HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 Dublin Crossing Status •
G��/�Ot Dirk,�2
,1"010, 182 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
�C �� CITY COUNCIL • File #420-20
• DATE: May 29, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager(-`�2.- drciticf4
SUBJECT: Dublin Crossing Project Status Update
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff and SunCal Companies/Argent Management ("SunCal") have been working on the
development of a Draft Land Plan and an associated list of Agreement Points that together form
a Proposed Project for the 190-acre Dublin Crossing project site. Staff committed, in previous
discussions on the project, to return to the City Council at key points throughout the project
review process to receive input on items of critical importance. SunCal's Proposed Project has
several unique aspects, and Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on several of the
project components so that work on processing the project can move forward successfully.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
•
• None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive the status report on the Dublin. Crossing
Project; and 2) Provide input on the following items:
a) The Draft Land Plan;
b) The Project Agreement Points;
c) Use of a Community Facilities District (CFD) as a financing tool for future development on
the project site;
d) Authorization to study the formation of a CFD for the Dublin Crossing project;
e) Authorization to release the Notice of Preparation for the Project Environmental Impact
Report (EIR); and
f) Feedback on other project-specific questions posed.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
•
Page 1 of 13 ITEM NO. 3.
DESCRIPTION:
Background •
For over a decade, the City Council has had a key initiative to process a General Plan
Amendment for private development on a portion of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
Base (Camp Parks). On April 15, 2003, the U.S. Army requested, and the City Council
authorized, the commencement of a General Plan Amendment Study for a 180+ acre project
area. The project area is generally bounded by Scarlett Drive, Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road,
and 5th Street (which is on the Camp Parks base). The Dublin Crossing project site also
includes an 8.7 acre site at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road owned by the
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority.
The City, in partnership with the U.S. Army Reserve, engaged community members in a
"Strategic Visioning Process" in 2004 that examined the opportunities and constraints of the site,
solicited ideas, and created a vision for the future development of the site. The results of this
effort, and the follow-up direction from the City Council, were shared with the U.S. Army with the
hope that any future development plans would incorporate the desired vision.
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 Crossing" project area. In
October 2008, the U.S. Army Reserve announced the selection of SunCal Companies/Argent
Management ("SunCal") 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 Dublin Crossing project site to proceed.
•
Once the Exchange Agreement was signed, City Staff began pre-development meetings with
SunCal. Over the course of the past several months, SunCal has shared their draft
development proposal for the property with Staff and has engaged the City in a discussion of the
opportunities and constraints of the site and of SunCal's obligations to the U.S. Army.
On August 16, 2011 , the City Council reviewed the original 2004 vision for the Dublin Crossing
project site and provided updated direction and feedback to be incorporated into future land
plans. The meeting minutes for the August 16th meeting are included as Attachment 1 to this
Staff Report.
Since that time, Staff and SunCal have been meeting on a regular basis to discuss the land use
and circulation network as well as SunCal's plan to provide parks, open space, and amenities •
on the project site. Staff and SunCal have also been negotiating the larger package of
community benefits that SunCal proposes to provide in exchange for acceptance of their land
plan and development proposal. These community benefits, and the associated trade-offs,
have been crafted into a list of Agreement Points. The Draft Land Plan (Attachment 2) and the
Project Agreement Points (Attachment 3) go hand-in-hand as SunCal's development proposal
for the property. Staff is seeking input from the City Council on the Draft Land Plan and the
Draft Project Agreement Points and affirmation from the City Council that the concepts
illustrated and described in the two documents are acceptable. These items are explained in
more detail below. • •
Staff is also seeking input from the City Council on the conceptual Community Park
Programming Options (Attachments 4 and 5), authorization to begin the environmental analysis
for the project by allowing the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR
Page 2 of 13
(Attachment 6), and the use of a Community Facilities District as a financing tool. These items
are discussed in future sections.
• Draft Land Plan (Attachment 2)
At the August 16, 2011 City Council meeting, Staff committed to return to the City Council at
pivotal points during the project processing to receive the City Council's input. Because the
Draft Land Plan attempts to address many of the issues that were brought up by the City
Council at the August 16, 2011 meeting, Staff and the Applicant felt it would be appropriate to
return for input at this time. The Draft Land Plan will be revised and refined over the course of
the next several months. However, at this point, Staff wants to ensure that the City Council is
comfortable with the general concepts shown in the land plan before it is included in the NOP.
•
A brief summary description of the land uses shown on the Draft Land Plan is as follows:
Roadway/Circulation network
• The Draft Land Plan includes the major roadway infrastructure for the project area.
• An additional east-west road has been added to improve connectivity.
Residential Uses (Yellow, orange, and pink)
• There is a range of 1,695 to 1,996 units spread throughout the project site.
• Residential land uses cover a majority of the project site and are the predominant land
use.
• Densities range from 8 units per net acre (roughly the same density as the California
• Creekside neighborhood on Dublin Boulevard across from Hacienda Crossings) to 20
units per net acre (typically townhome or garden apartment style multi-family units).
• Higher residential densities along Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, and Scarlett Drive with
lower densities toward the interior of the project site.
• Granny/In-law units to be constructed with some portion of the single-family homes.
• The exact layout of individual neighborhoods and their interior streets are to be
determined later.
Non-Residential Uses (Purple and orange cross-hatched)
• Office, retail, service, business park/flex-tech/light industrial, and semi-public uses
envisioned.
• Development capacity ranges from a minimum of 56,500 square feet to a maximum of
200,000 square feet of the above-noted uses across the project site.
• Required (with residential) on the approximately 8.4 acres at the corner of Dublin
Boulevard and Arnold Road with future Mixed Use Zoning.
• • Permitted (but not required) on the cross-hatched areas along Arnold Road and Dublin
Boulevard where residential land uses are currently shown.
•
Public Parks and Open Space (Green)
• One 28-acre Community Park that includes a development pad for the Valley Children's
Museum and a potential 2-4 acre joint use area with the Dublin Unified School District
• (District). •
• • Two 2.5-acre Neighborhood Park sites.
• Open Space Corridor containing the Chabot Canal runs northeast to southwest on the
project site.
Page 3 of 13
• Open Space Trail Corridor runs along the eastern portion of C Street to provide a
greenway link between the Community Park and points further east.
School (Pink) •
• 8.0 net acre site adjacent to the Community Park.
• Site could revert to residential uses if the School District determines that it is not needed.
Project Agreement Points (Attachment 3)
The Draft Land Plan proposed by SunCal is associated with a package of community benefits
and, in some cases, requests for exemptions from certain requirements. The Project
Agreement Points form the basis of a future Development Agreement for the project. The
Agreement Points in their entirety are included as Attachment 3, but a brief summary of the key
discussion areas is provided below.
Parks:
• SunCal will provide 28 net acres of Community Park acreage and 5 net acres of
Neighborhood Park acreage. This acreage will remain constant regardless of whether
the residential unit count in the project ends up being in the lower range at 1,695 units or
. up to 1 ,996 units. This would constitute a dedication of 4.3 to 7.35 acres more than the
minimum park acreage requirement.
• Two to four acres of the Community Park would be subject to joint use with the adjacent
school site. If the City and School District cannot agree to a suitable joint use
arrangement, two to four acres of the Community Park would revert to school site
acreage and the Community Park would be reduced commensurately.
• To the greatest degree possible, the Community Park will be programmed to •
accommodate the special amenities desired by the City Council as well as the
recreational facilities required by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. However, to do
so may require overlaying sports fields (i.e. combined soccer/baseball).
• The Community Park will include acreage to accommodate water detention/retention
from the Dublin Crossing project. The exact size and configuration of the water
detention/retention areas are not yet known.
• All three parks will be improved by SunCal and provided to the City without
reimbursement.
• The Community Park will be developed and dedicated to the City in multiple phases.
• SunCal will provide a Park Maintenance endowment of $2.5 million that is paid
proportionally as the improved park acreage is delivered to the City.
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) Parcel:
• The 8.7-acre parcel of land owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority at
the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Drive (also known as Site F-1 in the
Transit Center Master Plan) will be included in the Dublin Crossing project.
• The 8.7-acre parcel is currently designated to be developed as a Neighborhood Park.
• The City will endeavor to reach an Agreement with the ACSPA to acquire the parcel on a
timetable to coincide with SunCal's planned development of that portion of the project
site.
• The park acreage will be included within the larger Community Park on the Dublin •
Crossing project site. Site F-1 will be developed in accordance with the Draft Land Plan.
• The funds used to acquire the parcel will include $2.8 million from SunCal as well as
funds from the City's Public Facilities Fee program.
Page 4 of 13
• If an agreement to acquire the property cannot be reached in a timely fashion between
the City and the County Surplus Property Authority, the land plan may need to be
• reconsidered, and it is expected that the Community Park would be commensurately
reduced in size.
Community Benefit Payment:
• • • SunCal will provide a Community Benefit Payment of $7.5 million.
• The Community Benefit Payment will be spread over all six phases of the project and will
be paid incrementally over the duration of several years.
• The Community Benefit Payment can be used at the City Council's discretion to fund
special projects or efforts.
Community Facility District (CFD):
• SunCal will pursue the formation of a Community Facility District (CFD) for the project
area.
• Items to be paid for from CFD proceeds will likely include development impact fees as
well as site infrastructure such as roads and utilities. Park acquisition, construction, and
maintenance will not be included in the CFD.
• The CFD could cause an effective tax rate of up to 2% on residential properties within the
project area with a 2% annual escalator over a 35 year term. Based on the minimum
project size of 1,695 units, SunCal has provided very preliminary estimates that the
average monthly cost of a CFD would be approximately $350. •This figure will change
based on the size of the CFD, the residential unit count, how fast the project phases are
built out, and the sales price of the units, so this figure is provided just to illustrate a
• ballpark expectation.
Exemptions:
• There will be no land designated for Semi-Public facilities in the project area. Semi-
Public uses will be allowed within all non-residentially designated areas on the project
site.
• There will be no Civic/Designated Development site in the project area.
• SunCal will have the option to "buy out" of some or all of the affordable housing required
for the project by providing a payment at a reduced rate for the required units they decide
not to build. The payment will be made in its entirety within four years of execution of the
project Development Agreement. At the discretion of the City Council, these funds could
be used to fund other affordable housing efforts or could be used for another community
purpose.
Land Uses:
• The Draft Land Plan will include approximately 8.4 acres of land-zoned "Mixed Use" that
will permit a minimum of 56,500 square feet to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of
commercial land uses in addition to residential units.
• The project includes a minimum of 1,695 residential units. Additional residential units (Op
to a maximum of 1,996 units) can be accommodated on the project site in the following
manner:
o The Draft Land Plan will allow areas with the potential for increased residential density
• on the perimeter of the project site (Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, and Scarlett
Drive).
o The 8-acre school site will have a residential overlay so, if the site is not acquired by
the School District after a certain period of time, residential units could be built.
Page 5 of 13
o Granny/In-law units are expected to be constructed with some portion of the single-
family homes, but they will not be considered a separate unit for the purposes of
determining the project unit count.
•
Development Agreement:
• The term of the Development Agreement will be 15 years.
• SunCal will have the option to extend the term of the Development Agreement for five
additional years at the cost of $200,000 per year.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project, which includes the Draft Land Plan combined with the Project Agreement
Points, presents a complete package on which Staff is seeking City Council direction. The City
Council has the authority to provide feedback on the project components individually or as a
whole.
The proposed project exceeds the City's requirements in some areas, varies from City policies/
guidelines/standards in others, and includes the formation of a Community Facilities District.
The overall combination of trade-offs needs to be considered, and generally accepted by the
City Council, in order for the project to move forward as currently proposed to the next step of
review and analysis.
Staff has summarized the key benefits and tradeoffs of the proposed project below.
Additionally, Staff has noted those topic areas where the resolution of issues is still unknown
and will require further information and analysis. •
Protect Benefits
1. Placement of land uses in the Draft Land Plan. The Draft Land Plan has been designed
so that the higher density residential uses are along the perimeter of the project site and
the lower density residential uses are in the interior of the site. Higher density residential
uses have been placed along Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive, and Arnold Road, which
can be designed in a way that they are buffered from the impacts of these higher-volume
streets. The non-residential land uses are located near major thoroughfares, and the
proposed school site is located near the lower-density residential uses.
2. Roadway circulation in the Draft Land Plan. The roadway system has been designed to
include both a local-serving extension of Central Parkway as well as a more direct east-
west connection that can serve the circulation needs of the broader community.
3. Parkland dedication. SunCal proposes to dedicate more park acreage to serve the
Dublin Crossing project than is required by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Based
on the upper limit of the project residential range (1,996 units), the Dublin Crossing project
would require the dedication of the following public park acreage amounts:
Required Proposed Difference
Community Park 14 acres 19.3 acres 5.3 acres
(3.5 acres/1,000 persons)
ACSPA parcel 8.7 acres • 8.7 acres 0 acres •
(unimproved acreage relocated from its
•
existing location at the corner of Arnold and
Dublin and incorporated into the Dublin
Crossing Community Park)
Page 6 of 13
Total Community Park 22.7 acres 28.0 acres* 5.3 acres
• Total Neighborhood Park 6.0 acres 5.0 acres -1.0 acres
(1.5 acres per 1,000 persons)
Total Parkland Surplus based on Parks + 4.3 acres
and Recreation Master Plan Standards
* Denotes the fact that the "proposed" acreage to be provided by SunCal is improved park acreage, which
has an additional benefit to the City, as noted below.
If the lower end of the residential range were reached (1,695 units) instead of the upper
limit, the total parkland surplus amount would be 7.35 acres. However, it is important to
acknowledge that a portion of the park acreage will be used for project-wide water
detention/retention purposes and a portion of the park acreage is intended to be set aside
for joint use with the School District. The exact acreage amount needed for water
detention/retention is not yet known and the specifics of a joint use agreement are not yet
known. Therefore, Staff cannot say with certainty what acreage amount will be available
for all-season, unrestricted park programming until further details regarding discussions
with the School District, and information on the site hydrology, drainage, and water
detention/retention facilities are known.
•
4. Park construction. SunCal proposes to construct all of the improvements in both the
Community Park and the two Neighborhood Parks and deliver finished parks to the City.
The improvements to be constructed include a development pad for a future Valley
Children's Museum building so that the facility can be integrated with the other park
amenities and would not have to build or maintain their own stand-alone site.
• 5. Park maintenance. SunCal proposes to provide a $2.5 million endowment to the City to
help fund the ongoing maintenance of the project parks. The payment will be made over
•
time commensurate with the dedication of parkland to the City.
6. Contribution to purchase ACSPA parcel. SunCal proposes to provide $2.8 million
towards the acquisition of the 8.7 acre Surplus Property Authority parcel at the corner of
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. This is a site that the City is obligated to acquire at
some point in the future to provide parkland in the vicinity of the Transit Center. Including
this parcel in the Dublin Crossing Master Plan allows the parkland to be acquired sooner
than anticipated, allows the Transit Center parkland to be combined with the Dublin
Crossing Community Park in a more efficient design, and allows SunCal (instead of the
City) to build the park improvements:
7. Community Benefit contribution. SunCal will provide a $7.5 million Community Benefit
Payment to be used at the City's discretion to fund any number of special programs and/or
efforts. The payment will be made over time commensurate with the tract maps that are
approved for individual residential neighborhoods.
Proposed Tradeoffs
1 . Exemption from Semi-Public Facilities Policy requirements. SunCal does not
propose to include any land designated to accommodate Semi-Public Facilities as
required by the Semi-Public Facilities Policy adopted in 2004. According to that policy,
• any project that includes an amendment to the General Plan should strive to provide sites
for Semi-Public Facilities at a rate of 1 acre per 1,000 residents. Based on the upper limit
of the project residential range (1,996 units), the Dublin Crossing project should provide 4
acres of land designated for Semi-Public Facilities.
Page 7 of 13
2. Exemption from Inclusionary Zoning requirements. SunCal proposes to not meet the
requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning
Ordinance) by guaranteeing construction of 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units
within the development as affordable units. SunCal is proposing an option to "buy out" of
the City's requirement at a reduced rate. At this point it is unknown how many units
SunCal is proposing to "fee out" from, but their proposal is to pay an up-front rate of
$56,000 per unit for some or all of the affordable units required. The current in-lieu fee
for units is $103,888. The payment of the fees would occur within 48 months of
execution of the Development Agreement and the funds collected could be used to
support other affordable housing efforts underway in Dublin or another community benefit
as determined by the City Council.
In order for this approach to meet the requirements of Chapter 8.68, the City Council can
approve alternate arrangements if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds,
that they meet the purposes of the Chapter. If this is the City Council's direction, findings
to this effect would be drafted by Staff for the City Council's consideration at the time of
formal project consideration.
3. Project Phasing. Buildout of the Dublin Crossing project is a multi-phased process that
is closely tied to the construction of on-base improvements at Camp Parks. The Dublin
Crossing project site will be developed in accordance with the Preliminary Phasing Plan
(Attachment 7), and it will not be developed all at once. The City should expect that from
the commencement of development of Phase 1 in 2014, it could easily be another 12-16
years before the improvements in Phase 6 are completed.
In addition to the complications involved in phasing the project over an extended period
of time, the Phasing Plan illustrates the complex layout of the different phases. The •
Phasing Plan has driven the Draft Land Plan to a great degree, which has resulted in a
plan defined not necessarily by good land planning practices or the desires of the Project
Applicant or the City, but instead by the desires of the U.S. Army and the facilities to be
built on the base. If the site were unencumbered by the phasing requirements, Staff
believes that the Draft Land Plan would likely look quite different.
4. No Designated Development site. When the conceptual land planning work was done
in 2004/2005 for the project site, the City had expressed an interest in having the project
incorporate a "Designated Development Site" in the land plan for future use by the City.
It was uncertain at that time how the site would be utilized, but the concept was that it
could enable economic development or be used for a future civic purpose. Land plans
that were developed during the charette process in 2005 included the Designated
Development Site of approximately nine acres, but SunCal is not proposing to include a
site in the Draft Land Plan.
Project Discussion Items
1 . Joint Park/School facilities. In the Draft Land Plan, SunCal has identified 28 net acres
for the Community Park and 8 net acres for an elementary school site for a total of 36
acres. The Dublin Unified School District has indicated that the current State guidelines
for elementary school sites are 12 acres. If the School District determines that an
. elementary school is needed in the Dublin Crossing project area, they have indicated that
8 net acres will not be sufficient and additional acreage is necessary. •
SunCal proposes that, if the School District requires additional acreage under their
ownership, it will come out of the 28 net acre Community Park which would be reduced
Page 8 of 13
commensurately. This could result in a Community Park that could be as small as 24 net
acres. Staff believes that a more desirable alternative would have the City and the
• School District work out a joint use arrangement for some portion (up to 4 acres) of the
Community Park site that can fulfill the School District's needs for outdoor play space
during school hours while also fulfilling the City's need for parkland during non-school
hours. •
Joint use of Community Park acreage would involve compromise by both the City and
School District, but if the City Council provides direction to pursue such an arrangement,
Staff will initiate planning/programming discussions with the School District.
2. Park programming. The process of exactly how the Community Park will be
programmed, and the process through which Staff and the Developer will receive input
on future park programming, is currently unknown. SunCal and their development team
• have tested some design concepts to determine whether a 28 acre Community Park will
be sufficient to accommodate all of the recreational facilities outlined in the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan as well as the special amenities that have been suggested by the
City Council.
Based on preliminary assessments, it appears as though the Community Park can either:
1) Meet all of the requirements and standards of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
(i.e. quantity, size, and type of single-sport fields and courts); 2) Accommodate the
special and unique amenities that have been suggested by the City Council; or 3) Some
combination of the two. However, it does not appear that 28 acres is sufficient acreage
to accommodate all of the special and unique amenities while meeting all of the
guidelines and standards the City has adopted for Community Parks. Complicating the
• park programming issue is the exact amount of acreage that is proposed to be devoted to
water detention/retention to serve the larger Dublin Crossing project site is not yet known,
as well as the need to plan for joint use on a portion of the acreage with the School
District.
Two concept park plans are included as Attachments 4 and 5 to this Staff Report, but
they are for illustrative purposes only. Staff has not yet fully analyzed the plans, but will
work with SunCal in the coming months if the City Council provides direction that the
acreage proposed by SunCal and the general programming concepts for the Community
Park are sufficient.
3. Valley Children's Museum. When the Valley Children's Museum Board of Directors first
approached the City in 2006 with a request to be included in Camp Parks Master Plan,
the City Council unanimously agreed to support the inclusion of the Museum facility
within the 46-acre "bonus park" site that the City expected to see in the future land plan
for the Camp Parks. The City sent a letter to the U.S. Army noting this direction
(Attachment 8). However, the proposed Community Park is much smaller than was
originally expected. The Draft Land Plan includes a total of 33 net acres of Community
and Neighborhood Parkland (including 4.3 to 7.35 "extra" acres beyond the minimum
requirement). Direction from the 2005 concept plan was for the project to meet the
minimum amount of required Community and Neighborhood Parkland and to also include
a 46 acre "bonus park" site. The reality of SunCal's current proposal is that there are 38
.fewer "extra" acres in which facilities such as the Valley Children's• Museum could be
• located. •
Staff believes that the idea of providing the Valley Children's Museum a stand-alone 2.5
acre parcel should be reconsidered given that the park acreage on the project site is
substantially smaller than when the idea was originally discussed in 2006. There is no
Page 9 of 13
longer "bonus park" acreage available. The Draft Land Plan includes a development pad
for the Valley Children's Museum within the Community Park. Because SunCal proposes
to build all the park infrastructure, the Museum would realize a substantial benefit by
having a fully-functioning site on which to build their future building — complete with
parking, landscaping, and nearby amenities.
If the City Council provides direction to do so, Staff and SunCal will want to engage the
Valley Children's Museum Board of Directors in a discussion regarding how the Museum
Board's desire for a location within the Dublin Crossing project site can be met in ways
other than providing a stand-alone 2.5 acre site.
4. Community Facilities District (CFD). Historically, developers in Dublin have financed
improvements in new areas of development privately, without City involvement.
Requiring developers to construct facilities and/or pay development fees are the means
by which new infrastructure has been built in the past. As the City learned in the CFD
training provided by Meyers Nave on May 15, 2012, CFDs allow the financing of
infrastructure improvements through debt financing facilitated by the City. This form of
financing shifts the burden of paying for infrastructure from the developer to the future
property owners and purchasers. CFDs have been used in several communities in the
Bay Area and beyond, but there are no CFDs currently in the City of Dublin.
Before a CFD could. be initiated, there is a great deal of additional information and
analysis that would need to be completed. Staff and SunCal would need to return to the
City Council in the future for more discussion on details such as:
a. The size of the potential CFD;
b. List of development impacts fees and facilities proposed to be included in the •
CFD;
c. More refined cost estimates for future property owners based on the proposed size
of the CFD, the number of units over which CFD costs will be shared, and
estimated sales prices;
d. Estimated staffing proposal and consultant costs to be incurred by the City (and
reimbursed by the Developer);
e. Proposed schedule for the formation of a CFD, installation of the infrastructure,
and the distribution of bond funds; and
f. Recommendation from a City-hired CFD expert as to the viability and feasibility of
the proposed CFD.
• There is a substantial amount of work and involvement led by the City to enable the
creation and implementation of a CFD. The creation of a CFD is a critical component of
SunCal's proposal, and Staff has been informed by SunCal that the project would change
substantially if the City is not supportive of a CFD for this project.
If the City Council is comfortable with the concept of a CFD for future development on the
project site, there will be many issues to work through with SunCal and many decisions to
be made to the satisfaction of all parties involved. The final decision on how a CFD is
formed is many steps down the road, but at this point, Staff is seeking direction from the
City Council on whether a CFD is an acceptable financing tool for future development on
the project site and whether to further study the formation of a CFD. This policy direction 4.
from the City Council is needed before the project can move forward.
Page 10 of 13
•
INPUT FROM CITY COUNCIL:
•
• Based on the information presented above related to the Draft Land Plan, Project Agreement
Points, and the analysis of the project benefits, tradeoffs, and items needing further discussion,'
Staff is seeking input from the City Council on the following questions:
Question 1: Is the Draft Land Plan generally acceptable?
Staff and SunCal will continue to refine the Draft Land Plan as the project moves through the
environmental review analysis and Specific Plan development, and it is expected that some
minor aspects of'the Draft Land Plan will change. At this point, Staff is seeking guidance
from the City Council regarding the residential unit count, amount of commercial square
footage, concept road layout, park configuration/location, and land use distribution and
placement.
Question 2: Is the City Council comfortable with the trade-offs identified?
There are a few guidelines/standards/policies that are not proposed to be met with SunCal's
project, including strict compliance with the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations, and the City's desire to acquire a Designated Development Site in the Dublin
Crossing project.
Question 3: Is the Community Park "package"acceptable?
• The proposed 28 net acre Community Park is smaller than the City was expecting to see in
the Draft Land Plan (based upon past conceptual planning efforts for the site). The exact
park programming opportunities will be refined, but it is expected that not all of the desired
• special amenities as well as the needed sports fields and courts will be accommodated on
the 28 net acre site without considering modifications to the standards of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (i.e. there may be overlaid sports fields or fewer fields than needed).
Also, the 28 net acres will be encumbered with project water detention/retention facilities as
well as acreage confined by a joint use agreement with the School District. However, the
trade-offs are that the Community Park is proposed to be fully improved and provided with a
$2.5 million maintenance endowment. Also, the land to be dedicated for Community Park
purposes exceeds the City requirements by at least 4.3 acres.
Question 4: Should the City discuss joint use opportunities with the School District for
some portion of acreage within the Community Park?
If the City Council provides direction to pursue such an arrangement, Staff will initiate
planning/programming discussions with the School District.
Question 5: Based on the Community Park size, does the City Council__want to revisit
previous direction to provide 2.5 acres of parkland for the Valley Children's Museum?
If the City Council provides direction to do so, Staff and SunCal can engage the Valley
Children's Museum Board of Directors in a discussion regarding how the Museum Board's
desire for a location within the Dublin Crossing project site can be met in ways other than
providing a stand-alone 2.5 acre site in the 28 net acre Community Park.
Question 6: Does the City Council consider a CFD an acceptable financing tool for future
• development on the project site and does the City Council authorize future study on the
formation of a CFD?
Page 11 of 13
If the City Council provides direction that a CFD is an acceptable tool to consider, Staff and
SunCal will return to the City Council in the future for more discussion on details such as:
. a. The size of the potential CFD;
•
b. List of facilities proposed to be included in the CFD;
c. More refined cost estimates for future property owners based on the proposed size of the
CFD, the number of units over which CFD costs will be shared, and estimated sales
prices;
d. Estimated staffing proposal and consultant costs to be incurred by the City (and
reimbursed by the Developer);
e. Proposed schedule for the formation of a CFD, installation of the infrastructure, and the
distribution of bond funds; and
f. Recommendation from a City-hired CFD expert as to the viability and feasibility of the
proposed CFD. •
If the Council authorizes Staff to further study the formation of a CFD, Staff will engage the
services of a CFD expert to assist with answering the above questions and providing
recommendations on future decision points related to the CFD.
Question 7: What is the City Council feedback on the Conceptual Park Plans
(Attachments 4 and 5)?
The plans are very conceptual and have been provided for the purposes of illustrating how
the park could be laid out and function given the amount of acreage and physical limitations.
Staff is seeking City Council input on the park programming focus: a) Should the park
program focus on accommodating the required sports fields and courts with special •
amenities included where space is available; or b) Should the park program focus on
accommodating special and unique amenities and include a more limited number of sports
fields and courts?
NEXT STEPS:
•
The City has hired RBF Consulting to prepare the project Environmental Impact. Report (EIR)
and to assist in the development of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.
If the City Council is generally comfortable with the Draft Land Plan and the Project Agreement
Points, the environmental analysis on the project can begin. The first step in the environmental
review process is to distribute the Notice of Preparation of an EIR (Attachment 6) to inform the
general public and local agencies that this analysis is beginning and to seek input on the content
of the studies. With the City Council's authorization, the Notice of Preparation will be
distributed.
The Notice of Preparation announces the beginning of the environmental review, and it will also
note the date of the Public Scoping Meeting on the project, which is scheduled for Wednesday,
June 20, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. This meeting is an opportunity for members of the public and
interested agencies to provide comments on the scope of the EIR and to learn more about the
proposed project. In addition to the NOP, notification of the public meeting will also be sent to
all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project boundaries as well as all interested
persons who have requested notice.
Page 12 of 13
•
Beyond the Public Scoping Meeting, Staff will continue to work with SunCal to further the
development of the Specific Plan and complete the environmental review of the project. There
• will be future public meetings on the topic including meetings for the general public as well as
future Study Sessions with the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
If the City Council directs Staff to do so, Staff will also seek the services of a CFD expert to
advise Staff and the City Council on the CFD details identified above. Staff will continue to
report back to the City Council throughout the Dublin Crossing development review process on
the progress being made, and will bring key issues and decision points 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
Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS: 1 . City Council Meeting Minutes, August 16, 2011
1. 2. Draft Land Plan
3. Project Agreement Points
4. Concept Community Park Program, Option 1
5. Concept Community Park Program, Option 2
6. Notice of Preparation for the Dublin Crossing EIR
• 7. Preliminary Phasing Plan
8. Letter to the Army regarding the Valley Children's Museum, dated
May 3, 2006
•
•
•
•
Page 13 of 13
• Dublin Crossings Project Update and Strategic Visioning Process Recap,
8:30:20 PM 8.2 (420-20)
•
Principal Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that 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 would use this information to assist in evaluating the proposed land plan that
will be prepared by the Applicant.
Mayor Sbranti asked the City Council if they had any questions regarding what Ms. Bascom had
presented so far.
Cm. Biddle stated this related back to (Alternative) Five. There was one more change. The
numbers had been changed. Now it was 1,600 residential units.
Ms. Bascom stated yes. That was part of Staffs first question. Following the development of
• this Alternative Five, some of the feedback that the City Council gave in 2005 was that they
would like to see the residential units lowered to about 1,600 units and then the retail and office •
square footage bumped up a little bit. So, Cm. Biddle was correct. The final, what Staff called
the Modified Alternative Five, had fewer residential units, more retail and commercial square
footage.
Cm. Biddle stated this was the base and the City would work forward.
Ms. Bascom stated what they looked at here was the general picture. Some of the big
questions that they were asking had to do with major road alignments, location of the parks. So
really they were just using this as a visual framework from which to have the discussions.
Mayor Sbranti stated the original number for residential was 1,996, and he knew they were
going to have the question about 1,600, but that the original number was near 2,000 units.
When he looked at the yield in terms of retail, office, 196,000 square feet, what did that come
out to in terms of acreage, roughly?
Ms. Bascom stated honestly, she did not know. From this land plan, the sizes of the acres were
•
not determined. They were just looking at overall density and intensity. So that analysis was not
•
done for these alternatives.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13
VOLUME 30 13
REGULAR MEETING /� m
AUGUST 16, 2011 �� �f�
�Ra
Mayor Sbranti asked in terms of Civic, was that parks, neighborhood parks, or what did Civic •
refer to? The 117,000?
Ms. Bascom stated all of the open spaces captured parks, open space, linear trails, was all
captured in these 50 acres. The Civic was this designated development site that was over
along Arnold. And it was identified as future development for the purposes of whatever the City
deemed appropriate. So whether that be a future public or semi-public facility, whether that be
future commercial or retail development that the City could be using for their civic and public
purposes.
Mayor Sbranti asked how many acres was that. •
Ms. Bascom stated that was 117,000 square feet at about 0.3 FAR, that would be between
eight and nine acres.
Mayor Sbranti stated that were identified for civic uses in the original land plan.
Ms. Bascom stated as set aside parcel. •
Cm. Hildenbrand asked how big was that in comparison to some of the semi-public/public land
that the City had set aside, say over where the City had done the Montessori School and now
the housing. Just so she could kind of compare it. The City had kind of been fighting with the
issue of had the City done too big of an acreage or too small to allow for projects to come in. So
she was just curious.
•
Ms Bascom stated she did not know how large the public/semi-public sites were that Cm.
Hildenbrand was referring.
Mayor Sbranti stated but the civic space, if he was understanding correctly, that was identified
in this original land plan was around eight to nine acres.
Ms. Bascom stated 117,000 square feet at 0.3 FAR would be a site of right around eight or nine
acres.
Mayor Sbranti asked if in the far right corner, was that the current surplus property land, kind of
folded into the vision of the project..
Ms. Bascom stated that was correct. Right now, because they were just looking at how a land
plan could lay out conceptually, the Surplus Property Authority property was right over here. It
was folded into the land plan with the intention that the park acreage that was on that would be
accommodated somewhere else on the site.
'Mayor Sbranti stated got it. Great.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14
•
VOLUME 30 ��°P�Dec
REGULAR MEETING /7ee0;n
AUGUST 16, 2011
• Cm. Biddle stated there was some acreage, eight acres, set aside for the possible school. The
Dublin Unified School District (School District), as far as they knew, had not made up their mind
about whether there would or would not be a school.
Ms. Bascom stated she knew there was a representative from the School District here this
evening and he had a speaker slip in and would probably address that.
Cm. Swalwell stated he knew at least one person at the meeting from Las Positas College
wanted to speak about a park. He asked if the City Council preferred that he ask that person to
come up when he got to that part of what he would like to see or it they would like him to speak
like anyone else.
Mayor Sbranti stated that anyone that wanted to speak should put a speaker slip in.
Cm. Swalwell asked if it was OK for that person to come up during the City Council's
discussion.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated no.
Cm. Swalwell stated it just might be out of context was what he was afraid of.
Mayor Sbranti stated why did they not do this. He had a number of speaker slips and others
might want to fill them out. What he envisioned was the City Council would finish asking Ms.
• Bascom general questions. Then they would let the applicant speak first, address any
concepts, anything they wanted to review. Then they would go through the speaker slips and if
anybody had any specific questions, or related to a speaker, that might be the opportunity at
that time.
Cm. Swalwell stated sure.
Mayor Sbranti stated if there was someone else in the audience he was referencing, for which
he did not have a speaker slip, they should fill one out and give it to the City Clerk.
Vm. Hart asked Ms. Bascom to put the cursor where the school was proposed.
Ms. Bascom stated in this concept land plan, it was identified right up here adjacent to what
remains as Camp Parks.
Vm. Hart stated so right there off of Central.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated it was going to use the fields, how they all seemed to be doing now.
Mr. Joe Guerra, Suncal Companies, thanked the City Council and Staff very, very much for their
time this evening. He may again sound like a broken record, because he said this every time
he was here, but he wanted to thank them for the amazing professionalism of City Staff. While
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15
VOLUME 30 • /*
REGULAR MEETING Ke4e%
AUGUST 16, 2011 _ ��
they may not agree on every single thing they talked about every single day, they continued to • •
be impressed with their professionalism and competence as they started this process. He was
going to be very brief and there was only one item that he actually wanted to address before the
City Council's conversation because they were actually here tonight to listen to the City Council.
They really appreciated the opportunity to get their input at the front end of the land planning.
But there was one aspect, as Kristi went through the history of the project and talked about
what was going on. It was obvious that two year gap as it related to City involvement where
Suncal negotiated the exchange agreement with the US Army Reserves. One of the most
significant aspects of the exchange agreement was the exhibit that was on the wall and that
was what he wanted to talk about because the phasing of how they got the property as they
built buildings for the Army was very, very significant for when different parts of the land plan
could actually be built and the economics of the project to keep the project feasible. As he
knew all the City Council knew, the way the project was structured, they were not giving the
Army any dollars for the land. They were building them new facilities. So there were six
facilities that related to the six phases that they could see up on the land plan. Each of those
phases had to, in an economic standpoint, stand alone and be feasible. As they, for example,
build a new main gate, the City Council would recognize right here was the existing main gate,
as they built a new main gate, up on Dougherty, they then got this parcel of land (pointed to
parcel on screen) in exchange for that project once they finished constructing it. That parcel of
land, Phase 1 as it was currently defined, needed to stand on its own and move forward and
generate revenue so they could then build what was necessary in Phase 2, etc., etc. So at the
end of the day, he knew from previous conversations that the City Council had had, it was a
priority to get this project developed. They understood very clearly they wanted it built sooner
than later. They would like to make sure it actually could be built when they got done. As they
start talking about the land plan and got the City Council's early feedback, it was important to
remind the City Council that in every instance, for example, the gate, Suncal could not get this
• property until there was a new gate for them to occupy.
Mr. Guerra continued, this was the medical training facility. They could not get Phase 5 until
there was a new building for them to move that part of the mission into. So, as they began to
work with the City on the land plan, this diagram that was up on the wall was actually in the
•
exchange agreement. It was an exhibit of the exchange agreement. They did have the ability
to work with the Army to adjust these lines. The Army had expressed a willingness to work with
Suncal to adjust these lines. But obviously, for example, staying on Phase 5 as his example, he
could not move the line to come and cut out the actual building that was the medical training
facility. It had to stay in part of that Phase. Now they might be able to take some of the open
space that was in that space, sure. So they had some flexibility as they move forward, as they
design the land plan. These lines were partially drawn because where the Army facilities were,
and partially drawn because of Suncal's preliminary land plans. They were doing what was
called best guess planning. Began to do some underwriting, do some land planning, figure out
whether things could fit. They were working off of Alternative 5. They were working on feedback
• they got from City Staff two or three years ago when Suncal started the process. Part of the
reason they were here tonight was to listen to the City Council tell them, yes, that was the
correct assumption as it related to the City Council direction, the City Manager letters, that went
to the Army back then. So again, Suncal very much appreciated the City Council's time. There
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 16 •
• VOLUME 30 roe •aw
REGULAR MEETING
, 2011 ; t
AUGUST 16, 2011 r
��creou�`c
• were several of them there from Suncal this evening. They were happy to come back up and •
answer any questions as the City Council got into the specifics. But frankly, they were here to
listen to the City Council's feedback and then work with City Staff to try to bring back the best
land plan they could.
Vm. Hart stated he was sorry they never touched bases with his schedule this last week. But
had he had conversations with the new Commander and how did that go?
Mr. Guerra stated they actually, Tom Stoller (sp) from Suncal, and he actually attended the
Change of Command ceremony and had as much of a conversation as they could in the
receiving line to meet him. They did talk to him about wanting to come in and brief him on
everything. They had had previous discussions with Larry Smith who, as the City Council knew,
was the ongoing civilian, commands not the right term, but civilian on the base, about wanting to
come in and do that. So they offered to do that. They told him they understood he was buried
right now with the change and had suggested that when they were ready, they would be happy
to both come in talk about what had happened before and to begin the conversation. Frankly,
they just talked to the Army Corp office in Sacramento last Tuesday about what was the
process going to be for having a conversation about if they did need to change the lines. ' And
that conversation with the Corp was, we will go meet the Garrison and get their input on what
Suncal might want to do based on the City Council's feedback. And how did that work and
keep the mission going in the meantime.
• Vm. Hart stated but Larry Smith continued to stay there, so he was their constant.
Mr. Guerra replied yes he was their constant. Suncal was very glad there was now a constant
at the base.
Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Guerra if the phasing as he mentioned, was pretty fixed by the Army
modification. Was there any work, a developer normally does work offsite of roads and such,
so the only work they had on their agenda, was that section of Scarlett that ran diagonal. Was
that part of their scope?
Mr. Guerra stated they knew that was one of the offsite improvements that would need to take
place as part of the project because as they said, connecting Scarlett where it ends into Dublin
was in the City's Master Plan. They were fully expecting that they would build that as part of the
project. It was too soon for him to say that was the only thing. They would have to work through
a traffic engineer and Public Works and City folks to find out if there were any other
improvements that needed to be done.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she had comments but she thought they were related to the questions
at hand.
Mayor Sbranti asked related to the phasing, in terms of infrastructure and roads, because they
had different phases for the project, but they had roads that needed to be built to kind of serve
as the entire thing. How did something, and he knew that they were going to have the
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 17
VOLUME 30 °
REGULAR MEETING rn/
AUGUST 16, 2011 9G0%11
44 ¢S
•
conversation on east-west and what that looked like and it was part of one of the questions, but •
did they build like part of a road and then they would stop and then when the next phase came
in. How would something like that work?
Mr. Guerra stated yes. The answer to his question. So yes, for example, they would build out
Phase 1. There would be streets that would dead end at that property line between Phase 1
and Phase 3, Phase 1 and Phase 2. The next segment would then be picked up. That was
from a use standpoint. One of the aspects of this project that was in the exchange agreement
was they would get something that was called a Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance of the
• entire property. Working with the Garrison, they might build some of that infrastructure early. It
did not make sense; necessarily, to stop after a half mile of your asphalt. As long as it was not
in the way of the mission, and they could accommodate the access of the Army's
communications, there might be some of those streets that got built. Maybe they were built for
emergency vehicle access. The fire department already had agreements with the base to be
able to come through for emergency purposes. So say for example, they built Phase 3 and this
Phase 5 was in the way to connect with Arnold, there was an existing road, an existing bridge
there that could be used for an emergency vehicle access point. For that type of infrastructure,
emergency use. Yes you were right, one of the things they would have to struggle with was how
do you make sure you have adequate traffic circulation in each of these Phases. One of the
things that would probably move some of these lines, as they moved forward was where do the
streets have to go and where did the east-west connectors connect. At what point you pop
through? Which Phase did they move to be through so you just did not have traffic jams inside
the project?
Mayor Sbranti stated he knew that Mr. Guerra had referenced that already that there was •
potentially a mechanism for some flexibility working with the Army Corps. But it just seemed
like, particularly from an infrastructure standpoint, in terms of the street and being able to have
that flow and in some instances, Phase 1, clearly it was self-contained; that could kind of dead
end there. But some of these, and actually, he referenced 5, that was the exact one he was
looking at. Well, you had Arnold, and you had 5, there might be some needs there.
• Mr. Guerra stated the other thing to point out was the order of the buildings they were building
for the Army was the Army's priority list. That was when they wanted them built. So for
example, the buildings that existed in Phase 6, what they call the DPWDOL, that was the last
project they were building for them by their priority of how things moved out. So that one, as a
very particular example, especially when you talked about when you could put streets,
connecting into Scarlett, that had to go last. He really could not get it until that building, until the
mission was moved up. The other point that he forgot to mention was the size of the phases
was set because the number of acres they got related to the value of the buildings they were
building in each of those phases. So, not only were they oddly shaped because of what existed
on the base, they were not all the same size. They were not six thirty-acre pieces. They were
varying degrees, as small as 18, as small as 40 in some instances and that was all driven by
the value of the buildings they were providing for the military.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 18 •
VOLUME 30 or
REGULAR MEETING \\to%
AUGUST 16, 2011 r
%TO
•
• Mayor Sbranti stated he knew there were a lot of factors, market factor, Army's needs, you
know they were going to play into this, but roughly, how long did Suncal see this kind of phasing .
playing out. He knew it was very hard to predict exactly but, what was his best guess?
Mr. Guerra replied the way the current schedule worked was that Suncal was to begin
construction for the replacement gate by March of 2013. And so that project had a relatively
fixed no-later-than start date. In the agreement with the Army, each of the projects had a
specific window of they got twelve months to build one, eighteen months to build another. The
exchange agreement allowed them to be built sequentially. They had unilateral right to
accelerate if they wanted to. So right now, the contract called for, they build one, and then they
transitioned and built 2, 3, etc. Depending on market factors, what they were able to do with the
private development side of it, they could accelerate that because the sooner they could deliver
new buildings, the better from the Army's perspective.
Mayor Sbranti stated that was the other question, the ability to accelerate, again, was based on
market conditions but if the opportunity presented itself to consolidate a couple Phases here
because you could do a couple deliverables, with the Army, that potentially existed. So his
other question, he asked about roads. He would ask the same thing about the park, and he
knew they were going to have the conversation about exactly where it was, or what it looked
like. But, as it related to the plan, if the park were to go across multiple phases, he was
assuming that would mean that part of the park would be built and then another part would be
built and then another part would be built. So you would have a master plan and some general
• program elements but the park, just like the roads, it was the same thing.
Mr. Guerra stated the way their internal land plan worked today as it related to the park, it was
set up so that they were always ahead of the curve on the number of units in each Phase. So
whatever portion of central park might relate to that subset of units of the entire project. You
had enough land, always enough land, and build corresponding with the Phases of the
residential construction. So yes, it would not be built all in one fell swoop. It would be built in
phases as you build out.
Cm. Swalwell stated looking long-term because this was going to be a long term plan, was this
contract agreement with the Army BRAC proof, meaning if Phase 3 alignment closure took
place in 2015, they did it every ten years, in 2005 they did it, and it was authorized another
round to take place in 2015, if say, 2015 came around and Camp Parks was slated to be
closed, what happened to the project?
Mr. Guerra stated he could not comment on what would happen on the remainder of the base.
But as far as the 180 acres, 172 of the Army, it had already been to Congress. It was a done
deal from that respect. To answer his question, this project, he believed, was BRAG proof.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there were still buildings that the Army owned that had not been phased
out, meaning they had not completed their obligation to the Army, they would just become
Suncal's property and they could demolish it and do whatever. Is that what would happen?
• • . DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 19
VOLUME 30 �OF DpNN
REGULAR MEETING nlI (/�) m
AUGUST 16, 2011 � �
Mr. Guerra stated he was sure that they would have to work out how they would implement the •
exchange of compensation. But again, and there was a, as much as you could bind the federal
government, there was a binding agreement with the federal government on the exchange.
Vm. Hart asked in regard to Phase 1, that they talked about doing their new gate, which was
actually the old gate, first, and then Phase 1, and then from that point on, would they go
numerically in order, the Phases?
Mr. Guerra stated, correct. These numbers were the order they would get each parcel.
Vm. Hart asked Mr. Guerra to explain NASA.
Mr. Guerra stated with the way the NASA parcel worked in the exchange agreement with the
Army, was Suncal was required to close on the NASA parcel no later than when they took
Phase 4, the Army parcel. The Notice of Availability that went out that they bid on had an
algebraic formula to determine how much NASA got for the property. So they were in
negotiations with NASA right now to formalize that acquisition. But from the standpoint of the
Army agreement, they were required to acquire it by Phase 4.
Vm. Hart asked, they would not be building anything for NASA.
Mr. Guerra stated, no. That was actually a cash transaction.
Vm. Hart stated that Phase 4 was going to be a pretty big Phase. •
Mr. Guerra stated from the standpoint of NASA being part of it, yes. It would be.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked so when they built Phase 4, they would be building the NASA area too
or just acquiring it and that would be Phase 7.
Mr. Guerra stated he would assume if they acquired it they would want to build it. There was no
good reason unless you paid NASA for it.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked if they were going to move that into Phase 4.
Mr. Guerra stated from a land planning perspective, they were assuming that because they
acquire it they would build it during Phase 4.
Mayor Sbranti asked where did they see the surplus property piece playing into that in terms of
how that pulled into the kind of, you had the triangle there that was adjacent to Phase 5. How
did he see that playing into the mix?
Mr. Guerra stated someone might ask the City Council the same question. As Suncal
understood it, the development agreement for the Transit Village required the Surplus Property
Authority to dedicate it to the City. So, they had assumed it would transfer from the Surplus
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 20 •
VOLUME 30 ,��y�oFWn
REGULAR MEETING N� ``jJ i�
AUGUST 16, 2011 9C ��
• Property Authority to the City and then potentially to Suncal. As the City Council knew from
when they years ago talked about initiating Specific Plan, that parcel was in the application.
That was part of what they would be planning for looking to City Staff to develop a land plan.
The sooner the City could acquire it, the better from Suncal's perspective. But from a land
planning perspective, he did not know if there was a good reason to recognize the property line.,
It eventually would all come under the same ownership. It should be planned as one parcel.
Mayor Sbranti stated that made sense. And just to clarify with City Staff, that eight acres, or
that triangle, that was the park set aside from the transit center because obviously the transit
center was a dense development and it had a couple of courtyards but there was not real park.
So that was the park set aside for that.
•
Cm. Biddle stated the park did not have to be on that parcel it could be someplace else.
Dr. Stephen Hanke, Superintendent of Dublin Unified School District (DUSD), congratulated the
City on the All-America City title. He informed the City Council of the ribbon-cutting an Saturday
for Kolb Elementary School. He also commented on the completion of the sidewalk at Dublin
High School and the sidewalk at Kolb Elementary School. Safety really was a very important
part of what they did. The safety of their kids was of utmost important to them. He noticed in
the Alternative 5, that at that particular point in time, there was an eight-acre parcel that was set
aside for the school. He knew that Cm. Biddle had wondered that if indeed the School District
was interested in some kind of a plot of land. The answer was absolutely yes. They were
requesting 12 acres. The actual needs that they had for their schools had greatly expanded.
Schools were getting much, much bigger than they were in the past. Kolb Elementary School,
as an example, would house about 825 students. So it was significantly larger and they
anticipated that trend to continue. So the acreage that they did need for elementary schools
was 12 acres and he would like to bring that forward once again. He thanked the City Council
and requested ahead of time that they be mindful of student safety when they looked at the .
issue of placement of schools in this area. They would recall that placement and site selection
did require California Department of Education approval. For• example, avoiding major
thoroughfares, and schools being adjacent to those was absolutely essential to receive that
particular approval. They looked forward to working with the City and Suncal on the issue of the
school on this particular area. They wanted to make sure to thank the City for the partnership
that they had enjoyed and would continue to enjoy in many future ventures together.
Vm. Hart asked Dr. Hanke if there had been any discussion or thought concerning an
Administration Office. He knew schools were important and he knew that Administration Offices
were not really sexy in comparison to schools. However, he also knew that the Administration
Office was located in a building that was built probably about 50 years ago. It was on an old
abandoned school site. Any discussion relative to that? Was the School District looking at an
elementary school in central Dublin?
Dr. Hanke stated they were very, very, interested in an elementary school there. They had
touched base very briefly over the topic of the need at some point for a District Office
Administration Building site in some different capacity than they currently had. Whether that
• • DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 21
VOLUME 30 �kor
REGULAR MEETING r9 `f✓} �
�
AUGUST 16, 2011
eUric t
was on the current site or whether there was a new site would be something they were open to
and open to that particular dialogue. But they had not actually engaged in a specific discussion
about that at the Board level.
Vm. Hart asked if they had done different studies in regard to numbers of potential students.
Dr. Hanke stated yes. They continued to do that. Of course, that changed depending upon the
developments and how those developments came in.
Vm. Hart stated so if those units go down, then the need would go down.
Dr. Hanke stated, yes, that was true but that also then would depend upon where the
developments were in the other parts of the City, in terms of what was happening there. So that
swhy, for example, they expanded Kolb Elementary up to the eight and a quarter mark because
they just had more kids coming.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated that boundaries also shifted.
Dr. Hanke stated the boundaries did shift and that certainly was a challenge for them. They
believed school placement in the center of Dublin made really good sense for the community. It
was something they were especially interested in even though that would probably, not for a
while, as this development was put in place. They did want to make sure that they put in their
request for something to be set aside.
•
•
Vm. Hart stated he knew it was a busy time for Dr. Hanke, the District and teachers, etc., with
the start of school. He wished them the very best. He knew this was always the time that was
the most important so start off for the school district and teachers to kick off a good year.
Dr. Hanke stated he appreciated that very much. They were opening school on Monday and
they would like to say they would be first-day ready.
Cm. Biddle stated he realized the School District needed to go through the State process to get
approvals. It would be good for the City and good for the District and the development that all
this go together so they did not have a school site hanging out there at the very end.
Dr. Hanke stated he certainly agreed with that. He had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Guerra
on one occasion and just had a meet and greet, so to speak, and they would like to engage an
ongoing conversation both through the City, and of course, with Mr. Guerra from Suncal, as
well.
Janet Lockhart, Valley Children's Museum Boardmember, stated she wanted to speak on the
Camp Parks project. She realized 187 acres was a big deal to plan, especially in the middle of
our community. But she also wanted to remind the City Council because there was an article in
the newspaper not long ago quoting the,Mayor. The fact that he did not say the words Valley
Children's Museum sent a little shrill scream up and down the Valley, from Walnut Creek to
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 22 •
• VOLUME 30 ao8ove
REGULAR MEETING i�W�
AUGUST 16, 2011 9 d-- ]al
tic-
•
• Livermore as Boardmembers went, he did not mention us. She said they were a little part of
this big project. She was here to reassure the rest of the Board that the City Council had not
forgotten that Valley Children's Museum was planning to be a part of this site. She would tell,
them they were very excited in looking at this map to see the Iron Horse Trail running down
through Phase 2 and hoping that maybe some parkland over there could also hold the
Children's Museum. The whole concept of having people from Pleasant Hill to Livermore, be
able to get on the Iron Horse Trail and ride a bicycle or walk or however they wanted to do it,
but to stay off the roads and make their way to the Children's Museum was very exciting. It lent
itself to giving them some really creative ideas about transportation and programs that they
could present at the Children's Museum. So they were very excited about it and let the City
know that they were getting ready to_start! capital campaign for fundraising for the big building.
That was why the mobile museum was now sitting in Emerald Glen Park to start collecting
names and putting together their fundraising plan. She also thanked the City for that
partnership. It had been working really well. They were getting loads and loads of kids that
were coming through on Thursday night and repeats; a lot of families coming back to see what
the next week's program was going to be like since they were trying to match the Farmer's
Market with their program. It was a wonderful way to kick off the concept of the Children's
Museum. People were ready, from Walnut Creek to Livermore, to get busy and start raising
funds for that facility.
Mayor Sbranti stated the facility was long overdue and asked Ms. Lockhart to let her Board
know he had not forgotten them; to tell they could rest assured they would find a place to make
it happen.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she remembered when they came with their hand written brochures to
start talking about it.
Mayor Sbranti stated it was great, and Ms. Lockhart alluded to it, that they re-established their
presence during the Farmer's Market and they were real active. For a while not as active, and
now you saw them re-emerging and really trying to move this forward. Credit to the Board and
leadership for making that happen. They looked forward to working with the Museum in making
it a reality.
Jeff Hobbs, Dublin resident, stated thank you for their time. He was a 44 year Dublin resident.
He was there to speak about the Camp Parks development. He was an IBW member, 595,
electrician/construction. He had worked on a lot of projects in Alameda County and the area,
the Lab, Emeryville Civic Center, Pixar Studios. He was proud of what he had done in the area.
He had a lot of family in the area. His brother had a hand in the design of the clover leaf, the
new signage in town. He was proud of that too. He would like to see a lot of this labor go to
locally trained, locally educated union members. He liked the theme of community. He
remembered when the City incorporated in 1982, the Dublin Pride theme, it seemed it was
really getting rolling then. He would like to see that continue. He would like to have a hand in
building his own community.
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 23
VOLUME 30 23
REGULAR MEETING 4i,% C�� "
AUGUST 16, 2011k�e��
•
Pedro Pinate, Dublin resident, stated he belonged to IBW 595. He was an apprentice. He was •
there to let the City Council know like apprentices they were, they needed a certain amount of
,hours to comply to graduate in the trade in five years. It was very important for them to see if
they were able to work in their community. He was a very active resident of Dublin. So was his
wife. They had three kids. They had a home there. Everything they did was for the City and the
community. He wanted to let them know, these jobs, if they could get them, if they could get
involved in this job, would be a great opportunity of them; to be more proud of what they did and
see their City grow.
Kristopher Gallegos, Dublin resident, thanked the City Council for letting him speak. He had
been a member of this City for 29 years. Mayor Sbranti had been his teacher in his senior year.
He attended school with Cm. Swalwell. He wanted to see this project become a project labor
agreement. He was sure the City Council had heard about them in the past. The reason why
was he had been an electrician for eight years. His dad was a member for about 35 years.
Neither one of them had ever worked on a project in Dublin. That was a combined total of 45
years in the trade. It was sad to see that he had worked in Yosemite for seven months. He
missed seven months of his daughter's and son's lives. He did not see his wife. He did miss
his family. He had to do what he had to do to put food on the table and keep the house that he
had. The thing with the project labor agreement was, if they got a project labor agreement, it
would keep this trend he was seeing -- a lot, of contractors from Nevada and Washington, keep
them out because, as they knew, we all lived in one of the most expensive areas in the United
State. So the costs of workers here was a lot higher than workers from, let us say from Nevada
or Oregon or Washington. It would give them a chance to thrive. Simple economics was that it
all related to the City because if he did not make that dollar to turn around and give the store, or
go buy a pair of shoes, and that person turned around and turned over that dollar to another
business, that money all came back to the City, eventually. So the City did not get any return if
the cities and states of where these other people were coming from taking that money back
there spending that money there. The City would not get anything back. The workers would
eventually be out of work. He thanked the City Council.
Cm. Swalwell asked if he could ask a leading question for Mr. Everett. He stated Mr. Everett
might be caught off guard because he told him he might be asking him a question once they got
rolling. He asked him to assume there was an educational demonstration vineyard in the
central park. What would Las Positas College's interest be?
David Everett, Las Positas College faculty and Chair for the Viticulture and Winery Technology
Program at the College, stated he was happy to be there as a support and consulting role to
advocate for quality of any viticulture efforts or projects that might ensue in the park design. He
wanted to let the City Councilmembers know that he would be there and their program would be
there to help ensure the correct procedures were in place to ensure quality and to advocate for
quality in the Livermore Valley appellation which certainly included Dublin.
Cm. Biddle asked if Las Positas would pay for that facility.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 24 •
VOLUME 30 vOr WaG
REGULAR MEETING m t
AUGUST 16, 2011 vC0
turrolf
® Mr. Everett stated no. They could lend consulting support to help guide the process along so .
that it was done properly if there were any ideas of say, demonstration vineyards or something
to the effect.
Cm. Swalwell asked if he meant working with the developer.
•
Mr. Everett stated yes, working with the developer.
Mayor Sbranti added, and City Staff. •
Mr. Everett stated, of course.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she knew the City Council was going to talk in a little bit about what
they would like to see at the park, so since he was there, she was going to ask a couple of
questions because one of the things that he mentioned and she knew that probably Cm.
Swalwell talked about because he was very passionate about bringing wineries and including
Dublin in the wine region. She loved the idea but she had some reservations. One of the
reasons was, a lot of people knew she was very much in support of environmental issues and
sustainability and to grow wine you needed a lot of water and pesticides in order to keep them
healthy. One was doing it in a park where there were kids that would be playing, that they would
have possibly a museum, maybe even if it was incorporated in housing, as sort of a gate way
entrances and those types of things. So she had some concerns about that. Was there ever
any talk about doing vineyards that were more organic instead of those that were not?
• Obviously, organic wine was being made, just not necessarily here in the valley.
Mr. Everett stated that was not entirely accurate. There were certainly organic efforts in the
valley. He asked if she was familiar with the very large hillside vineyard up behind the college
on the 580 corridor. They were in the midst of getting organic certification. He knew they
started a couple of years ago. It was a long and arduous process. But they were certainly
going in that direction, that entire hillside. •It was very challenging to make that an organic
certified vineyard. Pesticides were not necessary in modern viticulture these days. It was not a
requirement. There were, through amazing advances in research and development, there were
many, many options than to use synthetic pesticides, synthetic herbicides, fungicides, etc.
There were organically certified materials that could be used. There was no personal protection
equipment needed. There were oils and dusts that were completely organic and healthy for the
environment, if you would. There were pluses and minuses with some of these things, but there
were also beneficial insects and plants. There were a lot of opportunities to avoid using
anything that would be hazardous to humans and the environment.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she looked at that as a great way to teach kids about sustainability by
using insects to put them into the vineyards just as people did in their gardens.
Mr. Everett stated you would probably use more herbicides, pesticides, etc., in the gardens of
this garden than you would in the vineyard. There were certainly some easy alternatives in
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 25
VOLUME 30 Orr .
REGULAR MEETING
fit c>,,e s
AUGUST 16, 2011 �n ��
4QrR t
viticulture for that. The array of threats to ornamentals and other horticultural plants were far
greater than what could threaten vineyards.
Cm: Hildenbrand asked about water use. That would obviously be something the City would
have to understand with the water district. She did not know how much water was needed. She
was not a wine grower. There were a lot of questions she had that she thought were important
to explore because she wanted to make sure this was feasible for the community so that they
would have water and have these opportunities.
Mr. Everett stated he would recommend a conversation with Zone 7; pretty important, if the City
were to source water from Zone 7. It was certainly a conversation that the City would have with
them. There was also the opportunity of wells; digging a well and thatkind of support. Or the
City could follow suit with what they did at Las Positas College and they used treated water for
their vineyards and viticulture which was the way that modern farming was going, certainly
viticulture as well.
Cm. Swalwell asked Mr. Everett what he saw if any, and again they were at the very beginning
phase, did he see a role the Las Positas students, at the viticulture and wine technology
program, playing in an educational or demonstration purpose.
Mr. Everett stated probably in long term, he could see probably a work experience component
for this site. There were a lot of different phases as well involved in the construction of a
working vineyard. All those phases were very valuable for real hands-on experience for the
students to go down there and experience it. They had a four-acre vineyard at the college that
they put in from square one. They had students all along through the years that had been with
the program that long and had gained amazing, real life experience with viticulture. It would be
advantageous to them to be able to kind of recreate that again. To have those students be in
there from square one with installation and infrastructure.
RECESS •
9:26:37 PM
Mayor Sbranti called for a brief recess. The meeting reconvened with all Councilmembers
present at 9:35:54 PM.
Ms. Bascom stated as she mentioned previously, there were comments and questions she was
going to ask that were outlined in the Staff Report that were related to housing, parks,
circulation routes and one last question about office and retail development. How the slides
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 26 •
VOLUME 30 or
REGULAR MEETING i9,es„op�
AUGUST 16, 2011 19
•
• were set up was they had the original comment and the direction that was provided by the City
Councilmembers in 2005 and then the follow-up questions.
Issue Area 1: Locations and Types of Housing
Comment 1-a (April 13, 2005 letter):
Less dense housing. 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?
Mayor Sbranti stated they would take the first half of Question 1-a.
Cm. Biddle asked was there a reason to change from the 1,600 units. Was there information
that that number might not be appropriate anymore?
• Ms. Bascom stated it was not so much that, and this comment went to all the questions. The
questions were not based on any information that Staff had not shared or any analysis that had
been done. It was Staffs desire to find out if the position the City Council expressed in 2005
was hard and fast; something they wanted Staff to stick with or whether they saw opportunities
for exploring other alternatives. That really was what they were trying to get at here.
Cm. Biddle stated he was OK with the 1,600 units unless there was a good reason to change
then he would not mind changing.
Vm. Hart stated lower density, exploring more alternatives would be his vote. The way Staff
phrased it, was it still acceptable, he would be supportive of maybe something lower density in
alternatives. We did not know what those other alternatives were yet, as the Mayor indicated.
But he would be interested in that. With the limited information they had right now, it would be
lower.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she did not know if she would necessarily want it to go higher. But she
would like to give them flexibility. However, that ,being said, she did remember the
conversations they had. The different types of plans they had put together for the density. If it
was going to give them some flexibility, what she would prefer to see was to see the density
match the density across the street or be similar and then as it went back towards where the
housing was in Camp Parks, it become less dense. Sort of the same concept that the City did
throughout east Dublin as you went farther towards Danville and those areas. So just to match it
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 27
VOLUME 30 (co�or
REGULAR MEETING w �i'✓
AUGUST 16, 2011 \� ��
k, Rts
would probably be better because she remembered the conversations and the charette. One of •
the things they wanted to do, even though the families were still going to be living on the other
side in Camp Parks, they still wanted them to feel as if they were still attached to that
community, that they were not just behind this wall. So they were envisioning, somehow, of
giving them that sense that their housing was not something different. Using some flexibility
there. If they could keep it within the 1,600 that would be great. The density sort of matching
what was by the BART station and be less dense as you moved back.
Vm. Hart stated those were military families in the back.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated right. Because if you looked at Alternative 5, there was just a little tiny
street that was going through and then you had the school. So the idea was trying to make
them feel like they were part of this new community that was coming in. Granted, the City
Council did not know that it was going to take this long to even get to this point, but they were
just starting to build the housing and they did not want them to feel as the base changed, that
there were no longer part of the base. They still were, but that there was still sort of a feeling
that they were connected.
Cm. Swalwell stated the theme he was going to have throughout these questions was flexibility,
flexibility, flexibility. He thought there were a lot of things that they were all going to insist upon,
but when it came down to actual numbers, he thought, if anything, reading back in 2005, when
he thought that City Council did a great job going through what was important at the time,
bringing the units down was important but if you looked at like the retail requirement, clearly it
was not going to work today. So he thought just giving the applicant flexibility in that number •
was important to him. Because the times were changing and he did not want to bind them to
something that the market was not going to support. Right now he thought 1,600 was fine. If
that school did not go in he would not be opposed to taking those acres and allowing them to
add additional units. He just wanted to make sure they gave Suncal flexibility and they were not •
locking them in. When the City was developing eastern Dublin in the 90s and had predictable
times it made more sense to lock projects into a certain amount of units. Today, times were
complicated and he wanted this project to move. Giving flexibility was the way to do it.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she would prefer not to see any housing on Arnold. It was something
she was very much opposed to when she was on the Parks Commission and a Commissioner
on the charettes, and also in 2005 on the City Council. She did not want to see any housing on
Arnold. There were too many people that walked it. Sybase had to close off its parking lot with
some issues and problems and she did not want to see any housing on it. She did not know
how to fix that but there was some great concern. She was not thrilled with it.
Vm. Hart asked Cm. Hildenbrand what was the issue.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated everybody who left the jail, they walked it and their houses were going
to butt up right up to Arnold. Yes there could be a fence, or a wall, but she was not comfortable
with it.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES : 28 •
VOLUME 30 „or 2N
REGULAR MEETING fr ;"e
AUGUST 16, 2011 trod/
'�igyaN�c
• Vm. Hart stated he figured she would say that.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated they did not walk in other areas. They go straight down Arnold. There
were very few that had ever walked into the neighborhood. Having lived in that neighborhood
since the very beginning, she felt very safe. But there had been significant issues with
businesses on Arnold and she just was very concerned about housing on Arnold.
Mayor Sbranti stated he had no problem with not having housing on Arnold. But, the situation
had gotten considerably better in the last seven, eight years. He personally did not think there •
were any issues at all in terms of safety for businesses or residences, both current or future. But
at the time, they knew at the time there were some concerns that was why Sybase did what
they did. The City had worked with Santa Rita and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority. There were a lot of those issues that had been mitigated. But he thought to her
general point, there were probably better locations for housing in the project.
Ms. Bascom stated that was an item that the City Council would be discussing in one of the
next questions.
Mayor Sbranti stated, getting back to this issue, he was fine with 1,600 units. He was going to
go, if the school was not necessarily going in, he would not mind looking at a little bit more. But
he thought the City Council heard clearly tonight that the school site was needed so he thought
1,600 was a good cap. He did support the general concept of flexibility and they all recognized
the idea that they needed to have something that the market could sustain. But he thought in
•
terms of the maximum, he thought it was a good maximum. And he still supported the City
Council's original letter because the original charette had it at 1,996. The City Council in 2005
asked for the density to be brought down a little bit, to 1,600 and he continued to support that
direction.
Vm. Hart stated so two of the City Councilmembers had said that if the school was not
necessary, which obviously they had already been told that it was, that they would want to go
straight to housing. He was not too sure he would be supportive of that because that would
leave one alternative to be sought and vetted out and not go straight with the assumption. He
thought the two had stated that, that might gravitate toward the assumption, of Staff thinking
that might be an option. But obviously at the same time, Dr. Hanke had clearly said that the
school was necessary.
Mayor Sbranti stated he thought when they viewed the underlying zoning they would look at all
the different options. They would look at housing, they would look at office, at retail, and at
parks. Whatever that would be. But he thought it was a moot point because they heard the
District clearly needed the site. To answer this question, he supported 1,600 units. So now the
City Council would look at the second portion of the question.
City Manager Pattillo asked Ms. Bascom to summarize because this was a really good
conversation they were having; especially to be able to give direction to Staff, their desires and
their wishes as well as to the developer. So the idea was wanting to make sure that with every
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 29
VOLUME 30 c` or wib�m
REGULAR MEETING n,�/��� .
AUGUST 16, 2011 94!-- -=i�)e
��tr u�c
question they were asking, and she was looking at the developer in particular, was there were •
going be topography issues, there were going to be other issues that Staff would bring back to
the City Council as they started moving forward. It gave Staff a good foundation. So if Ms.
Bascom could summarize, so Staff could understand.
Ms. Bascom summarized the City Council direction, in general, was 1,600 units seemed like an
acceptable maximum for the site. There were a couple of Councilmembers who indicated an
interest in allowing the developer flexibility. Perhaps if that went up a little or went down a little,
that was fine. But just in general, 1,600 seemed to be a number that everyone was comfortable .
with unless there was any very compelling reason for it to be different.
Mayor Sbranti stated the City Council would now address the second portion of the question:
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?
Cm. Swalwell stated flexibility was what he was most desiring. He did not want to get too
specific at this point. He was going to stick with that point.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she believed she already addressed it saying that where the density
should be - it should be what was sort of across from BART, similarities, and then less dense as
they went back because she did want to see the City having single-family homes there with
usable yards. But also making it vibrant. If you looked at the neighborhood at Dougherty, it had •
townhomes, apartments, single-family homes and large single-family homes. It was a very
vibrant community where a lot of people wanted to live. It was very desirable because there was
such a range of housing. So that was sort of what she envisioned, of making that range of
housing and sort of matching more of the density.
Vm. Hart stated he was not opposed to what Cm. Hildenbrand just said. He was just not going
to be a real fan of high density housing, with the exception of understanding that it was near the
transit center, he got all that. But as long as it was done right up to that 1,600, he would still
lean towards less density.
Cm. Biddle stated as Cm. Hildenbrand had indicated, the higher density up to Dublin Boulevard
and lower density back just like had been the-City's model all along. Also, some of the smaller
single-family homes that the City had been talking about, and yards and so forth, may be the
kind of homes they talked about for Emerald Vista that could work.
Mayor Sbranti stated he agreed with pretty much what had been said. He thought Cm.
Hildenbrand articulated the vision kind of goal at the time of the charette and as eastern Dublin
had gone and certainly continued with this current City Council. You had the higher density
closer to BART and then it phased back, and then the lower density. He thought generally,
lower densities with yards, particularly further back was probably a little more desirable. And
when he thought where the market was right now, but obviously this was a long phased project
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 30 •
VOLUME 30 ,of Do
REGULAR MEETING ri; m
•
AUGUST 16, 2011 �� ��
• and the market was going to change but he thought looking at slightly lower densities would not
be a bad thing. But again, closer to Dublin Boulevard made no sense.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated there had been a couple of projects that had been more dense but had
usable areas. If you looked at Starward Row, that was an infill project where they did alley
garages with a yard in between the houses. They were tall, sort of homes you would see in San
Francisco, very narrow but it worked in there. She thought they could have that capability to do
different things that would allow them to get their density, to allow them to get single-family
homes. But if they were creative, they could get a very vibrant mix.
Mayor Sbranti stated that was a great point because that was a great development. It was
almost like three-quarters of an acre or an acre. You had eighteen units on that site. He
thought if you were going to have a little bit higher density, something like that was the way to
do it as opposed to doing townhomes. There were creative ways to still get a little more density.
The other thing he thought they were in agreement on this, was whatever type of housing was
built, incorporated stand-alone neighborhood design strategy elements within that development.
So you had that park connection, trail connection and all the things the City Council had talked
about that would be incorporated in a good quality project.
Ms. Bascom summarized that the City Council direction, in general, was probably lower
densities than what was envisioned in Alternative 5. But matching the densities more dense
and intense up against Dublin Boulevard to match the transit center, lower as it moved back
with a focus on smaller lots, single-family homes and achieving density like that, not just through
•
the townhomes, apartments, and condominiums.
Original Comment 1-b:
Location of residential land uses.
In 2005, Councilmembers did not support:
1. The location of housing along Arnold Drive (should be office instead),
2. The placement of single-family homes along Dublin Boulevard (should be medium-
density residential, if any), or
3. The placement of single-family homes fronting any major high traffic volume street.
Question 1-b:
Would the City Council consider housing along Arnold Drive or single-family homes along
Dublin Boulevard (or another high-volume street) or does the City Council still support the
direction provided?
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 31
VOLUME 30 or , .•
REGULAR MEETING l9'` "2
• AUGUST 16, 2011 ��
fico
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she thought she had already answered the question when it came to •
density on Dublin Boulevard. She did not support someone's backyard butting up to a fence, or
a wall, it did not matter. She did not agree with it.
Cm. Swalwell stated he was not opposed to staying with the original intent of the 2005 City
Council to not have housing on Arnold, instead have offices. His only concern was that the
demand for office right now was very low. The demand for what could be provided in this
project was very low. There was a demand that was coming back for much larger office space.
The City had seen it like at Dublin Corporate Center with the interest that was there. But it was
still low. He was concerned that if the City did not have housing along Arnold Drive, what type of
office could be there? What else could there be? In a perfect world, he would not want housing
along Arnold and he would support that. But he was just concerned whether they could put
something else there that could sustain itself.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she understood that concern and she thought that was challenging. If
she recalled, they may have had those conversations, too, back then because they were trying
to make this project work. She would not buy a home butting up against Arnold.
Cm. Biddle stated if there were single-family homes either along Dublin Boulevard or Arnold,
the homes would not face out toward the street, they would face inward probably and the back
of the house would face outward. What the City would have along Arnold and Dublin would be
a wall, really. That he would be opposed to, kind of opposed to single-family homes along
Arnold and Dublin for that reason. The housing could be accommodated back off the street. If
there was multi-family in there, there would be some and taking that same model as they had,
and multi-family came closer to the BART station and the single-family moved backed, then that
would be more appropriate for housing. The other thing that bothered him about having the
houses that showed that model on Dublin, it really closed off the park, football shaped. So
maybe a little different shape there would lessen the need for housing on Dublin Boulevard. But
there again, he did not think single-family housing. Arnold to him was a commercial street.
Across the street were commercial buildings, all along were industrial commercial. As
mentioned before, there might be an opportunity there for some light industrial.
Ms. Bascom asked if she could ask a quick clarifying question. The City Council spoke of
housing that was obviously arranged of different housing types, whether it be single-family, all
the way up to higher density. Was the City Council opposed to any type of residential
development along Arnold from Central Parkway north, or would apartments or some sort of
higher density product type be OK or were they speaking blanket statement on residential along
Arnold?
Cm. Biddle stated he was thinking more single-family, multi would fit in better than single-family.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she was opposed to it all the way down.
Ms. Bascom asked any type?
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 32 •
VOLUME 30 a
REGULAR MEETING u
AUGUST 16, 2011 9I�`�
�Caa
�trroo`D
•
• Cm. Hildenbrand stated any type. She drove that street all the time and watched some
interesting people walking out at night, at all hours of the night. That was the street she took to
get over to Gleason to get home. She was really opposed to it.
Vm. Hart stated Police Services could probably tell them what impact people walking from
Santa Rita that have been released from the jail, on bail or their own recognizance had to that
light industrial area, for one. Two, he would be interested in the barrier that could potentially
divide that area and make it unattractive for any kind of foot traffic; and three, there was a gullet'
there they would have to navigate along that road as well. Four, he believed there was
probably more concern that they should evaluate for purposes of the Court coming in that had a
whole range of people coming into that area, driving down those streets rather than necessarily
inmates. That did not mean that there would not be isolated incidents of people leaving Santa
Rita. He understood Cm. Hildenbrand's concern, but he thought it could be mitigated. If they
said no to any housing, they lost the flexibility they had. He would be interested in seeing what
alternatives there would be for purposes of a different layout. What would be recommended to
mitigate the barrier? You would be looking at a wall on the backside. There would be the
courthouse, and the light industrial with the jumping place. In that whole area and then there
was a vacant lot, which who knew what would be built on the lot. Arnold was kind of a short
street. There was the stop sign and then you went into the Federal Correctional Institute, then
you went to Santa Rita. In a perfect world you would not have either one of those in the
community but it was not a perfect world. His thought was to try to mitigate that aspect and not
tie the hands of a planner that had to try to put that together.
• Mayor Sbranti stated he thought Dublin Boulevard clearly was not a street where single-family
homes should be adjacent. But even if the backyards were to Dublin Boulevard, there were so
many more things they could do to capitalize on the transit district. If you were going to have
anything on Dublin Boulevard related to housing that was probably where you were going to
have a little bit of the higher density there and capitalize on the transit. So he definitely was not
supportive of single—family homes or lower density homes on Dublin Boulevard. Probably even
leaning against housing in general. Although, again, he thought there were some opportunities
for the transit center for a little bit of housing there. On the question of Arnold, there were far
better uses than housing along Arnold. He would not entirely put his flag in the ground and say
they could not have any. But he thought there were a lot better uses than housing. He did not
have the public safety concerns. He had not seen the data to support that. He understood and it
was more of an issue at the original time. He had not seen much of the issue now. But that was
neither here nor there. With that said, he thought there were better uses. He agreed with Cm.
Biddle. He thought there were more commercial opportunities there. He'understood what Cm.
Swalwell was saying about office struggling a little bit. But when you looked at the course of the
phasing of this project, and how long out, and you saw some of the office in the general vicinity
already anyway, he thought there were office opportunities there. He also thought there were
opportunities for lab space, clean tech, Research and Development (R&D) type jobs, flex
space. He would not necessarily zone it industrial. He thought he misspoke on that at one point,
because when he thought industrial, he was thinking of like auto body shops and stuff like that.
That was not what he was talking about here. He thought R&D type companies. We were
looking at getting the Berkeley lab. Obviously that did not come through. That was a long shot
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 33
VOLUME 30 sof Lb
REGULAR MEETING n; y
AUGUST 16, 2011 19 V>
•
anyway. But the City was working on i-GATE. If you looked at the one advantage Livermore •
had on i-GATE, there were two advantages. One, - they had the Lab themselves. The second
advantage was they had more of that space for some of those big corporations to do the R&D.
There might be some i-GATE partnership opportunities there. Bottom line, if he were to answer
the question specifically, he preferred not to see housing along Arnold, but he was not entirely,
his flag in the ground, saying that he would never consider it. But he thought there were so
many better uses that they could consider for that street. To take advantage of the other things
on the other side of Arnold, that he would rather pursue those opportunities instead.
Vm. Hart stated he had not commented about Dublin Boulevard. That was probably the most
important, or one of the most important parts. As you drove down Dublin Boulevard, there was
such a great opportunity to obviously develop that area. It needed to be kind of upscale, kind of
a nice area and not necessarily look straight into houses. He was not sure what that obviously
was. A combination of commercial and high density and mixed usage might be appropriate
because you would look at that. That was central Dublin for lath of better words.
Ms. Bascom summarized that City Council direction, in general, was a little bit of a slip here
whether housing on Arnold was appropriate. It sounded like if there ended up being a proposal
on Arnold, they needed to take a very close look at that and see how that could be
accomplished. It sounded like overall that the desire would be to have other higher and better
uses along Arnold Road and housing not being one of those.
Mayor Sbranti stated to add on to that, it would need to be brought back. If there was such a
compelling reason they had to consider housing here, then they could have that conversation •
again. But absent some compelling reason he could not foresee, he thought there were higher
and better uses.
Ms. Bascom stated in terms of what would be more preferable would be something that
mirrored the light industrial uses that were on the other side of Arnold Road as well as on Dublin
Boulevard. They also talked about any residential uses that were on Dublin should, to some
degree, mirror what was across the street in the transit center. So just really making sure that
the uses that were along both of those were compatible with what they were facing.
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:
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 34 • .
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING i9,�a
AUGUST 16, 2011
•
19
-111 rov3t
• 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?
Mayor Sbranti asked Ms. Bascom to back up one slide of the presentation. He stated they
needed to answer the question first. Were they all in agreement on this directive, as the
questions flowed from this? Were these still the goals for the central park?
Cm. Biddle stated he liked the concept. This was a central park for the City, not just the
development. This was the central park with all the amenities that they wanted to get into a
central park. There were things like band shells and those kinds of things. It seemed to him that
if there was any park deficit, as far as size or facilities, this was the place to cover it.
Vm. Hart stated No. 3 alternative was a little concerning to him, "Provide a grand entry" to this
project. He wanted to go back to what Cm. Biddle had said as well and that was that it should
not necessarily be the focal point for only that development. It should be a central park for the
City of Dublin, and all of Dublin. It really was, as they continued to progress east, it would
become the central part of Dublin, the central park. He did not think it should be dominated by
that area.
Mayor Sbranti stated, generally with those two comments, they would move onto the questions.
•
Vm. Hart stated he was open to alternatives. He was open to looking at what else. As it had
already been alluded to by other City Councilmembers, things changed. Housing changed. The
environment changed. Just things they did differently than they did in 2005. Also, as we all
knew very well, that kind of central park, how was the City going to pay for it to have it
maintained. Water alone, maintenance of the landscaping, the additional draw that it would
have on the City budget was obviously a concern. Not having the resources to provide that. Of
course the worst thing would be that it went downhill as a result of not being able to water. He
was open to alternatives.
Cm. Biddle stated he liked the concept of the central park to the city. The one thing he did not
mention was the pond. He thought generally it was a good idea but then it crossed his mind,
was there a need for emergency services to have a source of water in the City for natural
disasters or anything like that? If there was, he would think that this would be the answer to
that also; that there would be a large storage capacity there.
Ms. Bascom stated that they did not know. Just to back up a little up, in this question they were
mostly talking about the location of the park, not necessarily what the exact components of it
might be. So, although Alternative 5 had some concepts in there, the pond and some other
options and opportunities there, what they were primarily looking to get from the City Council,
was were they wedded to this location or if a park location could achieve these different
directives, were they open to taking a look at having it be maybe elsewhere moved around.
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 35
VOLUME 30 •� ''B�
REGULAR MEETING nii� S m
•
AUGUST 16, 2011 �� �/
Cm. Biddle stated he would be open to have it moved around and he was not tied to that
•
particular shape. If a little different shape worked better, then it would be fine.
•
Cm. Swalwell stated he was open to alternatives.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she was back to the charettes and the City Council in 2005. It was hard
to kind of go from that because there was such a community effort to put that plan together.
There were five plans and all the voting and all the discussion and then going through the Park •
Commissions. It was crazy. There was part of her that was a little nostalgic for that plan. She
had not been shy about that. That being said, she got that they might have to change that
around. Looking at the different phases that the Army would, be releasing land, that park was
right in the middle of their first phase. So, she was not a developer, she was not a City planner
and she was sure there were ways they could make things work. This park was what they all
envisioned as bringing this community together. This was supposed to not just be a park that
served Dublin, but it was a regional park with the Valley Children's Museum, with
demonstrations, with big draw concerts, that kind of thing. This was and meant to be off of
transit, easily accessible from transit from the different bike paths, walkways. That was what
this park was envisioned for. She did not want to see it hidden in the back of this. She wanted it
to be a visible presence off of Dublin Boulevard so people saw where this was. How to
accomplish that, she was a little more flexible with it. But, she would like to see not just one
option. If it could not be done this way, and it had to be done that way, she would like to see a
few options if they were going to take that and change it. Because she did not want to see it
hidden away and she did want to see it, not necessarily over to a corner or over on another •
side, but it could even be linear if they needed to, or something in that nature so that they could
still see it. She would remain flexible with the hope that it still stayed very central to the project
while keeping in mind that it was supposed to be a very dynamic park that served the region.
Mayor Sbranti stated he definitely would be open to considering other configurations beyond
this as long as it achieved the directives that the City Council had established. He also agreed
with Cm. Hildenbrand's point about making sure it was prominent off Dublin Boulevard and
perhaps there was another way to make it even more prominent off Dublin Boulevard than this
configuration because the one thing about this configuration was it did not have, it was
impressive in the site, but you did not have as much visibility off Of Dublin Boulevard. So there
might even be a way that they could even enhance some of that presence coming off BART,
coming off the Iron Horse Trail. He was definitely open to considering other configurations.
Vm. Hart stated he agreed they could open it up a little bit and kind of manipulate that a little bit.
But also in 2005, they did not have Emerald Glen like they had now, and he would like to have
priority given to Emerald Glen. The City also did not have the Historic Park.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she was not saying this needed to take precedence because if anyone
wanted to see Emerald Glen finished it was her, on this City Council. So, that being said, she
totally agreed with Vm. Hart. What she envisioned for this, ultimately, because as she had
learned, parks did not get built if they said it was going to be built in five years, it was not going
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • 36
VOLUME 30 c� FW"wy
REGULAR MEETING m�,
• AUGUST 16, 2011 v�o�
•
• to likely be built in five years. So, it was all driven by fees and all of that fun stuff that went along
with it. So she got that.
Vm. Hart stated with that current opening of the park, it looked like driving wise, five seconds,
and you passed it.
Mayor Sbranti stated he did not think it was going to be an either/or. It was not going to be
Emerald Glen or this, Fallon Sports Park or this, because the impact fees from this
development were going to pay for what came here. But they needed to be cognizant as they
moved forward. He believed they were in general agreement on the first question. So moving to
the second part of it:
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?
•
• Mayor Sbranti stated they had somewhat broached on this, but to give specific direction they
would start with Cm. Swalwell.
Cm. Swalwell stated, ideally, it would be central to the broader City of Dublin. He was not going
to lock into that, but that was his wish to see that play in the planning. But again, if looked like it
was not going to work, then they would see what happened.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she thought she had stated it. She would like to remain as flexible as
she possibly could without losing sight of what the intent of that park was.
Vm. Hart stated broader Dublin.
Cm. Biddle stated it was a central park for Dublin. They talked a lot about the configuration. He
was just thinking that if the park had a more a shape of an upside down "T", that would
eliminate that housing on Dublin Boulevard and open up the park a little bit. Or even more of a
shape of a triangle with the base on Dublin Boulevard. That would open up the park and
eliminate the housing on Dublin Boulevard.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she just wanted to point out that the housing that was surrounding that
park was meant to have that as their sort of yard space. They came up to it because they had
_ . looked at some very new ways of building housing and how they were building them into parks.
So that was why that housing was built around the park to take advantage of that. So it would
have been townhomes that butted up to the park without the need, or giving them the space to
have recreation without the need to provide little tiny common areas throughout.
Mayor Sbranti stated central to Dublin was more critical, although, he did like it being shaded
toward the middle of the project and maybe elongating it along Dublin Boulevard. He thought
Dublin Boulevard frontage, being the thoroughfare was where people went east-west. To the
extent there were opportunities to do that, he thought would be great. What he really wanted to
see was what was going to be best for the City and best for the overall development and
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 37
VOLUME 30 c`,�`ornriy
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
Nt-
•
something that was mutually agreeable that worked in terms of this project making it the best •
project it possibly could be as well as the best thing in terms of the City being able to achieve its
directive. So, sitting up here, saying it should go over here or, it should go over there, he
believed the planning process would kind of dictate that.
Ms. Bascom summarized the City Council, in general, was in agreement of being considerate of
looking at alternatives and making sure the park was visible, prominent along Dublin Boulevard.
That it stayed central to the project, but looking at it more holistically and figuring out what
worked for the project site.
Unique Park Use and Adequate Park Acreage.
Comment 2-b (February 27, 2006 letter):
Unique Park Use and Adequate Park Acreage. 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?
Cm. Swalwell stated this one he felt strongly about. They take the money and run. He did not
think 46 acres was going to work. He did not think it was something they could maintain,
especially when they were looking at building an aquatic center, building out Emerald Glen,
continuing to build at Fallon and maintain the Heritage Park. He just could not see the City
maintaining a 46-acre park and doing what so many of them would like to see happen and what
so many of the City Councilmembers in 2005 wanted to see happen. So he was definitely
willing to do that. It was a good deal for the City. Good deals like that was what had made
Dublin sustain through tough economic times. They contracted out services. It was kind of in
that same spirit. Seeing a good economic bargain and taking it. This was a no brainer.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 38 •
VOLUME 30 ���//We
REGULAR MEETING �9;0�;'r*
AUGUST 16, 2011 ���
• Cm. Hildenbrand asked, if they were to take the money and run, did that mean they would not '
be getting the additional parks within the community that they had asked for based on the
residents.
Ms. Bascom stated what this suggested, and backing up a little bit, Staff did not mean to word
this as these were the only two alternatives: Either you went for a 46-acre park or you did a
smaller one that had an endowment. This was just opening that door to understand whether the
City Council was interested in considering alternatives from the direction that was originally
provided. The direction that was provided in 2005 - 2006, was that you would get your
community parks, your neighborhood parks, your transit center park, and on top of that, you
would get a 46-acre park. What was being suggested by this question was that perhaps this
bonus park, central park, 46-acres did not need to be 46 acres. Maybe it could be smaller. It
was still intended to be a bonus park for the purposes of the discussion here, but it would be
smaller, however built and maintenance provided for it in this scenario.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked in addition to the neighborhood parks and what they saw up by the
school, and all that kind of stuff right now.
Ms. Bascom stated yes. That was for the City Council to provide the direction. The old direction
was the 46-acres was in addition.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated they all knew she liked this plan a lot. She worked in Parks and
Recreation for seven years. There certain things here that she would like to see at this park.
That being said, if it was smaller, she would still like to see the uses. They were going to get to
Question 2-c, she did want to see the Valley Children's Museum. They had talked about
demonstration areas. They talked about areas that were unique, play structures, a carousel.
They had talked about some pretty unique and dynamic things that would draw people there
regionally that kept them there for a while. As long as they were keeping their neighborhood
parks, those were what people needed, she would be flexible. She would make the deal to
have a smaller park and have an endowment if she could get no housing on Arnold. That would
give them some flexibility when it came to finding housing on their project. But, remember, .
when they were working on this, Staff had input on whether or not they were going to be able to,
in the future, be able to afford these and maintain these. There was input from Staff. It was not
like all of a sudden this community put together a park and let the City figure out how to make
this happen. That being said, she just wanted to make sure that the size of the park was not so
cluttered with what they wanted that it did not make it conducive to really enjoying the time
there; that there were some areas that were passive, as well as dynamic. They could make that
smaller than 46 acres and they could take the money and run and maybe it was something they
should consider.
Vm. Hart stated, conceptually, he agreed with Cm. Hildenbrand. The more and more he looked
at it, the more and more he was concerned that it would have a regional or even a City draw.
So he would be concerned now building a beautiful park, and he was sure there would be a lot
of uses within the park, but never get used. So to answer the question, he was certainly flexible
relative to the 46 acres primarily because he was concerned that would not get the usage that
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 39
VOLUME 30 `x.,
REGULAR MEETING rc-tea
AUGUST 16, 2011 \-"%/
ogtx
was envisioned. Obviously they would love to have that, but he was not convinced of that. Part •
of the reason was because they were providing other resources for other people to go to within
the City. As Emerald Glen jot built out, eventually, and he knew that it would, eventually, that
was just one more avenue for people to utilize and that became less of that draw.
Cm. Biddle stated since this was the central park concept, he would rather stick with the 46
acres unless there was a reason to change. If they could close that deficit with facilities and
land. What was the acreage that was shown here? Was it pretty close to 46 acres in this
diagram?
Ms. Bascom stated in this diagram, all of the open space, throughout the project site totaled 50
gross acres. So this central park space was not shown as 46 acres. The 46 acre number was
based on the park programming study that was done subsequent to the development of this.
When the City was looking at how could a central park space be programmed, there was a big
focus on looking at unique recreational facilities, regional facilities, to go in the centrally located
park space and the number was developed and came out of that study. So 46 acres was not
what was represented in the diagram but that was based on subsequent direction.
Cm. Biddle stated, there again he would rather stick with the 46 acres unless there was a good
reason to change and then think about the maintenance endowment in conjunction with
something else because this was the central park.
Mayor Sbranti stated he agreed with Cm. Swalwell on this. The compelling reason was the
ability to actually get the money to build it and maintain it. Even with some of the City's parks, as •
beautiful as they were, they still had other phases that needed to get built out. The Heritage
Park had three or four more phases, Fallon Sports Park had a few more phases, Emerald Glen
had a couple more phases. Even this project was going to have phases to a certain extent. But
he was concerned with getting a lot of land, and then what was going to happen was what he
thought happened to the housing. So if they said, 1,600 units was the number, then if more of •
the park was that, then the only housing was going to get that number was probably through
higher density housing. At the end of the day, the City would get some of the type of housing
they wanted, in addition to getting a park that was actually built out and maintained. It had less
of a draw. He did not want to put a future City Council in a position where they had to make a
decision, were they going to fund Phase 3 of Fallon or were they going to fund Phase 1 of the
central park. And having this acreage just given to them, that they had a hard time funding, so
he was supportive of making it as big as possible and having all the amenities, and they talked
about that, but he was supportive of a smaller park as long as they got it developer-built and
they did have'a maintenance endowment.
Ms. Bascom summarized, the City Council direction, in general, was one City Councilmember
expressed an interest in sticking with the 46-acre number, but the rest of the group sounded like
they were veering more towards considering a smaller park in combination with the developer
building the park and having a maintenance endowment. That sounded like the predominant
theme.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 40 •
VOLUME 30 aOPa\
REGULAR MEETING i9ccast
AUGUST 16, 2011 ��\'el
4ziroye
• Cm. Hildenbrand added as long as they could get the amenities on there without it really feeling
claustrophobic.
Mayor Sbranti added that was a good point. He did want to piggy back on Cm. Hildenbrand's
comment. He did not know if it was specifically addressed in the questions presented to them.
He knew they were not going to get into all the specifics, because there was a lot of studying
that needed to take place, but were they going to have a conversation, or were they going to
have a conversation, about some of the programmatic elements that they wanted to see in the
park. Was that one of the questions? He knew there was a specific question on Valley
Children's Museum, but were they going to have a broader conversation beyond that?
Ms. Bascom stated that would definitely happen at points in the future. This evening they were
just looking at those that would impact the land plan. Certainly once the developer refined their
overall proposal and they started looking at real park spaces, then the programming analysis
and discussion would certainly happen.
Mayor Sbranti stated part of what he was thinking was, even preliminary to that, he thought they
should at least kind of briefly say some of the things they would like to see in the central park
because that might impact the land plan a little bit. If there were certain programmatic priorities
he thought this was an appropriate time; maybe after they did Question 2-c. He knew that was
the next question they had and then they could end that conversation on that. He had another
thing related to parks he wanted to bring up.
• Comment 2-c (May 3, 2006 letter):
Valley 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?
Mayor Sbranti stated he was going to go first and say•that he supported this direction. He
supported Valley Children's Museum being built out within the park. He wanted to make that
• clear in case there was any question about that.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she completely supported it.
Cm. Swalwell stated he completely supported it.
Vm. Hart stated he concurred.
Cm. Biddle stated he was going to say was there any other better location.
• ° DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES .. 41
VOLUME 30 . �A
REGULAR MEETING 8
AUGUST 16, 2011 ‘ A
Mayor Sbranti stated Cm. Biddle brought up a point and it would have to be mutually agreed •
upon by the Valley Children's Museum. If there was a better location within the overall project
site, part of the conversation should be left open. He did not want to constrained) and say it had
to say it had to go here. Although that was the original vision, the preference, but he thought
those conversations could happen.
Cm. Biddle stated even there again, if some other site would develop in another location of the
City, he could not imagine that happening, but still.
Vm. Hart stated he thought the priority was ensuring that it got built and not necessarily where
its location was. Obviously that was a preference but, priority would be ensuring it got built.
Mayor Sbranti stated they were in agreement there. He stated he had another topic related to
parks but wanted to finish up this topic first. Programmatic wise, as they looked at this central
park, and some of the themes, and he knew there were a lot more studies that were going to be
done, a lot more discussions with the City Council and Parks Commission, the overall
community. But if they took the 30,000 foot view right now, what were some of the different
things. He knew Cm. Hildenbrand was passionate about this park and she alluded to a few of
the things that were part of the original charettes. Did she want to just kind of say what some of
those were that she thought should be explored as part of this?
Cm. Hildenbrand stated what she thought was envisioned was that as part of a central part of
this park was the Valley Children's Museum where people came and they would spend some
significant time and outside of that would be.a dynamic games/play area for children that would •
be in relation to the Valley Children's Museum that they talked about, the carousel. There was
that sort of area, it was more like a children's area that people would come to. There was the
talk about having the band shells that they could have larger concerts, places where people
could come and they could have significant events. They even talked about Shakespeare in the
Park where they could host these types of things that they could not do right now. They also
discussed the water feature. There was always the concern about the water feature because
water was precious. It was something that, she thought, as they moved on, it was something
that came into question, about how big did they do it? Was it a lake, was it a feature, was it
something different. The other thing was the demonstration area which kind of went into what
Cm. Swalwell had talked about. A demonstration area where they were thinking of it more
about foods and gardens and bringing people there to do some sort of instructional facilities.
Not necessarily buildings, but something where people could go to do that. Cm. Swalwell was
talking about putting in possibly some vineyards where they could grow and Las Positas could
come in and the kids could train or the adults, whoever was overseeing the class could train.
She could see that they could also do like demonstration gardens in there as well because that
sort of went hand in hand where you could grow. You looked at different fairgrounds where they
had demonstration gardens and then those were kept up all year long. They planted different
things that kids could come and see what was being done. That was outside of a community
• garden. They talked about it but that did not eventually go. That was not something that they
ultimately discussed for this park. It was not fully supported. That was sort of the thought and
having some passive areas around it, which was where the housing went. That was where it
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 42
VOLUME 30 ,oro�
REGULAR MEETING rh\ `
•
AUGUST 16, 2011 %r e
c4tif00%c
• was passive so they could come out and run their dogs or play with their kids and have some
areas where it was not programmed.
Cm. Swalwell stated he agreed with Cm. Hildenbrand that he would like to see this as a passive
park. What he was interested in was, as Cm. Hildenbrand mentioned, his focus as we knew,
was connecting with the Livermore Valley wine region element. That was-an initiative now. The
City Council would create a sub-committee and this park presented a wonderful opportunity to
at least look at this point, not commit themselves anywhere, but look at this point that they could
have a community vineyard. He did not know what amount of acreage that was, whether it was
one acre or two acres. He thought that tied into the City Council commitment to connect with
the region. It also could demonstrative. A demonstration garden where folks could come and
learn more about wine in the region and the fact that our region had a history over 150 years old
of grape growing. He also thought it was a nice opportunity to connect Las Positas College.
That was why he asked them to come this evening and make a connection with Staff so they
could talk with Staff, and so they could talk to Staff in the future. But Las Positas College had
made an effort to be more involved with Dublin. That was just one he was looking at with hope
to at least explore further. He also agreed a community garden and other types of horticulture
would be great on the site but he certainly supported those.
Cm. Biddle stated there again the central park was the place to develop those features that they
did not have in other parks in the City.
Vm. Hart stated he liked everything he had heard so far. He thought it would be dynamic and all
• encompassing. He liked what he heard.
Cm. Swalwell stated Cm. Biddle asked a great question of Mr. Everett. Was he willing to pay
for it? Great question. Under the original plan of 46 acres the City took on the maintenance
fee. They probably could not do a lot of what Cm. Hildenbrand and he just mentioned. But he
thought if they had an endowment fund, now they were looking at things that could happen and
not take on the risk or cost, but look at what a developer maintenance fund could support.
Mayor Sbranti stated he agreed with all the comments that had been made. He really liked the
idea of a community garden. It had been on and off Goals and Objectives probably for ten
years that they had talked about it. He did think the opportunity really did exist here, tied into
exactly what Cm. Hildenbrand and Cm. Swalwell talked about, adjacent to that somewhere. He
thought there were some exciting opportunities there. Also the educational aspect of it, how to
grow, sustainable foods as they did more and more as about a City, about healthy living,
healthy communities. And as a subtheme of the park, he knew the City's Park Department was
going more in that direction anyway. There was so much on healthy cities, healthy
communities, wellness and incorporating that somehow into the design or some of those
themes he thought was really good. He wanted to use this to pivot into another concept related
to parks. At that last City Council meeting, they had the idea come up about the feasibility of the
baseball stadium and he agreed with Cm. Hildenbrand's comments at the time, and he still
agreed, that adjacent to this park was not the appropriate location because they always
envisioned this as a passive park with all the different uses that have already been described
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 43
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING n,H H,
AUGUST 16, 2011 ��i�
4L! RL'Hc
and probably others that they had not thought of that the developer and the City Staff would •
bring to them as part of this. But he would like it, at least, to be part of the study in terms of the
overall land plan. He knew there were other sites in the City that were being considered and
worked at but the applicant was moving closer in terms of having financing in place, a potential
applicant. He thought there might be some opportunities here. They had identified the •
Alameda County Surplus property. There was some acreage there. There was the civic
acreage. How exactly it worked remained to be seen. But he would like that at least to be —
because it was in.the middle of the City, because it was close to transit, it could be part of a •
vibrant development. He thought it was something that should at least be looked at as part of it.
Cm.Swalwell stated he agreed. Definitely, at least at this point, look at it.
Cm. Biddle stated they were doing a study. •
•
Issue Area 3: Circulation and Transportation
•
Comment 3-a (April 13, 2005 letter):
East-West connection through 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 1-580. 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
mutes through the site or does the City Council still support this direction of providing both a
local serving (circuitous) connection to Central Parkway as well as a (direct through) northern
east-west connection?
Vm. Hart asked if the northern road connected to Arnold. The middle of Arnold between
Central and Gleason? How far was it to Gleason?
Ms. Bascom stated it came through to Arnold, mid-way between Central and Gleason being
further up. She showed the location on the map.
Vm. Hart asked if there was any way to get connectivity from Gleason to that roadway.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 44 •
VOLUME 30 0f
REGULAR MEETING „two.
19
AUGUST 16, 2011 i%
\C� /
• Ms. Bascom stated that was certainly a point of great discussion both with the Army Garrison
and the applicant/developer at points in the past. That was determined to not be feasible in
terms of extending the project area boundaries in order to enable that direct connection at
Gleason.
Vm. Hart asked what if they reprogrammed the field up there. It was close.
Ms. Bascom stated it was close, but you could see Gleason was right up there (she shows the
location on the map) so the border of this exchange property just does not go far north enough
to enable that direct connection. So that was something that was wished for at points in the
past and explored and determined to not be possible to extend this northern boundary of the
project site up high enough to where you could get a connection through to Gleason.
Vm. Hart asked Ms. Bascom if she was asking if they would be open to having the both, east-
west corner corridor as well as the Central Parkway, or was she asking for alternatives to that.
Ms. Bascom stated not necessarily for any suggestions of alternatives but the direction that was •
previously provided, the City Council said they wanted Central Parkway to be the local serving
or the project serving connection and the City Council said they also wanted a direct shot
through the project. As Staff was taking a look at some of the different concepts that the
developer was putting forward, it did not contain a road that was a straight shot through. So
Staff was checking back with the City Council to understand was that something that was very
important for them to have or were they open to looking at different alternatives.
• Vm. Had asked was not what was being discussed now the developer was not interested in
doing the east-west corridor.
Ms. Bascom stated that was correct. There was not a direct route through to the northern
portion of the project site. The concepts Staff was looking at now did not have that.
Vm. Hart stated he believed both of those were critical. They were critical to a secondary road,
east and west, approached 580, for one. Central obviously going into the non-direct way was a
good tie in. But he thought the east-west corridor up above that was critical for a couple of
different reasons. That was the 580 corridor. That was Stoneridge. That was the connectivity
to Dublin Boulevard to the east as well. There were a lot of interlocking reasons behind having
both of those. So it was critical.
Cm. Biddle stated he was not convinced yet. Had they done enough traffic studies to verify that
they really needed a direct route? He could not imagine there was much of a need for people to
cut through, if they were going over to Gleason or Tassajara.
Ms. Bascom stated there had not been a project level traffic study completed yet.
Cm. Biddle stated so he was not really sure they actually needed a route through. Since they
could not connect major thoroughfares, he was not too sure they even needed it. The problem
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 45
VOLUME 30 (7)oe
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011
•
he had with that road to the north was it seemed to him the western end of it was very close to •
that turnoff that would go down Scarlett and you would kind of create an awkward intersection
there.
Ms. Bascom stated there were definitely some challenges configuring it all.
Cm. Biddle stated if they could not do it there, then they would not have a direct route through it
anyway. He was kind of open. Unless there was really a need to have a direct major route
through there, if they did not need it, then he did not think they should have it. What was shown
with the other roads, an entrance from Central Parkway, and there was an entrance off of
Dublin. He did not know. There again, where you get the entrance off of the west side. There
could be an entrance off of Scarlett, he supposed.
Vm. Hart stated as Windemere continued to develop in San Ramon as.well as up Fallon, that
whole area, as well as the court, the two thoroughfares from the court would be Hacienda and
Arnold. That was one of the many reasons why it was critical to have another access point
through that property.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated the reason why the City chose to have that thoroughfare there was
because originally, Central Parkway was supposed to be four lanes. It still had the sign that said
it was going to go to four lanes, and it was supposed to be the next regional carrying road. But
it intersected that project the way it was planned now. It cut it in half. As Dr. Hanke state today,
you were not supposed to put schools next to heavy traffic and that was a concern because
Dougherty butted straight up onto Central Parkway. So with that in mind, they had Central •
Parkway sort of meander through the project and they created that thoroughfare because they
were under the impression that they really needed that in order to carry traffic. It was not a
direct route. They knew it would have to kind of make that cut. There were going to be
challenges going to Scarlett, but with Scarlett opening in that, people would be able to cut that
way, and over into the east side of town; maybe some day all the way through to Livermore. So
that was why that was there. Was it necessary in the project now? She did not know. She
could not say. So she would be willing to see what they had to come up with because she did
not want to see their project cut in half either. But that was the whole reasoning behind it
because there were trying to keep Central Parkway more neighborhood serving within this
community and the neighborhood there and to keep less traffic going by Dougherty.
Cm. Swalwell stated yes he would consider different road circulation.
Mayor Sbranti stated originally, when he saw this, it made a lot of sense --that northern road
parallel to Dublin Boulevard to carry that traffic through. But when you looked at Dougherty
Road and how that intersection might actually play out, kind of the awkward nature in terms of
where Scarlett was going to come in. That was one kind of challenge. The other thing was it
kind of created an awkward piece up in the far right• corner that he did not necessarily, it
seemed somewhat segregate from the rest of the project. So what he would like to see was still
see the east-west connection. It did not.necessarily need to be an exact straight road that was
two lanes in each direction that really moved traffic. Maybe it could meander through a little bit
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 46
VOLUME 30 ��F� •
REGULAR MEETING di Yi✓ o
AUGUST 16, 2011 \`� �I
11110Z`t
•
almore; something that served a dual function of providing for the local circulation. Thought it
was critical that they connect from Arnold to Dougherty somehow. He did believe that. He
thought there needed to be a parallel artery to Dublin Boulevard. But you wanted to be careful
as to not bifurcate the project and create something that had an undue impact. Here while they
were trying to create a whole sustainable neighborhood design, then they create, from an
engineering standpoint, like great, let us move traffic, but from a planning standpoint, that could
bifurcate the project. So something that still served the neighborhood and did provide an east-
west, he was not married to where it was on this map. In fact, it probably was not the best
location for it. It could meander a little bit, but there needed to be a connection. But more
neighborhood oriented. So really the only folks that were really going to use it were primarily
still going to be people within the development. But it still provided that secondary access to
Dublin Boulevard because he would not want to have 1,600 units worth of housing all pouring
out onto Dublin Boulevard either. Speaking to Cm. Biddle's other point, obviously there would
be traffic studies as part of this. if the traffic study showed that it was not warranted, or showed
that it was absolutely warranted, there was no way this project worked unless there was a major
road, the traffic study would show that. But if the traffic study showed, you know what, there
was not going to be much of an impact, again, the study would show that. But his gut sitting
here tonight with the limited information they had, was some type of a connection but it did not
necessarily need to be the way it was described here.
Vm. Hart stated he would just want it to be noted that he would be concerned for public safety
access. That should be a priority and not having that be more of a disadvantage.
• Ms. Bascom summarized, the City Council direction, in general, was the establishment of an
east-west connection through the project site was very important. One City Councilmember in
particular, would like to see two east-west connections for the purposes of public safety. But in
general, the City Councilmembers seemed to be open to alternatives and more leaning toward
letting the traffic study determine what was warranted in terms of what would be needed in
terms of east-west connections and ensuring that the roads as they go through do not bifurcate
the project into two. But that connection between Dougherty and Arnold be accomplished in
some meaningful way.
Cm. Biddle stated, on a related issue he thought one of his priorities as far as traffic was
concerned, he would like to see Scarlett Court opened up pretty quickly in the process.
Because there again, that relieved a lot of pressure off of Dougherty.
Mayor Sbranti asked if Cm. Biddle meant Scarlett Drive.
Cm. Biddle stated, yes, Scarlett Drive. From the Dougherty Dublin interchange that would be
the cut through to the BART station. To him that was one of the priorities of the project.
Assistant City Manager Chris Foss stated that Scarlett Court extension was one of the City's
•
Capital Improvement Projects. Remember, they just transferred $6 million up to Dougherty
Road that was allocated for that project. He thought Mr. Guerra mentioned that he thought that
would be part of this project to have to build that Scarlett Drive extension. He thought there was
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 47
VOLUME 30oeo�
REGULAR MEETING r``/�a�
AUGUST 16, 2011 1 �2
46110
•
probably land on his side, there might be some land that the•City might have to get on the other
side of the trail. But they would certainly keep that in mind as a location. He thought that was
the purpose of the Scarlett Drive extension to take traffic off of Dougherty and get it back to
Dublin Boulevard and keep it out of that intersection.
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 updated economic market analysis suggests is
needed and can be absorbed by the market in the coming years?
Cm. Swalwell stated he would like to encourage flexibility as much as possible. This was when
they really needed to be careful about what they locked the developer into. If it failed, it failed
for the investors but it also failed for the City.
Cm. Biddle stated it was where they needed to start, with the 300,000 and if there was reason •
later on to change, they could change but this was a good starting point.
Cm. Hart stated he believed they needed an updated economic market analysis that spoke
about, that projected out for the coming year. What they had now clearly was obsolete as old as
it was. Plan for the future.
Mayor Sbranti stated generally speaking, he did support at least taking a•look at reducing the
amount that was here. But clearly a market analysis needed to be done relative to what the
needs were looking out beyond just the next five years; looking out 20 years and what was the
need there. Just kind of glancing at this right now under what they knew at this time, he thought
it was pretty clear they had a lot of retail in other places that was still not built out yet, that was
slated to go in. Given the fact that not just near the transit center where you had the 300,000
square feet of retail as part of the entitled Blake Hunt project, so you had 300,000 square feet of
retail that he believed was entitled after this land plan was developed. So this land plan was
developed and then Blake Hunt came in with a project that still was entitled for a lot more retail
and that retail made sense closer to the freeway than this one further up. Having less retail
here probably made sense. Plus they still had retail they were trying to get with Grafton and the
Promenade and Fallon Gateway and the Downtown. Given all of that, probably less retail here
did make sense. He loved the idea of a first class hotel, you know some type of a five star
hotel. He did not know if this was the location. He did not know if the market feasibility could
. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 48
VOLUME 30 el" •
REGULAR MEETING • 11:4,14\0
AUGUST 16, 2011 1\ + 0
cur \kt
• bear that. But it was something they could use as a City. The market study was going to have to
show that. He thought, in terms of the office, he thought Arnold was a perfect location for it:
They talked about kind of the aversion possibly to housing there. Creating that commercial
corridor kind of near that Arnold area really made some sense. But generally, they could look at
reducing the amount.
Ms. Bascom summarized, the City Council direction, in general was an updated market analysis
might tell them a little bit more information about what was viable and feasible here and that
was something that was supported by the City Council.
Vm. Hart asked if there were any plans for the space across the street right next to Sybase.
Was there any development planned for that? Obviously, what was it zoned? Did they know?
Mr. Foss asked if he was talking adjacent, that faced onto Arnold and Dublin or was he talking
across Dublin Boulevard.
Vm. Hart stated adjacent to Arnold, on the north side.
Mr. Foss stated at this point that was office and there were no plans.
Vm. Hart stated so that would probably be the theme, he would imagine.
Mayor Sbranti stated carry over that office theme from Sybase. You had a site adjacent it. It
• would be office and then you had some of that other office along Arnold. It was a great location.
Office was going to come back, but they had 2,000,000 square feet zoned next to BART. He
thought they were well positioned when office did come back. It was one of the most desirable
office locations in the entire Bay Area given the education level, given the freeway access, the
transit access, given the educated work force. So if he were to be hesitant on anything to draw
down on, it would be office more than retail. But again, when they talked about office; he
thought looking at those R&D opportunities, kind of those flex space type uses that may be
corporations could use, lab type space, clean tech, bio tech those types of uses were
something they should really take a look at.
Ms. Bascom stated that concluded the questions for the City Council. In terms of a project
timeline and next steps, the project would eventually include everything: a general plan
amendment, specific plan, all the environmental analysis and rezoning,' development •
agreement. The developer had a very aggressive timeline. They needed to fulfill their
obligations to the Army which meant the City had an aggressive timeline for processing project
entitlements. Mr. Guerra indicated that they needed to be breaking ground on their first
improvement for the Army by March 2013 and that was when they also expected to have their
entitlements completed through the City. For next steps, Staff had outlined options for
engaging consultant services on this either using existing consultants or issuing a request for
proposals. Suncal had indicated their interest in going the request for proposal route.
-Vm. Hart asked why that was.
4 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 49
VOLUME 30 Doo
REGULAR MEETING „Y
AUGUST 16, 2011 % �%
Root
Ms. Bascom stated she would .let Suncal tell them directly. But they would like a more
•
competitive_process and felt that they might be able to get a better price, a better selection of
consultants, but for a more detailed response she would leave it up to them. The City was
prepared to issue a request for proposals for the environmental work and they had discussions
underway with the applicant regarding the scope of work for the specific plan. The City's
approach had always been when working with the development community to work
collaboratively which they would definitely do here in achieving the City Council's goals. They
had outlined some of those this evening for the project as well as enabling the developer to
accomplish theirs. Throughout the process, Staff would report back to the City Council on the
progress being made and might bring issues back for City Council review and discussion.
Mayor Sbranti stated the City Council was the policy maker and the primary check in was going
to come with them but those community engagement opportunities were important and
engagement with the Planning Commission. One of the things he was really proud of with the
Downtown Plan that did not happen often, was they got a 5-0 vote out of Planning and a 5-0
vote out of the City Council. That was because they were engaged in the process. What he did
not want to have happen was where a lot of this work all happened at this level and then they
were kind of seeing it at the very end. He knew that was not going to happen but because they
were not outlined in those steps, he wanted to make sure they were engaged in some way also
as part of this.
Ms. Bascom responded, absolutely.
•
Cm. Swalwell stated he wanted to thank Staff for the fine work and thanked the applicant for
showing up and being so responsive. He thought the goal was to keep it moving but also be
flexible but also give what was best for Dublin. He would also just say that, and he trusted the
applicant would work with the folks that were interested in seeing that local folks were hired and
that skilled labor was used. He would like to see that where possible and he knew that the
applicant would do that too.
OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from City Council and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB 1234)
11:04:26 PM
•
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she had nothing to report.
Cm. Swalwell stated the Dublin High School dropout rate was not 20%. It was 2%. It was error,
it was a typo. He stated he attended the Wine Subcommittee meeting, the Change of
Command Ceremony at Camp Park, he was appointed to the Tri-Valley Conservancy Advisory
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 50 al
VOLUME 30 /�a�,
REGULAR MEETING me i �
AUGUST 16, 2011 19 82
('urmufs
!a i
q v
of
'L'. @ii f
888 11:11 1
• - 0•.a .10 aY -- ---- - - -.- ..
ti- ,t\-17, b
1
1 1111 I • • •
•
1�
Is
•
5 • \
.,13,. ',yi�' 3Sa0H NO6I
i 3nN3Atl ,�
an I ` `,SNIH9JIIH i ,
rlE: 'Ii: 7. rT.�}=fir .-- ?•�
, 1 ali
� Oavimn0e
_S444 O�: .-*i'J4Wi� — 'O
4.• i iii'o
snoatlw30
°• 3 i* ' @
:i . p i••! x
3nN3AV M0T1330o09 'OA. . . p
�: ::� 1•J�tr ,i, o
$yi.,i i:ii''+" ti` Z Z
s
m i!
i „4.1444.0.�ii'i'i'i�i .1�i�.:i�i►ih•
1 3n1.13AV Z3aNVW2133 �
1 o
e
I t .
1 � Y.ii
1 'i
1®
30•3AV SNYA3 1®
N� ;
N Y
`I
H I TI
oQ=, ,
, ,/
aaN3AV SIAYa i (
I V ` Y i
f ., _
; . . W
301,13AV SWVOV _
o
`
V • Q $
w� w
. v
• OVOa 1.12131.0000 “4 ', < Sm< o o
<
el
o i a a o
Agreement Points for Dublin Crossing
• The following package of amenities and exemptions/buyouts would be the basis for a potential
Development Agreement (DA) between SunCal (Dublin Crossings CP LLC) and the City of
Dublin. It is based upon a Draft Land Plan that includes a minimum 1,695 residential units with
an allowance to go up to 1,996 residential units and approximately 8.4 acres of mixed use
commercial/residential. Approval of the proposed project requires appropriate CEQA review.
Parks
• SunCal will dedicate to City 28 net acre Community/Central Park. City to pursue
discussions/agreements with DUSD regarding the joint use (during school hours) of
sports fields at Community/Central Park. Park size to be reduced commensurately if
DUSD requires a dedication of more than 8 acres (up to a maximum of 12 acres) for
potential school site. Same total park acreage if density pool is utilized.
• SunCal will dedicate to City 5 net acres of Neighborhood Park. Same total acreage if
density pool is utilized. All neighborhood parks to be 2 net acres in size at a minimum.
• City Staff is OK with exploring water detention/retention within non-sports fields in the
proposed 28 net acre Community Park if designed to both City and SunCal satisfaction.
Detention/retention to be allowed along edge of park in proposed chain of ponds.
• Sports field overlay desirability to be determined by City Council based on review of
park design/amenities.
• • SunCal will turn-key all park improvements and no park fees of any kind will be due
from any commercial or residential uses above these park construction costs and land
dedications discussed above. Other Public Facility fees as described in the City Fee
Schedule (not related to park land acquisition and park improvements) shall continue to
apply.
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) parcel
Prior to execution of the DA, City to secure an agreement with the ACSPA to purchase the 8.7
acre parcel for the Park Fee rate in effect at the time of SunCal's Phase 5 take down from the
Army. The City will use funds from the Public Facilities Fee Program plus a $2.8M contribution
from SunCal to purchase the property. The property will be provided to SunCal for
development per the Specific Plan in exchange for a 28 net acre Central Park.
Community Benefit Payment
Community Benefit Payment of$7.5 million total .
Timing:
• Payment schedule proposed to coincide with the 6 development/takedown phases of
the project.
• Funds due at Final Map Stage on a per unit basis spread equally across the entire
• project. Cost per unit to be determined based upon lowest approved residential unit
Dublin Crossing Agreement Points
count (1,695) divided into $7.5 million (est. $4,424 per unit). The per-unit payment is
made regardless of units actually constructed in the project area.
• No maps smaller than 40 units will be allowed to pay on a per unit basis. If a map is
filed for less than 40 units that filing will be required to pay for 40 units.
• Granny/In Law units do not count towards the per unit calculation and do not require
payment of the per-unit Community Benefit payment
Central Park Maintenance Endowment
$2.5 million Park Endowment paid proportional upon delivery of-turn-key Central Park acreage
($2.5M/total CP acres., 28 acres x est. $89,300 per acre). Early phase endowment
contribution to'be commensurately higher if SunCal's maintenance analysis indicates that early
phases have higher than average maintenance costs.
Community Facilities District (CFD)
• CFD of up to 2% effective tax rate; 2% escalator; 35 year bond given the tradeoffs in the
package described herein.
• City/DSRSD/Zone 7/DUSD fees are likely to be included in CFD as are some
infrastructure improvements.
• Park facilities will not be included in the CFD.
Semi-Public Facilities designated land
No exclusive Semi-Public land will be required in General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning •
package. Semi Public uses will continue to be allowed within other commercial/industrial
zoning districts.
Civic/Designated Development Site designated land
No Civic/Designated Development site will be required for dedication to the City.
•
Affordable Housing buyout/Community Benefit Payment
• Affordable Housing buyout/Community Benefit Payment at reduced rate ($56K per unit
bought out instead of $103,888 in lieu fee) of some or all of contemplated affordable
units required.
• Payment required in three equal installments. First installment 12 months after DA is
executed, second installment 30 months after DA execution and third installment 48
months after DA execution. Number of affordable units to be "purchased" at the $56K
per unit buyout rate needs to be determined and stated in the DA and cash-only
installment payments are based on that number. No refunds.
Commercial Land use requirement
• Without a market analysis to determine minimum acreage required, allow less
commercial, more residential. •
•
•
Dublin Crossing Agreement Points
• Require - 8.4 acres to have Mixed Use zoning with a minimum of 56,500 SF and
• maximum of 200,000 SF of commercial land uses
Residential Density Pool
• Allow flexible residential zoning whereby residential zoned land could have additional
units increased in specific geographic areas (roughly the areas defined as frontage of
Arnold, frontage of Scarlett and area bounded by Dublin Blvd, Arnold, Central Parkway
and Central Park.
• "Granny" units will not count toward total units in GP and zoning allowances.
• Allow school site to have residential overlay. Any additional units build on this parcel
would be subtracted from Residential Density Pool
Development Agreement Term
15 year DA with option to extend for 5 additional years at $200K per year
•
•
•
Dublin Crossing Agreement Points
0 --
W n
U• E
N
Q
J
Lu
W
• o
- i
d
o
vii .tip
I '
flp I O a Qd o
C o -
oL,d L v
= p
d p v Dd
41 N.. b�
in o C b N
F U e9 d o r
l -2 L .+ v u a . a N o
'L y i 0'O o
- d c ii
L.
d o
0 N C = C -i GV o u C C
ac C
4
el
a - al7 - a > H > > U
-_
L ,ST `A e....4 dtto
m
r , , l ` j` ► ...,
.., ......-...._ .., t
. . .
11 ,17 . . .
_ ,,,11/4,,,,.., .. 0. . ..:...4.....,„„. ..,.. ..air.. ....,_4, .... .... I, Tr- AIN 1 ..7-4r.. 1 ", .7 • •• 1102 1•1:1111,- g
• *.Cs
c� O ,c s--i.%• ' d
Kri l
i -1 a 'O L. H d W
as
CI L L W �!0 a 1% -*.• '�� u ,F, V 3 E tl
�a �) �, a o
m t ••gc . v U
TI T .ti l ■ _.,�� a C L C ZZ•
,._„4:::,-- cr
rte -,`'`.4. % ` d b V
1.
3
ii
Z,40/1`4 a — b Pr b d b V
.o = _
a v p
Z CO "a a = L F-Q 3 N e .0 >. l� ?
to 4 1 `' ei C' 's% b0 f c c aJ = Vf
a) w C! S. C o
ce Iv 411
41 41 '0 id u1 p i O Dp �+ a i O O
a ,� m a COI ;° :, v0 £ u
OO c ✓' ,= ctn o z
.O . _ = i U
O. o0 ■
(.) L (O
D
O
N w
• L1J
<9
V`
{y n
F
o
W
• Q
U E
N
Q
J
K
W
0 *. o
Z
o
o in
M
Ii
°' K p N VI j N
Li O
_ + � d i N I ,_ C a
U 'oL ro ro y do
�, C C
d o Hio :
o w L
W ''� N L N 3
!A �C .�. U < .1 o T. 1 O E 'O G!
0 N Q in 0 V -0 V V, 3 c >, 3 0.
k. 41 u • ~ a V 14 C▪ .0 C 3 c C to
a oC a —Mt H a (7 > a > f "> U
�
( I i - o
—i >CI
.u � fi ' !. 'r<A� 11 r• i . ,; r '.� u
s.
/ ? L.
0 ,,, 0.
,....„1..„„„„ Ar. ..
cn ;.,.. _ ...,i,..........,,.,,
..., ___I x641 � �
0 -ci >.. ) r i
a+ , r — � r l W 3 E
, O t.iir� a of W ► v.�. C mot. 3
♦O 'O 4!Y W , u '.°j/s tel
47.
to I te: i • L C Q) E U
as 0 C Z
ILI cc
L `'' '
' . W 4.1 N
IC _ S dl
)' ,t`'' C G1 N A O. O: a
y ;. N LE
L r .- _ 4) fss u
u ;0 ; :Nit °' m ti C7 4) A▪ d y u
o
M^a ° ,''f�Q az — Q 2,ii i V Q v 0 °
Z •SRS �._,, S 4, C1- L C Z
a . •�vl Vf o 0'ao a 1 -
cg 4) _° � z E � c cv►
E ° _ u
-v � a _cw z O O > E L C C,,
0m • 00
U(9? U= m
D
0
vl
Lu
• H
U
1:
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a
•
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and
Notice of a Public Scoping Meeting
for the Dublin Crossing Project
Date of Notice: May 30, 2012
In implementing its duties under Section 15021 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Dublin will serve as the Lead Agency in preparing a project-level
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Dublin Crossing Project (Project). The City
is requesting your comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The EIR will address the
potential physical, environmental effects of the Project for each of the environmental topics
outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is
being sent to the Office of Planning and Research, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies,
and other interested parties. Responsible Agencies are those public agencies, besides the City
of Dublin, that also have a role in approving or carrying out the Project. If you are an authorized
representative of a Responsible Agency, or a Trustee Agency, a transportation planning
agency, agency with transportation facilities that may be affected, or a Federal agency involved
in approving or funding the Project, the City needs to know the views of your agency as to the
scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the Project. Your agency will need to use this EIR when
• considering your permit or other approval for the Project. In responding, please also provide the
name, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the contact person for your agency.
Scoping comments on the EIR should focus on discussing possible Project impacts on the
physical environment, ways in which potential adverse effects might be minimized, and
alternatives to the Project in light of the EIR's purpose to provide useful and accurate
information about such factors.
As specified by the CEQA Guidelines, the NOP will be circulated for a 30-day review period
from May 30, 2012 to June 30, 2012. In the event that no response or request for additional
time is received by the end of the review period, the City of Dublin may presume that your
agency has no comment. Comments on this NOP should be directed in writing to:
Kristi Bascom
Principal Planner
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
or via email to: kristi.bascomc@i,dublin.ca.gov
Questions regarding the Project or the process can be directed to Kristi Bascom at (925) 556-
4557. Comments on the NOP must be received at the above mailing or e-mail address by 5:00
• p.m. on June 30, 2012 (30 days from the date of this notice). Please reference "Dublin
Crossing PA 08-049" in all correspondence.
•
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Comments may also be provided at the EIR Public Scoping Meeting to be held on June 20,
2012. The EIR Scoping Meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Regional Meeting Room at the
Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
Project Title: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (PA 08-049)
Project Summary: Residential mixed-use Project with up to 1,996 single- and multi-
family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office
and/or commercial uses; a Community Park; two Neighborhood
Parks, and the provision for an 8-12 acre elementary school.
Project Location: Approximately 191 acres located within the boundary of the
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The Project site
is bound by 5th Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west,
Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east.
Interstates 580 and 680 are the nearest regional highways to the
Project site (see Figure 1: Project Site Location).
Project Applicant: Dublin Crossing CP, LLC
300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 342
Oakland, CA 94612
PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
As shown in Figure 1: Project Site Location, the Project site is located in the City of Dublin in
Alameda County, California. •
A portion of the Project site (approximately 182 acres) is currently owned by the United States
government and is administered by the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense
and NASA as part of the larger 2,485 acre active Camp Parks Reserve Force Training Area
(RFTA), located in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. There are 20 existing
buildings/structures on the Project site. There is an additional warehouse building on the site
which is owned by NASA, but it is essentially vacant and not being utilized. An additional
vacant parcel, approximately 9 acres located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road, is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA).
Notable land uses in the surrounding area include the commercial and residential land uses
along Dublin Boulevard and the East Dublin BART station to the south, the Iron Horse Regional
Trail and downtown Dublin to the west, and the Santa Rita Jail (Alameda County) to the
northeast.
BACKGROUND
Camp Parks is seeking to consolidate their military base activities within a 487-acre Cantonment
Area located north of the Project site. The US Army prepared a Camp Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area (RFTA) Base Master Plan (2004) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
(2009) for the redevelopment of Camp Parks. It includes the exchange of approximately 181
acres within the City of Dublin from Federal to private ownership for development as the Dublin
Crossing. In return, Camp Parks would receive new installation facilities at a value
commensurate with the value of the exchanged land.
•
Page 2 of 7
;A�
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Most of the Camp Parks facilities on the Project site are currently in use. Functions and
• activities associated with these facilities will be relocated to the proposed Camp Parks
Cantonment Area, as identified in the Base Master Plan and EIS. The Final EIS (FEIS) included
an evaluation of the Project site future private development. The FEIS was certified in July
2009.
In April 2003, the Department of the Army, Army Reserve Division requested that the City
initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to consider different land uses on the Project site.
The Army proposed studying a combination of commercial retail, office and residential uses.
The Dublin City Council agreed to study the proposed land use changes. The initiation of the
study did not change the Army's Public Lands land use designation on the property, but rather
permitted the City and the Army to proceed with further studying proposed land use changes.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2008, the Project Applicant submitted a Pre-Development Application to the City of Dublin
and began discussions with the City about potential future development at the Project site. On
May 21, 2012, the Project Applicant submitted a written description and Draft Land Use
Diagram of the proposed Project for consideration by the City (see Figure 2: Draft Land Use
Diagram). The Draft Land Use Diagram is intended to illustrate the general layout of land uses
across the Project site. The Plan is expected to be refined as the Project is further studied and
analyzed.
The Project Applicant proposes to redevelop the Project site into a new, mixed-use community
with residential, commercial, retail, and parks and open space land uses. Development of the
• Project site will be constructed according to the proposed Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The
Specific Plan will identify the ultimate land use plan, circulation, infrastructure, and fiscal impacts
on public services. The Specific Plan will also include a set of development regulations and
design guidelines that will be referenced as part of all subsequent development reviews and
approvals.
The Project Applicant proposes to build 1,695 residential units. However, depending on the
possible variations in the amount of commercial development, as well as potential to develop
the 8-12 acre school site (should it not be necessary), the maximum total number of residential
units may be as high as 1,996. While the Specific Plan will identify flexible build-out
development scenarios, the EIR will address a most intense development plan as required
under CEQA.
Table 1 (below) summarizes the main elements of the development plan, as currently
envisioned. These land uses are also described in more detail to follow.
Table 1: Proposed Land Use Program
Page 3 of 7
o
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Land ° i ii/Dens ty' •
Residential Up to 1,996 units
Non-residential uses including commercial, office, Up to 200,000 square feet
retail, business park/industrial, and semi-public
Public Parks and Open Space Minimum of 28 net acres of Community
Park acreage and 5 net acres of
Neighborhood Park acreage
School site 8-12 acres
Residential Land Use: The Project consists of 1,695 residential units on the Project site. The
residential density across the Project site would be generally limited to a maximum of 20
dwelling units per acre. Increasing density in particular planning areas within the Project could
result in up to 1,996 residential units on the Project site. These additional units would come
from a pool of residential unit capacity that could be built on the potential 8-12 acre school site,
the reduction of commercial acreage, or specifically identified portions of the overall Project site
where densities could be increased.
Affordable housing will be provided to the City through payment of fees or construction of units
per the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68). All affordable housing units
constructed would be included within the total Project maximum except for units built as
secondary units to a single-family home (i.e. "granny" or "in-law units"), which could be up to
250 units. Second units are not counted separately toward the maximum unit count at the
Project site, although they will be analyzed in the EIR impact analysis.
Commercial/Semi-Public Land Use: The Project will include up to 200,000 square feet of
•
non-residential uses including; commercial, office, retail, business park/industrial, and/or
semi-public uses. At present, these commercial uses are envisioned along Dublin Boulevard
and Arnold Road.
Parks and Open Space Land Use: The Project will include a Community Park as well as a
number of Neighborhood Parks and private recreational amenities and open space. The
amount of park land will be determined as part of the development of the Specific Plan, but will
be in excess of the acreage requirements as identified in the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (2010). The Project will provide for a new public Central Park that has access from
both Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive, as well as public neighborhood parks and private
recreational amenities. Additionally, the on-site parks and open space will be connected by a
network of on- and off-street walking and bike trails and sidewalks, to encourage safe
pedestrian and bicycle access and interconnectivity.
School Uses: Approximately 8-12 acres of land for a potential public elementary school may
be reserved adjacent to Central Park to enable the potential for joint use opportunities within the
Project site. Should it be determined that a school is not appropriate/required for the site (based
on discussions with the Dublin Unified School District), residential units will be constructed.
Transportation: Transportation improvements will be linked to specific phases of development
with a goal of encouraging use of public transportation and ride sharing, and reducing and/or
internalizing trips Circulation within the project site would consist of a network of streets
designed to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to all portions of Dublin Crossing.
The Project is adjacent to and will be connected with the Iron Horse Trail which is the longest
•
Page 4 of 7
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
trail system in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The Iron Horse Trail provides a direct link
• with the East Dublin BART station, located one-half mile south of the Project site.
Infrastructure: The Project site is served by a variety of utility providers including: Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) for water and sewer and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for
gas and electricity. As part of site development, all existing utility systems will be
and/or upgraded within the Project site.
The Project includes the onsite construction of new sanitary sewer and potable and recycled
water infrastructure to accommodate future DSRSD capacity to service the Project.
The Army and NASA are responsible for environmental remediation of existing hazardous
materials on the Project site and have agreed to remediate the property to state and federal
requirements. Contamination that remains after the Army or NASA transfers the property to the
developer will either be remediated by the developer or by the Army or NASA, prior to and
during site grading and demolition activities. Any contaminated soil and groundwater on the site
will be remediated to support the proposed land uses (see further discussion below). Several
possible grading concepts are being considered to address existing and potential geotechnical
conditions. Mass grading operations will be phased to align as closely as practical to the overall
development phasing of the Project. The Project will construct new on-site storm drainage
facilities to collect and convey the post-construction-Project storm drainage runoff to the existing
Zone 7 and City of Dublin storm drainage facilities located near the Project site.
Project Phases: As shown in Table 2: Project Phasing, the Project is expected to be
developed in six phases beginning in 2014. Each phase is estimated to take approximately 2-3
years and Project build out is projected to be completed in 2030. The actual timing of
construction would depend on provisions described in the Exchange Agreement between the
U.S. Army and the Project Applicant, as well as environmental remediation activities, biological
permitting requirements, market conditions, and other factors.
Table 2: Project Phasing
l�Ii��µlPhase,�� MEsti mate®Ili1'A creage Proposed - o Meg
OII� II rII 0111 II II II I I 11 IIIIIIII1, III III I II I. I
1 21 Residential and potential commercial. uses
2 14 Residential and public park/open space
3 37 Residential
4 .. 56 Residential, public park/open space, and potential
commercial uses
5 35 Residential, public park/open space, and potential
commercial uses
6 28 Residential
TOTAL 191 acres
Project Approvals: The Project will require text and map amendments to the City of Dublin
General Plan, text and map amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, approval of.a
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, approval of a Large Lot Tentative Map and Phase 1 Small Lot
Tentative Map, and adoption of a Development Agreement pursuant to California Government
Page5of7
City of Dublin
•
Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Code sections 65864 et seq. Approval of these entitlements will occur subsequent to the
certification of the Dublin Crossing Final EIR. -
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Under CEQA, environmental documentation must include an analysis of a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. The proposed Specific Plan
being prepared for the proposed Project will guide the selection of alternatives. The alternatives
will be evaluated in less detail than the proposed project and will be contrasted with the
proposed Project in terms of the extent to which Project objectives and reduction in adverse
impacts are achieved. The environmentally superior alternative will be identified.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Because the Lead Agency has determined that an EIR will be required, no Initial Study has
been prepared for the Project. The EIR will evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project on
each of the following environmental topics: Aesthetics; Air Quality and Global Climate Change;
Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and
Housing; Public Services and Recreation; Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Service
Systems. Environmental factors that will be considered but eliminated are proposed to be
Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources.
The project-level EIR will examine the environmental impacts of the whole of the Project,
identify mitigation measures, and analyze whether proposed mitigation measures would reduce
any significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level as defined by CEQA.
•
The Project site may contain limited amounts of contaminated soil and groundwater. However,
the Army and NASA have conducted all necessary hazardous materials investigations. The CA
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has determined that "No Further Action" is
required for all parcels with the exception of Parcel No. 36 (Ltr. from DTSC to LTC David R.
James, Commanding Officer, US Army Garrison — Camp Parks, dated 1/20/2012). Any future
remediation activities on Parcel 36 will be performed by the Project applicant and require the
necessary approval by DTSC prior to construction. The EIR will examine the proposed
remediation and determine if any additional mitigations are required.
Existing buildings and structures on the Project site will be demolished. The EIR will examine
potential effects regarding air quality and hazardous materials related to the demolition.
A portion of the Project site lies within the 100-year flood plain. This flood plain generally
extends north to south along an existing drainage channel on the Project site. There is also a
known drainage channel that runs along the easternmost portion of the project site and between
the Army and ACSPA parcel near the southeast corner of the Project site. Site soils and
•
biological resources (including, but not limited to disturbance and loss of riparian vegetation,
jurisdictional wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities or special-status species habitat,
construction disturbance of species-status terrestrial species) will be investigated as part of the
EIR for the Project.
A majority of the Project site is designated in the Dublin General Plan as Public Lands with the
exception of the ACSPA parcel which is designated as Parks/Public Recreation, as identified in
the City's Transit Center Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. A majority of the site
•
Page6of7 .
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
is zoned Agriculture (A), with the exception of the ACSPA parcel, which is zoned Planned
Development (PD).
Given the size and location of the Project, transportation and traffic will be a critical issue to be
evaluated in the EIR. A traffic impact analysis will study intersections, roadway sections, and
freeway interchanges within the project vicinity.
When the Draft EIR is published, it will be sent to all Responsible Agencies and to others who
respond to this NOP or who otherwise indicate that they would like to receive a copy.
May 30, 2012
PA 08-049 Kristi Bascom
Principal Planner
• Attachments:
Figure 1: Project Site Location
Figure 2: Draft Land Use Diagram
•
•
Page7of7
•
it•i,,,&-----•ig
-1i.
--------L-411 S,- ig',„;•10,,,A 1.1
...
"....444.• ,*. +0-attost-34_14iP44.P. .14.VROP-..'41,74-; - - '-'4°— co ‘—
.. .
•
.-
__, ,. ___
, -
,,, .., . _ ., - _ C
11P ° 14, .)
,t ;
* ollg- lit G)
CO =
CO C
* -C
CL
. -
.. >%
. ,
C I-
te ., (13
a.) , . - •
cn .
II f
N.1. 111 _c
CL
. .-.
. ,
s.—
11
... .. ....,I,■. .
■-, , . -'.'. CO
MC .
'tr)
1.: r mc 6) g3
..4-
• .
I
..
,, . . ..?.-.. a)
_c
4.) 2
- t
...,
0- CZ CI)CO
4
. .
I 1 , • ;-t.4C11 4c2 ft W
:, • ... -I- , i 000000
000000
- ,
0_CL CL CL CL CL
r
- 4 .- .., „....2... I
.,. . .
,. 1
1111,101.1f '" .
il, .. u)
•
r
.
i.... :
,_ ...
apic7 wit 0 lg. Slir , Ilf •
--
4.
I CO •, <
. :'..4 ,...
... I
- wa:.0 .• so)j-,. or '
iii,mit+.,Itil 10—MA.,sic a, U)
wadi CD
,
*• lir 4 irt, 1,.. • ..0 [—
., , ,
---- , ## CL 'itt Cf)iirn
r.?:RAIn .':.;41.. 1
„ . . .
.c.n5
it,... . • .:• ,
,,,,_ _ , o cL)
cat ,.,- -.1 - , - ,,. ...
,..,......_____, . _ d. ;-,
,...—
4 •
. U '
...AA.
.... NI t
- N •
I N, .- e4'.S._-,* "" 1■""■1
• . .
.., L.._
'1-- "Pt
.
. ,. -----v 2 Li-)
. . , . ....... .............—
•
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
410 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 commitment 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.
•
J
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. California Blvd.#170, Walnut.Creek,CA 94596
Dave Robinson, USAR
Colonel Scott Wood,West Coast Garrison/Camp Parks,Building 790,5th 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 •