, the project parking standard is based on the Zoning Ordinance: Table 6: Required Parking (Per Chapter 8.76 City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance) Parkin - er unit: Parkin Guest Parkin Sin le famil unit 2 covered s ace ma be tandem 1 s ace ma be on street Multi-family townhouse or condominium unit N h. 9 onl 2 covered spaces 0.5 spaces (may be on street) Each unit is provided with a minimum of two covered spaces. Page 8 of 25 ~o~s~r, ~sl Guest parking spaces are primarily provided: 1) curbside along the public streets; 2) within common area such as alley ways, motorcourts, and private streets; and 3) on private lots, typically in the driveway or other designated paved area on a lot. Guest parking on public streets or in common areas would not be assignable. Excluding guest parking spaces on private lots, about 85% of the required guest parking is provided within the public right-of-way and 15% is within common area. The parking spaces on driveways or private lots provide additional guest parking in excess of the requirement. The parking space figures in the following table reflect the plans submitted with the application. Table 7: Parking for Sorrento East by Neighborhood Neighborhood Units Required Spaces Provided Spaces Guest Covered Guest Total Req'd Covered for Units on-street (public) on lots on HOA (private street Total Guest Total Nei hborhood 6 102 204 102 306 204 96 0 6 102 306 Nei hborhood 7 95 190 95 285 190 83 0 12 95 285 Nei hborhood 8 138 276 138 414 276 132 20 6 158 434 Nei hborhood 9 68 136 34 170 136 60 0 8 68 204 Neighborhood 10 112 224 112 336 224 78 73 34 185 409 Neighborhood 11 66 132 66 198 132 52 117 14 183 315 TOTAL 581 1,162 547 1,709 1,162 501 210 80 791 1,953 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The Site Development Review addresses: Architectural Theme and Design Concept, Descriptions of each Neighborhood, Architectural Styles, Floor Plans (exterior elevations), Landscape Architecture; Entries, Streetscape, and other items related to development of the area. All design elements are intended to serve the purposes of enhancing functionality and insuring an attractive environment. Findings are required in order for the Planning Commission to make their decision. Those findings are included in Attachment 2, Resolution of Approval, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, Page 2. The Applicant has submitted three large spiral-bound sets of plans labeled "Site Development Review Amendment" Book 1 and Book 2 dated December 18, 2009 and "Project Imagery" dated February 22, 2010 included as Exhibits A, B and C to Attachment 2. Book 1 includes plans related to the Project site overall, including plotting, community layout, and extensive Landscape Architecture (including streetscape and design and functional elements related to the site's topography). Book 2 includes architectural plans for building placement per neighborhood, floor plans, elevations, and the private recreational facility. Book 3 is an imagery book showing 3 dimensional renderings of the proposed project. Page 9 of 25 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i Architectural Theme/Design Concept -The neighborhoods of Sorrento East capture the essence of an Italian hillside community with entwining villages and numerous intimate pedestrian pathways connecting the homes. Due to the existing topography of the site, the Sorrento project has been designed to overlook the proposed Promenade village center to the south. The buildings will be sited to conform with the topography of the sloping hillside and to transition across variations in grade and elevation. The layout provides an opportunity for utilizing the architecture to support adjacent properties and minimize overgrading and the use of retaining walls. Architectural elevations which emphasize elements typical of Italian hill towns in various styles and regions are proposed to further represent the theme. The architectural scale and style are intended to blend in with the existing adjacent neighborhoods of Sorrento West. Varying roof configurations and massing would be employed to reflect the flavor of the hillside villages in Italy. Also, special requirements would be established as part of the SDR approval for enhanced elevations at the perimeter edges for homes mostly along public streets, at particular corners, or in other high visibility locations. The total of enhanced elevations for the detached single-family units throughout Sorrento East is 86 or 17%. Neighborhoods -The following is a narrative description of the six neighborhoods, housing products and architectural styles currently proposed for Sorrento East: ._. .:- . _ __. _. ~~ Neighborhood 6: Neighborhood 6 is approximately the same size (10+ acres) as approved previously and is located in the same general area north of Palermo Way, south of Gleason Drive. The units are laid out as 2 and 3-story homes in clusters of approximately six detached homes which take access from motorcourts connected to Vittoria Loop. Under the currently proposed plan, building entries would be oriented towards a paseo or green court. Floor plans Page 10 of 25 ~1~ ~ ~5 l range from 2,275 square feet to 2,390 square feet with three plans having 3-story options. Plan 1X offers a 3rd floor home office and/or guest suite. Plans 2 and 4 have a recessed front porch. Plan 2 has a guest suite off of the entry separate from other living quarters. Plan 3 includes a ground floor attached guest casita off of the courtyard, and Plan 4 has access to a front courtyard with a dedicated entry. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 2 ,Book 2 of 2, Neighborhood 6 tab). Floor Plans: 4 Plans + 3 variations (Plans 1, 1X, 2, 3, 3X, 4 & 4X) Color Schemes: 14 Architectural Styles: (A) Lombardy, (B) Tuscany & (C) Provence Architecture in Neighborhood 6 -The three architectural styles for Neighborhoods 6 & 7 have common elements and features specific to each style. All feature light-textured stucco exteriors; barrel tiles on the roof, recessed garage doors, and a variety of rich and earthy colors with lighter or darker contrasting colors for trim and accent elements. Facades for all styles of Plan 1 in Neighborhood 6 feature a "Juliet" balcony. Enhanced elevations for all styles of Plan 3 in Neighborhood 6 include upper floor projection with corbelled supports. Table 8A: Architectural Styles -Neighborhoods 6 Neighborhood 6 (A) Lombardy 41 (B)Tuscany 39 (C) Provence 22 Total 102 Enhanced Elevations 16 16% Neighborhood 7: Neighborhood 7 remains approximately 10 acres and currently is proposed for 95 detached homes in clusters of approximately 6 to 8 units. Neighborhood 7 also lies north of Palermo Way and south of Gleason Drive near the intersection with Lockhart Street. As with Neighborhood 6, the motorcourts in Neighbofiood 7 connect to Vittoria Loop. The 2 and 3-story homes are oriented towards a paseo and arranged to address the slope. The floor plans in Neighborhood 7 range from 1,695 square feet to 2,605 square feet and run slightly smaller than the units in Neighborhood 6. Third floor space mostly provides bonus room or extra bedroom options. Plan 3 provides covered parking in the form of 2 single-car garages. Plan 4 provides a recessed front porch. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 2, Book 2 of 2, Neighborhood 7 tab). Floor Plans: 4 Plans + 4 variations (Plans 1, 1 X, 2, 2X, 3, 3X, 4 & 4X) Color Schemes: 14 Architectural Styles: (A) Lombardy, (B) Tuscany & (C) Provence Architecture in Neighborhoods 7 -Window grids in Neighborhood 7 accent mullions in the upper portions, and window patterns for all three styles in Neighborhood 7 may enhance dual front windows with decorative columns or posts. "Juliet" balconies are not a feature of the styles in Neighborhood 7. Specific architectural styles are: Lombardy, Tuscany and Provence. For a detailed discussion of design elements see Attachment 1 Exhibit B, Design Guidelines tab, Architectural Styles, Pages 29 and 30. Page 11 of 25 Neighborhood 7 (A) Lombardy 31 (B)Tuscany 33 (C) Provence 31 Total 95 Enhanced Elevations 6 6% Neighborhood 8: Neighborhood 8 is proposed as 138 single-family detached units in clusters ranging from 4 to 8 homes. This neighborhood is bisected by the pedestrian corridor and located between the landing of the Grafton Street Bridge on the west and the Recreation Center to the east. The four floor plans are the smallest of the detached residential product. Floor plans range from 1,610 square feet 2,105 square feet. Plans 1 and 2 are three floors without a 2-level option. Both Plans 1 and 2 include a casita (separate attached guest quarters) with bath or studio at the garage level. Both Plans are arranged with bedrooms and a laundry room on the third floor. Plans 3 and 4 may be 2-stories; however, each has a third story option (Plans 3X and 4X, respectively). Plan 4 provides covered parking in the form of 2 single-car garages. On- site circulation is accommodated by access easements across individual lots. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 2, Book 2 of 2, Neighborhood 8 tab). Floor Plans: 4 Plans + 2 variations (Plans 1, 2, 3, 3X, 4 & 4X) Color Schemes: 14 Architectural Styles: (A) Florentine, (B) Veneto & (C) Romagna Architecture in Neighborhood 8 -The smaller homes in Neighborhood 8 include elements that are specific to three-story structures and vertical living quarters. All have exterior materials of light textured stucco, flat concrete roof tiles, recessed garage doors, and a variety of rich and earthy colors with lighter or darker contrasting colors for trim and accent elements. Enhanced elevations for Plan 4 and 4X of all styles include a second floor French door with "Juliet" balcony. The three architectural styles specific to this Neighborhood are Florentine, Veneto and Romagna. For a detailed discussion of design elements, see Attachment 1 Exhibit B, Design Guidelines tab, Architectural Styles, Pages 32, 33 and 34. Table 8C: Architectural Styles -Neighborhood 8 Table 8B: Architectural Styles -Neighborhoods 7 ~ 1 (~ l} 5 ~ Neighborhood 8 (A) Florentine 49 (B) Veneto 45 (C) Romagna 44 Total 138 Enhanced Elevations 20 14% Page 12 of 25 ~~ .31 ~ t~ "' ~ ~ I Neighborhood 9: Twelve buildings of 5 or 6 units would allow 68 units currently pr~posed in five different building configurations facing either Central Parkway or Giovanni Way between Grafton Street and Lee Thompson Street. The section of Neighborhood 9 facing Central Parkway maintains the attached townhouse product along with a number of stacked flats similar in architecture to Neighborhood 4, Siena in Sorrento West. This will maintain a consistent streetscape along Central Parkway for the middle portion of Sorrento. Plans 1 and 2 are walk- ups. Plans 3, 5, and 6 have a third floor bonus/loft option. Plans 4, 5, and 6 have ground floor flex space adjacent to the garage. In Plans 5 and 6, this space may be used as extra parking or vehicular access would be taken from a central alley way accessible from Giovanni Way running between the two rows of buildings. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 2, Book 2 of 2, Neighborhood 9 tab). Floor Plans: 6 Plans + 4 variations (Plans 1, 2, 2L, 3, 3L, 4, 5, 5L, 6 & 6L) Color Schemes: 4 Architectural Style: Rustic Tuscan Architecture in Neighborhood 9 -The attached units in Neighborhood 9 would be built in the Rustic Tuscan style. For the multi-family structures, additional elements would include ared- tiled roof with hip and gable structures. Building facades would be fully articulated responding to the units within and exterior segments clad in manufactured stone. Ground level areas would feature recessed entries behind arched porches. Upper levels would present balconies enclosed by metal railings, gable end decoration, and windows embellished with decorative shutters. Neighborhood 10: It is proposed for 112 single-family detached units with gated access. Neighborhood 10 provides for six floor plans, ranging in size from 2,320 square feet to 3,104 square feet. Plans 1, 2, 3, and 4 are alley-loaded. Plans 5, 5X, and 6 are front-loaded with garage access at the front of the unit. All plans have a front entry porch. Plans 2, 3, and 5 provide third story options. Plans 1 through 4 have deep front porches and are arranged with a private outdoor patio between the building and the side lot line. The private patio for Plans 5 and 6 is situated within the rear yard. All internal streets would be private. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 2, Book 2 of 2, Neighborhood 10 tab). Floor Plans: 6 Plans + 3 variations (Plans Color Schemes: 5 Architectural Style: (A) County Italian, Italian 1, 2, 2X, 3, 3X, 4, 5, 5X & 6) (B) Village Italian, (C) Rustic Italian & (D) Coastal Architecture in Neighborhood 10 -The single family detached units in Neighborhoods 10 & 11 are designed with provincial or village themes. All have light textured and light colored stucco exteriors with light trim and dark accents that contrast the main exterior color. The Country and Rustic Italian style have concrete S-tiles roof tiles. The Village and Coastal Italian styles have flat concrete roof tiles. Both Country and Rustic Italian styles feature decorative column details in Neighborhood 10. All elevations for each style in Neighborhood 10 are presented as front- loaded with garage access at the front of the home, or alley-loaded with garage access at the rear of the home taken from a private street. All front-loaded plans in Neighborhood 10 have recessed garages. Page 13 of 25 3~ ~~ Table 8D: Architectural Styles -Neighborhoods 10 j ~ '~~ ~ Neighborhood 10 (A) Country Italian 31 (B) Village Italian 26 (C) Rustic Italian 38 (D) Coastal Italian 17 Total 112 Enhanced Elevations 26 23% Neighborhood 11: Neighborhood 11 is a 7.4-acre area created from within the Neighborhood 9 boundaries approved by the previous plan. Neighborhood 11 is located between Capoterra Way and Giovanni Way which provide access to private streets. The current plan proposes 66 detached single family units. The floor plans in this neighborhood range from 2,078 square feet to 2,855 square feet, and all are front-loaded. Plans 1, 3, and 4 have front entry porches. Plan 2 is oriented with side entry and office/powder room off of the entry. All Plans have private yard at the rear. All rear elevations along Lee Thompson Street would be enhanced. (See Exhibit B to Attachment 2, Book 2 of 2, Neighborhood 11 tab). Floor Plans: 4 + 2 variations (Plans 1, 2, 3, 3X, 4 & 4X) Color Schemes: 5 Architectural Style: (A) County Italian, (B) Village Italian, (C) Rustic Italian & (D) Coastal Italian Architecture in Neighborhoods 11 -The single family detached units in Neighborhoods 10 & 11 are designed with provincial or village themes. All have light textured and light colored stucco exteriors with light trim and dark accents that contrast the main exterior color. The Country and Rustic Italian style have concrete S-tiles roof tiles. The Village and Coastal Italian styles have flat concrete roof tiles. All Plans in Neighborhood 11 are front-loaded. Plans 1, 3, and 4 in Neighborhood 11 have recessed garages. Plan 2, with aside-loaded entry, does not. Architectural details specific to each style are Country Italian, Village Italian, Rustic Tuscan (Italian) and Coastal Italian. For a detailed discussion of design elements, see Attachment 1 Exhibit B, Design Guidelines tab, Architectural Styles, pages 35, 36, 37 and 38. Table 8E: Architectural Styles -Neighborhoods 11 Neighborhood 11 (A) Country Italian 22 (B) Village Italian 19 (C) Rustic Italian 25 0 Total 66 Enhanced Elevations 18 27% Page 14 of 25 Floor Plans - A total of 28 floor plans are available within Sorrento East with 18 options or variations on the basic plans. Neighborhood 9 offers the most floor plans with 6 plans and 4 variations. Neighborhood 8 offers the least with 4 plans and 2 variations. The largest floor plans are Plans 2X and 3X (3-story plans} in Neighborhood 10, the detached homes. The smallest plans and the fewest options are the Green Court cluster homes in Neighborhood 8 and stacked flats in Neighborhood 9. All of the units have at least two bedrooms. All of the units are provided with two parking spaces in a private garage. A number of floor plans are accommodated in each neighborhood. Some flexibility in plotting has been provided to interchange floor plans and architectural styles provided that a minimum percentage remains as shown in the approved plans. To maintain variety in the street scene, the following standards would be required: • In Neighborhoods 6, 7, and 8, two and three story versions of a floor plan may be interchangeable as long as at least 20% are constructed as the 3-story plan (Plans 1, 1X, 3, 3X, 4, and 4X). • In Neighborhood 9, at least 50% of the buildings along Central Parkway must be constructed as 3 stories (Plans 2, 3, 5 and 6). • In Neighborhood 10, a minimum of 10% of Plans 2, 3, and 5 must be 3-story homes (Plans 2X, 3X, and 5X). • Neighborhood 11 also requires a 20% minimum of 3-story homes for Plans 3 and 4 (Plans 3X and4X). Table 9 is a summary of floor plans: Table 9: Floor Plans -Unit Summary by Neighborhood Neighborhood Floor Plan Unit Size w/o ara e Bedrooms Bathrooms Options/Flex Area No. of Units Nei hborhood 6 1 2,275 sf 3 2.5 DeNBonus 17 du 4 Floor Plans 1X 2,920 sf 3 3.5 DeNBonus/O t. Bdr/Office 17 du + 3 o tions/variations 2 2,285 sf 4 4 Bonus/Office/Loft 35 du 102 Units 3 2,345 sf 3 4.5 LofUGuest Casita 9 du 3X 2,815 sf 3 5.5 Loft/Guest Casita 8 du 4 2,390 sf 3 2.5 Office/Bonus 8 du 4X 2,920 sf 3 3.5 Office/2 Bonus 8 du Nei hborhood 7 1 1,695 sf 3 2.5 Tech Area/Loft 20 du 4 Floor Plans 1X 2,255 sf 3 3.5 Tech Area/Loft/Bonus 23 du + 4 options/variations 2 2,020 sf 4 2.5 Office 7 du 95 Units 2X 2,450 sf 4 3.5 Loft/Bonus 8 du 3 1,995 sf 4 3 Loft 10 du 3X 2,605 sf 5 4 Bonus 12 du 4 2,300 sf 4 3 Tech Area/Loft 8 du 4X 2,860 sf 4 4 DenlTech Area/Loft/Bonus 7 du Neighborhood 8 1 1,770 sf 3 4 Loft 28 du Page 15 of 25 ~,~ ° P Neighborhood Floor Plan Unit Size w/o garage Bedrooms Bathrooms Options/Flex Area No. of Units 4 Floor Plans 2 1,860 sf 2 2.5 Office 27 du + 2 options/variations 3 1,610 sf 3 2.5 - 21 du 138 Units 3X 2,100 sf 3 3.5 Bonus 22 du 4 1,635 sf 3 2.5 - 19 du 4X 2,105 sf 3 3.5 Bonus 21 du Nei hborhood 9 1 2,039 sf 2 2.5 Bonus 12 du 6 Floor Plans 2 1,980 sf 3 2 Bonus 4 du + 4 options/variations 2L 2,535 sf 3 3 Bonus 8 du 68 Units 3 1,856 sf 3 2.5 - 4 du • Plans 1 thru 3L 3L 2,483 sf 3 2.5 Bonus 8 du are Stacked Flats 4 2,486 sf 3 2 Office 12 du 5 1,934 sf 3 2 - 4 du • Plans 4 thru 6L 5L 2,514 sf 3 2.5 Bonus 8 du are tuck-under 6 2,182 sf 3 3 Office 2 du Townhouses 6L 2,858 sf 3 3 Office/Bonus 6 du Nei hborhood 10 1 2,320 sf 3 2.5 Bonus 13 du 6 Floor Plans 2 2,469 sf 4 3.5 - 10 du + 3 o lions/variations 2X 3,026 sf 4 3.5 Bonus 8 du 112 Units 3 2,502 sf 4 3 O t. Bedroom 14 du 3X 3,104 sf 4 3 O t. Bedroom or Bonus 9 du 4 2,566 sf 4 3 O t. Bedroom or Bonus 23 du 5 2,384 sf 3 3.5 - 11 du 5X 2,907 sf 3 3.5 O t. Bedroom or Bonus 9 du 6 2,634 sf 3 2.5 O t. Bedroom or Bonus 15 du Nei hborhood 11 1 2,303 sf 4 2.5 - 16 du 4 Floor Plans 2 2,311 sf 3 2.5 Office/Bonus 14 du + 2 o lions/variations 3 2,078 sf 3 2.5 - du 66 Units 3X 2,603 sf 3 2.5 Opt. Bedroom/Bath or Bonus/.5 bath 17 du 4 2,245 sf 3 2.5 O t. Bedroom or Loft du 4X 2,855 sf 3 2.5 O t. Bedroom/Bath 19 du Total No. of Plans 28 +18 0 lions 46 laps 581 du LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Landscaping/Landscape Plan & Concept, Open Space ~ Plant Materials (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Landscape Architecture tab). Landscaping serves not only as a physical buffer, but also as a visual separation between uses. A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted which is consistent with the Landscape & Open Space Guidelines/Standards which addresses entries, streetscapes and is described in the Stage 2 PD above. It also includes a palette of plant materials. Based upon the Italian hill town theme, the plant palette emphasizes the use of Italian cypress and olive trees. The character of each neighborhood is accentuated with plant materials that correspond to the architecture of the region represented on the building exteriors. However, native and non-native plant materials also are part of the palette. All shrubs and groundcover have been selected for compatibility with the use of recycled water for irrigation. Page 16 of 25 Entries 3 (~ ~ ~S I A hierarchy of entry monuments for community entries in Sorrento East is proposed that are consistent with those in Sorrento West. (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Landscape Architecture tab, pages L3.0, L4.0 and L5.0). Entry landscaping includes drought tolerant planting placed to accentuate the low stone walls. Beyond the walls, formal rows of evergreen trees provide a dense canopy and define the site while shrubs create a layering effect. Flowering ground cover is proposed to topple over the low veneered walls. Neighborhood entrances and other destinations are marked by enhanced pavement in the intersections and concrete bands, as well as short pilasters and flowering accent trees. Mailboxes are proposed to be housed in mailbox stations or kiosks that reflect the style of architecture. The proposed location of the kiosks is shown on page L.13.0 Book 1 of 2, Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Landscape tab. Streetscape Trees, shrubs, and other landscape materials will be associated with the hierarchy of entries, streets, and neighborhoods. Street trees with large canopies are proposed for shading and visual relief while taller, more vertical trees are proposed adjacent to buildings in courtyards for providing scale and offering perspective to building mass. Vertical trees also are utilized as focal points for pedestrian links, trails, corridors and paseos. Paseos A feature of this project is the landscaped treatment of the building entries that face onto paseo or green courts. The paseos are enhanced by paseo gates and low stucco or stone veneered walls with concrete caps. (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Landscape Architecture tab, pages L17.0 thru L64.0). Stone pilasters are used to identify entries. A focal specimen tree will be placed at the end of each paseo that does not connect to another neighborhood. Specimen trees will be in low stucco-walled planters. Paseos that provide access between two streets will be identified with vine-covered metal arbors at several places along the walkway. Alleys A variety of retaining walls will serve the Front-Loaded and Alley Loaded Detached single-family lots unique to the slope characteristics and will be used to define yard areas. Private yard areas are enclosed by a stucco veneered wall facing the street while wooden good neighbor fences separate yards on interior lot lines. Patio walls in Neighborhood 10 along Central Parkway will be stucco veneered walls 3'/z feet high with precast concrete cap. Similar walls will be offered as optional at the front of homes along the paseos in Neighborhood 10. Pilasters, Walls & Fences A common theme element already in use in Sorrento West and an established precedent is the pre-cast concrete stone-clad pilaster with concrete cap. For the attached units in Neighborhood 9, the steps to the entries facing Central Parkway will have low walls with stone veneer pilaster and concrete caps which reflect the character of Neighborhood 4 of Sorrento West. Retaining walls with rounded caps would be placed to Page 17 of 25 support varying grades between buildings. are proposed in the alleyway at even consistency with Sorrento West. Street Furniture Enhanced paving in the form of concrete unit pavers increments to provide interest, visual relief and The plans submitted also include a number of street furniture items which would be installed in public or common access areas. See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Sheets L94.0, L95.0 and L96.0, Landscape tab. These items include: benches, lighting, trash receptacles, lighted and unlighted bollards, mailbox stations, signage, and other pedestrian amenities. Other Site Development Review Items Traffic/Circulation -All streets within the project will be public streets. Private streets are located in Neighborhoods 10 and 11 and comprise the alleys, lanes, and motorcourt areas that provide access to the garages. Neighborhood 10 is proposed to be a gated community (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Landscape tab, page L90.0). There is one other gated community in Dublin Ranch; Neighborhood A-1, Pinnacles developed by Toll Brothers. Pinnacles is comprised of 111 Single Family Homes on large lots. Gleason Drive along the south side between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road, as well as Lockhart Street between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway is flanked on the east side by an Open Space/Stream corridor/Multi-use trail, which serves as natural drainage. The 12 foot trail beginning at Turnberry Drive and Fallon Road in Area A of Dublin Ranch will be extended along Gleason Drive and Lockhart Street. No vehicular or pedestrian entry points to Sorrento East are planned or provided from Gleason Drive along the north. Two existing traffic circles are located in Grafton Street at Palermo Way and Capoterra Way. Corridors, Trails & Pedestrian Circulation -The project has been designed to create an environment that will encourage pedestrian activity. A significant feature of this Project is a central east-west pedestrian corridor bisecting Neighborhood 8 which links Sorrento East community recreation facility, Neighborhood Park, and Elementary School to the open space pedestrian corridor, Neighborhood Square, and community recreation facility in Sorrento West. (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Landscape tab, pages L2.0, L6.0 thru L9.1). The corridor and varying outdoor uses support the adjacent Neighborhood 8 with low rolled-cap stucco-veneer wall. Several gathering areas, gardens, and focal points are located along the walkway within the area west of the recreation center. An 8-foot wide concrete trail runs through the corridor in a formal pattern starting with the existing bridge landing through the recreation center out to Lee Thompson Street. The pedestrian pathway will be illuminated in the evening by round metal light bollards which will match the bollards in Sorrento West. The corridor also will include lawn area, bocce ball court, wooden pergolas, and seating. The corridor would be lined with groves of olive trees and cypress trees and other landscaping which would remain verdant year round. Multi-use trails along Grafton Street, Lockhart Street, and Gleason Drive will link the community to regional trail system. Private Recreation Facility -The private recreation facility site of 1.1 acres includes .6 acre for the facility and .5 acres for the pedestrian corridor which connects to Grafton Street. (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2 [Book 1 of 2] Landscape tab, page L10.0). The placement serves to conveniently centralize recreational opportunities. The site plan includes the indoor recreation Page 18 of 25 areas, as well as the community pool and other outdoor recreation areas. For the proposed plan, comparable building area would be provided in two structures totaling approximately 4,760 square feet. A clubhouse of approximately 2,670 square feet includes a great room, kitchen facilities, lounge area, and restroom. The fitness building is approximately 2,090 square feet including exercise rooms and restrooms. The building's floor space is confined to a single level. However, high ceilings and other exterior architectural elements present a greater scale. Both buildings are designed in the Tuscany style exterior in keeping with the architectural theme. (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 2 of 2, Recreation Building tab). Public Art -The proposed project is subject to applicable provisions of Section 8.58 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance which establishes requirements for installation by the project developer for public art on the project Site. This requirement also is stated as a Condition of Approval for the Site Development Review. A Public Art Opportunities Plan has been submitted (See Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Book 1 of 2, Landscape tab, pages L97.0 & L98.0) which-shows potential locations. All public art installations are subject to a recommendation by the City's Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission, a Public Art Compliance Report, and adherence to an agreement. TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS -Previously, Sorrento East was approved with a Master Vesting Tentative Maps (Tract 7651) and Tentative Maps for each of the five neighborhoods as follows: Table 10: Previous) A roved Vestin Tentative Tract Maps for Sorrento East Area/Neighbor- hood Tract Description Acres Area F East No. 7651 71.2 ac Nei hbofiood 6 No. 7652 Small Lot Subdivision 8.0 ac Nei hbofiood 7 No. 7653 Condominiums 8.6 ac Nei hbofiood 8 No. 7654 Condominiums 10.6 ac Nei hborhood 9 No. 7655 Condominiums 11.0 ac Nei hborhood 10 No. 7656 Condominiums 11.6 ac A Final Map based on Tentative Map 7651 created the 10+ acre elementary school site. The new Master Vesting Tentative Map for Sorrento East is Vesting Tentative Map 7982, and the new Vesting Tentative Map for Neighborhood 11 would be Vesting Tentative Map 7983 (See Attachment 2 Exhibit D, "Amendment Vesting Tentative Maps"). The maps approved for Neighborhoods 6 through 10 as shown above would be amended as follows: Table 11: Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps for Sorrento East Area/Neighbor- Tract Description Units Acres No. of Parcels hood Sorrento East No. 7982 581 units 55.0* ac 1 - 10 Parcel 1 No. 7652 Detached Single Family 102 units 8 6 ac 1 - 102 + HOA Nei hborhood 6 Residential - Motorcourts . Parcel 2 No. 7653 Detached Single Family 95 units 8 0 ac 1 - 95 + HOA Nei hborhood 7 Residential - Motorcourts . Parcel 3 north Detached Single Family portion of No. 7654 Residential -Easements 138 units 4.3 ac 1 - 38 Nei hborhood 8 Parcel 4 No 7655 Condominiums 68 units 4 2 ac Parcel A 1 - 12 ~ Nei hborhood 9 . _ rivate alle . . HOA alle Page 19 of 25 ~ (~ ~~ Parcel 5 Detached Single Family A - J Neighborhood 10 No. 7656 Residential-Private 112 units 12.6 ac 1 - 112 ~ private Streets streets Parcel 6 Detached Single Family private Neighborhood 11 No. 7983 Residential- Private 66 units 6.0 ac 1 - 66 Streets streets Parcel 7 Recreation Center _ 0 6 ac Recreation Center No. 7982 . Parcel 8 Neighborhood Park - 5 0 nei hborhood Park No. 7982 . ac Parcel 9 south Detached Single Family portion of No. 7654 Residential -Easements see above 5.2 ac see above Nei hborhood 8 Parcel 10 No. 7982 Pedestrian Corridor - 0 5 ac Pedestrian Corridor . ' Parcels only, roadway excluded. Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities of Landscaped and Open Space Areas A Homeowners Association (HOA) will be created for properties within the project as part of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The recorded CC&Rs will establish easements and other access rights necessary for the HOA to fulfill its responsibilities for maintenance and upkeep of common or abutting public areas. Responsibilities are proposed as follows: Table 12: Landscaped and Open Space Area Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities Element Own Maintain • Pavement/Landsca a Areas in Private Streets HOA HOA • Knuckles & Islands in Local Residential Streets and at Community & Neighborhood Entries City HOA • Medians in Arterial & Collector Streets Cit Cit • Trails/Paseos HOA HOA • Multi-Use Trails/Sidewalk alon arterial & collector streets City City - Hardscape HOA - Landsca in • Right-of-Way Landscaping & Sidewalks curb to ROW line City HOA • Subdivision/Communit Landsca in Private/HOA Private/HOA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) require a Development Agreement between the Developer and the City. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") 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 obtain certain commitments and establish certain development rights for the property. The Development Agreement must be approved prior to recordation of the final Tract Map and issuance of building permits for the development of the property. The Applicant and the City are a party to an existing development agreement for the property, dated August 7, 2007. The existing Development Agreement, the term of which expires on October 31, 2012, satisfies the requirement in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requiring a Development Agreement. The applicant desires to extend the term of the Development Agreement until 2020, and it has negotiated the attached amendment to the existing Page 20 of 25 X20 ~~"j'~ 1 Development Agreement with City Staff. In exchange for the City's agreement to extend-the term of the Development Agreement, the developer has agreed to make certain community benefit payments. These payments are refundable if the developer meets certain construction benchmarks. In addition, the agreement provides that the developer will make payments to the City in satisfaction of its Public Art requirement under Chapter 8.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. In all other respects, the Development Agreement as amended is based on the standard Development Agreement adopted by the City Council for projects located within the EDSP. The Development Agreement, as amended, provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a period ending on October 31, 2020. The City also benefits from entering into the Development Agreement with the property owner. This document is a contract that establishes obligations for meeting the goals of the EDSP and guarantees timing for construction of public infrastructure and facilities for the project area. Additionally, it ensures that dedications of property and easements are made, project phasing is followed, the appropriate fees are paid for the development, and any additional terms of the agreement are carried out as development proceeds. The proposed Development Agreement also would be consistent with the preceding development agreements. In return, the Developer agrees to comply with the Conditions of Approval and, in some cases, make commitments for which the City might otherwise have no authority to compel the Developers to perform. Specifically, the Development Agreement augments the City's standard development regulations; defines the precise financial responsibilities of the developer; ensures timely provision of adequate public facilities for each project; and provides terms for the Developer to advance funds for specific facilities which have community or area-wide benefit or for reimbursement from future development, as appropriate. Since the Development Agreement runs with the land, the rights thereunder can be assigned. Specifically, Section 17 of the Development Agreement would delegate authority for approval of such requests for transfer or assignment to the City Manager. A Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC is included as Attachment 3 with the draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed project requests a reduction in the number of units approved previously for Sorrento East. The reconfiguration and unit mix provide more single family detached units and more private open space per unit. The density for Sorrento East would be 10.6 units per acre and 9.7 units per acre for the Sorrento project over all. This density is consistent with the Medium Density Residential density range of 6.1 to 14 units per acre. The Stage 2 Planned Development rezone and development plan amend the Development Regulations to reflect the currently proposed neighborhood configuration housing types. The Site Development Review, including elevations and landscaping, is consistent with the architectural and design concept based on an Italian hill town and is appropriate in view of the topography, hillside slope and difference in grade which characterize the project site. The architectural elements are consistent with• the concept and the pedestrian circulation system Page 21 of 25 321 ~ ~-~ I continues the pedestrian pathway integrated with the trail system program emphasized m the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Sorrento West. The Tentative Maps comply with the proposed Development Regulations and zoning. GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND CONSISTENCY: Land use designations for the site would continue to be Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Park and would, therefore, be consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This project also conforms to the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by creating positive regional identity, a sense of arrival due to the unique monumentation, signage and landscaping; the east-west trail connection linking Sorrento West to the proposed elementary school; and long-term sustainability by creating many varied housing types and products. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies have been included as appropriate. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the entire Sorrento East and West Development, to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received one letter of support (Attachment 5) and no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the current proposal. Community Meeting: On February 10, 2010, the Applicant met with the Sorrento West homeowners to present the project, listen to questions and provide overall details. Approximately 30 people attended with the reaction of the residents being positive. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 1993, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Dublin General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan area, including revisions to Part I of the Responses to Comments relating to the Kit Fox, Addendum to the DEIR dated May 4, 1993, and a DKS Associates Traffic Study dated December 15, 1992 (SCH#91103064); collectively these documents comprise the "Eastern Dublin EIR." The Eastem Dublin EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated numerous subsequent actions related to future development; it also identified some impacts resulting from implementation that could not be mitigated. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a mitigation-monitoring program, which included a series of measures intended to reduce impacts from the implementation of the plan. The timing for implementation of these mitigation measures is summarized in the adopted Mitigation and Monitoring Program matrix. Page 22 of 25 3~~~~'~I In 2000, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") was approved by the ublin City Council (Resolution No. 34-00, dated February 15, 2000) for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F. The Initial Study analyzed all of the environmental topics recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Based on additional site-specific analysis of biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic and circulation supplemental mitigation measures were adopted by the City. On March 16, 2004, a CEQA Addendum was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 43-04 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The Addendum related to the Dublin Ranch Area F North project (PA 01-037) addressed the following: a) General Plan Land Use Amendment; b) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; c) Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 7281, 7282, and 7283; and d) the Site Development Review. The Addendum also included an updated traffic study. The Addendum determined that the project would cause no environmental impacts beyond those previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. Also, in conjunction with the prior EIR and MND, the property owner has since obtained permits from state and federal agencies for alteration of wetlands and has implemented related offsite mitigation. An Addendum to the prior EIR and MND has been prepared to address the currently proposed project (see Exhibit A to Attachment 4). The Addendum and a related Initial Study reviewed the reduced number of units and the revised product type and layout and concluded that the project would cause no new or more severe environmental impacts then identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. As noted in the Addendum, all previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the project would continue to be required. Because significant environmental impacts were previously identified for the project, any approval must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopts an Ordinance approving a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone amendment for the Sorrento East project with the draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and the Sorrento East spiral bound book Stage 1 8~ 2 Planned Development Rezone dated December 18, 2009 attached as Exhibit B. 2. Resolution approving Site Development Review and new and Amended Vesting Tentative Tract Maps for Sorrento East, Area F, Dublin Ranch, with the Sorrento East -spiral bound book Site Development Review (Book 1 of 2), (Book 2 of 2), Imagery Book Vesting Tentative Map dated December 18, 2009 attached as Exhibits A, B, C and D respectively. 3. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving an amended Development Agreement for Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Dublin Ranch Area F East) between the City of Dublin and SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC with the draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit B. 4. Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and 2000 Dublin Page 23 of 25 ~, '~, ~ ~ Ranch Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sorrento East Project with the CEQA Addendum attached as Exhibit A. 5. Letter. of support from resident Catherine Consolino. Page 24 of 25 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING USES: Regent Land Investment Company, LLC 11990 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Attn: Pat Costanzo SR Structured Lot Options, I, LLC 3600 South Lake Drive St. Francis, WI 53235 Attn: Joe Lucas III North of Central Parkway, south of Gleason Drive, east of Grafton Street and west of Lockhart street. 985-0053-003-00 PD Planned Development (Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Park) Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Park. LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Low Density Residential Verona-Pulte SFD South PD High Density Residential Senior Apartments East Community park Community Park West PD Medium Density Residential Sorrento West Page 25 of 25 3~~~~ ~~ ORDINANCE NO. XX -10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 08-002 SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH (DUBLIN RANCH AREA F EAST) BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND REGENT LAND INVESTMENT LLC THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The proposed project known as Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Dublin Ranch Area F East) is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and was included in a group of amended approvals for Planned Development under PA 08-002. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Developer's 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, the Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") (SCH91103064), incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and area wide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin. In 2000, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for development of Area F (Resolution 34-00, incorporated herein by reference). In connection with project PA 01-037 for Dublin Ranch Area F, the City Council adopted an Addendum (Resolution No. 43-04) that is available for review in the planning department and is incorporated herein by reference. In connection with project PA 04-042 Sorrento at Dublin Ranch Area F West and Area F East and consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City made a determination that the project was adequately addressed and would cause no environmental impacts beyond those previously identified and addressed. In connection with project PA 08-002 for Sorrento East, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the prior EDEIR and MND (Resolution No. -10) that is available for public review in the planning department and is incorporated herein by reference. All adopted EDEIR and MND mitigation measures continue to apply to the project area; and C. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Regent Land Investment LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation ("Developer") for Sorrento East was approved on October 2, 2007. An amended Development Agreement has been presented to the City Council attached hereto as D. A public hearing on the proposed amended Development Agreement was held before the Planning Commission on March 9, 2010, for which public notice was given as provided by law. E. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Development Agreement (Resolution ,incorporated herein by reference). 1 A'TTACHMEN 1' S 3zc~ ~ ~+~ r F. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on , 2010, for which public notice was given as provided by law. G. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission who considered the item at their March 9, 2010 meeting, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Addendum and prior EIR and MND, Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the public hearing. Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS 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 prior EIR and MND; (f) the Addendums; and (g) the Staff Report, 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 designation for the site is Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Park, and the proposed project is consistent with that land use; (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 vesting of development rights 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 amendments to approved Stage 1 Development Plan, Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience; general welfare and land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan and the General Plan which have planned for Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Park uses at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the Developer's project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the Eastern Dublin 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 amended Development Agreement (Exhibit _ to the Ordinance) and authorizes the Mayor to execute it. 2 Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. 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 AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#120081PA OS-002 Regents Land Inv Sorrento EastlPlanning Commissionlcc da ordinance forsorrento east.DOC 3 ~~~ U RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SR STRUCTURED LOT OPTIONS I, LLC FOR SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH (DUBLIN RANCH AREA F EAST) EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 5 ~ "'~ ~ ~~ THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this _ day of , 2010, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), and SR Structured Lot Options, I LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereafter "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. RECITALS 1. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") 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. 2. Developer desires to develop and holds legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 68 acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Area F East Property"; and 3. Pursuant to that authority, City and Developer entered into that certain "Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC for Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Dublin Ranch Area F East)," dated August 7, 2007 and recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County ("Official Records") on November 8, 2007 as document number 2007- 7391172 ("the Agreement"). 4. Developer previously proposed the development of the Area F East Property with 694 residential units, and City approved various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Area F East Property, and the Agreement referred to the proposal and the associated development approvals as, respectively, "the Project" and "the Project Approvals." 5. Developer now proposes the development of the Area F East Property (as defined in the Agreement) with 581 residential units ("the Revised Project"). 6. Developer has applied for, and City has approved various land use approvals in conjunction with the development of the Revised Project, including an amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (City Council Resolution No. 47-04), PD District rezoning and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 development plans (City Council Ordinances No. 12-04 and No. 24-05), Master Vesting Tentative Map for Tract 7982 (Planning Commission Resolution No. _-_), Neighborhood Vesting Tentative Maps for Tract 7652 (Neighborhood 6), Tract 7653 (Neighborhood 7), Tract 7654 (Neighborhood 8), Tract 7655 Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Page 2 of 5 Development Agreement for Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area F East) 3~0 ~ ~-~ r (Neighborhood 9), Tract 7656 (Neighborhood 10) (Planning Commission Resolution _ _), Tract 7983 (Neighborhood 11) (Planning Commission Resolution )and site development review (Planning Commission Resolution No. _-_) (collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Revised Project, "the Revised Project Approvals") 7. Section 9.4 of the Agreement requires that the Agreement be amended where the Project Approvals are substantially amended, and the parties have agreed that the Revised Project Approvals require an amendment to the Agreement. 8. In addition, Developer has requested that the term of the Agreement be extended by eight years (until October 31, 2020), and the City has agreed to extend the term in exchange for certain community benefit payments to be paid by developer. 9. The City Council has found that, among other things, the Agreement, as amended, is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.56; and 10. City 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 11. On , 2010, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. The ordinance took effect on , 2010 ("the Approval Date"). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT Section 1. The Parties acknowledge that, as a result of the Developer's transfer of certain real property to the Dublin Unified School District, the real property to which this Development Agreement is subject consists of 68 acres, rather than the 80 acres referenced in the Agreement. Section 2. All references to "the Project" and "the Project Approvals" in the Agreement shall be deemed to refer to, respectively, "the Revised Project" and "the Revised Project Approvals" Section 3. Section 4.2 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Page 3 of 5 Development Agreement for Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area F East) ~~~ ~~al "4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend thirteen (13) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. " Section 4. Amendment to Exhibit 8. Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with Exhibit 2 to this Amendment. Section 5. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. Section 6. Recordation. City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. 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: Tim Sbranti, Mayor ATTEST: By: Caroline Soto, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Bakker, City Attorney Date: Date: SR STRUCTURED LOT OPTIONS I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company Stark Offshore Management, L.L.C., A Wisconsin limited liability company, Its Manager ~ ,~ By: '~~ ~° Joseph ~,~. Lucas,'lll Its Managing Member Date: ~ f ~~ 1 D Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Page 4 of 5 Development Agreement for Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area F East) Ike. 1~;~.n~,~~ ~v- ~-- -~O l~eu~ s~~ i~ewt.~~ h-e~ee~- ~+h~oF Du6l~~ ~' ~J a vt of ~1~ ~~~urec~ L~- ~'rMS I ~ LLG STATE OF Wisconsin ) COUNTY OF Milwaukee ) On ,before me, (~ ~ Notary Public, persoi ally appeared h ~ personally known to me (o ) to be the person whose name() is/tee subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s~~y executed the same in his/h~/t~r authorized capacity(, and that by his/l~e~fik~r-signature(s~on the instrument the person(~j or the entity upon behalf of which their person( acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) SONYA MARTINEZ Notary Public State of Wisconsin My Commission Expires;_Januarv 12.2014 ~~~ ~ ~~r (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Page 5 of 5 Development Agreement for Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area F East) 3~1..}~~45t Exhibit 1 Legal Description of Area F East Property Real property in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Parcels 2, 3, and 4 as shown on the Final Map of Tract 7651, filed November 11, 2008, Map Book 303, Pages 77 to 81 inclusive, Alameda County Records. ~~~~ ~~ ~ Exhibit 2 Amended Exhibit B to the Agreement 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. (i) Roads: The project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of dedication) identified in Resolution No. of the City of Dublin Planning Commission approving Site Development Review for Sorrento at Dublin Ranch Area F, Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7982 for Area F East, and Neighborhood Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 7652, 7653, 7654, 7655, 7656, and 7983 for Neighborhoods 6 through 11 for PA 08-02 (hereafter "SDR and VTM Resolution") shall be completed by Developer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the times and in the manner specified in the SDR and VTM Resolution unless otherwise provided below. All such roadway improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction and requirements of City's City Engineer. (ii) Sewer. All sanitary sewer improvements to serve the project site (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be completed in accordance with DSRSD requirements. (iii) Water. An all weather roadway and an approved hydrant and water supply system shall be available and in service at the site in accordance with the tentative map conditions of approval to the satisfaction and requirements of the City's fire department. All potable water system components to serve the project site shall be completed in accordance with the DSRSD requirements. Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Development Agreement Page 1 of 7 For Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area FEast) - EXHIBIT B [Revised] ~ ~~"1 r3~ ~,~. L Recycled water lines shall be installed in accordance with the tentative map conditions of approval. (iv) Storm Drainage. The storm drainage systems off-site, as well as on-site drainage systems for the areas to be occupied, shall be improved consistent with the tentative map conditions of approval and to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department applying the standards and policies of the City and Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7) that are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the permit for the proposed improvements. Pursuant to Alameda County's National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or pursuant to subsequent permits adopted by the Board, all grading, construction and development activities within the City of Dublin must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Proper erosion control measures must be installed at development sites within the City during construction, and all activities shall adhere to Best Management Practices. (v) Other Utilities (e.p. pas, electricity cable televisions telephone) Construction shall be completed by phase prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that specific phase of occupancy for the Project. Subsection b. Miscellaneous (i) Completion Mav Be Deferred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City's Public Works Director may, in his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to the City's Public Works Director that assures completion, allow Developer to defer completion of discrete portions of any public improvements for the Project if the City's Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. Subparaaraph 5.3.3 -Phasing Timing This Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete development of the Project within any period of time set by the City. It Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Development Agreement Page 2 of 7 For Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area FEast) - EXHIBIT B [Revised] is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals. Subparagraph 5.3.4 -Financing Plan Developer will install all improvements necessary for the Project at its own cost (subject to credits for any improvements which qualify for credits as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.6 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. If so required by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, Developer will enter 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. Subparagraph 5.3.5 -Fees Dedications Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Subparagraph 5.3.5, Developer shall pay any fees required by Subsections a-g at the time such fees are due under the resolutions and/or ordinances establishing and/or amending such fees. Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fees. Developer shall pay the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") established by Resolution No. 111-04, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton for Freeway Interchanges. Developer shall pay the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in Resolution No. 155-98 or any subsequent resolution that revises such Fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection c. Public Facilities Fees. Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Development Agreement Page 3 of 7 For Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area FEast) - EXHIBIT B [Revised) Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection d. Noise Mitigation Fee. Developer shall pay a Noise Mitigation Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection e. School Impact Fees. School impact fees shall be paid by Developer in accordance with Government Code section 53080 and the agreement between Developer or its predecessor in interest and the Dublin Unified School District regarding payment of school mitigation fees. Subsection f. Fire Facilities Fees. Developer shall pay a fire facilities fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 12-03 including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection q. Tri-Vallev Transportation Development Fee Developer shall pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee in the amount and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 89-98 or any subsequent resolution which revises such fee. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. Subparagraph 5.3.6 -Credit Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fee Improvements -Credit City shall provide a credit against Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to Developer for those improvements described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee if such improvements are constructed by the Developer in their ultimate location. All aspects of the credit shall be governed by the TIF Guidelines. Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Development Agreement Page 4 of 7 For Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area FEast) - EXHIBIT B [Revised] K~ ,~.~ I r'~ ~.. f~ w,s' i Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee Right-of-Way Dedications - Credit City shall provide a credit against Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to Developer for any TIF area right-of-way to be dedicated by Developer to City which is required for improvements which are described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. All aspects of the credits shall be governed by the TIF Guidelines. Subsection c. Public Facility Fee -Neighborhood Parkland Component City shall provide a credit against Public Facilities Fees to Developer for any neighborhood parkland to be dedicated by the Developer which exceeds the amount required under section 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Such credits shall be expressed in acres of parkland. All aspects of the credits shall be governed by the City's Public Facilities Fees Administrative Guidelines. Subparagraph 5.3.6 -Miscellaneous Subsection a. Community Benefit Payments. (i) Community Benefit Payments. Developer shall make the following Community Benefit Payments to the City at the time specified, which payments may be subsequently refunded pursuant to Subparagraph (ii) below: Community Benefit Payment First Second Third Fourth Total Due Date Amount October 31, 2016 $50,000 October 31, 2017 $75,000 October 31, 2018 $75,000 October 31, 2019 $75,000 $275,000 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall not be required to make the First, Second, Third, or Fourth Community Benefit Payment if on the date the payment is due Developer has provided City Manager proof of the happening of, respectively, the First, Second, Third, or Fourth Contingency specified in Subparagraph (ii) below. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 4.2, if any Community Benefit Payment under this Subsection 5.6.3(a) is not received in full by the City by the Due Date for such payment, this Agreement shall automatically terminate. Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Development Agreement Page 5 of 7 For Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area FEast) - EXHIBIT B [Revised] ~~I~~ ~~ I (ii) Contingent Refunds. Upon the happening of the following contingencies, the City will refund the Community Benefit Payment in the amount specified below. The City will make the refund payment within 60 days of Developer providing proof, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, of the happening of the contingency, provided that the Developer has made the applicable Community Benefit Payment at the time the proof is provided.. The City shall not be obligated to make the specified refund if Developer fails to provide the required proof of the happening of the contingency within 30 days of the contingency date. Contingency Contingency Refund Date Amount Dec. 31, 2017 First. Developer has obtained at $50,000 least 25 building permits for residential structures within the Project since the Effective Date. Dec. 31, 2018 Second. Developer has either $75,000 obtained (i) at least 50 building permits between January 1, 2018 and the Contingency Date or (ii) at least 75 building permits for residential structures in the aggregate within the Project since the Effective Date. Dec. 31, 2019 Third. Developer has either $75,000 obtained (i) at least 50 building permits between January 1, 2019 and the Contingency Date or (ii) at least 125 building permits for residential structures in the aggregate within the Project since the Effective Date. Dec. 31, 2020 Fourth. Developer has either $75,000 obtained (i) at least 50 building permits between January 1, 2020 and the Contingency Date or (ii) at least 175 building permits for residential structures in the aggregate within the Project since the Effective Date. Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Development Agreement Page 6 of 7 For Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area FEast) - EXHIBIT B [Revised] ;~:~- ~~ ~ Subsection b. Public Art Reauirement. Condition 7 of SDR and VTM Resolution ("Condition 7") sets forth the "public art contribution" requirement for the Project pursuant to Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code ("Chapter 8.58"). Notwithstanding Condition 7 and Chapter 8.58, the requirements of the following paragraph shall supersede Condition 7 in its entirety and shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 8.58 for the Project. Concurrently with the execution of the Amendment to the Agreement, Developer has made a payment of $100,000 to the City. Developer shall make two additional payments as follows: 1. $100,000 on or before October 31, 2012. 2. $100,000 on or before October 31, 2016; provided, however, that the payment due on or before October 31, 2016 shall be reduced to $50,000 in the event that Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code [Public Art Program] is amended or repeated so as to eliminate the obligation of residential developers to make a "public art contribution," as defined in Chapter 8.58. Notwithstanding any applicable law, Developer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assignees, agrees that the City may withhold building permits, occupancy authorizations, and final map approvals within the Project until the payments required by this subsection are made. The provisions of this Subsection shall survive the early termination of this Agreement. Subsection c. Term of Site Development Review Approval. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the City's Zoning Ordinance and Section 10 of this Agreement, the term of the Site Development Review approval granted by the City of Dublin Planning Commission by Resolution No. ,and any subsequent revisions to it, shall be automatically extended for the term of this Agreement. 1375118.9 Dublin/SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Development Agreement Page 7 of 7 For Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area FEast) - EXHIBIT B [Revised] DRAFT DRAFT APPROVING A SIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE NIS DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 6363 SCARL TT COURT AND FOR MINOR MOD ATIONS TO THE HONDA DEALERSHIP CATED AT 6382 SCARLETT URT (APN 941-0550-075) 3~3~4~~1 PA 09-040 A RESOLUTIOfyf~'F T PLANNING COMMISSION THE CIT F DUBLIN APPROVING A REQU FOR A CONDITION USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILENEHICLE LES AND SERVICE FACILI (NISSAN DEALERSHIP) AT 6363 SCARLETT COURT A PARKING REDUCTION FOR OFF-SITE PARKING LOCATED AT 6382 SCARL T COURT iN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT PA 09-040 8.2 PA 08-002 Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch (Area F) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone Amendment, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps 7982 & 7983, and Amendments to Vesting Tentative Map 7652, 7653, 7654, 7655 & 7656 for Neighborhoods 6 through 11, Development Agreement Amendment, and adoption of a CEQA Addendum. Chair King disclosed that he met with the Applicant to preview the project. He stated they discussed the specifics of the project but no promises were made. Cm. Swalwell also disclosed that he met with Pat Costanzo, Regent Properties as well as Guy Houston and discussed the project. He stated he saw nothing different than what is contained in the plans tonight. He continued that he gave his idea of what the Planning Commission looks for but no promises were made. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Swalwell asked how this project is similar to Turtle Ridge. Mr. Porto answered at the Planner's Institute in Southern California last year the Planning Commission toured several projects and this project is identical to Turtle Ridge. He continued the architecture is similar, it is identical in product and layout, but different in floor plan and elevation but the concept is the same. Cm. Schaub mentioned that this project has more topography which is different from Turtle Ridge in Southern California. Mr. Porto answered with a project with topography like this accessibility issues must be met. He felt the Applicant added deepened footings and entry doors on the houses working with the topography. He felt this is a well thought out package with a lot of information. 17 ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT DRAFT ~}1...~~~`1 ~{ Cm. Brown mentioned that in this reconfigured project the park has more parking. ~' ~} Mr. Porto answered there is considerably more parking then the previous project. He pointed out on the slide the former configuration for the park and the new configuration. He continued the school's parking lot is at the same location and it was always anticipated that the park would share parking with the school. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about guest parking on HOA private streets and why the distinction between HOA private streets and public streets. Mr. Porto pointed out the public and private streets in the project and stated the private streets are HOA owned property. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the streets. Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the HOA could have a lottery to give extra parking to residents on special occasions. Mr. Porto stated these are designated guest parking stalls. He continued there are additional parking stalls in some neighborhoods that are off the HOA streets on private property that are associated with that unit. He stated there is also parking in the neighborhood available to everyone. He continued there is a considerable amount of both on-street public parking and off- street private parking that is HOA maintained. He mentioned that as part of the Master Sign Program there are signs for guest parking and towing for cars not parked according to the HOA rules. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Fire Dept. reviewed the project and will there be revisions for red curbs. Mr. Porto answered the Fire Dept. has reviewed the plans and there are fire access plans included in the packet. Cm. Schaub asked about tandem parking. Mr. Porto stated although tandem parking is allowed under the Ordinance the project has none. Cm. Schaub asked about inclusionary housing for the project. Mr. Porto explained the Lin family came to the City in 2003 and requested that they be allowed to develop a project that would encapsulate all- their inclusionary housing responsibilities, therefore freeing property on the rest of their land with no other inclusionary requirements. That development is known as Fairway Ranch or The Groves. 18 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is an excess amount of inclusionary housing. ~, ~ ~_l ~~ ~~ ~ .~- Mr. Porto answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be any discussion with the City Council or will it come to the Planning Commission if there is a request for a reduction in inclusionary housing. Ms. Ram answered those affordable housing credits belong to the Liri s and can be applied to other projects within the Dublin Ranch area, including Wallis and Area B. Cm. Schaub asked if all of the HOA landscaping is built with purple pipe (recycled water). Mr. Porto deferred to Jim Kearns, one of the Applicants, who has been working with DSRSD regarding the purple pipe and landscaping. Chair King opened the public hearing. Jim Kearns, Regent Properties, stated along the planting strips on the perimeter road there will be recycled water and the rest of the common HOA area will be potable water. He stated they had a meeting with DSRSD regarding their requirements and this was suggested by DSRSD. Cm. Schaub asked about the Stopwaste.org list of bay friendly plants and if any of those plants would be included in the project. Pat Costanzo, Regent Properties, stated that because the paseos are in residential areas where children would be playing it is not acceptable for DSRSD to use recycled water in those areas. He stated that from the bridge to the recreation center will be purple pipe (recycled) water. Mr. Kearns stated that the park is irrigated with purple pipe (recycled) water. Cm. Schaub felt there is a list of plants that would be a more acceptable use than grass and felt there was a lot of grass area in the project. Mr. Porto stated that there is actually less grass in this reconfigured project then the previous project. He continued the Applicant cut back significantly on grass and used a lot of plant material. He stated the landscape architect also took into account the bay friendly planting materials. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that neither the Planning Commission nor Mr. Porto liked the utility boxes in the front yards at Turtle Ridge. He asked where the utility boxes will be located in this project. Mr. Porto answered the joint trench plans show the various elements of the project. He stated that Paul Kruger, Consulting Engineer, looked at all the big utility boxes and moved them to places where they will be less obtrusive. He stated Staff asked for the joint trench plans up front and then planned for the utility boxes rather than letting them occur randomly. He stated they 19 DRAFT DRAFT will be placed in out of the way areas, tucked in the back and in alleys. He mentioned the architecture in Neighborhood 9 where they constructed wells in the back of the buildings to tuck the AC units away from views. ;:~~,~,p~~;,~~5( Cm. Brown felt the architectural styles and elevations are excellent giving the buyer many choices. He asked if any of the designs call for pre-wiring the house for solar in the future. Mr. Porto stated it was not brought up to Staff that the Applicant was offering solar. He stated the Applicant can address that issue. Chair King opened the public hearing. Pat Costanzo, Regent Properties spoke in favor of the project and thanked the City and the Staff. He stated they are very excited about the project and felt the architecture provides a great variety of choices, the site plan is much better compared to the original design, and the pedestrian corridor coming through the center and tying the recreation center to all the units is much better and the park is more accessible. He requested the Planning Commission's approval as the project is proposed. Mr. Costanzo responded to Cm. Brown s question regarding Green Building by pointing out the project has the Green Building rating sheets in the project material. He stated Regent will not build the project but has completed the rating sheets and will make the required 50 points. He stated the plans will be taken to a solar roof installer and they will evaluate each house individually. He stated that one of the choices on the plans is to provide pre-wiring for solar. He continued that because the houses will be built with so much articulation in the roofs that each house must be evaluated and if it makes sense for that house it will be offered. Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicants will not build the houses how will the project be built and also asked if all products will be available at the same time. Mr. Costanzo responded that was correct, Neighborhood 6 and 7 should never be built at the same time, but it will be built as the market demands. He stated they have been working with the Public Works Dept. on phasing the infrastructure so they can build either one neighborhood at a time or consecutively depending on the market. Cm. Schaub asked how locked in to the designs is the builder. Mr. Costanzo answered the builder would be completely locked into these designs unless they go through the entire SDR process again. Tim Hall, Homeowner in Sorrento West -spoke in favor of the project. Vice-Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Chair King excused himself from the meeting but shared his thoughts regarding the project. He stated he is in support of the project and liked the sizeable parking ratio, the pedestrian friendly 20 DRAFT DRAFT feel, the good architecture, the many gateways into the neighborhoods, its closeness to parks and playgrounds, the open space and he also liked the arches on the entrances. He concurred with Cm. Brown's comment regarding pre-wiring for solar. `~':-~~~ ~~~~„~ ~ L Cm. Wehrenberg stated she supports the project and agrees with Chair King's comments. Was concerned with the parking but is very happy with the change and likes the project. Cm. Schaub asked if Staff should add a condition that there will be no tandem parking. Mr. Porto asked if Cm. Schaub was concerned that a builder could change the plan so that tandem parking could occur. He stated that if the Commission wanted to add a condition they could. Ms. Ram asked if the development standards allow for tandem parking. Mr. Porto answered the Zoning Ordinance allows for tandem parking. Ms. Ram stated Staff could add something to the development standards that indicates tandem parking is not allowed and then it would have to come back to the Commission as an amendment to the PD if they wanted to add it. Cm. Schaub was concerned that if a builder wanted to add 100-200 units with tandem parking that would take approximately 100 guest parking spaces out. He stated that if it is indicated in the development standards the Planning Commission can be assured that there will be enough guest parking for this project. Mr. Porto responded in neighborhood 9 there are 4 car garages and two of the stalls are tandem but generally its required parking that shall not be tandem, therefore the two covered stalls have to be side-by-side but there could be 4 stalls. He directed the Commission to the Land Use Criteria tab of the Stage 1 & 2 PD booklet which shows the parking requirement. He stated Staff can add an additional footnote #12 that would indicate "required parking shall not be tandem" and then it would be in the Zoning Ordinance and they would have to come back to the Planning Commission to amend the zoning. Cm. Swalwell asked how the Applicant felt about this added note. Mr. Costanzo indicated he was OK with it, but does not see the point in being that specific because it is in the plan. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that if any builder wants to include tandem parking in the project they must come back to the Planning Commission. Cm. Brown asked if Staff can add note #12 to the Development Standards. Mr. Porto answered that he would need a motion and something from the Commissioners and then Staff can add the note. 21 DRAFT DRAFT Kit Faubion mentioned that they can add it as part of the motion if the Commission desires " Cm. Wehrenberg did not think it makes a difference and felt that if there was a redesign it would come back to the Commission and they could decide then but at this point it is not in the design. Cm. Swalwell was concerned about micromanaging what the Applicant must do and how involved the Commission is with the project. Cm. Schaub felt the note was necessary to ensure no tandem parking. Cm. Swalwell supports the project as is; tandem parking is not in the plan, and if someone comes with a plan for tandem parking they must come back to the Planning Commission. He did not want to project what the developer will do and create conditions based on projections which are not founded in the plans. He felt the plans as written are fine and if they want to change them they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram stated if a developer wanted to include tandem parking it is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, it would be a change to the design of the house and the SDR and Staff would have to make a decision whether or not Staff can approve it as a waiver or an amendment to the SDR. She stated that the minutes of this meeting and the Commission's discussion regarding their concerns would be taken into consideration. She stated that if Staff adds the note into the Zoning Ordinance the Commission's intent would be extremely clear. She continued if not then Staff will look at the minutes and make the determination. Cm. Swalwell suggested including wording that indicates if they want to include tandem parking they must come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Cm. Schaub asked where the wording would be located in the plans. Mr. Porto answered the wording would be Note #12 on the Development Standards for the project. Cm. Swalwell thanked Staff for their hard work on the project. He also thanked Regent Properties for putting on an open house for the surrounding community regarding the new project. He felt it was helpful to the process and makes the Planning Commission more efficient. He felt it was a seamless transition from the west to the east and likes the park and the pedestrian friendly access. Cm. Schaub felt the Applicant and Staff did a fabulous job. He felt this type of project is exactly what the Commission is looking for. Mr. Porto stated that this was a very smooth process and the Applicant and the entire team worked well together. 22 DRAFT DRAFT On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Chair King absent for the vote, the Planning Commission approved: , , `_r~ ~.~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AMENDMENTS FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT PA 08-002 Note #12 -would read "if there were to be required tandem parking that decision would be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval." RESOLUTION NO. 10-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND NEW AND AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FOR SORRENTO EAST, AREA F, DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0053-003-00) PA 08-002 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH (DUBLIN RANCH AREA F EAST) PA 08-002 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~~Y4`e: tf FZ f, .. 23 DRAFT DRAFT RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT PA 08-002 ~?,,.;::: ,:~~~, ~'~~ 8.4 ZOA 09-004 Zoning Ordinance Amendments -Amendments to the D lin Municipal Code related to Eating and Drinking Establishments including modifi tions to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted ses), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Develop ent Review). Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the taff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the new parking standard is used o a take-out pizza facility of approximately 1200-1300 sq ft would there be 4 parking stalls. Ms. Waffle answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they currently have 4 parking s Ms. Waffle answered that currently Staff would park em at 1/100 sq ft, so at 1200 sq ft they would require 12 stalls. She felt the likelihood of 12 eople being there to pick up pizza at the same time is low. She felt that was a high parking s ndard for atake-out establishment. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the oth eating and drinking establishments in the shopping center and felt that when other bus' esses are closed there is the shared parking effect. She was concerned with short changing he parking depending on what other businesses are in the shopping center. Ms. Waffle answered that if the shopping c ter is in a PD zoning district in which there is a cap on the total square footage for restaura t uses this guarantees that there would not be a shortage of parking because of a restaur t use. She continued what this change would do for this shopping center would be to free u additional parking if there were another use type that would require more parking then a traditional retaurant establishment. She felt that the benefits will be felt in the parts of to n that have conventional zoning, i.e. C-1, C-2, C-N, the older shopping centers that were b ilt in the 70's and 80's when the parking standards were different. She felt the City would efinitely yield a benefit in those areas with the new parking standards. Cm. Schaub asked what she me~ht by "benefits." Ms. Waffle answered that t e 1/100 parking ratio, which is what is determined to be appropriate for asit-down re taurant, is also being applied to a take-out facility even though a take-out facility would not ave people coming in and sitting down to dine. She felt this is a high ratio for a use that is no as intense as a traditional sit-down restaurant. .., 24 March 4, 2010 ~ECE~~E~ MAR - 8 2Q10 Planning Commission City of Dublin DUBLIN I'LANN~NG 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, we are writing to express the Chamber's support of the proposed Sorrento East community. The Chamber recognizes the importance of an adequate supply of housing for our community's economic well-being and believes that this project will provide an attractive variety of housing choices for both current and future residents. The Chamber has had an opportunity to review the proposed project with Mr. Patrick Costanzo of Regent Properties. We believe the project represents a noteworthy improvement compared to the current approved project. Regent Properties has done an exceptional job with their various neighborhood designs in responding to the City Council's desire to have less attached housing and have more detached housing with some usable yard areas. Furthermore the project appears to have successfully implemented the Italian theme of the overall Sorrento community. The approval of this project will enhance the City of Dublin and the Sorrento community. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce urges the Dublin Planning Commission to approve the Sorrento East project as proposed by Regent Properties. Sincerely, GREG BETTY, Chairman Board of Directors ~~ NANCY F LEY President/CEO 7080 DONLON WAY, SUITE 110 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 (925) 828-6200 Fax: (925) 828-4247 E-Mail: info@dublinchamberofcommerce.or ATTACHMENT 7 4268 Somerset Lane Dublin, CA 94568 February 28, 2010 Planning Commission City Council c/o Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Planning Commission and City Council members: 1 am writing to request that you approve the Sorrento East project that is on the Planning Commission Agenda for March 9`h and T imagine the City Council agenda soon thereafter. This project is a significant improvement over the project currently approved for the property. Regent Properties has done an excellent job in re-designing the site. The reduction in density and the large increase in detached homes rather than attached homes is unusual in this economic environment and should be commended. The detached homes all have usable yard areas and offer wonderful alternatives to an attached home. The proposed project has implemented the Italian theme very well and the various neighborhoods are well-designed. The recreation center appears to be an amenity that will offer the future residents a great place to spend their spare time. Y especially like the gated community and as a single woman would consider buying in such a neighborhood, Please approve this project as it represents a quality community that will bean asset to Dublin Ranch and the City of Dublin. March 2, 2010 City Council and Planning Commission City of Dublin c/o Jeri Ram 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members: I am a home owner at Sorrento West and I recently attended a presentation by Regent Properties about their proposed plans for the property adjacent to us, Sorrento East. This presentation was before the Home Owner's Association and residents of Sorrento West. The presentation made it very clear that Regent Properties has put a significant effort into creating a quality community that will compliment Sorrento West well. Some of my neighbors and I were initially concerned about what might be proposed for this properly but after seeing the presentation I am very much in support of the project. The fact that Regent has reduced the number of homes and has introduced a majority of detached homes is a great benefit to the Dublin community. Their designs are very attractive and the variety of home types and elevation styles will create a very eclectic neighborhood. I strongly urge that the Planning Commission and the City Council approve this project. Sincerely, "~~ r ~ Roger Manning ~EC~IVE® MAR - 5 2010 ®U~I~IN QLANIVING F: ~ -> `~ I March 3, 2010 City Council Planning Commission Dublin City Offices 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Dear Honorable Mayor, Council members and Planning Commission members: I am a current resident of Dublin and have lived here since 2003. Dublin is a great community and I am writing to express my support for the proposed Sorrento East project by Regent Properties which is on the Planning Commission Agenda for March Stn. I have had the opportunity to review the proposed project. I think the variety of housing with the different neighborhoods will offer future residents a real choice of very attractive housing. What stands out for me is the careful planning and eye-pleasing architecture. I believe that Regent has created a community that will continue to make the City of Dublin a very desirable place to live. The combination of two and three-story homes within detached and attached neighborhoods is a creative solution that works well for much needed density rich housing. The recreation center looks spectacular and the project's location, being adjacent to a proposed elementary school and the City's new park, seems like it will provide significant benefits to the future homeowners. To me, Sorrento East is a shining example of excellent execution of conception, planning and design because it integrates today's lifestyles and preferences with the demands of a growing city. I request that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the project as proposed. Thank you. Ve truly yours, atherine Conso ino 5825 Hillbrook Place Dublin, CA RECEIVE® MAR - 5 2010 ®U~LiN PLANNING