Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8.2 Dublin Crossings Strategic Vision
G`y OF IM ,�'--��� CITY CLERK STAFF REPORT DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ❑[]©0❑-©® DATE: August 16, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJEC Dublin Crossings project update and Strategic Visioning Process recap Prepared By: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner ItT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2004, the City, in partnership with the U.S. Army Reserve, engaged community members in a "Strategic Visioning Process" for the 187-acre Dublin Crossings project site. The result of the Strategic Visioning Process was the identification of a preferred concept land plan (Alternative 5) and a series of follow-up letters to the U.S. Army Reserve with direction from the City Council regarding the land uses, circulation system, and parks and open space in the plan. Staff thought it appropriate to engage the City Council in a review of the land plan discussions that have taken place to date and to receive updated direction and feedback from the City Council, as appropriate. Staff will use this information to assist in evaluating the proposed land plan that will be prepared by the Applicant. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive the report on the Dublin Crossings project status and questions related to the 2004 Strategic Visioning Process; and 2) Provide updated and/or additional feedback and direction, where appropriate, to Staff and the Applicants on future development at the Dublin Crossings project site. Submitted By: Community Development Director Revi ed y: Assistant anager Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. 9 /7' � DESCRIPTION: Since 2001, the City Council Goals and Objectives have included, as a high priority goal, the processing of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks} General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment. A General Plan Amendment Study was requested by the U.S. Army Reserve, and on April 15, 2003, the City Council authorized the commencement of a General Plan Amendment Study for the 187-acre project area, as shown below. Once the General Plan Amendment Study was authorized, City Staff began regular meetings with the U.S. Army Reserve and their representatives to begin considering potential land use combinations for the site. 1. City Councilmembers (Mayor Janet Lockhart, Vice Mayor George Zika, Councilmembers Claudia McCormick, Tony Oravetz, and Tim Sbranti) 2. Representatives from the Army 3. Representatives from Camp Parks 4. Representatives from Staubach Company (the Army's real estate partner at the time) 5. Dublin Unified School District Boardmembers (Trustees David Haubert, Denis King, Eric Swalwell, Sr., and Randy Shumway) 6. Dublin San Ramon Services District Boardmembers (Directors Richard Rose, Thomas Ford, and Tom McCormick) 7. One Planning Commissioner (Bob Fasulkey) 8. One Parks and Community Services Commissioner (Kasie Hildenbrand) 9. One Heritage and Cultural Arts Commiss+oner (Angela Muetterties) 10.One Senior Advisory Committee member (Mary Lou Bielke and Paul Silvas - attended at different times) 11. City Department Heads 12. Chamber of Commerce member (Brad Kaune) Page 2 of 7 Guided by a team of architects and planning consultants, the Community Group participated in a design charette planning exercise, which helped the group examine the opportunities and constraints of the site, solicit ideas, and create a cohesive vision for the future development of the site. Before the Strategic Visioning Process began, the City Council approved a list of goals for the Strategic Visioning Process participants to keep in mind as they discussed future development opportunities on the project site. The approved goals are included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report. The Community Group met over three days in August and October 2004 and developed five conceptual land use plans for the site. The City Council held meetings in February, March, and April 2005 to review and provide feedback on the five conceptual land use plans. At these meetings, Staff requested the City Council to provide feedback and direction on the following issues, in particular: 1. Location and types of housing 2. Location and size of parks 3. Location and number of east-west connections 4. Location of office and mixed use development 5. Overall mix of land uses 6. Connection to future Transit Center development After the City Council reviewed and discussed the top three land plans (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5), they provided direction to Staff on certain aspects of the plans. Both the Strategic Visioning Community Group and the City Council preferred the land use plan that was referred to as Alternative 5(Attachment 2). After the City Council meetings, the City Manager prepared a letter to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated April 13, 2005, summarizing the City Council's direction, which among other things, included direction to modify the land use densities to include fewer residential units and more commercial square footage (Attachment 3). The intent was that the eventual development at the project site would incorporate the feedback and direction provided in the letter. Following the Strategic Visioning Process, the City hired landscape architect and park planning consultants Moore lacofano Goltsman (MIG) to conduct a study on possible unique uses for the large central park space in the middle of Alternative 5. The resulting document summarized uses that might be desirable for a unique space as well as the amount of space (land and building, if appropriate) needed to accommodate the use. At the City Council meeting on February 7, 2006, the City Council discussed the different theme options and acreage requirements, and directed Staff to inform the U.S. Army Reserve of the City Council's desire to .have a 46-acre central park space developed for the site. The second letter to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated February 27, 2006, summarized the City Council's direction on the size and location of the central park (Attachment 4). A final letter was sent to the U.S. Army Reserve on May 3, 2006 notifying the Army that the City Council is in support of including a spot in the central park shown in Alternative 5 for a future Valley Children's Museum. This letter is included as Attachment 5 to the Staff Report. In December 2007, the U.S. Army Reserve prepared a Notice of Availability to solicit a master developer for the Camp Parks Real Property Exchange/"Dublin Crossings" project area. On January 10, 2008, the U.S. Army Reserve and the City (and other local public agencies) participated in an "Industry Day", where all interested developers received information about the project site and the development process. The City made a presentation to interested Page3of7 developers, provided background information including the results of the Strategic Visioning Process, copies of the follow up letters to the U.S. Army Reserve, information on City and other agency fees, an expected project processing timeline, and Staff also answered questions from the development community related to the City's entitlement process. The City established a webpage for the Dublin Crossings project and posted documents and information for all interested parties to access. Following Industry Day, interested developers submitted proposals to the U.S. Army Reserve for consideration, and in October 2008, the U.S. Army Reserve announced the selection of SunCal Companies as the master developer. In April 2011, SunCal finalized an Exchange Agreement with the U.S. Army Reserve for the property that binds both parties to a timeline and certain requirements to allow development on the project site to proceed. City Staff have begun pre-development meetings with SunCal. SunCal is moving forward with preparing their development proposal for the property, which the City will review and analyze in the coming months. Before any detailed analysis of their development proposal takes place, Staff thought it appropriate to engage the City Council in a review of the vision for Dublin Crossings that was previously provided by the City Council, and to receive updated direction and feedback from the City Council, as appropriate. ANALYSIS: Before Staff moves forward with the goal of achieving the City Council's vision, it is prudent to revisit the key issues raised by the City Council to ensure that the direction Staff advocates in reviewing and analyzing future development proposals reflects the existing City Council's desired direction. To this end, Staff has prepared a summary of the direction on key issues provided to the U.S. Army Reserve in 2005 and 2006 and accompanying questions in those issue areas where Staff is seeking City Council feedback and direction: Issue Area 1: Locations and Types of Housing Comment 1-a (April 13, 2005 letter): Less dense housinq. Councilmembers voiced concerns that there are too many housing units in the original Alternative 5 and the housing proposed is too dense. A reduced density alternative showing approximately 1,600 units was preferred. Question 1-a: Is 1,600 residential units still an acceptable maximum for the site or could a higher number be considered if density is concentrated close to transit? Is having lower densities than originally envisioned in Alternative 5(e.g. potentially more townhome and single family homes and fewer higher density apartment and condominiums) desirable? Comment 1-b (April 13, 2005 letter): Location of residential land uses. Councilmembers voiced concerns regarding locating residential uses on Arnold Drive or single family on Dublin Blvd. Councilmembers did not support the location of housing along Arnold Drive (should be office instead), the placement of single-family homes along Dublin Boulevard (should be medium-density residential, if any), or the placement of single-family homes fronting any major high traffic volume street. Page 4 of 7 Question 1-b: Are there scenarios under which the City Council would consider the above situations or does the City Council still support this direction? issue Area 2: Location and Sizes of Parks Comment 2-a (April 13, 2005 letter): Central Park location. Councilmembers expressed an interest in having the future Dublin Crossings land plan incorporate a centrally-located park space that can serve as a focal point for community events and festivities, provide a geographical link between the western and eastern portions of Dublin, provide a grand entry into the project site, and provide a unique space for a range of programming opportunities. The central park space in Alternative 5 was mentioned as an example of such a space. Councilmembers want to ensure that the future park space is easily accessible to Transit Center residents. Question 2-a: Is the City Council open to considering configurations for the central park that can achieve the above directives but that are different than as shown in the Alternative 5 concept land plan? Does the City Council envision the central park as being designed to be central to the Dublin Crossings development or central to the broader City of Dublin? Comment 2-b (February 27, 2006 letter): Unique Park Use and Adequate Park Acreaqe. Councilmembers expressed a desire to ensure that not only is there enough usable park space provided to serve the population generated by the development, but that there would also be additional park and open space provided to accommodate other special facilities desired by the City. At its February 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council discussed the different theme options and acreage requirements, and directed Staff to inform the Army of the City Council's desire to have a 46-acre park space developed for the site. This acreage would be used to develop a public facility with a theme that centered around Arts, Culture, Food, and Games, and would provide the unique amenities the City Council so strongly desires for the area. The 46-acre park space would be in addition to the amount of parkland required to serve the future residents of the project site as required by both the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Quimby Act. Question 2-b: Does the City Council still support this direction or would the City Council consider accepting a central park smaller than 46 acres in exchange for the developer building the park and providing a maintenance endowment? Comment 2-c (May 3, 2006 letter): Vallev Children's Museum. At its meeting on April 18, 2006, the City Council unanimously agreed to support the inclusion of a future Valley Children's Museum facility within Central Park. Question 2-c: Does the City Council still support this direction? Page 5 of 7 Issue Area 3: Circulation and Transportation Comment 3-a (April 13, 2005 letter): East-West connection throuqh the proiect site. Councilmembers support the idea of having Central Parkway as a local-serving street and not designed for cut-through traffic that would normally use Dublin Boulevard or I-580. Instead, Councilmembers supported the creation of a northern east-west road (much like in Alternative 5) that connects Dougherty Road to Arnold Road at some point north of Central Parkway and south of Gleason Drive. This road would serve as a more direct route through the site for those seeking to move between Dougherty and points eastward on Arnold and Gleason without cutting through the central portions of the Camp Parks project site along Central Parkway. Central Parkway should connect to the northern east-west road in a manner that facilitates the smooth transition of traffic on Central Parkway to Dougherty Road. Question 3-a: Are there scenarios under which the City Council would consider different major road circulation routes through the site or does the City Council still support this direction of providing both a local se-ving (circuitous) connection to Central Parkway as well as a(direct through) northern east-west connection? Issue Area 4: Other Land Use Issues Comment 4-a (April 13, 2005 letter): Retail/Commercial land uses. Councilmembers voiced concerns that there may not be enough retail and/or office space in the project area, so a"Reduced Residential Yield" Alternative 5 land use table was created that contained approximately 300,000 square feet of retail and 248,000 square feet of office/hotel based on an economic/market analysis from 2004. Question 4-a: Does the City Council still support this direction or is it acceptable to reduce the amount of retail/office/hotel square footage to what an updafed economictmarket analysis suggests is needed and can be absorbed by the market in the coming years? There were several additional comments provided to the U.S. Army Reserve in the three letters previously described in this Staff Report (Attachments 3, 4, and 5). Staff has not sought feedback on every comment, but only those that will have sizable implications on the layout and design of the future land plan. However, if the City Council has comments or would like to revisit the direction provided in any of the letters, Staff would be appreciative of that input. Absent any direction from the City Council to the contrary, Staff will assume that the direction origina{ly provided in the three letters still applies. NEXT STEPS: Once the Applicants are ready to move forward, the City will engage a consultant for the preparation of the project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Specific Plan. Staff will work with the Applicants to prepare a land plan that incorporates the direction provided by the City Council. Staff has been advised by the App{icants that the buifdout of the Dubiin Page6of7 Crossings project is a multi-phased process that is closely tied to the construction of improvements on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area base. The phasing of the improvements of the Army's facilities impacts the Applicant's desired land plan. Staff will work with the Applicant to address the City Council's direction as well as the Applicant's needs. Staff will report back to the City Council throughout the Dublin Crossings development review process on the progress being made, and may bring issues back for City Council review and discussion. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council on proposed policy direction. However, notification of this meeting and a copy of the Staff Report were provided to the Project Applicants (SunCal Companies and Argent Management). ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Project Goals 2. Alternative 5 Concept Land Plan 3. Letter from the City to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated April 13, 2005 4. Letter from the City to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated February 27, 2006 5. Letter from the City to the U. S. Army Reserve, dated May 3, 2006 G:\PA#~2008\PA 08-049 Camp Parks_Dubiin Crossing~2011 Restart\CC Direction\CC Staff Report charette checkin.docx Page 7 of 7 ~ i~ City Goals for Private Development at Camp Parks Approved by City Council July 20, 2004 1. Plan should have a net positive fiscal impact on the City. 2. Plan should provide a strong connection between the eastern and western parts of the City while also evaluating a"village" concept. 3. Plan should link to the Transit Center and BART. 4. Plan should provide a unique feature - either publicly or privately ~ funded - which strengthens the image of the City and further increases the quality of life for residents arid/or strengthens Dublin's position as a destination. 5. Plan should accommodate some unmet public agency/public facility needs (i.e. school facility, maintenance facility, park or community facility, etc.) 6. Analysis of the land use plan should look at the property itself as well as the impact of developing the property on other parts on the City in relation to traffic, market demands, fiscal impacts, and schools. 7. Plan should consider a new route between Dougherty and Arnold Roads to accommodate new development. 8. Plan should provide an attractive transition between the Camp Parks RFTA and private development. ~. ~ g - ~ ~-I I ATTACHMENT 1 Y y y ~ C~ x ~ ~ z y N ~~~a April 13, 2005 Mr. Douglas Benson Chief, Plans Branch Room 11 W42, Taylor Building (NC3} 2511 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202-3926 Dear Mr. Benson, In cooperation with the Army, last summer the City Council approved a contract for planning and design consultants to guide the City through a Strategic Visioning Process for possible future private development on 182 acres at the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. Two Planning and Design workshops took place, in August and October 2004, which resulted in five master plan alternatives being developed and ranked by the participating community group, of which the Army was a part. The City Council has held several public meetings in recent months to discuss various components of the Camp Parks Master Plan alternatives. At these meetings, the City, Council provided some very specific direction on what they believe will and will not work for the site, and the City Council's comments are summarized below. It is the hope of the City Council that once the Army is working with a Master Developer to create a formal land use plan application for the site, that the issues raised in this letter will be resolved and reflected in the final plan. The alternative review process began at the February 15, 2005 City Council meeting. At this meeting, Staff reviewed the results of the Strategic Visioning Process with the City Council and asked for the City Council to provide feedback on the Top 3 land use plans (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) in several specific areas, including: 1. Location and sizes of parks 2. Location and types of housing 3. Location and number of east-west street connections 4. Location of office and mixed use development 5. Overall mix of land uses 6. Connection to future Transit Center development Over the course of three Council meetings (on February 15, March 15, and April 5, 2005), the City Council provided the following direction to Staff and the Army. ATTACHMENT 3 ~~1a Parks and Open Space: - Linear Parks: Councilmembers liked the concept of linear parks and/or small parks running through the development to provide convenient recreational opportunities adjacent to residents and that link the various sections of the development to one another. There should be a combination of trail-like linear parks to connect areas (which would not be counted as useable park acreage but valuable amenities to the site) as well as linear parks similar to Valley Trails Park in Pleasanton that function as useable park space to the immediate neighborhood. The Valley Trails example is especially interesting because it is a neighborhood park that is accessible from over a dozen different cul-de-sac and street locations throughout the subdivision it serves, making it very accessible and safe to walk to from hundreds of homes. The concept of linear parks is more of a design issue than it is a new or different category of parks. The term linear park is used here to describe a space that is longer than it is wide and has connections to mare streets than is accomplished with a traditional neighborhood park design. - Central Park: Councilmembers expressed an interest in having the project plan incorporate a centrally-located park space that can serve as a focal point far community events and festivities, provide a geographical link between the western and eastern portions of Dublin, provide a grand entry into the project site, and provide a unique space for a range of programming opportunities. The central park space in Alternative 5 was mentioned as an example of such a space. - Lake: Councilmembers liked the presence of a lake in the public space, if it is feasible from a water supply standpoint, which is still to be determined. - Transit Center: Because the Camp Parks property land use plans to date have incorporated the 8.7-acre Alameda County Surplus Property Authority-owned Transit Center park site, it is clear that the 8.7 acres will need to be accommodated elsewhere on the project site. Councilmembers want to ensure that the future park space is easily accessible to Transit Center residents. - Unique Park Use and Adequate Park Acreage. Councilmembers want to ensure that not only is there enough usable park space provided to serve the population generated by the development, but that there would also be additional park and open space provided to accommodate other special facilities desired by the City. Adequate Park Acreage: In each of the Top 3 Alternatives consider by the City Council, the land use plans indicated the following acreage available for park uses: Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 (1,392 units = (1,484 units = (1,996 units = 2,784 residents 2,968 residents 3,992 residents Total Parks and Open Space Acreage 54 ac. 74 ac. 50 ac. (including enhanced streetscape buffers and trail corridors Total Usable Park Acreage 48 ac. 65 ac. 43 ac. (excludin buffers and corridors While the consultants who developed the land use plans did not indicate specifically whether the usable park acreage was net acreage or gross acreage, the Army should know that the City's ~ ~ I~ requirement is for park spaces to be net usable acres. The net usable acres have minimum performance standards to serve neighborhood and community park needs, and shall be designed to accommodate play areas, sports facilities, picnic facilities, and natural areas as required by the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. (As noted in the first bullet point above, trail-like linear parks would not be counted as useable park acreage.) Since the land use plans developed in the Strategic Visioning Process provided the basis for all discussions regarding the appropriate amount of park acreage on the project site, the City fully expects that the eventual land use plan will contain a minimum of 43 acres of net usable park space. Unique Facility: On March 15, 2005, the City Council directed Staff to determine what type of uses might be desirable for a unique park space on the project site as well as the amount of space (land and building, if appropriate) needed to accommodate the use. Over the next several months, while the Army is soliciting a master developer to be involved in the land use planning process, City Staff will be working with a consultant (at the City's expense) to answer this question. Once the City has concluded what type of facility might be appropriate and the size requirements of such a facility are determined, the information will be communicated to the Army for its inclusion in the formal land plan submittal. Housin~: - Councilmembers want to ensure a good mixture of housing types throughout the site and to avoid segregating housing types into one area or another. - Councilmembers voiced concerns that there are too many housing units and the housing proposed is too dense. (See related comment in the Land Use section) - Councilmembers did not support the location of housing along Arnold Drive (should be office instead), the placement of single-family homes along Dublin Boulevard (should be medium- density residential, if any), or the placement of single-family homes fronting any major high traffic volume street (for instance the northern-most street in Alternative 5). - Councilmembers suggested considering a different housing type around the central park space (i.e. Consider single-family rowhouses instead of higher density townhomes, condominiums, or apartments.) Circulation and Transportation: - Councilmembers support the idea of having Central Parkway as a local-serving street and not designed for cut-through traffic that would normally use Dublin Boulevard or I-580. Instead, Council members supported the creation of a northern east-west road (much like in Alternative 5) that connects from Dougherty Road to Arnold Road at some point north of Central Parkway and south of Gleason Drive. This road would serve better as a more direct route through the site far those seeking to move between Dougherty and points eastward on Arnold and Gleason without cutting through the central portions of the Camp Parks project site along Central Parkway. Central Parkway should connect to the northern east-west road in a manner that facilitates the smooth transition of traffic on Central Parkway to Dougheriy Road. ~ ~ i~ Other Land Uses: - Councilmembers liked plans that showed the elementary school site adjacent to a park. - Councilmembers reiterated their desire to accommodate some public/semi-public-designated land in the project area (i.e. future post office, place of worship) - Councilmembers voiced concerns that there may not be enough retail and/or office space in tlie project area, but liked the mixed-use/retail/office layout and configuration in Alternative 4 the best. At the February 15, 2005 meeting, City Councilmembers raised concerns about too many housing units on the site at too high a density and suggested that Staff examine the possibility of reducing the number of housing units while increasing the amount of retail or office square footage in the plan. Because the land use plans are so conceptual at this point, it is challenging to consider how the land use layout may work with less residential and more commercial. However, TJKM Transportation Consultants was able to conduct a simple traffic analysis to see if the change in land use mix has the potential to impact the City's critical intersection (Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Road) during the P.M. peak hour. The land use mix as analyzed far the traffic study is detailed below: Land Use Designation ~ Scenario 1: Alternative 5 Scenario 2: Reduced Residential Yield Alternative 5 ~ (fewer res. units, less res. densit , more retail s fl ' Total Number of Residential Units 1,996 1,600 SF Residential (8 u/a) 216 260 MF Residential (20 u/a) 1,180 944 MF Residential 40 u/a - 396 MF Residential 60 u/a 600 - Retail s 196,000 300,000 GeneralOffice s 248,000 248,000 Public/Semi Public Uses s* 52,000 * 100,000 * Useable ark s ace (acres * 43 acres * 43 acres * Elementary School (s fl* 105,000 (8 acres) * 105,000 (8 acres) * CCTA Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio for the P.M. Peak Hour at Dublin/Dou herty** .98 ** (LOS E) .98 ** (LOS E) _ - -- - - -- * Note: Public/Semi-public, parks, and school uses not factored into the traffic analysis for the site because they are typically low PM peak hour trip generators and very difficult to model unless the exact use is known. ** Note: Base V/C ratio for Dublin/Dougherty intersection using the new CCTA model (assuming full buildout of the General Plan pius revised Eastern Dublin Property Owners) is .93 (LOS E) without the Camp Parks project. Since the traffic impact of the two scenarios is similar, the City Council stated that they prefer the Reduced Residential Yield in terms of land use mix, which would allow for a higher amount ~~ -~ of retail or possibly office square footage on the site and a lesser amount of residential units with a lower density. The above sections summarize the direction given by the City Council on all issues related to parks and open space, housing, traffic/circulation, and land uses as discussed at the last three City Council meetings. It is the City's hope that this information will aid the Army and their developer in creating the land use plan that will ultimately become the formal project proposal. However, it is important to note that there are still unknowns. regarding the project that may impact its outcome and the eventual land use plan that is proposed for the site, including the following items, which will need to be addressed as the Army moves further along in the process: A lake or water feature. Council members noted that this is a desirable feature for the development, but until the specifics of the size, capacity, and water requirements of any proposed feature are known, it is difficult for the Dublin San Ramon Services District to assess whether or not it is viable. There are environmental resources on the site that could restrict development in certain locations. Until a detailed project application is submitted and the environmental review process begins, it is difficult to determine what type of requirements the State and Federal resource agencies might have regarding the riparian conidar on the project site, and it is difficult to determine how the regulatoryagency requirements might impact the layout of the site and the feasibility of the proposed development. The City will need to ensure that the project is fiscally positive. Through the Strategic Visioning Process, the City's consultants (RTKL, Inc. and Keyser Marston) took a cursory look at the possible fiscal impacts of the various alternatives to ensure that each would have a net positive fiscal impact on the City (one of the City's eight goals). However, it is difficult at this stage to assess the exact nature of the fiscal impacts and whether one alternative is markedly different than another. A detailed fiscal study will be conducted when a formal project application is submitted. The City will need to further analyze the traffic impacts of the project. The City and the Applicant completed a traffic study when the General Plan Amendment request was initiated in 2003. .That study aimed to provide an understanding.of the amount of vehicle trips that could be generated by the site given the City's existirig and future infrastructure network and buildout projections. In addition to this 2003 study, a focused Contra Costa Traffic Authority (CCTA) traffic analysis was recently completed for the Dublin/Dougherty intersection in particular, which compared the original Alternative 5 to the Reduced Residential Yield Alternative 5 to determine how these two scenarios impact this key intersection under the new model. However, once a formal project application is made with a final land use plan, final density mix, a more refined circulation plan, etc., with more detail than has been available to date with the conceptual land use plans, a new traffic study will produce more precise results and establish a more accurate picture of the project impacts. ^ Staff will recommend to the City Council that a General Plan Amendment for the site be approved only after a Development Agreement has been executed. Development Agreements have long been a part of vesting land use entitlements for an extended duration of time. For instance, there is a 20-year Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch that stipulates ~'~,1~. what public improvements must be made at what stages of the development of the overall project. Due to the unique nature of the Camp Parks site and the wide range of land use entitlements that will be sought, it will be important for the City and the Applicant to agree up front to the nature, timing, and expectations of the various public benefits to be gained from the approval of the project. This can be accomplished through the negotiation of a Development Agreement, and Staff will propose that the Development Agreement be finalized prior to the approval of any land use entitlements (i.e. General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, etc.) Thank you for your careful consideration of the issues raised in this letter. The City Council reflected positively on the Strategic Visioning Process and the alternative land use plans that were developed that provide the context for these useful discussions. The City looks forward to seeing the next stage of this project, and as always, Staff will work with you throughout this process to ensure that future development at Camp Parks is a project of which both the City and Army can be very proud. Sincerely, Richard C. Ambrose City Manager c: City Counci]members Kurt Haglund, Staubach Company, 401 Ninth Street, Suite 1050, Washington D.C. 20004 Larry Bell, Staubach Company, 6150 Stoneridge mall Road, Suite 335, Pleasanton, CA 94588 Colonel James Doty, West Coast Garrison/Camp Parks, Building 790, 5`h Street, Dublin, CA 94568 Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director Melissa Morton, Public Works Director Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director Jeri Ram, Planning Manager Ray Kuzbari, Senior Civil Engineer Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner ~/ 1~- `~ February 27, 2006 Kurt Haglund The Staubach Company 401 Ninth Street, Suite 1050 Washington D.C. 20004 Dear Kurt, As you are aware from the discussions that took place during the Strategic Visioning Process for the Camp Parks Project Area in 2004, the City of Dublin is very committed to ensuring that any future development on the site is a substantial benefit to the City as a whole. The 187-acre site at Camp Parks is in a key location and will be highly visible to the community. The successful execution of the project is paramount. With this in mind, the Dublin City Council has consistently indicated an interest in having the eventual Camp Parks project incorporate a centrally-located park space that can serve as a focal point for community .events and festivities, provide a geographical link between the western and eastern portions of Dublin, provide a grand entry into the project site, and provide a unique space for a range of programming opporiunities. However, the exact form, size, and function of this public space and its amenities were unknown. In March 2005, the City Council directed Staff to conduct research on recreational and civic amenities which currently exist in the greater Tri Valley area and to also identify facilities that are not currently available and might be appropriate for Dublin. The study proceeded with the understanding that the Camp Parks project would be asked to provide a certain amount of neighborhood and community park space to serve the residents generated by the project, as well as provide additional space to accommodate a unique facility, public space, or community amenity. At the September 20, 2005 City Council meeting, the City Council received the final report prepared by consultants Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) on potential themes for a centrally- located park space at the future Camp Parks development site. Instead of simply creating a list of facilities that existed elsewhere which could be appropriate for Dublin; MIG's report, "Uniquely Dublin: A Vision for a Community Place, " examined the concept of "placemaking" and formulated a strategy for the City of Dublin to consider far the public space at the future Camp Parks site. The MIG Report described creating a community-gathering place through identifying a combination of unique indoor and outdoor spaces that share a common theme, thereby creating a vibrant public space that welcomes residents of all ages and interests. MIG presented the theme concepts to the City Council and also outlined the approximate amount of land required to accommodate the facilities discussed. MIGs final report was also presented to the City's Parks and Community ATTACHMENT 4 1 D l~ Services Commission, Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission, Senior Advisory Committee, and Youth Advisory Committee for their input. At its February 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council discussed the different theme options and acreage requirements, and directed Staff to inform the Army of the City Council's desire to have a 46-acre park space developed for the site. This acreage would be used to develop a public facility with a theme that centered around Arts, Culture, Food, and Games, and would provide the unique amenities the City Council so strongly desires for the area. The 46-acre park space would be in addition to the amount of parkland required to serve the future residents of the project site. The City Council is aware that this amount of land is more than was allocated in some of the land use plans presented during the Sfirategic Visioning Process. Since the Army's developer selection process and preliminary site planning is still in the early stages, it was the City Council's intent that this information be communicated to the Army at the earliest point possible. At such time that the Army andlor their Master Developer return with their formal application and land use plan for the project area (which identifies the potential site for the unique public space and the proposed timing for development of the entire project area), Staff will create a framework far the development of a master plan for the parkland portion of the project, including funding strategies. Thank you for your careful consideration of this issue. As the Army begins to engage developers in the information gathering and selection process, it is hoped that you will share this letter (as well as, the letter dated April 13, 2005 that summarized the City's overall desires relating to the eventual development on the site) with interested parties. Both letters provide valuable insight into the issues the City will be focusing on as the development of this site moves through the entitlement process. The City of Dublin looks forward to seeing the next stage of this project. As always, Staff will work with you throughout this process to ensure that future development at Camp Parks is a project that both the City and Army can be very proud. Sincerely, Richard C. Ambrose City Manager P.S. It is my understanding that Doug Benson is no longer involved in this project on behalf of the Army, so if you could let Kristi Bascom of my Staff know who is taking his place, she can ensure he or she receives a copy of this letter as well. c: City Councilmembers Larry Bell, The Staubach Company, 1331 N. California Blvd. #170, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Colonel Scott Wood, West Coast Garrison/Camp Parks, Building 790, 5`h Street, Dublin, CA 94568 Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager Jeri Ram, Community Development Director Chris Foss, Economic Development Director Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner il ia~ May 3, 2006 Kurt Haglund The Staubach Company 401 Ninth Street, Suite 1050 Washington D.C. 20004 Dear Kurt, As you may be aware, the Board of Directors of the Valley Children's Museum had discussions with Colonel Jim Doty to possibly build a facility on the Camp Parks property prior to his reassignment. As the Army Reserve has continued to move forward with the Real Property Exchange (RPX) for the 187 acres they are considering for private development, the status of the Valley Children's Museum negotiations with officials at Camp Parks became uncertain. Because the Valley Children's Museum is hoping to open its permanent museum facility in the Tri-Valley in the next 3-4 years, the Board of Directors approached the City of Dublin with the request to be considered when the City negotiates with the future Master Developer of the Camp Parks Project Area so that they can secure a location somewhere on the RPX site. The Museum Board made a formal request for a show of support from the Dublin City Council and a commitrnent from the Council to help the Museum secure a location on the Camp Parks site. At its meeting on April 18, 2006, the City Council discussed the Children's Museum's request and unanimously agreed to support the inclusion of the Museum facility within the 46-acre park site the City expects to see in the future land plan for the Camp Parks site (as referenced in my previous letter to you dated February 27, 2006). The Council is very excited about the prospect of including the Valley Children's Museum in the future master plan for the parkland portion of the project, and is willing to work with the future Master Development and/or Army Reserve to find a location that makes sense. Since the Army's developer selection process and preliminary site planning is still in the early stages, it was the City Council's intent that this information be communicated to the Army at the earliest point possible. As the Army begins to engage developers in the information gathering and selection process, it is hoped that you will share this letter (as well as previous letters' we have written relating to development on the site) with interested parties. These letters provide valuable insight into the issues the City will be focusing on as the development of this site moves through the entitlement process. ATTACHMENT 5 i~~~ ~a The City of Dublin looks forward to seeing the next stage of this project, and to learning when the Notice of Availability will be released so that we can plan our efforts to provide information to potential developers in a timely and organized fashion. Thank you in advance for doing all you can to help us coordinate this process. Sincerely, Richard C. Ambrose City Manager c: City Councilmembers Linda Spencer, Valley Children's Museum, P.O. Box 305, San Ramon, CA 94583 Larry Bell, The Staubach Company, 1331 N. Califomia Blvd. #170, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dave Robinson, USAR Colonel Scott Wood, West Coast Garrison/Camp Parks, Building 790, 5`h Street, Dublin, CA 9456& Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager Jeri Ram, Community Development Director Chris Foss, Economic Development Director Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner