The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 7.1 Dublin Crossing Updateor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: May 7, 2013 TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""'', Dublin Crossing Project Status Update Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #600 -60 Staff and SunCal Companies /Argent Management have been working on the development of a draft land plan and an associated list of agreement points that together form the basis for a future development project for the 189 -acre Dublin Crossing project site. It was agreed that Staff would return to the City Council at key points throughout the project review process to receive input on items of critical importance. Staff is currently seeking direction from the City Council on several of the current project components including the City Council's willingness to authorize the formation of a Community Facilities District, input on the project's likely fiscal impacts to the City, questions related to the development of future park facilities in the project area, and the affordable housing proposal. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. The costs associated with processing the Dublin Crossing project are borne by the Applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive the status report on the Dublin Crossing Project; and 2) Provide direction to Staff and the Applicant on the following policy considerations: a) Is the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) an acceptable financing tool for future development on the project site and is the City Council is willing to authorize and participate in the creation of such a District? b) Is the size of the Community Park acceptable? c) Is SunCal's proposal to include a five acre Neighborhood Park in the Mixed Use District on the Draft Land Plan acceptable? d) What is the preferred process by which the Neighborhood Park and Community Park in the project will be designed and built? e) Are the other Development Agreement Points as proposed by SunCal acceptable? Page 1 of 12 ITEM NO. 7.1 Submitted By Director of Community Development DESCRIPTION: �?14 Reviewed By Assistant City Manager One of the City Council's key initiatives is to process a General Plan Amendment for private development on a portion of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (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 (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 Reserve 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 Crossings" project area. On January 10, 2008, the U.S. Army Reserve and the City (and other local public agencies) participated in an "Industry Day ", where all interested developers received information about the project site, the development process, and received information on the expectations of the City as it related to development potential as well as public amenities and facilities. The City made a presentation to interested developers, provided background information including the results of the Strategic Visioning Process, copies of the follow up letters to the U.S. Army Reserve, information on City and other agency fees, an expected project processing timeline, and Staff also answered questions from the development community related to the City's entitlement process. The City established a webpage for the Dublin Crossings project and posted documents and information for all interested parties to access. Following Industry Day, interested developers submitted proposals to the U.S. Army Reserve for consideration, and in October 2008, the U.S. Army Reserve announced the selection of SunCal Companies as the master developer. In April 2011, SunCal finalized an Exchange Agreement with the U.S. Army Reserve for the property that binds both parties to a timeline and certain requirements to allow development on the project site to proceed. Once the Exchange Agreement was signed, City Staff began pre - development meetings with SunCal. SunCal has since 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 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 Staff Report and Meeting Minutes for the August 16th meeting are included as Attachments 1 and 2 to this Staff Report. Page 2 of 12 After the August 16, 2011 meeting, Staff and SunCal met 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 also negotiated a package of community benefits that SunCal proposed to provide in exchange for acceptance of their land plan and development proposal. These community benefits, and the associated trade -offs, were crafted into a list of agreement points. On May 29, 2012, the City Council held a special meeting to review the SunCal's Draft Land Plan and the Draft Development Agreement Points, which together formed SunCal's development proposal for the property. At the meeting, Staff sought input from the City Council on the Draft Land Plan and the Draft Development Agreement Points and affirmation from the City Council that the concepts illustrated and described in the two documents were acceptable. The May 29, 2012 Staff Report and the Meeting Minutes are included as Attachments 3 and 4 to this Staff Report. Following the May 29, 2012 meeting, Staff and SunCal continued to meet every other week to discuss refinements to the Draft Land Plan, potential changes to the project to respond to direction provided by the City Council, to learn more about SunCal's plans for a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the project, and to review design concepts for the Community Park. On June 13, 2012, Staff outlined the information needed from SunCal in order to provide feedback to the City Council on the potential size, scope, and impacts of the creation of a CFD. On July 17, 2012, the City Council approved a contract with Keyser Marston Associates to prepare the CFD analysis. On January 31, 2013, SunCal provided the information needed to begin the analysis. While awaiting information to complete the CFD analysis, preparation of the Draft Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project began. The Draft EIR is studying a project that includes between 1,600 and 1,995 residential units, between 75,000 and 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, an elementary school for up to 900 students, 33 acres of public park land, and associated roadways and infrastructure to serve the new community. Staff has worked with SunCal to address many of the project issues. However, there are still a few items that the City Council provided feedback on at the May 29, 2012 meeting that have not been resolved, including: • Providing a Community Park with a minimum of 28 net usable acres, but ideally more; • Providing five (5) net acres of Neighborhood Park land in one site instead of two; • Guaranteeing the successful development of all project parks in a timely and orderly fashion and built to the appropriate standards; and • Payment of the Community Benefit up front at project approval. SunCal has prepared a Draft Land Plan (Attachment 5) and Draft Development Agreement Points (Attachment 6), which together are SunCal's current project proposal. Attachment 7 is Staff's Project Status Summary of the direction received from the City Council at the May 29, 2012 meeting and to what degree the City Council's direction has been incorporated into the current project proposal. Before the Specific Plan can be finalized, direction from the City Council is needed on several items. Most important of these is whether a Community Facilities District (CFD) should be Page 3 of 12 considered as a financing mechanism for the project infrastructure. In order to receive this direction, Staff is reporting back to the City Council with additional details on a potential CFD for the project site for consideration. In addition to the CFD policy question, in order to ensure that the goals and policies of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan are in line with the City's vision for the project area, Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on other areas where the direction from the City Council on May 29, 2012 differs from the current proposal as further described below. INPUT FROM CITY COUNCIL: Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the following policy considerations: a) Is the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) an acceptable financing tool for future development on the project site and is the City Council is willing to authorize and participate in the creation of such a District? b) Is the size of the Community Park acceptable? c) Is SunCal's proposal to include a five acre Neighborhood Park in the Mixed Use District on the Draft Land Plan acceptable? d) What is the preferred process by which the Neighborhood Park and Community Park in the project will be designed and built? e) Are the other Development Agreement Points as proposed by SunCal acceptable? Each issue is discussed in greater detail below. Policy Consideration 1: Is the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) an acceptable financing tool for future development on the project site and is the City Council willing to authorize and participate in the creation of such a District? Community Facilities Districts (CFD) allow the financing of infrastructure improvements through debt financing facilitated by the City. As Meyers Nave indicated during the CFD training on May 15, 2012, this form of financing shifts the burden of paying for infrastructure from the developer to the future property owners. CFDs have been used in several communities in the Bay Area and beyond, but there are no CFDs currently in the City of Dublin. Historically, developers in Dublin have financed improvements in new areas of development privately, without City involvement. Developers have constructed facilities and /or paid development fees to fund new infrastructure. SunCal has indicated that the creation of a CFD is a critical component of their proposal. SunCal has informed Staff that the project would change substantially if the City were not supportive of forming a CFD for this project. At the May 29, 2012 City Council meeting, the City Council was unable to state whether the creation of a CFD for the project site could be supported. The City Council asked for additional detail regarding the impacts of a Community Facilities District on the prospective residents located in the proposed Dublin Crossings project. Staff contracted with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to review information provided by SunCal's consultant, DPFG, regarding adopting a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the purpose of funding a portion of the infrastructure and development costs associated with the Project. Page 4 of 12 Community Facilities Districts have been used widely since its adoption of the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act in 1982 to assist local governmental agencies in financing needed community facilities and services through the levy of voter approved special taxes. Under the scope, KMA was to evaluate the overall feasibility of the CFD and to identify any issues that may be of specific concern to the City. The attached memorandum (Attachment 8) summarizes the preliminary findings. SunCal is projecting to fund approximately $46.8 million of infrastructure and development costs from the sale of CFD bonds. It is estimated that the project's infrastructure and development costs would total approximately $119 million and therefore, the CFD would be used to fund approximately 39% of eligible costs. The memorandum describes in detail the bonds issued per phase. Debt service bonds would be funded by a special tax on each residential unit in the project, which is secured by a lien on each property. It is estimated that annual special taxes would range from $2,200 to $3,700 per unit (or .46% to .5% of the assessed value) based on property valuation. This is in addition to the current ad valorem tax rate of 1.153% plus other assessments of $762 per parcel. Therefore, the total property tax burden on the residential units is anticipated to total 1.75% of assessed value, or $8,400 to $13,000 per unit, per year. This does not include any additional potential HOA dues. In addition to determining the possible annual tax burden given the cap of 1.75% as studied in the DPFG report, KMA has identified potential feasibility impacts of CFD bond issues. The first is whether or not the market would be accepting of such a tax burden. Currently, there is no indication either way of whether potential buyers might accept a higher tax burden at this project. In review of the most recent issuances (only three in California), the Bay Meadows project in San Mateo was successful, raising $31.8 million and a total tax burden of approximately 1.7 %. This proposed levy is less than the traditional industry standard of 2% of assessed value. At the time the CFD analysis is being considered, the City is also preparing a Fiscal Study to determine whether the project would be considered financially positive, neutral, or negative to the City. Based on the City Council's adopted goal of fiscal neutrality in 2004 (Attachment 9), the baseline assumption for the Dublin Crossing project is that the development will pay for itself and not have a net fiscal drain on City resources. Based on the conclusions of the Fiscal Study, it is important to note that Staff may need to work with SunCal to evaluate all prospective options, if necessary, to achieve the goal of fiscal neutrality. Measures could include requiring improvements to be maintained by a Homeowners' Associations, creation of lighting and landscaping districts, potential changes to the land use plan, and the potential use of a Community Facilities District to fund ongoing maintenance and services. There would be a substantial amount of work and involvement led by the City to enable the creation and implementation of a CFD — whether for capital /infrastructure improvements or for ongoing maintenance. 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. Staff is currently seeking direction from the City Council on whether a CFD is an acceptable financing tool for future development on the project site and whether the formation of a CFD should be considered an option in the Specific Plan. Page 5 of 12 Decision point: Determine whether a CFD is an acceptable financing tool for future development on the project site and state if the City Council is willing to authorize the formation of and participate in the creation of the District. Consequences: Sun Cal has indicated that the proposed project "package" is dependent on the authorization of a Community Facilities District. If the City Council agrees that a CFD is acceptable, the discussion related to the project as currently being envisioned will continue. If the City Council does not agree to participate in the authorization and formation of a CFD, SunCal may decide to change their Draft Land Plan and Draft Development Agreement Points. Yes -1 No Creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) is an acceptable financing tool for future development on the project site and the City Council is willing to authorize and participate in the creation of such a District. Policy Consideration 2: Is the size of the Community Park acceptable? In 2004, during the Strategic Visioning Process, the City reviewed several alternative concept land plans. None of the land plans were based on an Applicant proposal, but they were concepts that that the City expected would be utilized as a basis for a future land plan. Following the Strategic Visioning Process, the City hired landscape architect and park planning consultants Moore lacofano Goltsman (MIG) to conduct a study on possible unique uses for the large central park space in the middle of Alternative 5, which was the preferred concept land plan. MIG's final report summarized uses that might be desirable for a unique space as well as the amount of space (land and building, if appropriate) needed to accommodate the use. At the City Council meeting on February 7, 2006, the City Council discussed the different theme options and acreage requirements, and directed Staff to inform the U.S. Army Reserve of the City Council's desire to have a 46 -acre central park space developed for the site. The central park space was expected to be in addition to the required Community Park land dedication for the project, so it would be 46 "bonus" acres for the community. Since 2006, it has been recognized by Staff that a 46 -acre bonus park would be infeasible in many regards, not the least of which being the cost to a future developer as well as the cost to the City to build and maintain such a sizable park. However, it is accurate to say that the City's original expectations for the development of the Dublin Crossing project area included substantial parkland beyond minimum requirements in order to provide a generous amount of passive and active recreational opportunities. However, SunCal's proposed land plan has never included a substantial dedication of park acreage beyond the minimum requirements. The minimum park land dedication is determined by the number of future residents to be generated by the project and the amount of commercial development. The following table illustrates the park land dedication requirements based on the upper limits of the proposed project range (1,995 residential units and 200,000 square feet of commercial development). Page 6 of 12 * 1.7 acres is the amount of acreage identified for Chabot Creek, however that accounts for the actual storm water flow area only. The acreage of Chabot Creek in its entirety (to top of creek bank) is unknown at this time. ** Actual Net Usable Community Park Acreage number will need to subtract out the full area of Chabot Creek, which is unknown at this time. The actual net usable area will be less than 26.3 acres. * ** Actual Project -wide Surplus number will need to subtract out the full area of Chabot Creek, which is unknown at this time. The actual surplus will be less than 0.7 acres. According to the table above, SunCal proposes to dedicate approximately 0.7 acres more park acreage to serve the Dublin Crossing project than the minimum amount that is required by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. If the lower end of the residential range were reached (1,600 units) and the lower limit of commercial square footage built (75,000 SF) instead of the upper limits of both, the total project -wide parkland surplus amount would be 5.9 acres. However, SunCal has not provided information on the total size of Chabot Creek, so it is difficult for Staff to accurately characterize the net usable acreage. The park acreage calculations above include 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), which is proposed to be included in the Dublin Crossing project. The 8.7 acres is proposed to be acquired, the land use designation changed to mixed use, and the replacement park acreage will be included within the larger Community Park on the Dublin Crossing project site. Funds used to acquire the ACSPA parcel will include $2.8 million from SunCal as well as funds from the City's Public Facilities Fee program. SunCal has proposed to offer the City a loan for the balance of the ACSPA purchase price in order to enable an earlier acquisition of the property than would be achievable if the City were using funds available in the Fee Program. If the City accepts the loan, would be repaid over the course of four years starting in Fiscal Year 2017/2018. Considerable discussion has taken place to date on the size, location, and amenities within the proposed Community Park. Consistent with the City's original vision for Dublin Crossing, Staff has consistently advocated for a generously -sized Community Park that could accommodate a range of sports and recreational facilities as well as the unique facilities that the City Council has identified as desirable. Based on preliminary assessments of a 28 -acre park, 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); Page 7 of 12 Required Proposed Surplus (Deficiency) Community Park Includes residential dedication requirements: 3.5 acres per 1,000 persons (at the upper residential limit, 1,995 units = 3,990 persons) plus commercial dedication requirements (at upper limit of 200,000 SF) 15.9 acres 19.3 acres 3.4 acres ACSPA parcel 8.7 acres 8.7 acres 0 acres Total Community Park Acreage 24.6 acres 28.0 acres 3.4 acres Minus Chabot Creek* (1.7 acres) (1.7 acres) Net Usable Community Park Acreage ** 26.3 acres 1.7 acres Neighborhood Park 1.5 acres per 1,000 persons (3,990 persons) 6.0 acres 5.0 acres (1.0 acres) Total Project -wide Park land Surplus * ** 0.7 acres * 1.7 acres is the amount of acreage identified for Chabot Creek, however that accounts for the actual storm water flow area only. The acreage of Chabot Creek in its entirety (to top of creek bank) is unknown at this time. ** Actual Net Usable Community Park Acreage number will need to subtract out the full area of Chabot Creek, which is unknown at this time. The actual net usable area will be less than 26.3 acres. * ** Actual Project -wide Surplus number will need to subtract out the full area of Chabot Creek, which is unknown at this time. The actual surplus will be less than 0.7 acres. According to the table above, SunCal proposes to dedicate approximately 0.7 acres more park acreage to serve the Dublin Crossing project than the minimum amount that is required by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. If the lower end of the residential range were reached (1,600 units) and the lower limit of commercial square footage built (75,000 SF) instead of the upper limits of both, the total project -wide parkland surplus amount would be 5.9 acres. However, SunCal has not provided information on the total size of Chabot Creek, so it is difficult for Staff to accurately characterize the net usable acreage. The park acreage calculations above include 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), which is proposed to be included in the Dublin Crossing project. The 8.7 acres is proposed to be acquired, the land use designation changed to mixed use, and the replacement park acreage will be included within the larger Community Park on the Dublin Crossing project site. Funds used to acquire the ACSPA parcel will include $2.8 million from SunCal as well as funds from the City's Public Facilities Fee program. SunCal has proposed to offer the City a loan for the balance of the ACSPA purchase price in order to enable an earlier acquisition of the property than would be achievable if the City were using funds available in the Fee Program. If the City accepts the loan, would be repaid over the course of four years starting in Fiscal Year 2017/2018. Considerable discussion has taken place to date on the size, location, and amenities within the proposed Community Park. Consistent with the City's original vision for Dublin Crossing, Staff has consistently advocated for a generously -sized Community Park that could accommodate a range of sports and recreational facilities as well as the unique facilities that the City Council has identified as desirable. Based on preliminary assessments of a 28 -acre park, 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); Page 7 of 12 2) Accommodate the special and unique amenities that have been suggested by the City Council; or 3) Accomplish some combination of the two. However, it does not appear that 28 acres is sufficient acreage to be able to accommodate all of the special and unique amenities while meeting all of the guidelines and standards the City has adopted for Community Parks, and this was presented to the City Council at the meeting on May 29, 2012. Feedback from a majority of the City Councilmembers at that time was that the Community Park should be no smaller than 28 usable park acres, but that Staff should work with SunCal to increase the size of the Community Park beyond 28 acres (Attachment 4). While most of the amenities desired by the community are shown on the conceptual plan, there are close adjacencies between spaces and activities and tight circulation. Additionally parking is constrained considering the Valley Children Museum's plan for a 50,000 square foot facility. Based on the standard the City has used for other community facilities that would equate to 250 spaces not accounting for other park uses. At less than 26.3 net usable acres (with the deduction of the manmade "Chabot Creek" waterway that has been designed to run through the future park), the site is even more constrained. Additionally, at this point it is unknown if underground water detention to serve the project would constrain the programming of above- ground facilities and amenities. Decision point: Determine whether the Community Park is properly sized for the needs of the community. Consequences: If the City Council determines that a larger Community Park is needed, the Specific Plan will be written based on this direction. Yes -1 No Is the size of the Community Park acceptable? If "No ", an additional question applies: What is the appropriate amount of net usable park acreage that should be included in the Community Park? Policy Consideration 3: Is Suncal's proposal to include a five acre Neighborhood Park in the Mixed Use District on the Draft Land Plan acceptable? At the May 29, 2012 City Council meeting, direction was provided that a single, five -acre Neighborhood Park was preferable to two smaller Neighborhood Parks. SunCal has explored various alternatives, and the current proposal is to include a five acre park site within the Mixed Use Land Use District as shown on the Draft Land Plan (Attachment 5). In the Draft Specific Plan, the description provided by SunCal for the Mixed Use District is as follows: "The Mixed Use land use district shall contain a minimum of 75,000 gross square feet of commercial uses (with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0) and a 5 acre Neighborhood Park. In conjunction with an application that meets the commercial and park requirements above, residential uses are permitted with a density of up to 60 units /net acre." Staff is comfortable with this approach and is confident that including the five acre Neighborhood Park within the Mixed Use Land Use District will allow for an opportunity to master plan the park, commercial, and any residential uses together. Page 8 of 12 Decision point: Determine whether the including the five acre Neighborhood Park within the Mixed Use District is a suitable approach for securing the park size and location. Consequences: If the City Council determines that the Neighborhood Park site should be identified separately on the Draft Land Plan, SunCal would need to update the plan. Yes -1 No Is SunCal's proposal to include a five acre Neighborhood Park in the Mixed Use District on the Draft Land Plan acceptable? Policy Consideration 4: What is the preferred process by which the Neighborhood Park and Community Park in the project will be designed and built? The design and construction of new parks in Dublin is a process that is typically undertaken solely by the City with input from the community. Developers pay impact fees which are then used to acquire land and fund the park improvements. Parks and Community Services Department Staff involve the community and decision - makers in developing concept park master plans and the parks are built by the City. SunCal proposes to construct all of the improvements in both the Community Park and the Neighborhood Park(s) and to dedicate finished parks to the City. For this, SunCal proposes to receive credits toward Community Park and Neighborhood Park acquisition and improvement fees for up to 1,995 units and 200,000 square feet of commercial development. SunCal would pay for the other fees identified in the Public Facilities Fee program at the effective rate when building permits are issued. 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. While Staff concurs with providing credit for the maximum proposed development limits, SunCal does not agree with Staff's approach to calculating the value of the improvements and credits, as well as the approach to designing the parks. SunCal has consistently stated that their desire is to "turn -key" all parks in the project. This would seems to mean that SunCal proposes to build the park and turn it over to the City as a complete project. However, once Staff and SunCal began negotiations regarding the specifics of their intent, it became clear that there would be difficulties in ensuring that the community's needs could be represented in the final park design. Another one of the challenges with building out a developer - prepared concept park plan is ensuring that the parks are designed and built to the City's specifications and high standards, and ensuring that the park truly represents the needs and desires of the community. Thus, although Staff is comfortable with SunCal constructing the actual park improvements, Staff and SunCal are at odds on how to approach the design process. In the Development Agreement for the future project, Staff proposes to include language that any concept plans included in the Specific Plan are for illustrative purposes only and that the City will use the procedures outlined in the in the Public Facilities Fee Ordinance and related administrative policy for calculation, reimbursement, and credits for developer built, turn -key, parks. This would include subsequently entering into a Fee Credit Agreement and Park Development Agreement for the developer's dedication of the parkland, and constructing and dedicating the approved parks to the City. The credits earned will be based on a valuation of the Page 9 of 12 parkland and improvements based on improvement plans submitted by SunCal and approved by the City. In addition, in the past the turn -key approach has only been used for neighborhood parks, which are less complex and completed in one - phase. Staff has been reaching out to many other growing cities throughout California to determine best practices in developing turn -key parks. One trend noted by Staff is that while many allow for turn -key neighborhood parks, most do not allow for turn -key community parks. Larger community parks are phased and therefore the plans for those future phases always change with the interests of the community and new residents the park is serving. In discussions, SunCal has rejected the approach outlined in the Public Facility Fee program and proposed by Staff. Staff continues to recommend following the City's process for turn -key parks, as has been done with other developer built parks including Schaefer Ranch Park and Ted Fairfield Park. This approach will ensure that the community has a voice in the design of the parks and the City receives a high quality park that will not be a repair and maintenance problem for years to come. This will also provide the City and developer financial certainty as to the amount of credits received and the cost of building out the park consistent with the community's design. SunCal does not agree with this approach and their proposal is to design the project parks in accordance with the concepts shared with the City Council in the past. Decision point: Determine the best process to follow for design and construction. Consequences: This direction will inform the language proposed for the Development Agreement and could have financial implications for SunCal. What is the preferred process by which the Neighborhood Park and Community Park in the project will be designed and built? City to engage in typical community process to develop park master plans and subsequent construction documents. SunCal to only build the turn -key Neighborhood Park(s) based on City design and known construction value. City to build the Community Park. City to engage in typical community process to develop park master plans and subsequent construction documents. SunCal to build both the Community park and Neighborhood Park(s) parks based on City design and known construction value. SunCal to prepare park master plans for the Community Park and Neighborhood Park in line with their illustrative plans shared at the May 29, 2012 City Council meeting. SunCal to build the turn -key parks based on SunCal design with City input. Changes to design to be allowed following certain protocol. Policy Consideration 5: Are the Development Agreement Points as proposed by SunCal acceptable? The proposed project, which includes the Draft Land Plan combined with the Draft Development Agreement Points, presents a complete package on which Staff is seeking City Council Page 10 of 12 direction. 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 Specific Plan to achieve the City Council's goals for the project area. The Draft Development Agreement Points form the basis for a future Development Agreement for the project. The Agreement Points are included as Attachment 6. The issue areas where Staff needs further direction from the City Council are discussed in the sections above, and Staff is generally supportive of the other components of the SunCal proposal, many of which were discussed at the May 29, 2012 City Council meeting. The proposed project benefits and tradeoffs were outlined in the May 29, 2012 Staff Report (Attachment 3). Two items that are difficult to value include the "Designated Development Site" and Semi - Public Facilities policy exemption: 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. Semi - Public Facilities 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 (1,995 units), the Dublin Crossing project should provide 4 acres of land designated for Semi - Public Facilities. In the following table, the financial contributions proposed to be made by SunCal are summarized below with those items from which the Applicant is proposing to be exempted. Park Maintenance $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $2,500,000 Endowment Affordable Housing $2,165,000 $5,800,000 $3,235,000 $11,200,000* buy out Iron Horse Trail Bridge $50,000 $50,000 Iron Horse Trail Bridge $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Construction Community Benefit $4,863,000 $1,693,000 $944,000 $7,500,000 Payment ACSPA contribution $2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 Totals per phase $4,913,000 $4,493,000 $5,359,000 $5,800,000 $4,485,000 $25,050,000 Cumulative Contributions $4,913,000 $9,406,000 14,765,000 20,565,000 25,050,000 Page 11 of 12 Project Exemptions Potential value of alternative affordable housing proposal (Substitute for standard In Lieu Fee) Up to $26,751,250* Exemption from Semi - Public Facilities Policy requirements Value of 4 acres of land No Designated Development site Value of approximately 9 acres of land * Affordable Housing buy out noted by SunCal as a "project contribution" is not a contribution as much as it is an alternative means to satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This $11,200,000 contribution is instead of paying the In Lieu Fee of $26,751,250. Decision point: Determine whether the Development Agreement Points outlined in Attachment 6 are acceptable. Consequences: If the City Council determines that the Future Development Agreement Points are not acceptable as written, SunCal should make modifications to address concerns raised. Yes -1 No Are the Development Agreement Points as proposed by SunCal acceptable? If "No ", then an additional question applies: What should be modified to the Development Agreement Points to make them acceptable? NEXT STEPS: Staff will use the direction provided by the City Council at this meeting to finalize the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Draft Dublin Crossing Specific Plan accordingly. The draft documents will then be released for Public Review and comment. The review and comment period will be for 45 days, after which responses will be drafted to any comments received on the EIR and comments received on the Draft Specific Plan will be considered. The documents will then move forward for Planning Commission recommendation and City Council review and consideration. It is expected that this will happen concurrently with any other project entitlements for which SunCal makes an application. These entitlements are expected to include a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision Maps, and a Development Agreement. 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 was provided to SunCal and to all parties who have requested notifications related to this project. A copy of the Staff Report was provided to SunCal. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report, August 16, 2011 (without attachments) 2. City Council Meeting Minutes, August 16, 2011 3. City Council Staff Report, May 29, 2012 (without attachments) 4. City Council Meeting Minutes, May 29, 2012 5. Draft Land Plan 6. Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package ( "Development Agreement Points ") 7. Project Status Summary 8. KMA Preliminary Assessment of Feasibility of Dublin Crossing Community Facilities District (CFD) Memorandum, April 12, 2013 9. City Goals for Private Development at Camp Parks, July 20, 2004 Page 12 of 12 1XI, � STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ❑[] ®00 - ®® DATE: August 16, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJEC Dublin Crossings project update and Strategic Visioning Process recap Prepared By. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner �G j EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2004, the City, in partnership with the U.S. Army Reserve, engaged community members in a "Strategic Visioning Process" for the 187 -acre Dublin Crossings project site. The result of the Strategic Visioning Process was the identification of a preferred concept land plan (Alternative 5) and a series of follow -up letters to the U.S. Army Reserve with direction from the City Council regarding the land uses, circulation system, and parks and open space in the plan. Staff thought it appropriate to engage the City Council in a review of the land plan discussions that have taken place to date and to receive updated direction and feedback from the City Council, as appropriate. Staff will use this information to assist in evaluating the proposed land plan that will be prepared by the Applicant. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive the report on the Dublin Crossings project status and questions related to the 2004 Strategic Visioning Process; and 2) Provide updated and /or additional feedback and direction, where appropriate, to Staff and the Applicants on future development at the Dublin Crossings project site. Submitted By: Revi ed y: Community Development Director Assistant anager Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. . �.•• DESCRIPTION: Since 2001, the City Council Goals and Objectives have included, as a high priority goal, the processing of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment. A General Plan Amendment Study was requested by the U.S. Army Reserve, and on April 15, 2003, the City Council authorized the commencement of a General Plan Amendment Study for the 187 -acre project area, as shown below. Once the General Plan Amendment Study was authorized, City Staff began regular meetings with the U.S. Army Reserve and their representatives to begin considering potential land use combinations for the site. City Councilmembers (Mayor Janet Lockhart, Vice Mayor George Zika, Councilmembers Claudia McCormick, Tony Oravetz, and Tim Sbranti) 2. Representatives from the Army 3. Representatives from Camp Parks 4. Representatives from Staubach Company (the Army's real estate partner at the time) 5. Dublin Unified School District Boardmembers (Trustees David Haubert, Denis King, Eric Swalwell, Sr., and Randy Shumway) 6. Dublin San Ramon Services District Boardmembers (Directors Richard Rose, Thomas Ford, and Tom McCormick) 7. One Planning Commissioner (Bob Fasulkey) 8. One Parks and Community Services Commissioner (Kasie Hildenbrand) 9. One Heritage and Cultural Arts Commissioner (Angela Muetterties) 10. One Senior Advisory Committee member (Mary Lou Bielke and Paul Silvas — attended at different times) 11. City Department Heads 12. Chamber of Commerce member (Brad Kaune) Page 2 of 7 Guided by a team of architects and planning consultants, the Community Group participated in a design charette planning exercise, which helped the group examine the opportunities and constraints of the site, solicit ideas, and create a cohesive vision for the future development of the site. Before the Strategic Visioning Process began, the City Council approved a list of goals for the Strategic Visioning Process participants to keep in mind as they discussed future development opportunities on the project site. The approved goals are included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report. The Community Group met over three days in August and October 2004 and developed five conceptual land use plans for the site. The City Council held meetings in February, March, and April 2005 to review and provide feedback on the five conceptual land use plans. At these meetings, Staff requested the City Council to provide feedback and direction on the following issues, in particular: 1. Location and types of housing 2. Location and size of parks 3. Location and number of east -west connections 4. Location of office and mixed use development 5. Overall mix of land uses 6. Connection to future Transit Center development After the City Council reviewed and discussed the top three land plans (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5), they provided direction to Staff on certain aspects of the plans. Both the Strategic Visioning Community Group and the City Council preferred the land use plan that was referred to as Alternative 5 (Attachment 2). After the City Council meetings, the City Manager prepared a letter to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated April 13, 2005, summarizing the City Council's direction, which among other things, included direction to modify the land use densities to include fewer residential units and more commercial square footage (Attachment 3). The intent was that the eventual development at the project site would incorporate the feedback and direction provided in the letter. Following the Strategic Visioning Process, the City hired landscape architect and park planning consultants Moore lacofano Goltsman (MIG) to conduct a study on possible unique uses for the large central park space in the middle of Alternative 5. The resulting document summarized uses that might be desirable for a unique space as well as the amount of space (land and building, if appropriate) needed to accommodate the use. At the City Council meeting on February 7, 2006, the City Council discussed the different theme options and acreage requirements, and directed Staff to inform the U.S. Army Reserve of the City Council's desire to have a 46 -acre central park space developed for the site. The second letter to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated February 27, 2006, summarized the City Council's direction on the size and location of the central park (Attachment 4). A final letter was sent to the U.S. Army Reserve on May 3, 2006 notifying the Army that the City Council is in support of including a spot in the central park shown in Alternative 5 for a future Valley Children's Museum. This letter is included as Attachment 5 to the Staff Report. In December 2007, the U.S. Army Reserve prepared a Notice of Availability to solicit a master developer for the Camp Parks Real Property Exchange / "Dublin Crossings" project area. On January 10, 2008, the U.S. Army Reserve and the City (and other local public agencies) participated in an "Industry Day ", where all interested developers received information about the project site and the development process. The City made a presentation to interested Page 3of7 developers, provided background information including the results of the Strategic Visioning Process, copies of the follow up letters to the U.S. Army Reserve, information on City and other agency fees, an expected project processing timeline, and Staff also answered questions from the development community related to the City's entitlement process. The City established a webpage for the Dublin Crossings project and posted documents and information for all interested parties to access. Following Industry Day, interested developers submitted proposals to the U.S. Army Reserve for consideration, and in October 2008, the U.S. Army Reserve announced the selection of SunCal Companies as the master developer. In April 2011, SunCal finalized an Exchange Agreement with the U.S. Army Reserve for the property that binds both parties to a timeline and certain requirements to allow development on the project site to proceed. City Staff have begun pre - development meetings with SunCal. SunCal is moving forward with preparing their development proposal for the property, which the City will review and analyze in the coming months. Before any detailed analysis of their development proposal takes place, Staff thought it appropriate to engage the City Council in a review of the vision for Dublin Crossings that was previously provided by the City Council, and to receive updated direction and feedback from the City Council, as appropriate. ANALYSIS: Before Staff moves forward with the goal of achieving the City Council's vision, it is prudent to revisit the key issues raised by the City Council to ensure that the direction Staff advocates in reviewing and analyzing future development proposals reflects the existing City Council's desired direction. To this end, Staff has prepared a summary of the direction on key issues provided to the U.S. Army Reserve in 2005 and 2006 and accompanying questions in those issue areas where Staff is seeking City Council feedback and direction: Issue Area 1: Locations and Types of Housing Comment 1 -a (April 13, 2005 letter): Less dense 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? Comment 1 -b (April 13, 2005 letter): Location of residential land uses. Councilmembers voiced concerns regarding locating residential uses on Arnold Drive or single family on Dublin Blvd. Councilmembers did not support the location of housing along Arnold Drive (should be office instead), the placement of single - family homes along Dublin Boulevard (should be medium - density residential, if any), or the placement of single - family homes fronting any major high traffic volume street. Page 4 of 7 Question 1 -b: Are there scenarios under which the City Council would consider the above situations or does the City Council still support this direction? Issue Area 2: Location and Sizes of Parks Comment 2 -a (April 13, 2005 letter): Central Park location. Councilmembers expressed an interest in having the future Dublin Crossings land plan incorporate a centrally - located park space that can serve as a focal point for community events and festivities, provide a geographical link between the western and eastern portions of Dublin, provide a grand entry into the project site, and provide a unique space for a range of programming opportunities. The central park space in Alternative 5 was mentioned as an example of such a space. Councilmembers want to ensure that the future park space is easily accessible to Transit Center residents. Question 2 -a: Is the City Council open to considering configurations for the central park that can achieve the above directives but that are different than as shown in the Alternative 5 concept land plan? Does the City Council envision the central park as being designed to be central to the Dublin Crossings development or central to the broader City of Dublin? Comment 2 -b (February 27, 2006 letter): Unique Park Use and Adequate Park 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? 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? Page 5 of 7 Issue Area 3: Circulation and Transportation Comment 3 -a (April 13, 2005 letter): East -West connection through the project 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 routes 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? 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? There were several additional comments provided to the U.S. Army Reserve in the three letters previously described in this Staff Report (Attachments 3, 4, and 5). Staff has not sought feedback on every comment, but only those that will have sizable implications on the layout and design of the future land plan. However, if the City Council has comments or would like to revisit the direction provided in any of the letters, Staff would be appreciative of that input. Absent any direction from the City Council to the contrary, Staff will assume that the direction originally provided in the three letters still applies. NEXT STEPS: Once the Applicants are ready to move forward, the City will engage a consultant for the preparation of the project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Specific Plan. Staff will work with the Applicants to prepare a land plan that incorporates the direction provided by the City Council. Staff has been advised by the Applicants that the buildout of the Dublin Page 6of7 Crossings project is a multi - phased process that is closely tied to the construction of improvements on the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area base. The phasing of the improvements of the Army's facilities impacts the Applicant's desired land plan. Staff will work with the Applicant to address the City Council's direction as well as the Applicant's needs. Staff will report back to the City Council throughout the Dublin Crossings development review process on the progress being made, and may bring issues back for City Council review and discussion. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council on proposed policy direction. However, notification of this meeting and a copy of the Staff Report were provided to the Project Applicants (SunCal Companies and Argent Management). ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Project Goals 2. Alternative 5 Concept Land Plan 3. Letter from the City to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated April 13, 2005 4. Letter from the City to the U.S. Army Reserve, dated February 27, 2006 5. Letter from the City to the U. S. Army Reserve, dated May 3, 2006 G:\PA#\2008 \PA 08-049 Camp Parks—Dublin Crossing\2011 Restart\CC Direction \CC Staff Report charette checkin.docx Page 7 of 7 Dublin Crossings Project Update and Strategic Visioning Process Reca 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 REGULAR MEETING 19 -W 82 AUGUST 16, 2011 IFOR�� 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 G`OFDpR- REGULAR MEETING i9�� -'si AUGUST 16, 2011 `\ �4LIFpR�� 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 Gloe o08 REGULAR MEETING 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 G� 0Y Q REGULAR MEETING �9'�`"��82 AUGUST 16, 2011 �`1GIFOR�� 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 G�Oe��UB REGULAR MEETING 19��`� "'�� AUGUST 16, 2011 19 /2 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 G` ofDpR REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 o'1L1FOR��` 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 BRAC 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 G` ofDpB�y REGULAR MEETING 19��%ir�� 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 G`OFpUB REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 �\ �'1GIFOR�� 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 on 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 G��F oUe�y REGULAR MEETING i9� .... IM AUGUST 16, 2011 �`1GIFOR�� 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 G,��OFDUB REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 �\ j� 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 a 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 G� OFppB�� REGULAR MEETING 19 82 AUGUST 16, 2011 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 G1�yofppB REGULAR MEETING 19 82 AUGUST 16, 2011 �'iLIFpR�� 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 G�oFOO� REGULAR MEETING �9'��" AUGUST 16, 2011 19 2 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 that kind 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 G�OFD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 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 G` OFDUe REGULAR MEETING i91'- 11 AUGUST 16, 2011 19 �2 O'1L/FOR�� 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 G� orDpe REGULAR MEETING a,� ��82 AUGUST 16, 2011 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 REGULAR MEETING G`OF DUe�9 AUGUST 16, 2011 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 G� Of Dp�� REGULAR MEETING nr 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 G�or ooB REGULAR MEETING a��C AUGUST 16, 2011 19 _4F 82 �� 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 G`�yOFQ REGULAR MEETING 19� 82 AUGUST 16, 2011 `` �� 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 gulley 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 G� Of 1D REGULAR MEETING X82 AUGUST 16, 2011 1�� '1GIFOR�� 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 lack 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 G�oeo I, REGULAR MEETING i9��' ✓82 AUGUST 16, 2011 �'�LIFOR�S 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 LOF�Q)n REGULAR MEETING ��i� ✓�� AUGUST 16, 2011 �� 2 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 REGULAR MEETING G`OFDpB�y AUGUST 16, 2011 82 �`ILIFpR�S 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 OFDpB� REGULAR MEETING Ni AUGUST 16, 2011 '9�� 2 O'1GIFOR�� 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 �OFDpB REGULAR MEETING 19 ��82 AUGUST 16, 2011 ��trFOR� 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 REGULAR MEETING u, w AUGUST 16, 2011 �``�� '1LIFpR�� 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 got 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 �yOFDp� REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 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): Vallev Children's Museum. At its meeting on April 18, 2006, the City Council unanimously agreed to support the inclusion of a future Valley Children's Museum facility within Central Park. Question 2 -c: Does the City Council still support this direction? 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 G� Or Dpe REGULAR MEETING i9��t ✓�� AUGUST 16, 2011 O'1L /FOR��` 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 G`��oFOUe� REGULAR MEETING 19,�� AUGUST 16, 2011 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 G�oFOO�� REGULAR MEETING 19 X82 AUGUST 16, 2011 19 82 �4GIFOR�S 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 project 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 routes 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 �OFDpA, REGULAR MEETING i�� AUGUST 16, 2011 `9 2 �`tLIFY�R�� 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. Hart 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 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 19 83 82 4G /FOR�� 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 yorDUe�� REGULAR MEETING 01✓ m '``M AUGUST 16, 2011 �`1GIFpR�� more; 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 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 19I(�= =7,82 �`IGIFOR�� 47 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 30OF DU8 REGULAR MEETING ui� it 82 AUGUST 16, 2011 � '83 �4GIFpR�� 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. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 49 VOLUME 30 yOf QQ REGULAR MEETING 19 �i'✓ X82 AUGUST 16, 2011 `�� O'1GIFOR�� 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 VOLUME 30 �yoeD REGULAR MEETING rug iii✓ �� AUGUST 16, 2011 '�� Orr T) a82 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL May 29, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager' r4 4 Dublin Crossing Project Status Update Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #420 -20 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. i� Submitted By Director of Community Development Reviewed By 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. Proiect 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 (up to a maximum of 1,996 units) can be accommodated on the project site in the following manner: • 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). • 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. Proiect 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: Page 6 of 13 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 (1.5 acres per 1,000 persons) 6.0 acres 5.0 acres -1.0 acres Total Parkland Surplus based on Parks and Recreation Master Plan Standards + 4.3 acres * 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. Proiect 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 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 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN SPECIAL MEETING — MAY 29, 2012 A special meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on, May 29, 2012, in the City Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:35:02 PM p.m., by Mayor Sbranti. 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti ABSENT: None The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made by any member of the public at this time. 3. DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT STATUS UPDATE Principal Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff and SunCal Companies /Argent Management (SunCal) had 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 (Project) had several unique aspects, and Staff was seeking direction from the City Council on several of the project components so that work on processing the project could move forward successfully. Cm. Swalwell asked what the acreage was for other elementary schools in the City. Ms. Bascom answered that they are sized in the 10 to14 acre range. Cm. Swalwell asked if the $7.5 million Community Benefit payment is in addition to the $2.5 million Park Endowment. Ms. Bascom replied yes. Cm. Swalwell asked if there was an option to pay the Community Benefit payment up front as opposed to breaking it up over phases. Ms. Bascom replied that an up -front payment was not part of SunCal's proposal; however they would be better suited to answer questions related to options for funding that payment. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 Cm. Swalwell asked if the possibility of an up -front payment had been discussed with SunCal. Ms. Bascom replied that it was discussed, and SunCal was not amenable to an up -front payment during discussions. Cm. Swalwell asked what the City liability would be in allowing a Community Facility District (CFD). Ms. Bascom replied that Sam Sperry of Meyers Nave would be better suited to answer that question. Cm. Biddle asked what type of housing is being considered for the residential zoning of the Project. Ms. Bascom replied that there is a range of density from 8 units an acre to 20 units an acre. She stated that 20 units per acre are typically townhome type homes or garden apartments. She further stated that those are more or less on the project perimeter along Arnold Drive, Dublin Blvd., and the western side off Scarlett Drive. Ms. Bascom stated that 20 units an acre is the highest density shown on the Draft Land Plan. She stated that 8 units an acre is typically small lot, single family homes. Cm. Biddle confirmed with Ms. Bascom that the development on the other side of Dublin Blvd. is all multi- family up to a certain point. Ms. Bascom stated that the Camellia Place and Elan products are much higher density than what is proposed for this Project. She clarified that those products are approximately 60 to 70 units an acre. Cm. Biddle asked about the density for the corner parcel. Ms. Bascom replied she believes they are 14 to 15 units an acre. Cm. Biddle confirmed with Ms. Bascom that land along Arnold Drive is still zoned as commercial. Ms. Bascom stated that everything along Arnold Drive, adjacent from the Project, is zoned business park/office /light industrial. She stated that Site 15 -A is currently vacant but designated as commercial /office. Cm. Biddle confirmed with Ms. Bascom that the Development Agreement (DA) for the Project is proposed to have a term of 15 to 20 years. Ms. Bascom stated that SunCal has requested a DA for a longer term. Cm. Biddle stated that the plan for' the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) property is for the City to acquire the land and transfer title to SunCal. He asked why SunCal is not acquiring the property directly from the County. Ms. Bascom replied that, although there were discussions between the County and SunCal in regards to acquiring the property directly, the County's preference is to engage with the City in regards to selling the property. She stated that SunCal is proposing to provide $2.8 million towards the acquisition of the property and the City would make up the difference. Vm. Hart asked what the difference would be. Assistant City Manager Christopher Foss replied fair market value. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 20112 Vm. Hart asked if there was any idea what the fair market value amount would be. Mr. Foss replied that the value would be determined at the time in which the City would need to acquire the property. Vm. Hart asked if there was any idea what the fair market value amount would be if the City acquired the property today. Mr. Foss replied that the City does not have a sense at this point in time what it would cost today. Mayor Sbranti asked if the amount would come out of the Public Facilities Fee. Mr. Foss replied yes but it is not included in the current five -year forecast. Vm. Hart asked how it is in the agreement that the City would be required to have a joint use agreement with Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) and if an agreement doesn't happen, then the potential joint 3 acres of Community Park would revert back to DUSD. Ms. Bascom replied that it is the proposal from SunCal and they have set aside an 8 net -acre site solely for the use of DUSD, and a 28 net -acre park for the City, offering a total 36 net -acres for park/school uses. She further stated that DUSD has indicated that they would like to have 12 acres for their school site. Ms. Bascom stated that SunCal's proposal is for the City and DUSD to work together because it would be mutually beneficial for the City to have a larger park that DUSD could use during limited times. She stated that the park would be built out by SunCal and would include a Maintenance Endowment to help maintain the area. Cm. Biddle stated that the site plan indicates that, if the site is not used for a school site, it would revert to residential. Mayor Sbranti and Ms. Bascom clarified that the decision is ultimately up to City Council but that reverting to residential is SunCal's proposal. Vm. Hart asked if the 2.5 -acre pad set aside for Valley Children's Museum (VCM) has always been the plan. Ms. Bascom replied that, in 2006, the City Council did commit to, and provide direction back to the Army, that 2.5 acres of the 46 -acre bonus park, could be set aside for VCM. She stated that, clearly, things have changed as the City is no longer looking at a 46 -acre bonus park; however, the 2.5 acres for VCM was the last direction provided by the City Council so this is an opportunity to continue with that or look at alternative arrangements. Vm. Hart confirmed with Ms. Bascom that the proposal is for SunCal to develop the pad for VCM in the Community Park. City Manager Joni Pattillo stated that, when the matter of the VCM was first brought to City Council, there was no discussion about the size of the Community Park, Ms. Pattillo stated that the City Council was answering a question as far as the acreage associated with the VCM absent the current discussion. She stated that the idea is that there was still some consideration that there was going to be a bonus park of some significance and through months of negotiation, this is where the Project is at. Ms. Pattillo stated that the question that was posed at that time was based on a 46 -acre bonus park. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 mi, Ms. Pattillo stated that, as it relates to the school site zoning, it is not unheard of, the idea that a school site is allocated in a development based on population. She stated that if it doesn't develop or DUSD does not act upon it, usually there is an underlying zoning for other housing. She further stated that this is not unheard of nor a new technique just for this Project. Mayor Sbranti asked, in the event that DUSD did not move forward with the site and the site did become residential, if it would still fall under the 1,996 cap or would it be additional residential. Ms. Bascom replied that it would fall within the cap. Vm. Hart asked if the City has looked at different kinds of programming for the Community Park. Ms. Bascom replied that there are currently two concept plans that were provided by SunCal. She stated that there has not been an analysis done or details looked at, but that the concept plans are meant to illustrate and convey that there are a couple ways to design the Community Park: sports field -heavy or more passive and special amenity- heavy. Cm. Swalwell asked Sam Sperry, Meyers Nave, about the City's ultimate liability with the CFD. Mr. Sperry replied that, with respect to establishing the CFD and the cost and expense that go into it, it is the City's expense and the City can condition its willingness to endure the expense on having the developer deposit money with the City. Cm. Swalwell asked Ms. Bascom what SunCal's position on depositing money with the City is. Ms. Bascom replied that it has not been discussed with SunCal at this point. Mr. Sperry stated, in respect to debt service to bond holders, the City has no legal liability. He stated that the City's obligation is to make sure that each year the special tax is calculated on a per parcel basis and the information, with respect to that tax, gets transmitted to the County Auditor by that auditor's deadline for placement on the tax roll. He further stated that City would administer the money when it comes from the County to pay debt service on the bonds. Mr. Sperry stated, with respect to when property owners become delinquent and the amount of those delinquencies go above a certain threshold, the City will have an obligation to engage in foreclosing a lien on the delinquent parcels. Cm. Swalwell clarified with Mr. Sperry that there is no financial obligation to pay debt service on the bonds. Mr. Sperry stated that the City's obligation is limited to the proceeds of the special tax collected from property owners. Vm. Hart asked if there is a way to carve around certain areas; for example, for purposes of tax, carving out residential areas versus commercial areas. Mr. Sperry replied yes stating that early on in the process, the City Council will approve a boundary map for the CFD and it is not a requirement that the property within that boundary be continuous. He stated that the City Council has a lot of flexibility in establishing the boundary. Vm. Hart stated that the presentation indicated a 2% inflationary indicator maximum and asked if there were any possibility for that to go up. Mr. Sperry replied that the Mello -Roos Act DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 r faD imposes that 2% escalator as a limit on any property in use for private residential purposes, clarifying that it is a maximum prescribed by law so it would not be able to go above 2 %. Vm. Hart asked what the 2% escalator is based on. Mr. Sperry replied that it is based on the amount of the tax for the prior year. Vm. Hart clarified with Mr. Sperry that if a tax is escalated at 2% per year for 35 years, it would result in a pretty substantial amount. Mayor Sbranti asked how the infrastructure gets built in a phased project if the taxpayers don't pay the tax. Mr. Sperry replied, assuming the City would not have interest in spending its own resources to complete the phase, SunCal would have to make a decision as to how to proceed in completing the phase. He stated that most likely the phase would remain uncompleted until things recover, bonds can be sold, and then development could move forward. He further stated that is an unlikely recommendation for the City to sell the entire amount of bonds up front on a phased project. Mayor Sbranti asked how a project gets developed when various merchant developers are involved. Mr. Sperry replied that the DA would state whether the rights and obligations of the developer, SunCal, can be assigned to a successor in interest. He stated that, assuming they can be assigned, a merchant developer who purchases property from SunCal is now obligated to pay the special tax. He further stated that, if the merchant developer builds a unit and sells it, a portion of the tax obligation now goes to the buyer of the unit. Vm. Hart asked what the implications are if SunCal files Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Mr. Sperry replied that there is not one answer but there would be an automatic stay on any foreclosures or liens, including the City in regards to the special tax lien. He stated, presumably, if the bankruptcy extends long enough, the reserve fund for the bonds would go dry and bond holders would experience payment default. Cm. Biddle stated that the City has never used the form of a CFD before. City Manager Pattillo replied that it has not been used before but has been identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. She stated that in the past there was a developer who was interested in a CFD and the City did proceed in an inquiry and disclosure process; however, the developer decided it would not work for them to pursue it with the City Council. She further stated that the City has had limited exposure to CFDs but it has been called out before. Ms. Pattillo stated that, as mentioned by Mr. Sperry at the May 15th Study Session, CFDs are used in other communities. She stated that it is a new form for the City of Dublin but not a new product for financing for other communities. Vm. Hart asked Principal Planner Bascom if the Community Benefit payment dollars would be able to go directly towards financing the infrastructure versus what SunCal is proposing. Ms. Bascom replied that SunCal would be better suited to answer that question. Mayor Sbranti stated that, according the Draft Land Plan, the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Drive is zoned mixed -use and asked for clarification in regards to what could "be expected for DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 mixed -use. Ms. Bascom replied that the $.4 -acre site is truly mixed -use with residential and commercial together. Mayor Sbranti asked where the commercial center would be located or if one exists. Ms. Bascom replied that, if there is anywhere commercial would definitely be, it would be on that corner of Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Drive. She stated that there would be a minimum of 56,000 square feet of commercial up to 200,000 square feet throughout the Project as some of the areas are zoned residential with a commercial zoning overlay. She clarified that the areas zoned residential with a commercial overlay could end up being residential or commercial development depending on the market; however, the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Drive will definitely be mixed -use although a specific type of product has not yet been identified. Mayor Sbranti stated that, in August, 2011, Council had expressed concern in regards to having housing along Arnold Drive. He asked Ms. Bascom what the discussion with SunCal was regarding that concern. Ms. Bascom replied that SunCal was present at the August, 2011 discussion and Staff expressed the Council's concerns in having residential along Arnold Drive. She stated that the Project is SunCal's current proposal. Mayor Sbranti asked if the Neighborhood Squares are part of a City Master Plan or could they be combined into a larger park of 5 acres or more. Ms. Bascom stated that she doesn't believe there is a-reason they couldn't be combined but that the idea was to spread the park acreage more uniformly throughout the Project. Mayor Sbranti asked how many acres of the Community Park would be built in Phase 2. Ms. Bascom stated that SunCal would be better suited to answer that as some revisions have been made to the Draft Land Plan since the last time the phasing map was overlayed. She stated that revisions to the Phasing Plan are being considered as well but she does know that the building of the Community Park is primarily divided between Phase 2 and 4. Mayor Sbranti asked if the NASA property is a done deal. Ms. Bascom replied that it is part of the project proposal but SunCal can speak in regards to the agreement with them. Mayor Sbranti asked what the Inclusionary In -Lieu (In -Lieu) fee payment would look like as the amount of units is unknown. Ms. Bascom replied that the current proposal is that SunCal would identify the amount of units at the time the DA is executed. She stated that it could be that SunCal would build the inclusionary units in the project, but the proposal gives them the option to identify how many units they would like to fee out of. Mayor Sbranti clarified with Ms. Bascom that the In -Lieu fee payment would be lower because SunCal would pay the entire amount within four years as opposed to paying it at the final map which can be several more years down the line. Mayor Sbranti asked if the money paid for the In -Lieu fee would go into the Affordable Housing In -Lieu fund. Ms. Bascom replied that the idea is that the City Council would be able to identify how they would like to spend that Community Benefit. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 i � Ft�j� Y+nl 'MF Mayor Sbranti asked if the $7.5 Community Benefit payment that's proposed would be paid equally over each phase of the project. Ms. Bascom replied that it is not equally phased over the six proposed phases but would be executed at the time of the final tract maps for those individual phases. Mayor Sbranti asked what methodology was used to come to the amount of $7.5 million for a Community Benefit payment. Ms. Bascom replied that it was an amount negotiated between the City and SunCal. City Manager Patillo clarified that in the past, Community Benefit payments have not been specifically tied to anything as it has been what the City has been able to successfully do as far as projects that exist in the community. Ms. Pattillo stated that part of the package deal is that SunCal is proposing to build the Community Park and turn it over to the City for ownership, as well as having a 15 -year DA. She stated that there is no mathematical formula to reach the Community Benefit payment amount, but rather a blending of different things as trade -offs which have value. Mayor Sbranti clarified with Ms. Bascom that a loose understanding would be that in exchange for not having the 9 -acre designated civic and public /semi- public site, and having the 15 -year DA, that is what resulted in the $7.5 million Community Benefit amount. Mayor Sbranti asked how many acres VCM would have. Ms. Pattillo replied one acre. Ms. Bascom clarified that the one acre would include the infrastructure for the VCM. With no more City Council questions of Staff, Mayor Sbranti asked the project applicant to make their comments. Joe Guerra, SunCal, stated that SunCal has been working with Staff to meet the goals that the City Council expressed desire for in August, 2011. He stated that the proposed package is something that SunCal feels confident can get built and, if there are elements that the Council has concerns with or would like some things different, those can be discussed. Mr. Guerra stated that Council was very clear that their desire was to have commercial along Arnold Drive because of the interface; however, SunCal does not feel that there is enough depth in the commercial market as, in order to make commercial feasible along Arnold Drive, upwards of 25 to 30 acres of commercial space would have to be built. He stated that SunCal and Staff have attempted to put the 20 units per acre townhomes along Arnold Drive which would enable Arnold Drive's elevation to consist of only a facade and no front doors, back doors or driveways. Mr. Guerra stated that preliminary indications from the Traffic Engineer show that Arnold Drive would not have to be widened to four lanes as originally thought. He stated that the existing culvert would stay where it is and the curb line would stay at the edge of the culvert. He clarified that the culvert would be at the edge of the fagades which have no front doors, back doors or driveways. Mr. Guerra stated that, from the standpoint of attempting to buffer users, no one would want to put the park or school along Arnold Drive and SunCal does not believe there is enough commercial depth in the market to have commercial use there. He stated that SunCal is DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 O*q proposing to designate the space as residential with a commercial overlay in the event that the commercial market does turn around. Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification regarding the location of the culvert. Mr. Guerra stated that the culvert currently runs from the edge of the ACSPA's property all the way up and beyond the project site. He stated that all of the potential residential frontage, assuming Arnold Drive could remain as two lanes, would have buildings with fagade, curb line and then the culvert that exists today. Vm. Hart asked what the purpose is of leaving the culvert. Mr. Guerra replied that if left alone and not paved over, there are fewer environmental impacts and, furthermore, knowing that Council had a desire to have a protective interface, the culvert provides an additional buffer to anyone who is walking down Arnold Drive towards the BART Station. Vm. Hart stated that he understands Mr. Guerra's point but believes it would look unattractive. Mr. Guerra stated that he believes if the culvert is left day lighted and not paved over, SunCal's ability to improve it so that it is aesthetically nicer than it is today will be very feasible. He stated that the Camp Parks Master Plan assumes Arnold Drive is a four lane road and assumes the culvert is paved over. He further stated that if SunCal is able to go back to the various environmental agencies and tell them that they want to keep'the culvert day lighted and just do some landscaping improvements to make it more aesthetically pleasing, that will be an easier sell. Vm. Hart stated that he believes this project will be a jewel for the City and he thinks that the culvert would be a sore thumb. Mr. Guerra stated that SunCal does not disagree with Vm. Hart's comment and it is a design feature that still needs to be figured out and can be revisited. Mr. Guerra stated that regarding discussion of the In -Lieu fee and Community Benefit payment timing, from a package standpoint, whether it's the In -Lieu fee or Community Benefit payment that is getting paid at certain points in time, it really doesn't matter to SunCal and it is something for the Council to tell them what is more important for the City to receive sooner. He stated that SunCal can dedicate the land for the parks, build the parks, endow the Community Park with $2.5 million in cash, and give $7.5 million in a Community Benefit payment based upon when they get paid in the package presented. He further stated the SunCal is looking for direction from Council as far as what is more important to the City, when they want things and don't want things, and SunCal and Staff can figure out how to balance those things out. Mr. Guerra stated that, in regards to the CFD questions, the $350 number that was the estimate for what the average household would be responsible for was calculated considering a maxed out CFD. He stated that when Staff asked SunCal for a ballpark, they gave Staff the highest possible scenario. He further stated that the size of the CFD at some level is going to be determined by the market and what makes sense for bondholders and homebuyers. Mr. Guerra stated, in regards to the City and DUSD joint use and the VCM, from SunCal's perspective, if a joint use agreement can be reached between the City and DUSD, the school ends up with 11 useable acres during the school day but 3 of those acres don't have to be DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 0*1 bought, built or maintained by them. He stated that the VCM ends up with still needing to fundraise to build the building itself but they don't have to build the parking or grounds around it, nor do they have to maintain it. Mr. Guerra stated, in regards to the phasing of the Community Park and when the acres come in, what the package suggests currently is that SunCal would be required to turnkey the Community Park acres in the same ratio of the units that are being built. He clarified that, for the sake of simple math, 28 acres divided up over five or six phases would require that five or six acres per phase get built. He further clarified that, considering the simple math, a rough estimate would provide that when Phase 1 is built, SunCal would have to deliver five acres of Community Park with Phase 1. Vm. Hart asked what that would look like and how a 28 -acre park gets built 5 acres at a time. Mr. Guerra replied that there would have to be a Master Plan that actually has the amenities laid out to correspond with how the Project will be built. Vm. Hart asked if it would cost SunCal more to do it that way. Mr. Guerra replied yes, when considering raw dollars. Mr. Guerra stated that there are two realities in regards to the phasing of the Park: having a project that can be built, and how much land can SunCal get from the Army and when can they get it. He stated that there will not be enough revenue in the first phase of private development to pay for the entire build out of the Park. He further stated that the Army decided what buildings they wanted built and in what order. Mr. Guerra stated that the exchange agreement between SunCal and the Army states that SunCal can move the lines of the phases to accommodate private development, however, they cannot change the size. He clarified that any movement of phasing lines would not be presented to the Army until the SunCal developed a map that the City was comfortable with. He stated that SunCal would have to figure out how to ensure that the respective Community Park acres get built over each phase and that may require that two phases get built at once or that the phasing lines be amended with the Army. He further stated that SunCal is proposing that they be required to build out the Community Park with each phase in some sort of commensurate fashion. Mr. Guerra stated, in regards to the NASA parcel, the Army and NASA parcels were offered for sale together and SunCal is not yet under contract with NASA. He stated that, if SunCal purchases the property from NASA, the money would go straight to the federal treasury and not to NASA. He stated that there is a discussion going on currently between NASA and the Army because the Army gave the property to NASA for free decades ago. He further stated that NASA and the Army are exploring the possibility of a no -fee transfer back to the Army so that the purchase could become part of the exchange agreement between SunCal and the Army, and the money SunCal would pay to purchase the property would expand what is getting built on the base. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 J ! i Mr. Guerra clarified that there is no question that the NASA property has to be transferred; it is just a matter of how it will be transferred. Mr. Guerra stated that, although SunCal believes the Project will be a great addition to the City, the Project also brings a lot of benefits to the Army base. He stated that, because of the way the exchange agreement was structured, the money that SunCal pays to the exchange partner is going to be spent on the base which generates tens of millions of dollars in construction jobs in Dublin and, in the long -term, makes Camp Parks a stronger base. Vm. Hart asked why the amount of money that would be paid from the Community Benefit payment, Endowment and In -Lieu fees can't be applied directly to the building of the infrastructure, leaving less of a need for a CFD. Mr. Guerra replied that the CFD is being proposed to pay for costs for the development proposed. He stated that as proposals are dismissed, the CFD does become less necessary; however the magnitude of dollars does not wipe out the need completely. Vm. Hart asked if SunCal needs the CFD to build the project. Mr. Guerra replied yes. Vm. Hart asked what would happen if the Council decided against the CFD. Mr. Guerra stated that SunCal would have to go back to the drawing board with Staff and figure out the Land Plan implications. He stated that he does not believe that SunCal could get enough out of Land Plan adjustments to stop them from not having to go back to the Army and renegotiate. He clarified that, at some point, the Army doesn't have to renegotiate if they don't want to. Vm. Hart asked if there are options that SunCal has looked at on the Army's side. Mr. Guerra stated that the original proposal for the project involved only four projects for the Army and SunCal was able to expand the proposal to include six projects. He stated that, because of the way the exchange agreement was authorized, the Army does not feel that they can expand the proposal any more. Cm. Biddle stated that there was mention of a water retention requirement and asked if there is knowledge of that requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Guerra replied that SunCal is not knowledgeable of the complete parameters. He stated that the proposed Community Park plans identify two to four acres of land mass for water retention areas. Mr. Guerra stated that SunCal's Landscape Architect has suggested that Chabot Canal run down from the north end of the Project to Scarlett Drive and having a series of small detention /retention ponds with a trail through it to make it more aesthetically pleasing. He stated that part of what SunCal is still working through is the engineering of that concept but in an absolute worst case scenario, maybe five acres would be dedicated for water retention depending on how deep the holdings would be. He further stated that there have been conversations with Dublin San Ramon Services District about that concept and they are comfortable with joint use facilities. Cm. Biddle asked of the possibility of the culvert on Arnold Drive being tied in with the Chabot Canal. Mr. Guerra stated that they are all coming off the same watershed, on the north end of DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 J R� t the Base. He stated that at some point you can only do so much realigning of water. He further stated that there are choke points along Dublin Blvd. and under 1 -580 where only so much water can go through at one time. Cm. Biddle clarified with Mr. Guerra that some of the designated Community Park land would have to be designated for water retention. Mr. Guerra stated that at one point a smaller park was proposed; however, one of the suggestions in trying to make the park bigger was that it could also serve some water retention needs. Cm. Biddle stated that he liked the central road through the Project and confirmed with Mr. Guerra that the way the central road is laid out, it cuts through a number of different phases so there's no way to build the road in one piece; it would have to wait until the final phase that it touches is complete. Mr. Guerra stated that the current phasing map is a year and three months old from when SunCal signed the exchange agreement versus what will actually have to be worked through now. He stated that the current Department of Public Works Maintenance Facilities/Warehousing is the last project that the Army wants SunCal to build so that area has to be in the last phase. Mr. Guerra clarified that one of the drivers of the phasing is the Army because they were clear in stating that it would be unacceptable for them to ever have an island of the Base that isn't contiguous that they can get to, back and forth. He stated that they cannot be cut off by SunCal building a road all the way east to west and have anything south of it still be on the Base. Cm. Biddle confirmed with Mr. Guerra that the same would go for the completion of Central Parkway: it would get built as the phase comes. Mr. Guerra stated that the City will not allow a final plan where each phase does not work by itself. He clarified that SunCal will have to ensure that each phase is self - sufficient, or mutually sufficient as you add on to them, no differently than the project being completely built all at one time. Cm. Biddle confirmed with Mr. Guerra that the central road touches the NASA parcel. Mr. Guerra stated that SunCal has always assumed that the NASA parcel would be in no later than Phase 4 so that connecting to Scarlett Drive, assuming nothing changes dramatically, would be around Phase 4 timing. He further stated that the exchange agreement requires SunCal to acquire the NASA parcel no later than Phase 4. Cm. Biddle asked what the schedule is for the Army's Project 1. Mr. Guerra replied that the exchange agreement requires SunCal to begin construction on the new gate in March, 2013 and SunCal is on schedule for that. He stated that the new gate will be connecting with the new intersection at South Mariposa so the new access control point for the Base will come in off of Dougherty Road. Cm. Biddle stated that the proposed school site is proposed for Phase 4 and asked if DUSD has identified a schedule or need. Mr. Guerra replied that, until SunCal can decide when they are moving forward with the Project, it is hard for DUSD to set a schedule. He stated that SunCal will continue to work with DUSD to make sure what they need is available when necessary. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 � Cm. Biddle asked if there are other areas that need to be included in the DA. Mr. Guerra stated that SunCal assumes that the DA would include everything that has been discussed. He stated that SunCal would not want to commit to paying or building something up front and, five or six years from now, have a future City Council not allow the rest of the Project. He clarified that the timing and complexity of working through and building all the projects for the Army make it a potentially longer build out than a normal project. Cm. Biddle asked if a DA could be made without the commitment to a CFD at this time. Mr. Guerra stated that SunCal is not asking for approval of a DA right now but what is being proposed is a package. He clarified that, if the DA does not have a CFD in it, the rest of the package doesn't work. He stated that the item before the City Council right now is not approving a CFD, but recognizing that it is part of the package and that in order to receive the other things that SunCal believes are extra benefits of development, a CFD would need to be included. Cm. Swalwell confirmed with Mr. Guerra that, tonight, the Council needs to vote whether or not to study it and if the vote is to not study the CFD, SunCal returns to the drawing board. Mr. Guerra stated that tonight is not anywhere near the final vote from the standpoint of the Council saying yes on a CFD. He stated that SunCal does not yet have the ability to tell the Council how big the CFD is so they are not being asked to actually approve it yet. Cm. Biddle stated that one of the options for the VCM was 15,000 square feet, although VCM is requesting 40,000 to 50,000 square feet. Mr. Guerra stated that -the original sizing was based on information received several months ago based on studies that they had done years ago regarding the size of the facility. He stated that, when SunCal spoke with several members of the VCM board several weeks ago, it was suggested that 15,000 square feet was too small and the building would need to be bigger. He clarified that the Community Park plan notes 15,000 square feet to give a sense of how large the building is but then it says under it "plus expansion area" so as not to mislead anyone. He stated that previously the Council had said yes to a 2.5- acre number and SunCal is proposing a very different solution which is to not carve out a site where the VCM has to figure out how to build the whole thing, but let SunCal build everything out with joint use parking and grounds, and leave a pad for a building. City Manager Pattillo stated that she wanted to clarify the idea of the Park Endowment. She stated the idea is that the $2.5 million Park Endowment is given over a period of time. She further stated that how Endowments work is by taking the interest earned to offset operating costs. Ms. Pattillo stated that there was a statement made as it related to the VCM and clarified that the Endowment does not include anything as it relates to the maintenance of that building which is a totally separate cost. Ms. Pattillo clarified that the Endowment does not take care of all the costs associated with maintaining the entire acreage. She stated there have been discussions in regards to amenities being added and, as they are added, the City must be concerned with maintaining them to the level that citizens have become accustomed to. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 Vm. Hart asked if the soil has been tested for toxins. Mr. Guerra replied yes, on the topic of hazardous materials and toxins on the exchange parcel. He stated that the current state of any hazardous materials is that everything has been tested and Hazardous MateriallEnvironmental Condition of Property Reports have been done for what is equivalent to Phase 1 and Phase 2. Mr. Guerra stated that SunCal does have a No Further Action letter from the State Department of Toxic Substance Control and what that letter says is the entirety of the site has no restrictions on it for any uses, with an exception for a very small site on the east and a very small site on the west. He clarified that, for the east site, the Army has already finished their mitigation and it currently has a land use restriction that says you can only have industrial /commercial uses, not residential; however, it was a type of hazardous material that was a soil excavation and replacement (with clean soil ). He stated that the Army dug down to the industrial /commercial standard and didn't dig down the extra feet it would take for residential so it is SunCal's intent to go in before title of the property is even transferred, dig down the further amount for residential standards and get that cleared. Mr. Guerra stated that the west site has not been mitigated by the Army yet as they were waiting for this year's rain to conclude. He stated that for this site, it is another excavate, take out the dirt, and use the clean soil to refill it; however, the Army is only required to dig down to commercial /industrial standards. He further stated that SunCal is working with the Army to figure out if the Army can leave the excavated site unfilled so SunCal can go in and dig down to residential standards, and then fill it. Mr. Guerra clarified that SunCal has been working with state regulators on this issue and they have advised SunCal in writing that the two sites that currently have restrictions will have no restrictions when the excavations and refills are done so the entirety of the site will have no hazardous material deed restrictions on them. Vm. Hart asked if the site is free and clear of any environmental issues. Mr. Guerra replied that biological surveys were done when the Army did their EIR but SunCal has had their biological consultants, Fish and Wildlife Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineer out on the site so all surveys have been done. He stated that there are Burrowing Owls which are considered a relocatable species. He further stated that there was a Red - Legged Frog siting within a mile radius; however, SunCal's biological consultant and the Fish and Wildlife Agency were not concerned with someone calling for additional mitigation. Vm. Hart asked what the north line separation between the Project and the rest of the Base will look like. Mr. Guerra replied that the existing 51h Street on the Base stays on the Base and what will be adjacent to the Project is Base housing and some military buildings. He stated that there will be a CMU wall along the Project's property line and SunCal has the ability, under the exchange agreement, to build along the property line. He stated that, once the housing is built, it won't feel any differently than being next to any other commercial or residential user. Mayor Sbranti asked about the amount of the Community Park along the frontage of Dublin Blvd. Mr. Guerra confirmed with Principal Planner Bascom that it measures about 300 feet. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 mllm Mayor Sbranti asked Mr. Guerra how SunCal feels the Draft Land Plan unifies the City. Mr. Guerra replied that the goal, at the end of the Project, is if someone is driving down Dublin Blvd., they should have no sense of east and west Dublin. He stated that a big part of it is how the Project fits into the community and a lot of that will be dealt with in design standards and guidelines later down the road. He further stated that he knows one concern is ensuring there is no tunnel effect driving down Dublin Blvd. as there is relatively high density adjacent to the Project. He stated that part of what SunCal has attempted to do is not go too strong with tall buildings along Dublin Blvd. to avoid that tunnel effect. Mr. Guerra stated that the Project will be a very visible thing for the City when people drive by and through the Project and it is important to ensure that it seamlessly fits into the community and connects what is now known as east and west Dublin. Mayor Sbranti asked about the ultimate vision for the commercial piece that will serve the Project. Mr. Guerra referred to the Waterford Shopping Center to give an idea of magnitude, stating that Waterford Shopping Center is 11 acres and SunCal's project is proposing 8.4 to 8.9 acres of commercial. He stated that the worst case configuration would be slightly smaller than Waterford Shopping Center and would be like a neighborhood- serving retail center. He further stated that the commercial overlays do allow for commercial expansion if the need is there. Ed Duarte, Valley Children's Museum, spoke in favor of the Project and thanked the Council and Staff for their work on the Project. He stated that the VCM wanted to take this opportunity to go on record and express their position in support of what SunCal and Staff have recommended. He further stated that the VCM is requesting the Council to provide direction to Staff to allow a pad of 40,000 square feet which would' enable an ultimate build out of a building up to 50,000 square feet. Mr. Duarte stated that the size request is based on studies which show that traditionally for children's museums, facilities of 25,000 to 65,000 square feet are inherently the most successful. He stated that, to give an idea of size, the current Discovery Museum in San Jose is sized at 52,000 square feet. Vm. Hart asked Mr. Duarte if 2.5 acres is the amount that the VCM feels they need. Mr. Duarte replied that the initial analysis showed that 2.5 acres would have been the total required for a 50,000 square -foot facility, parking and amenities, assuming the VCM would be responsible for developing it. Cm. Biddle stated that he thought the discussions between SunCal and the VCM were beyond the points of talking about acreage and talking about a prepared site, and asked if the discussions are about acreage or a pad to put a building on. Mr. Duarte replied that they are discussing a pad to put a building on. Mayor Sbranti clarified with Mr. Duarte that the VCM desires the pad with all the utilities built to it and, if the financing was available for VCM to build the pad and maintain it, then that is what they would do. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 Cm. Biddle asked what a facility of 40,000 to 50,000 square feet would cost. Mr. Duarte replied that, depending on the final architectural and design requirements, it could run anywhere from $5 million to $10 million. Cm. Biddle asked if funding support would come from other cities and non- profits. Mr. Duarte replied that the capital campaign would be entirely up to the VCM to raise money through public and private fundraising. Cm. Biddle confirmed with Mr. Duarte that the VCM would not be a City facility but non -profit and self- supporting: Mayor Sbranti asked Assistant City Manager Foss if the land belongs to the City or the VCM. Mr. Foss replied that the assumption is that the building belongs to the VCM and the land belongs to the City, however, those things are subject to negotiation at this point. Mayor Sbranti asked what would happen to the facility should it get built and then be vacated. Mr. Foss replied that, at this point, Staff has not thought about those situations as they are looking for direction on what the Council would like to do with the site and with the VCM. Mayor Sbranti stated that the 1 -acre pad would be built as part of the Community Park and when VCM had the money, they would build the actual facility. Mr. Foss stated that he believes Staff's assumption would be that the pad would be turfed and at the time that there were revenues available from the VCM, the facility would be built by them. Mr. Foss stated that in utility discussions with Parks and Community Services (PCS) Director Paul McCreary, they discussed stubbing the site so that all of the water meters and utilities that go with the building would be part of the project cost for VCM and not just left on the site, ready to build. City Manager Pattillo stated that, if the Council decides to move forward, especially with the VCM, knowing the timing of the project is important. She stated that if moving forward, like with a lot of other arrangements, there is usually an end time but if the VCM doesn't have their financing in place, those are the things Staff needs direction on. Ms. Pattillo stated that the idea is that it is not just an open -ended discussion and further clarification on that is greatly appreciated. Dr. Steve Hanke, Dublin Unified School District, spoke in favor of the Project and thanked Staff for their work on the Project. He stated that DUSD is requesting a school site in the development and the reason they are asking for 12 acres is because it is a California Department of Education guideline and it is a recommendation that, as the schools get larger, there be more space for the students. Dr. Hanke stated that Dublin schools are becoming quite large, with some in excess of 700 students, and DUSD is currently in a design phase now for a school that will hold close to 900 students when it is completed. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 Dr. Hanke stated that DUSD believes that the school site is not only a great location within the Project but also within the City. He stated that DUSD believes that there is a unique potential for a joint use program and that there is a history of successful joint use programs between DUSD and the City. Dr. Hanke stated that a main priority for DUSD is that they can ensure the safety of their students. He stated that one of the challenges of the school site is the potential of it being a park site and the question as to whether or not a fence or some barrier would be put up to separate the two areas. He further stated that DUSD is particularly concerned about the water retention areas as a potential for attraction to students and that is something they feel would need to be looked at very carefully. Dr. Hanke stated that DUSD feels the Park Endowment would be a significant benefit to DUSD and would like to engage in further conversations with the City and, at the right time, the school board to engage in this as a potential project that might really work out for both parties. Vm. Hart stated that the area around the school would potentially be developed until the school district was ready to build on the site. He asked Dr. Hanke how DUSD would afford to build the school. Dr. Hanke replied that it would be funded through DUSD's collection of developer fees and also state dollars coming through and mitigating the actual increase in size of their needs. Vm. Hart asked if Dr. Hanke is saying that DUSD would build it at roughly the same time that the surrounding area would be developed. Dr. Hanke replied that DUSD would build the school as the need comes to place. He stated that that particular community would not be the only community that would be served by that school as there would be one or two other areas that DUSD has been looking at in their Master Plan to serve in the school as well. Vm. Hart asked if there has been any consideration for a combined district office with the school, now that most of the Dublin schools are centrally located and the district office is more to the west. Dr. Hanke replied that there has been minor discussion regarding potential but nothing serious at this point in time. Vm. Hart asked if there has been any consideration to sell the current district office to pay for some of the development of the new school and/or district office. Dr. Hanke replied that it is something he has thought of and had conversations with staff but has not had conversations with the school board. City Manager Pattillo clarified with Dr. Hanke that part of the Park Endowment is that the 3 additional acres would be usable by the City. Dr. Hanke stated that DUSD's request for maintenance would be that the 3 acres is part of the Community Park and the City determines that they would maintain that. Cm. Biddle stated that DUSD is not considering a developer -built school, but more interested in a school site and DUSD pays for the school later on with fees. Dr. Hanke stated that is the plan at this particular point. He stated that DUSD has done a developer -built school and lease- back DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 16 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 1'.1, options have been more successful. He further stated that at this particular point in time, although they have not made a decision and the board has not had a serious conversation about that part, it is something that DUSD believes would be best if it is not a developer -built school. Cm. Biddle asked if DUSD is envisioning about a 900 - student elementary school. Dr. Hanke replied that is the standard that DUSD is moving towards across the school district. He stated that there are currently three elementary schools which are in excess of 700 students and there are several with over 600 students. He further stated that the next school in line, which is yet to be named in the Positano development, is going to be designed for 900 students. Cm. Biddle clarified with Dr. Hanke that, because the Project could build out over 15 to 20 years, DUSD does not have a timeslot for the school yet. Dr. Hanke replied that DUSD knows they are growing at approximately 5% per year with over 400 students this year and an expectation of over 400 students next year. He stated that DUSD schools are growing half a school per year now and those issues need to be mitigated as soon as possible, however, he cannot speculate as to when DUSD would need this particular school although it is his understanding that it would be a number of years out before it would be available. Mayor Sbranti called a short recess. Mayor Sbranti called the meeting back to order at 9:07:59 PM. Principal Planner Bascom stated that she has no further comments or presentations and Council direction is being sought for the following: Q1: Is the Draft Land Plan generally acceptable? Q2: Is the City Council comfortable with the tradeoffs identified? Q3: Is the Community Park "package" acceptable? Q4: Should the City discuss joint use opportunities with the School District for some portion of acreage within the Community Park? Q5: Based on the Community Park size, does the City Council want to revisit the previous direction to provide 2.5 acres for the VCM? Q6: 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? Q7: What is the City Council feedback on the Conceptual Community Park plans? Cm. Swalwell asked for clarification as to when the CFD would be discussed. Ms. Bascom replied Q6. Cm. Swalwell asked if Q6 could be discussed first as 01 -5 become irrelevant should the Council decide to not move forward in studying a CFD. Council agreed to discuss Q6 (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 ?) first. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 17 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 mm. Cm. Swalwell stated that a CFD is something that would be new for the City of Dublin and there is a lot to be learned but the Council's job as decision makers is to study projects. He stated that this Project is a large project and it is connecting the older part of Dublin to the newer part of Dublin so the Council needs to move slow and make sure that they study this. He stated tha,t in these changing times, one thing Dublin has done is shown flexibility and never said no to something only because it hasn't been done before. He further stated that he is, at this point, in favor of going forward, hiring a consultant and studying a CFD to see what the benefits would be and see if this is what is going to be needed to move this important development forward. Cm. Hildenbrand agreed with Cm. Swalwell stating that Dublin has allowed for studies in multiple different projects simply to understand better what it would entail in order to get developments moving. She stated that the City has seen many projects stymied because of the economy right now which is really unfortunate and the City does not want to see this happen and continue to be this undeveloped land in the middle of our community. She stated that as long as the land stays undeveloped, the City will always have this conceptual divide in the community. She stated that it is a study and believes good information will come from it and whether it comes back in six months or a year, the decision will be made by this Council and anyone else joining it. She stated that she doesn't believe the Council should not look at it just because Dublin has never done it before. Cm. Biddle stated that he doesn't mind the study but, at this point, he would say not at this time. He stated that what has made Dublin successful is the pay -as- you -go concept with development and Dublin has never had to use a CFD before. He stated that it is a desirable area for developers to build in but he does not like the concept of creating a two- tiered tax system. He stated that he does not mind studying it but it should be studied in the same manner that the City does everything else as in a developer -paid study and not a City study. Vm. Hart stated that he views it as a tax to the specific area and he is not in favor of putting that kind of liability on people that live in the City to that degree. He stated that he thinks if we've gone this far from the development, he would like to see the development continue but he is not in favor of moving forward on the CFD. He stated that he is not going to be supportive of having a Mello -Roos tax in Dublin and, right now, is not willing to designate that area for an increased tax system as he believes it will be problematic. He stated that he agrees with Cm. Biddle in that the development should be financed by the developer like all other projects in the City. He reiterated that he is not willing to put that tax liability on future citizens of Dublin and will not ever be in favor of a Mello -Roos tax. Vm. Hart stated that he is certainly interested in the development and what the potential is, and wants to continue to discuss other ways of potential funding but he does think it would be fair at this point in time to put that responsibility back on future residents. Mayor Sbranti agreed that he has major concerns about the CFD and thinks that it does have an impact for people beyond just this development. He stated that he also has concerns regarding what happens if the developer goes bankrupt. He stated that, if the developer is going to pay for the study, he is interested in at least taking a look at it to understand if it is in the City's best DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 18 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 . r interest or not. He stated that he wanted to be up front with his concerns regarding this form of financing as he generally does not like it. Mayor Sbranti stated that he is willing to at least take a look at studying the CFD because as Cm. Swalwell stated, just because we haven't done something before doesn't mean we shouldn't take a look at it; however, the fact that we haven't done it before and have had success with the way we've done things, he feels more comfortable with the way the City has done things. He reiterated that he is willing to at least consider studying the CFD. Cm. Biddle stated that one thing that makes him uncomfortable at this time is the timing as the May 15th presentation cautioned not to move too quickly. He stated that this is too quick as SunCal doesn't own any land yet, hasn't started work on the Army projects yet, and there has not been an EIR done. He stated that until other things move along a little further, he believes the City is too premature. Vm. Hart stated that he believes once the City goes down the road of a CFD, that is going to be the road that is more likely to be taken in the future for development and other options will not be considered. He stated that he believes putting the tax liability of $4,000 a year plus 2% increments annually is way too much for the property owners and then with the two -tier tax system, it is problematic for the surrounding area as well. He stated that he does not believe it is a good practice to be in. Mayor Sbranti asked Staff if, in addition to studying the CFD, traditional financing models would also be looked at and how that would play out in terms of what is being proposed. City Manager Pattillo replied that she knows Staff is bringing back a recommendation to hire a consultant to do a fiscal study. She stated that, as far as comparing the standard, Staff would look at the CFD as far as that is what SunCal would be paying for, not looking at other strategies, as they are looking for the next steps as far as CFD creation. She stated that as far as other financing tools, it has been a pay -as- you -go method as SunCal has been paying out of pocket, getting institutional investors. Ms. Pattillo stated that she is hearing a mix: one definite, no matter what information comes back from the exploratory next steps, it's a no; but the rest of the Council is willing to take a look at it; and restated Q6 (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). Vm. Hart asked if the authorization part of Q6 means that the Council would authorize the potential cost for the study. Ms. Pattillo replied that SunCal would pick up the cost for the study. Ms. Bascom clarified that the next step would be to have a consultant advise Staff on the CFD as well as getting some additional questions answered about the size of the potential CFD and the exact things to be included in it like cost estimates, timing, schedule, etc. She stated that authorization of the future study on the formation of a CFD would be going to the next level in terms of providing the Council some additional information and details to be able to assess DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 19 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 { .R whether a CFD is going to work here. She stated that Staff will have advice from the consultant and SunCal will be able to provide some additional information as well. Vm. Hart stated that the Project should be borne by the developer entirely, not on the taxpayers of the City of Dublin. Ms. Pattillo followed up stating as far as studying the potential formation. Vm. Hart replied everything. Cm. Hildenbrand confirmed with Vm. Hart that, regardless, he does not support the Mello -Roos tax for Dublin. Cm. Biddle stated that he is about 85% against it but does not want to close off the other 15 % because maybe something will turn up that would make it feasible. He stated that he is not, at this point, ready to say never but one thing of concern is that if the City starts a CFD, every future development that the City has coming down the pipeline will start with this concept and it is not the way Dublin has been successful. He stated that Dublin has always had a pay- as -you- go philosophy and it has worked very well. He stated that, even when the economy had a downturn, Dublin was not in the same situation that many other cities were in and were still able to get projects built. Cm. Hildenbrand disagreed with Cm. Biddle's comment stating that Dublin got residential units built but it is still very difficult to get any commercial or retail developed. She stated that we have huge parcels of land and people who are incredibly unhappy because they bought a house to live a near a promenade, shopping center or park and those can't get built until the money is coming in. She reiterated that, yes, the City is seeing residential and even some schools get built and/or completed but the City is not seeing the full package. Cm. Biddle stated that the Project is considering almost the elimination of commercial. Cm. Swalwell stated that he believes there is resolution that four Councilmembers want to study it. Vm. Hart replied that is not what he believes. Cm. Biddle stated that he does not want to see the project come to a total halt just because of the CFD study. He stated that one thing that makes him uncomfortable about the whole process is that there is so much to do such as the EIR. He stated that there are a lot of ifs such as DUSD and water retention and to start talking about the CFD now is too early. He stated that, if some of the questions could be answered, he would feel much more comfortable. Cm. Swalwell agreed stating that the concerns presented would behoove SunCal to start looking at what happens if the CFD does not pan out. City Manager Pattillo stated, in regards to Vm. Hart's comments on carving out industrial versus residential areas for the CFD boundary, that the City of Livermore operates many CFDs in their commercial areas. She asked Vm. Hart if that is something he would like to take a look at and stated that she wants to ensure that all thoughts are captured, moving forward. She stated that she wants to be fair in stating that this has been pivotal, at least to SunCal, to move this project forward and the discussion is regarding the entire package. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 20 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 � Ms. Pattillo stated that there will be a lot of discussions that ensue after this so if the idea is to study what the potential implications are and what it's going to be sized, those are all the things that Staff would be able to bring back to Council, a decision would have to be made, then the Project may be different. Vm. Hart stated that he was originally thinking about the aspect of carving out areas, however, it is still a tax liability that the City would be putting off to the residents and he is not comfortable with that. He stated that the Project should be borne by the developer like every other development in the City for the last 25 -30 years. Mayor Sbranti stated that he shares all of the Councilmembers concerns and confirmed that four of the Councilmembers would authorize the study and one would not. Principal Planner Bascom moved on to Question 1 (is the Draft Land Plan generally acceptable ?) and asked for any comments. Cm. Biddle stated that he generally liked the Draft Land Plan and appreciates the major road that goes through the Project and the general road network. He stated that the mix of housing is what the City is looking for, but what troubles him is the fact that the Project is abandoning commercial altogether. He stated that, the way the plan is put together, it says commercial allowable and he would rather go the other way and say residential allowable, plan it for the 200,000 square feet of commercial, and allow the option of residential. Cm. Biddle stated that this Project is looking at 15 -20 years and, although residential is the thing now, it may not be that way then. He stated that the other thing he would feel more comfortable with is the school site, if a school is not built, reverting to park designation since another concern is the size of the Community Park. Cm. Biddle stated that, considering the fact that the two smaller Neighborhood Parks are considerably closer to a larger park, he would like to learn the pros and cons of combining one or both of the Neighborhood Parks into a larger park per the Parks Master Plan. Ms. Bascom asked for more clarification regarding combining the Neighborhood Parks. Cm. Biddle stated that one suggestion could be combining both Neighborhood Parks into one Neighborhood Park and another idea could be no Neighborhood Parks or only one Neighborhood Park and larger Community Park. PCS Director Paul McCreary stated that the Parks Master Plan is based on having 3.5 acres per thousand of community park land and 1.5 acres per thousand of neighborhood park land. He stated that the City would want to continue to have some type of Neighborhood Park in the Project to really serve the local needs of the residents such as gathering, social space, and playgrounds. He stated that the City tries not to put active sports uses into the Neighborhood Parks because they serve more of a community need and the City wants to have certain areas that will really serve just the neighborhood itself. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 21 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 Cm. Biddle confirmed with Mr. McCreary that, even though one of the Neighborhood Parks is only about one block away from the Community Park, the City would still want to keep the Neighborhood Park. Mr. McCreary stated what would be better is to combine the two Neighborhood Parks and make one larger Neighborhood Park. Cm. Biddle stated that he is just interested in seeing what might be best for the development and seeing a different concept. Vm. Hart stated that he is not favor of a residential area on Arnold Drive. Cm. Swalwell asked if that is because of Santa Rita Jail. Vm. Hart confirmed yes. Cm. Swalwell confirmed with Vm. Hart that Arnold Drive is one of the pathways that Santa Rita jail inmates take when they are released. Vm. Hart stated that, in regards to the Community Park area that is designated, he would like to see a program that is more sports related although not the entire area. He stated that he believes there is a need in the area for more athletic space and he would like to see the development move forward on a little bit more of the VCM rather than just the pad as 40,000 square feet is not all that much to potentially build out. He stated that the culvert on Arnold Drive would look bad and it would be an aesthetic issue. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she believes the general concept is fine. She stated that she has similar concerns regarding housing on Arnold Drive and understands that most of the Councilmembers are okay with it, however, she is uncomfortable with it but that is not to say that it wouldn't work. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she understands that most of the streets would take a while to open but is fine with how the phases come together and how it will all work together. She stated that, overall, the Draft Land Plan is fine and she is slowly coming around to how the Community Park is different from the original plan; however, she wants to ensure that the integrity and intent of the Community Park which was not a sports park. Mayor Sbranti confirmed with Ms. Bascom that, in regards to each individual phase of residential development, the roadway infrastructure can support it in and of itself so if something cataclysmic happened after Phase 3, the roadways that were built to serve Phase 1 through 3 would be able to serve that population. Ms. Bascom stated that SunCal and Staff have not yet reached design discussions but the intent is that every phase or combination of phases could stand alone. Cm. Swalwell asked for clarification regarding the townhomes along Arnold Drive not fronting the street. Ms. Bascom replied that there has been no detailed design discussed but the intent is that anything residential that fronts Arnold Drive would not be the front door. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 22 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 1 #0 Cm. Swalwell stated that he imagines the backyard fence would be something similar to what KB Homes is doing for their fence line in the Emerald Vista development. Ms. Bascom replied that that would be a safe assumption. Cm. Swalwell stated that he is fine with the Draft Land Plan, knowing that details will be discussed down the road. Mayor Sbranti stated that he is generally fine with most of the Draft Land Plan. He stated that he does feel there is almost too much flexibility in the Draft Land Plan and that it is doing away with too much commercial. He stated that it is easy to think about commercial right now but the Project is a 20 -year plan and with the 1 -580, 1 -680 and two BART stations, Dublin does have a lot of commercial viability. He stated that he would like to see the 56,000 square -foot minimum for commercial moved up and does not like the idea of residential on Arnold as it really does have the potential to be a commercial corridor whether as condos, clean tech space, or even flex space. He stated there a lot of types of commercial uses that could go along Arnold Drive and although it doesn't have to go up to 200,000 square feet of commercial, 56,000 square feet is too low and he would like some more assurance that the City can get more commercial out of the Project. Mayor Sbranti stated that he understands that there are currently challenges getting new commercial, however, all of the office space in Dublin has been filled with a less than 5% vacancy on Class A Office which means that there is a desire for office space to be in the City. He stated that maybe there could be more neighborhood - serving retail but the one thing in making it just like the Waterford Shopping Center is that Waterford works because there is a grocery anchor. He stated that Tralee has had moderate success and to think that all of the commercial space is just going to be residential over retail or mixed use is concerning. Mayor Sbranti stated he believes the two Neighborhood Parks should be combined because you could potentially get more sports uses out of it. He agreed with Cm. Hildenbrand in regards to the original intent of the Community Park, Mayor Sbranti stated that he feels the overall park acreage is still a bit short and whether it's adding more to the Community Park or the Neighborhood Park, he thinks there should be more acreage. He stated that the Community Park could be extended to front Dublin Blvd. or the Neighborhood Parks could be made a little bit larger. He stated that if the Project is going to consist of 1,600 to 2,000 residential units, that is a lot of children playing sports and they'll need some place to play. Mayor Sbranti stated that obviously the original land plan is not sustainable in terms of how much park was in that plan but he feels what is being proposed is a considerable difference. Mayor Sbranti stated that he does not agree with the idea that if a joint use agreement cannot be reached between the City and DUSD, the City loses the 3 acres of park. Cm. Swalwell asked if the amount of the Community Benefit payment could be negotiated if the Council wanted more acreage for the Community Park. City Manager Pattillo replied yes, DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 23 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 f J however, that is not what the Community Benefit trade -off was as there were other elements to it and not just the Community Park. Cm. Swalwell asked if that is how the City would proceed in getting more acreage for the Community Park. Mayor Sbranti replied that ultimately, through the collective conversations between Council, Staff and SunCal, the goal is to get there. Mayor Sbranti stated that, in regards to his view of the Draft Land Plan, there is a lot that he likes but would like the elements he discussed as concerns to be addressed somehow. Vm. Hart stated that one more issue about Arnold Drive is the potential traffic study as a result of the BART customer vehicles that park down that street Monday through Friday. Ms. Bascom stated that the configuration of Arnold Drive and where parking is and is not allowed will be factored in as part of the traffic study but BART parking, specifically, is not something that would typically be looked at as part of the Project. Mayor Sbranti stated that he does like the fact that there are more housing units at lower densities. Cm. Biddle stated that one of the reasons he didn't want to give up on commercial yet was because the Arnold Drive development is Phase 5 and that is a long way out in the Project. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that the commercial designation is an overlay so SunCal isn't doing away with commercial completely. Mayor Sbranti agreed that they're not completely doing away with commercial with the overlay but bumping up the minimum commercial square footage is definitely something to be looked at. Principal Planner Bascom summarize the Council's general thoughts for Q1 stating that a preference for no residential along Arnold Drive was expressed by at least three Councilmembers; there was a general interest in increasing the amount of commercial acreage on the site; there was a general consensus of possibly combining neighborhood park sites into one neighborhood park; and there were thoughts on increasing the park acreage and have SunCal work with Staff to take a look at mechanisms to increase the park acreage. Ms. Bascom stated that the Council was generally supportive of the overall land use layout, outside of the residential on Arnold Drive. Vm. Hart stated that the Draft Land Plan does not look as nice as the original one. He stated that the Community Park is no longer the center piece of the area and he believes it takes a little bit away from it. Mayor Sbranti stated that the residents along Scarlett Drive or within the Transit Center love the Community Park placement and he doesn't have as much of a problem with where the Community Park is placed. Vm. Hart stated that, overall, it does not seem as much of an attractive project from Dublin Blvd. as it used to. He stated that it seems like it's been watered down and he understands there is DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 24 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 t. some reason behind that, however, it seems like the school is the potential centerpiece and there is no idea, yet, when that would be built. Ms. Bascom moved on to Question 2 (Is the City Council comfortable with the tradeoffs identified). She stated that the trade -offs, as identified in the Staff Report, recognize the lack of civic and public/semi-public designated land and the challenges of phasing as well as the alternative approach to meeting the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) requirements. Vm. Hart stated that he is not comfortable with the entire Project as it is laid out financially. He stated that he is not a fan of the In -Lieu fee approach and doesn't think that the City needs to have the fees sooner rather than later and would rather get the full amount. He stated that he is not comfortable with the entire Project based on the CFD. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she is okay with the trade -offs. Cm. Swalwell stated that he is also fine with the trade -offs but is confused whether or not there could be an up -front Community Benefit payment as he understood from Ms. Bascom that SunCal was not amenable to that in previous discussions but Mr. Guerra's presentation spoke differently. Ms. Bascom replied that she did not want to speak for Mr. Guerra; however she understood him to say that he is okay with an up -front Community Benefit payment as long as the Council identifies what they don't mind shifting around. She stated that if there is something that the Council would like to see moved up in terms of timing of a proposed payment, then that can be discussed. Cm. Swalwell stated that he doesn't feel the Council needs to do that right now but thinks that a fiscal analysis for the Council to review and see whether or not it would be beneficial to take a payment now or over time would be good. Mayor Sbranti clarified that having some type of analysis of what the City would receive over the course of the project versus what the City would receive in the first few years would be good. Ms. Pattillo stated that what Mayor Sbranti and Cm. Swalwell are speaking of is the net present value estimate for the idea of up -front money versus something that is spread over, maybe, 20 years. She stated that Staff can provide that and part of the discussion that Staff worked with SunCal on is to get to those spots because we have certain needs and requirements in the City as it relates to the Public Safety complex and other things that we have no funding mechanism to build out. She stated that those are basically the trade -offs and Staff can do a net present value analysis about fees. Ms. Pattillo stated that the idea is to talk a little bit about the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) discussion and, in past discussions with other developers, developers have gone above and beyond meeting the Inclusionary requirement. She stated that up -front money is worth a lot more versus waiting for it to trickle in over time. She stated that the macro conversation is discussing how the Inclusionary requirement can be met in another way such as the idea that was brought up about Veteran's housing. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 25 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 f A Mayor Sbranti asked if getting part of the In -Lieu fee up -front was essential to making the Veteran's housing project work. Vm. Hart followed up and asked what the City's motivation is for doing that. Ms. Pattillo replied that there are several parts: one is the $7.5 million for the Community Benefit payment and the trade -off to get those dollars is there is no civic designated development site which would be approximately 8 acres, along with the exemption from the semi - public facilities policy. She stated that the exemption from the IZO requirements is a separate piece of which the amount won't be determined until it is known how many units are proposed. Ms. Pattillo stated that the $2.8 million payment would be SunCal's contribution towards the ACSPA property acquisition. She stated another part that wasn't mentioned was the discussion as it related to the realistic goal of getting the Project done which includes the DA and that is invaluable because it increases the certainty from a developer's perspective and doesn't hold all the fees static. She stated that the standard DA in eastern Dublin, currently, is five years but the City and SunCal wanted to make sure that the Project does occur in a realistic timeframe. She stated that the $7.5 million payment, depending on when, if and how it comes about, would be something that she recommends the City move forward with for the Public Safety facilities. Cm. Biddle stated that the only piece that really concerns him is the NASA piece that is somewhat unknown. He stated that another unknown is how big the VCM will be and 40,000 to 50,000 square feet is pretty large when the original plan was considerably smaller. He stated that he is fine with the In -Lieu fee piece. Cm. Biddle asked what is meant by "no civic - designated development site." Mayor Sbranti replied that there were 8 or 9 acres in the old land plan that was undefined so it was a civic - designated site. He clarified that the site could have been a corp yard or district office. Assistant Manager Foss stated that at the time of the original land plan, the City was in negotiations to buy the Historic Park site and looking to locate a site that the City could swap with the Berkeley Land Company and give them an entitled piece of land. Vm. Hart stated that the buyout for the IZO requirements isn't known yet so he is concerned about that and is not sure why the City has to allow them a discount just because the money would be paid sooner. He reiterated his overall disagreement with the CFD. Mayor Sbranti stated that he is generally fine with most of the trade -offs and is fine with not having a civic - designated site provided the City can obtain more park acreage or something commensurate with that. He stated that part of the original agreement included the civic - designated site which was 8 to 9 acres for public use and he thinks that having something else to recognize that is important. Mayor Sbranti agreed with the request for a fiscal study to better understand the opportunity cost and what the City is getting in terms of up -front payment. Ms. Pattillo clarified that Staff will have to make a lot of assumptions and may have a slower projection of when things are going to be pulled and err on being very conservative. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 26 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 �ti��fiFe'r y, �4 Mayor Sbranti stated that he is generally supporting what is proposed for the trade -offs but more information is needed. Principal Planner Bascom moved on to Question 3 (Is the Community park "package" acceptable) stating that the "package" is the 28 -acre Community Park that would be fully built out by SunCal with a $2.5 million Maintenance Endowment, and the $2.8 million contribution towards the acquisition of the ACSPA property that is included in the Community Park. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she is fine with the Community Park package but does not believe that the Community Park should be a sports park. She stated that she would like to see a bigger park, however, from discussions over the last few years, it sounds like having the original park is not as feasible anymore. She stated that she likes 28 acres of Community Park but has grave concerns regarding a joint use agreement with DUSD and how it would really work considering problems with join use agreements in the past and how accessible the joint land would be. She further stated that she does not want to- see the City lose the 3 potentially joint acres. She reiterated that a 28 -acre Community Park is fine as long as the City can maintain it. Vm. Hart stated that he is not comfortable with there being any kind of agreement in the Master Plan where DUSD has control because it is not a DUSD issue. He stated that the City and DUSD can continue to work together but it should not be on the table as the City should have control over the 3 potentially joint acres. Vm. Hart stated that he agrees with Cm. Hildenbrand's points but did like the original idea of a more centralized Community Park. Cm. Biddle agreed with Vm. Hart and Cm. Hildenbrand and stated that it is important for the Community Park to work in the Parks Master Plan because of work going on with other Parks. He stated that he generally agrees with the plan but would like the Park bigger and one of his concerns is that many of the options presented boil down to less park acreage. Cm. Swalwell stated that he is open to having Staff go back to the drawing board and discuss what it would take to obtain more park acreage. He stated that he would like a bigger Community Park but if 28 acres is the most the City can get in, that is fine. Mayor Sbranti stated that the original plan had 60 acres of Community Park and moving down to 28 acres is a considerable difference that needs to be studied a bit further. Cm. Swalwell stated that the Community Park Maintenance Endowment would have to grow if the acreage of the Community Park grew as the more park land you have, the more you have to maintain. He stated that he would take a smaller- acreage Community Park for a larger Endowment and less burden on future tax payers and City general fund dollars to maintain because we don't know where the economy is taking us and if the City has money in the bank that it can rely on to take care of the Community Park, it makes him feel more secure than having a huge Community Park that the City can't maintain. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 27 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 � L Vm. Hart stated that knowing some of the potential programming for a 28 -acre Community Park would be beneficial in knowing what size would be best. Ms. Pattillo clarified that when Council and Staff met in August, 2011, Staff was given the charge to be flexible and one of the conditions of coming back, and discussions with SunCal in particular, was that Staff had to take those amenities that were desired by Council. She stated that her understanding was figuring out how to get the amenities that were desired by Council because Council was not wedded to any certain size of the Community Park, per se. Ms. Bascom stated that what SunCal and their consultants have done is prepared a couple of park schemes, one which leans more heavily towards special amenities and has a couple of sports fields in it and another one which leans a little more heavy towards the sports field and has more of the special stuff fit in as appropriate. She stated that she believes the take -away is that 28 acres does not accomplish everything. Mayor Sbranti stated that when he says he is looking for more park, he's not even looking for more than a few acres, but some way that we can accommodate the passive uses and not have sports field overlays at the same time. Ms. Bascom stated that Question 7 (What is the City Council feedback on the Conceptual Community Park plans) can be discussed with Question 3 (Is the Community Park "package" acceptable). Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she does not want to see sports fields in the Community Park as she does not feel that was the original intent of the Community Park. She stated that if you start to put sports fields in there, it is not the Community Park that was generally planned as what was planned was to have unique experiences in the middle of the City. She stated that idea was a defining park that brought people together for a variety of reasons like outdoor cooking classes, community garden, an amphitheater and the VCM. She stated that the original park was never intended to have large sports fields so if some of the sports fields overlay, they overlay. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that the City needs to get in as much passive and unique experiences in this Community Park as possible. She stated that she understands the sports leagues are growing and more space is needed, however, maybe that gets accomplished in the Neighborhood Parks. She stated that the City is talking about making something different and unique and then it's just going to turn it into another park like what already exists but with a children's museum on it and a few other little amenities. Vm. Hart asked if Cm. Hildenbrand thinks it could all be located in one location at the Community Park. Cm. Hildenbrand replied that the Community Park becomes a sports field and she doesn't like it because it was never the intent of what it was supposed to be. She stated that she feels that the people who had part in creating the Master Plan would be disappointed in what is proposed since a lot of time was spent designing the original Community Park. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 28 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 F 1 t Vm. Hart stated that the original Community Park was sized at 60 acres. Cm. Hildenbrand stated yes, but it did not include as many sports fields. Mayor Sbranti stated that he did not disagree with Cm. Hildenbrand and asked if she would like the more passive uses to be located in the Community Park and the sports uses moved to a Neighborhood Park. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that idea could work but it also needs to be discussed what happens to the joint 3 acres if it gets gated off. She stated that at this point, the City is not even sure what the joint use would look like so the City already limiting ourselves. PCS Director McCreary stated that if you moved the sports fields into a combined 5 -acre Neighborhood Park site, you would have enough room for one ball field with a sports overlay, similar to Ted Fairfield Park. He stated that you would have a playground and associated amenities, and then one ball field with a soccer overlay. Mayor Sbranti confirmed with Mr. McCreary that people can only play one sport at a time at Ted Fairfield Park: soccer or baseball. Mayor Sbranti clarified with Cm. Hildenbrand that she is generally okay with the Community Park package, aside from concerns regarding what the joint use for 3 acres would look like and the programming of the Community Park. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she completely agrees with Vm. Hart that the 3 acres should not go to DUSD and the City needs to be very cautious in moving forward with that because it feels like 3 acres are being given up. Cm. Swalwell stated that he agrees with Cm. Hildenbrand in regards to Q7 and the fact that the intent of the Community Park should be honored. He stated that he also agrees with being flexible in looking at putting sports fields in the Neighborhood Parks. Cm. Biddle stated that the original intent of the Park does need to be the primary use of that area and if there is anything left over, there might some room for a sports park. Vm. Hart stated that he thinks the City can do both and agrees with Cm. Hildenbrand that they shouldn't take away from the original plan for the Community Park although he's not convinced that we necessarily would. He stated that he also wants to utilize the area and he would be concerned that the City would not get full maximum ability to utilize the area for the community. Mayor Sbranti stated that he is okay in looking at the joint use area with DUSD provided that it is a package where the City has their access and DUSD has their access. He stated that he feels it can be done and can be discussed between DUSD, the City and SunCal to make it work. Vm. Hart asked why it has to be a part of the DA. Principal Planner Bascom stated that she believes it would be something that if the Council provided Staff direction to work with DUSD to find out if this is feasible, Staff would sit down with DUSD immediately to start having discussions, figuring out if the programming worked. She stated that by the time it got to the DA, the City would know whether or not the joint use would be happening as a draft joint use agreement would be worked out with DUSD. She stated that it DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 29 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 I U&wh, would be fine -tuned and would not state in the DA that a joint use agreement is a possibility because at that point it's either working or it's not. City Manager Pattillo stated that the element as to why the joint use agreement would be is because if the 3 acres is considered part of a City park, SunCal would develop the amenities. Mayor Sbranti stated that he understands concerns regarding access and not having an area that's fenced off as he has seen it work with Stager Gym and it would work with this Project but how that works is in the details. He stated that he is comfortable with at least looking at the joint use area because he thinks that DUSD can get value as well as the City in terms of having it as a Community Park. He stated that if some joint agreement is not reached and the Community Park is cut by 3 acres, he does have a concern about that. Vm. Hart clarified that he has no problem with the potential discussion of the joint use, but he has a concern in bringing DUSD to the table and having them have some of the same abilities that the City would per the DA. Cm. Swalwell confirmed that right now the Council is only agreeing to explore the joint use. Mayor Sbranti stated that he is okay with Q3 and Q7 in terms of the parks being built but wants to still look at the acreage just to see that the City can still get what we need in terms of sports usage as well as passive usage. Mayor Sbranti asked how the City could purchase the Community Park land if the Camp Parks deal wasn't moving forward and the City just had the park acreage sitting out there. Mr. McCreary stated that it would be purchased out of the Park Impact Fees and the City would be looking, every couple of years, to update the CIP to see when the timing of that would be. He stated that currently it is not in the City's 5 -year plan or cash flow to purchase that piece of property. Mayor Sbranti stated that he appreciates the $2.8 million contribution and hopes that the ACSPA can be a partner in this and what the rate ultimately looks like. He stated that he would like to take a look at what that rate would be and wants to ensure that the City gets something good out of that because he knows that fair market value could potentially drain down the City's Park Impact Fees. Cm. Biddle stated that instead of proposed school site reverting to residential, he would be more comfortable with it reverting to part of the Community Park. Vm. Hart agreed with Cm. Biddle. Mayor Sbranti stated that he is pretty confident that DUSD will use the site and he is comfortable with the residential overlay. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 30 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 i 11 �4 / I ev . ;% Mayor Sbranti stated that is generally supportive of what was said before in regards to the Community Park being more of a passive park. He stated that if there is a sports field or two that don't detract from the passive uses, he wouldn't be entirely opposed to having a sports field or two. He stated that the plan that consisted of passive uses and the sports fields doesn't work because it does detract from the original, passive intent of the Community Park. He stated that if you had something that was generally more of the passive intent with the different amenities discussed, that would be okay, but the City needs to stay true to the original intent. He stated that he also thinks the City needs to look at the neighborhood parks to see what can be done in terms of adding whatever sports fields are needed. Mayor Sbranti stated that he thinks the Council needs to have a joint session with the Parks Commission at some point before moving too far forward down the line especially as we get into the programming of the Community Park. He stated that when the Fallon Sports Park was being planned there was a Community Master Plan Committee that did it and if the City is going to look at programming something this large, it should maybe look at holding something that is open to the public where the Council and the Parks Commission take a look at what the Community Park looks like once we know what the acreage looks like. Mayor Sbranti stated that the Council can all talk about individual preferences and they are ultimately elected to make those decisions, but he thinks a decision of this size needs to be discussed with some of the stakeholders and the Parks Commission. Mr. McCreary stated that, from a policy standpoint, if all of the fields were moved out of the Community Park area, only being to accommodate maybe two overlay fields within the Project, the City would have to look elsewhere in the City to build the other remaining sports fields. He stated that, currently, all of the community park space is accounted for with the City's current population for the fields it needs so, for example, the City would be looking at putting another Neighborhood Park, potentially, in the eastern Dublin area at the City's cost versus the developer's cost if it's done at part of the Project. Mayor Sbranti stated that he would like to see it as part of the Project and confirmed with Mr. McCreary that the City can look at a balance. Ms. Bascom clarified that what is being discussed is one Neighborhood Park which can accommodate one ball field with an overlay. Mayor Sbranti stated that if a field was turfed and could be used year - round, there may be ways to at least consider having some overlays even though he does not prefer overlays. Ms. Bascom confirmed with the Council that they would generally be accepting of overlays to accommodate the sports fields. Cm. Biddle asked if we had overlays for a while at Dublin Sports Grounds. Mr. McCreary replied yes, with existing parks that were inherited as a City, there were overlays but in moving forward with the Parks & Recreation Master Plan, it did indicate the City would not consider overlays in the future because sports are playing more year- round. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 31 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 ,' �..,� Mayor Sbranti stated that the new standard is to not have overlays but, perhaps, if it was turfed or something that could be utilized year - round, it might be something he would at least consider. Mayor Sbranti asked how many ball fields would come out of a development like this in terms of the sports uses. Mr. McCreary stated that for 1,600 units there would be 2 baseball fields, 1 softball field and two soccer fields. Mayor Sbranti stated that the way he looks at the programming is being dominant with the passive with a couple grass fields and maybe looking at a Neighborhood Park that is turfed so if there is overlay, it can be used year- round. Ms. Bascom confirmed that there is a consensus among the Council relating to the field overlays and general year -round use in the neighborhood park. Mayor Sbranti stated that, if for some reason a joint use agreement can't be reached between the City and DUSD, his preference is that the City does not just lose 3 acres of Community Park. He stated that he wants to see something done between the City and DUSD but he does not want to lose 3 acres. Ms. Bascom confirmed that there is a consensus among the Council that if a joint use agreement is not able to be worked out between the two agencies then SunCal needs to figure out a way to get the park acreage that DUSD wants. Mayor Sbranti clarified that he wants to see this get done because he thinks it can and should get done, but if for some reason it can't and DUSD needs what they need, he doesn't think it should come at the expense of the City. Vm. Hart stated that money will be tight in the school district regardless of if they have bond funds from the state. He stated that it will be tough for them to potentially develop that area so he would be concerned with the 3 acres reverting to them with no funding behind it. Ms. Bascom confirmed with Council that the City would like.to see a minimum 28 net -acre Community Park regardless. Ms. Bascom moved on to Question 5 (Based on the Community Park size, does the City Council want to revisit the previous direction to provide 2.5 acres for the VCM) and asked if the Council is okay with the pad for the VCM being located in the Community Park as opposed to a stand -alone site. Cm. Swalwell replied yes. Cm. Hiidenbrand stated that she would agree with their desire to be closer to Dublin Blvd, rather than tucked away as they should be visible as an identifying figure. She stated it would be more desirable for the entire community because once it's built, not only will the Park be unique, but DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 32 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 the VCM will be flagship building and attraction within the community so you want to be able to see it. Vm. Hart agreed with Cm. Hildenbrand and stated that he would like to see some type of partnership possibility between SunCal and the VCM to build the building rather than just the pad. Cm. Biddle stated that he thinks having the building near Dublin Blvd. is fine but having it on Dublin Blvd. would preclude any sort of park entrance. Cm. Hildenbrand clarified that she would like to see it closer to Dublin Blvd. but not necessarily on Dublin Blvd. Cm. Biddle stated that he was taken aback but the desired size of building as the VCM was considering 40,000 to 50,000 square feet. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she believes that was always the vision. Cm. Biddle stated that the vision is fine but there has to be a lot of money raised. Vm. Hart stated that maybe that vision can be developed with a partnership. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that the City committed to giving the VCM the space and it is up to them to raise the money. Cm. Biddle stated that he is glad the VCM has moved beyond just getting acreage as it makes more sense to him that they get a site. He stated that he liked the concept that if something happens to the museum, the site stays with the City for use as the City sees fit and we're not obligated to try and support a museum. Mayor Sbranti agreed with the Councilmembers stating that the VCM would be a great amenity for the park and for the City. He stated that he supports the pad concept discussed and he thinks part of that conversation is planning for the worst case scenario. He stated that having some type of timeline for the VCM to have financing in place to come forward is important because this is not something that is indefinite. He stated that there should be some certainty in terms of what the final product is going to be and thinks that giving the VCM the maximum amount of time to raise the financing that they need in order to make this happen is appropriate and this is an opportunity for an exciting partnership. Ms. Bascom clarified that the two conceptual Community Park plans that were prepared SunCal show a 15,000 square -foot pad for the building with a 15,000 square -foot expansion space. She stated that, essentially, that is about 30,000 square feet on the ground and asked the Council if that seems like a reasonable amount of space to be allocating in the Community Park plan at the conceptual level for the purposes of the VCM. Cm. Hildenbrand asked for clarification regarding the VCM asking for 40,000 to 50,000 square feet. Ms. Bascom clarified yes, for the ultimate building size but it would be an over acre of land just for the building pad. She stated that this is an opportunity for Council to provide input in regards to how much space they would like to set aside in the park for the VCM. Mayor Sbranti stated that he feels it is a bit premature to say exactly how much space. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 33 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 Cm. Biddle stated that there are implications as it is anticipated that parking would be there for the VCM's use and if they start talking about 40,000 to 50,000 square feet, parking would be impacted for the rest of the Community Park. Cm. Swalwell stated that he would support allowing the VCM a 40,000 square -foot pad which would allow for the ultimate build out of a 50,000 square foot building. Cm. Hildenbrand agreed with Cm. Swalwell and stated that the vision was always to put the VCM in that area so parking will have to be figured out. City Manager Pattillo stated that another possibility is doing a 25,000 square -foot pad and build up. She stated that there would be redesign on the parking to accommodate a building that size so that it won't take away from the Community Park acreage. Mayor Sbranti stated that even though the request is 40,000 square feet now, the financing may come in and the building may not end up at 40,000 square feet. He stated that he thinks the 25,000 square -foot pad to be able to build a 50,000 square -foot building still accomplishes the same goal Ms. Bascom stated that, with the Councils' approval, Staff will move forward with the Notice of Preparation to begin the Environmental Impact Report. She stated that the Scoping Meeting is scheduled for June 20th and with the Council's direction, Staff will seek the services of a CFD expert to advise Staff on some of the questions that were brought up and will continue to work with SunCal in refining the Draft Land Plan, specific plan, and doing the environmental analysis. Ms. Pattillo stated that there was still one issue outstanding, heard from the Council, which is the timing of the Community Benefit payment. She stated that currently the way it's stated it is paid over the phases and some of the Council had mentioned some desires to move forward and others disagreed. Cm. Swalwell stated that he understood that Staff would return to Council with an analysis. Ms. Pattillo stated that there are several components, one being the net present value as it relates to the In -Lieu fee so the idea is that conservative estimates would be made in regards to what the dollar amounts are based on a certain escalation. Ms. Pattillo stated that there is a Community Benefit payment that has to do with the collection of the government - designated land, the DA, and other things. She stated that there was a discussion at one point in time and she wanted to make sure that Staff had all the questions answered about the timing of the Community Benefit payment. She asked if the Council is satisfied with the payment being phased in over 6 phases. Mayor Sbranti stated that his preference is having the In -Lieu fee payment phased and get the Community Benefit payment up front if there is a choice because he feels there are some immediate needs that have been identified. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 34 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 Vm. Hart, Cm. Biddle, Cm. Hildenbrand and Cm. Swalwell agreed with Mayor Sbranti. Ms. Bascom stated that in terms of a future project schedule, there is a CEQA Scoping Meeting in June and what has been discussed with SunCal and identified in the master project schedule, and there is review by PCS Commission of park concepts once those are at a point where Staff is ready to bring those forward. She stated that interagency coordination meetings, a community open house, and City Council and/or Planning Commission workshop to review the project status would take place throughout the summer and the fall. She stated that at the end of this year, assuming everything moves forward as planned, there would be a City Council /Planning Commission joint workshop on the draft specific plan and what the project is really coming out to be and then through next spring, the Planning Commission public hearings and City Council public hearings. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 14:41:51 PM. Minutes prepared by Taryn Bozzo, Secretary. ATTEST: -a"I'v � City Clerk Mayor DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 35 VOLUME 31 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 29, 2012 - F °•�- �;--- �;?,�?,- ixnoanva naxnooMVaannr x a ao �l r� --Vf&�xx NVId ONVI 1d30N00 EJNISSO'dD NIlonci 8 � pu}sip siya w paapwjad aje ajoe aau jad spun pg oa do sass llenew aj pue oilip e 's sn OOObOZ R m \\ - oa do Io sass �eiwawwoo leuogippe 'sass pannbai anoge aya o uoi ippe u� sass �ea�awwoo J — Jo is 000,5Z P�e p1Lpd pooy�ogq .9a Io sane ws Nn3na (c,) any Io wnwwiwl a si�iewoo pu}sia as0 pawW _ 133M1S .I. 133tl1g .I. \ m � n id a vl 'a 133tl1G H. 7 AtlMlltltld Ntl1N3� �( %S 133tl1g .0 133tl16 .3. � 7NdON 08 d7sd 177rONd 7b1l1V7C ,V UISN3o H9H -7a - 7b10,13MO7dv3N30 7 dds Nsdo x3dd 7VIIM70ISJ� ,U SNSa MIC3w -39 - 7dI0L3wwo0 7dv3N3,,9 i 700H,7S 7VIl N3a/s -7u ; s 1sN30 MA778 -00 4 3s/1 O7X /W 7VI1N30IS3N AIISN30 M07 -00 - 9N7037 Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package April 30 .2013 Proposal from Dublin Crossing Venture Ilc Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package (Requested Direction for Development Agreement Points) The following package would be the basis for a potential Development Agreement between SunCal (Dublin Crossing Venture LLC) and the City of Dublin assuming the authorization of a CFD of up to 1.75 %. It is based upon a land plan that would include approximately 1,600 residential units with an allowance to go up to 1,995 residential units and 75,000 to 200,000 of commercial development pending appropriate CEQA review. Parks SunCal will dedicate to City 28 net acres for Central Park, of which 8.7 acres will be subject to the ACSPA exchange described below. City agrees to the Chabot Creek within the proposed 28 net acres of Central Park. Storm water flow surface area in the Chabot Creek not to exceed 1.7 acres. Ownership of Chabot Creek storm water flow area and any detention facilities to be up to City's discretion to be owned and or maintained by either the City, a future HOA, future LLD, or other entity acceptable to both parties (28 acres regardless of City's ownership /maintenance decision). All Park fees are prepaid through these dedications (including if density pool is utilized). • No water detention /retention facilities will be located above - ground within the boundaries of any City park. Any water detention /retention facilities located below - ground and within the boundaries of any City park shall be designed to the City's satisfaction which shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be maintained by either the City, a future HOA, future LLD, or other entity acceptable to both parties. • SunCal agrees to include a building site within Central Park for the Valley Children's Museum. Site shall be located adjacent to parking lot. Parking lot and surrounding plaza and access paseos to be constructed by SunCal. Building site to be early dedication of land from SunCal to City, which is currently anticipated to be as early as phase two. • SunCal will dedicate to City 5 net acres of Neighborhood Park(s). All neighborhood parks to be 2 net acres in size at a minimum. All Park fees are prepaid through these dedications (including if density pool is utilized). • As the value of the park dedications (Central Park and neighborhood park(s) and turn -key park improvements exceeds the park fees that would otherwise be required to be paid for the 1,995 units and all commercial development proposed in the Specific Plan, all Park fees and Quimby requirements will be deemed fully satisfied and paid through these dedications and improvements. These dedicated lands and turn -key park improvements are in full satisfaction of Quimby requirements for any commercial or residential uses in Specific Plan. • Other Public Facility fees as described in the City Fee Schedule (not related to park land acquisition and park improvements) shall continue to apply. • SunCal to turn -key all park improvements. Park master concept plans as identified currently, to be approved with DA. Program elements to be allowed to be adjusted at City Council's request as phases are built out utilizing pre- determined methodology described in the Development Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package April 30 .2013 Agreement, modeled on SunCal and Army construction amendment process (changes to scope shall not be of greater construction cost). • Phase I of Central Park and dedication to City to coincide with the completion of phase two (of five) of master plan build out. First dedication to City to be a minimum of ten acres in size. ACSPA Parcel Prior to Council adoption of the DA, City to secure an agreement with the ACSPA to purchase the 8.7 acre parcel. • The City may use existing funds from the Park Fee Program plus a $2.8M contribution from SunCal to purchase the ACSPA parcel. • In order to consolidate the park lands to create a larger Central Park, SunCal and the City will exchange land. The City will exchange the 8.7 acres of parkland on ACSPA parcel in exchange for 8.7 acres of parkland in the 28 acre Central Park, which properties are agreed to have equivalent value. (see table for timing) • SunCal agrees to fund an additional amount to be agreed to by the parties in the form of a loan for early land acquisition (as early as phase two). Loan shall be repaid over a four year period by City, (through park fee program) beginning in Fiscal Year 2017 -2018. Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) • Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (SunCal) will pay traffic impact fees equal to and structured the same as those contained in the EDTIF at time of Development Agreement approval. Fee credits will be applicable for any construction expense related to a EDTIF project constructed by Dublin Crossing (SunCal) above SunCal's fair share of project expense. • The timing of the fee payment will be outlined in the DA and be detailed in the Infrastructure Master Plan and Project Master Phasing Plan. • SunCal will pay the Tri Valley Transportation Development fees. Iron Horse Trail /Dublin Bridge • SunCal agrees to fund $50,000 for bridge design upon execution of DA. SunCal agrees to contribute $1 million toward construction of Iron Horse Trail /Dublin Bridge. Prior to Phase Three, Iron Horse Trail /Dublin Bridge contributions will be made on a per unit basis at each phase until City notifies SunCal that they are ready to construct at which time outstanding balance is due. $1 million contribution will satisfy any fair share contribution which may be a recommended mitigation measure for project related traffic impacts to this intersection. Community Benefit Payment (see table for timing) • SunCal agrees to a Community Benefit Payment of $7.5 million. • City agrees to designate funds to the extent legally possible to capital projects so that these funds are CFD reimbursable. Central Park Maintenance Endowment (see table for timing) Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package April 30 .2013 • SunCal agrees to a $2.5M Park Endowment contribution. • Endowment contribution to be paid proportional upon dedication to City of Central Park acreage ($2.5 million divided by total CP acres (estimated at $89,300 per acre)). CFD • City will authorize a CFD of up to 1.75% effective tax rate; 2% escalator; 35 year bond given the tradeoffs in the package described herein. • City /DSRSD /Zone 7 /DUSD fees may be included in CFD as are various infrastructure improvements. • Any legally allowable uses can be reimbursed with CFD funds with the exception of Park facility construction. Semi - Public land No exclusive Semi - Public land will be required in GP, SP or zoning package. Semi Public uses will continue to be allowed within other commercial /industrial zoning districts in the Specific Plan. Civic /Designated Development site dedication No Civic /Designated Development site will be required for dedication to the City. Affordable Housing buyout/Community Benefit Payment (see table for timing) • Affordable Housing buyout/Community Benefit Payment equal to a total of $11,200,000 for build out of 1,600 units, which shall be paid in full on an accelerated basis as though full build out was 1600 units at a rate of $56,000 per unit of all contemplated affordable units required. • Number of affordable units to be "purchased" at the $11,200,000 to be in the DA and cash -only installment payments. No refunds. • Any units not bought out shall be built (Total affordable units both purchased and built shall equal up to 12.5% of actual number of units in the project). Commercial Land use requirement • Require commercial development of a minimum 75,000 SF as defined in the Specific Plan and maximum of 200,000 SF of commercial buildings. Residential Density Pool • Specific Plan to allow a range of units in each planning area whereby residential zoned land could have additional units as defined by land use plan in the Specific Plan up to the 1,995 unit CEQA clearance maximum. • School site to have a residential overlay. Any additional units built on this parcel would be subject to the 1,995 unit CEQA clearance maximum. Development Agreement Term 15 year DA with option to extend for 5 additional years at $200K per year Potential distribution of cash contributions, subject to Council direction. Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package April 30 .2013 • SunCal is willing to designate cash contributions below to any of the designated uses in any prioritization based upon Council desire as long as total cash in each phase remains the same. • The one exception to this timing flexibility is the ACSPA parcel funding and loan. Phases during 1 during 2 during 3 during 4 during 5 Totals Park Maintenance 1,250,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 Endowment Affordable Housing 2,165,000 5,800,000 3,235,000 11,200,000 buy out Iron Horse Trail 50,000 Bridge Design 50,000 Iron Horse Trail 1,000,000 Bridge Construction 1,000,000 Community Benefit 4,863,000 1,693,000 944,000 7,500,000 Payment ACSPA contribution 2,800,000 2,800,000 Totals 4,913,000 4,493,000 5,359,000 5,800,000 4,485,000 25,050,000 Cumulative 41913,000 9,406,000 14,765,000 20,565,000 25,050,000 Project Status Summary (prepared by City Staff) dated May 1, 2013 Issue Project "Agreement Points" Presented at City Council Direction on Current Project "Agreement Points" for Staff Comments 5/29/2012 Special Meeting 5/29/2012 5/7/2013 Community Park: 28 net acre Community Park (4.3 acres of City Council expressed the desire to SunCal proposes to dedicate 28 acres with a Joint use of park acreage is no longer being Size and Location "bonus" parkland). City to pursue discussions/ have the Community Park as sizable as minimum of 1.7 acres devoted to the water proposed. agreements with DUSD regarding the joint use possible to be able to accommodate all flow area of the biological resource /creek in (during school hours) of sports fields at of the desired facilities and amenities. park. Project water detention facilities are Less than 26.3 net usable acres falls short of Community Park. Park size to be reduced proposed to be located underground in the what Staff was expecting to see in the commensurately if DUSD requires a dedication City Council directed Staff to explore park. Community Park. of more than 8 acres (up to a maximum of 12 discussions with DUSD regarding acres) for potential school site. Park acreage possible joint use of 3 acres of SunCal has been unable to provide Staff with Direction needed from City Council as to will be fixed regardless of unit count. Community Park acreage. the total acreage amount for the creek (to whether the size of the Community Park is top of creek bank), so Staff is unable to acceptable. quantify the actual usable park acreage left from the 28 acre park "envelope" except to know that it is in excess of 1.7 acres. Net usable acres above - ground (minus creek) expected to be less than 26.3 acres. Community Park: Based on concept programming studies, it City Council expressed the desire to SunCal proposal for Community Park has Less than 26.3 net usable acres will require Facilities and appears as though the Community Park would have the Community Park as sizable as been modified to locate water detention field overlays to comply with existing Parks Amenities need to overlay sports fields in order to possible to be able to accommodate all basins underground in the park instead of and Recreation Master Plan standards. accommodate sports amenities, unique of the desired facilities and amenities. above - ground, so additional land is freed up amenities, and a 1.7 acre biological for programming purposes. Direction needed from City Council as to resource /creek, and water detention in 28 whether the size of the Community Park is acres. This is in conflict with the policies of the acceptable. Parks and Recreation Master Plan, but Staff agreed to bring the question to the City Council. Neighborhood Parks: 5 acres of Neighborhood Park land with no City Council expressed a desire to have Per Specific Plan language provided by 5 acre dedication of Neighborhood Park land Size and Location park smaller than two acres a single, five -acre Neighborhood Park SunCal, five acres of Neighborhood Park land remains the same. that may be able to accommodate to be included within the Mixed Use land use sports field(s) district and intended to be integrated with Direction needed from City Council if future mixed use residential /retail uses. SunCal's proposal to include a five acre Neighborhood Park in the Mixed Use District on the Draft Land Plan is acceptable. School site: SunCal identified 8 acres on the land plan for City Council directed Staff to explore 11 acres is identified on the land plan for Staff supports this approach. No further Issue Project "Agreement Points" Presented at City Council Direction on Current Project "Agreement Points" for Staff Comments 5/29/2012 Special Meeting 5/29/2012 5/7/2013 Size and Location DUSD with the potential to have the school discussions with DUSD regarding joint future school use. direction needed. jointly use three acres of the Community Park use. during school hours if that concept could be worked out between the City and DUSD. Project Water City Staff was willing to explore water City Council expressed the desire to Staff determined that it is not in the best Even with the underground water detention Detention detention /retention on non - sports fields in the have the Community Park as sizable as interests of the community to own or facilities, the Community Park does not proposed 28 net acre Community Park if possible to be able to accommodate all maintain project - related water resources. reach a minimum of 28 net acres. designed to both City and SunCal satisfaction. of the desired facilities and amenities. SunCal revised their Project Agreement Detention /retention to be allowed along edge Points to remove reference to above - ground Direction needed from City Council as to of park in proposed chain of ponds. water detention facilities from the whether the size of the Community Park is Community Park. The current concept is to acceptable. have below - ground detention in the Park that is owned and maintained by an entity that is not the City. Park Construction SunCal will design the Community Park and No comments. SunCal proposal unchanged from 5/29/12. Staff has been supportive of the concept of Neighborhood Parks and will turn -key all park SunCal building the park, but believes that improvements. the parks should be designed using the normal community process to develop park master plans and construction documents at developer expense. SunCal OK to do actual construction based on City plans designed to City standards. Direction needed from City Council on the preferred process by which the Neighborhood Park and Community Park in the project will be designed and built AC Surplus Property Prior to execution of the DA, City to secure an No comments. SunCal proposes to contribute $2.8M to the Re- payment of the loan could begin in FY Authority parcel agreement with the ACSPA to purchase the 8.7 property acquisition at Phase 2 of their 2017 -2018 without impacting any of the acre parcel. SunCal to contribute $2.8M to the development phasing. Additionally, SunCal current projects in the five -year CIP. If property acquisition at Phase 5 of their proposes to provide a loan to the City to impact fees are collected at a slower pace, development phasing (est. 2020 or beyond). enable the acquisition of the parcel from the the City may need to borrow money from County at Phase 2. Loan shall be repaid over the General Fund to make the repayments. a four year period by City, (through park fee program) beginning in Fiscal Year 2017 -2018. In concept, Staff supports this approach. No further direction needed. Community Park $2.5 million Park Endowment paid No comments. SunCal proposal unchanged from 5/29/12. Staff supports this approach. No further Issue Project "Agreement Points" Presented at City Council Direction on Current Project "Agreement Points" for Staff Comments 5/29/2012 Special Meeting 5/29/2012 5/7/2013 Endowment proportional upon delivery of Community Park direction needed. acreage. Residential Density Allow a project range of 1,600 to 1,995 No comments. SunCal proposal unchanged from 5/29/12. Staff supports this approach. No further Pool residential units with the option to increase direction needed. the densities along the project perimeter. Commercial land SunCal proposes a minimum of 56,500 SF and City Council wanted to make sure that SunCal proposes a minimum of 75,000 SF Staff supports this approach. No further uses maximum of 200,000 SF of commercial land the project contained enough and maximum of 200,000 SF of commercial direction needed. uses commercial square footage, but did not land uses on properties along the project have a specific number in mind. perimeter and on the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Road Community Facilities SunCal proposes to use a CFD fund the the City Council requested additional SunCal proposal unchanged from 5/29/12. Direction needed from City Council. District "package" that their proposal includes. The financial information from SunCal CFD would likely include impact fees and before making a final determination on various infrastructure improvements, but not CFD. park facilities. Term of 15 year DA with option to extend for five No comments. SunCal proposal unchanged from 5/29/12. Staff supports this approach. No further Development additional years at $200K per year. direction needed. Agreement Community Benefit $7.5M total paid over the course of many City Council requested that additional SunCal proposes to pay more than half of the Staff supports this approach. No further Payment years on a per -unit basis at the time of Final payments be made up front. CBP during Phase 1 and the remainder direction needed. Ma during Phases 2 and 3. Affordable Housing SunCal to buyout of affordable units at a No comments. SunCal proposes to pay a total of $11.2M in Staff supports this approach. No further reduced rate ($56K per unit instead of affordable housing in -lieu to satisfy the City's direction needed. $103,888 in lieu fee) of some or all of requirements. This equates to $56,000 per contemplated affordable units required. Equal unit for 200 units. Any units not bought out installments to be paid at 12, 30, and 48 shall be built (Total affordable units both months after execution of Development purchased and built shall equal up to 12.5% Agreement. of actual number of units in the project) Public /Semi - Public No semi - public land will be required. No comments. SunCal proposal unchanged from 5/29/12. Staff supports this approach. No further land uses direction needed. Civic /Designated No Civic /Designated Development site will be No comments. SunCal proposal unchanged from 5/29/12. Staff supports this approach. No further Development site required. direction needed. K L Y S E R I 'L R SC- N A S ,S ) C, III A' IIF I S ADVISORS M L 'L,M VO,'✓'1 ]UVAI L : KFAL. LS IALL F) V11.4.:"1N"POEN-1 MEMORANDUM To: Joni Pattillo, City Manager "I. A I ,1' If: of " I f of o r * City of Dublin 'tl "F(rllii.l.IFfI wl I,r,., L.., e, y ,a. "'�. ? I L 7 L V F IS.� C' l l.'•,.C� From: Debbie Kern JI G:.1 , I1 F'I r "11.1_" Date: April 12, 2013 131 Ii I;I f_ 7 I I1:,7= RI I.1., I .. K,: ,=,.I[AIU', Subject: Preliminary Assessment of Feasibility of Dublin Crossing Community 17 "o1a ". ",I.� "(A Facilities District (CFD) In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has reviewed Jri "4E15 r,, f0,/t i Q: _lrx4 , "I 1IG >9 the information provided by Sun Cal (the project's sponsor) and its consultants regarding "" ` H `o adopting a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the purpose of funding a portion of the infrastructure costs associated with developing the Dublin Crossings Project (Project). The purpose of KMA's review is to evaluate the overall feasibility of the CFD and to PAN M AT kA identify any issues that may be of specific concern to the City of Dublin. This memorandum summarizes our preliminary findings. The findings may need to be revised upon the completion of the fiscal impact analysis if the analysis indicates that the Project will generate an annual deficit to the City's General Fund. Summary of Proposed Dublin Crossing Development As summarized in the following chart, the 189 -acre Dublin Crossing project will consist of a mix of residential units, commercial development and public parks. The project is anticipated to be built in five phases, with each phase containing approximately 314 units. Anticipated home prices range from $527,000 for the 1,700 square foot stacked flat units to $741,000 for the 2,600 square foot, low density homes. 160 VAC;IFICAVICNUE, Si.IM1`E 204 >SAN FRANCIS .0, CAI F FOR FA 94111 A� M'L1t. NE 415 398,3050 > FAX 415 :397 5065 001 -001; jf 'O^e"WV.KLYSLl;wMARSLi:bP,1 i.:M 11982.004 To: Subject: Joni Pattillo, City Manager April 12, 2013 Preliminary Assessment of Feasibility of Dublin Crossing Community Facilities District (CFD) Page 2 Dublin Crossing Total Program Anticipated Breakdown Land Use Program $13.4 million $11.4 million Residential Units 1,695 to 1,996 units 1,572 market rate units; Phase 3 $11.2 million ■ 445 single family units Phase 4 $5.0 million (6 to 14 du /acre) Phase 5 $13.0 million ■ 854 multi - family ownership units Total Project $55.7 million (10 to 20 du /acre) ■ 272 multi - family apartments (20 to 35 du /acre) 15% affordable requirement is to be met either through the payment of fees or the addition of "granny flat Non Residential SF 75,000 to 200,000 SF 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of retail space; 50,000 to 75,000 of office space Park Acreage 33 acres 28 -acre central park and 5 acres of neighborhood parks Summary of Proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) Sun Cal is projecting to fund approximately $46.8 million of infrastructure costs from the sale of CFD bonds. It is estimated that the Project's infrastructure costs will total approximately $119 million and therefore, the CFD will be used to fund approximately 39% of eligible costs. It is contemplated that bonds will be issued with each phase of the project, as follows: Debt service on the bonds will be funded by a special tax on each residential unit, which is secured by a lien on each property. It is estimated that the annual special taxes will range from $2,200 to $3,700 per unit, which translates into .46% to.5% of the assessed "Gross Bond Proceeds" reflect the total amount of bonds that will be issued. A portion of the gross proceeds will be used to fund issuance costs, capitalized interest, and reserve accounts and will not be available for construction costs. "Net Bond Proceeds" reflect the amount of bond proceeds that are available for construction costs. 2 Calculations may not reconcile due to rounding. 001 -001; jf 11982.004 Gross Bond Proceeds Net Bond Proceeds for Construction Costs Phase 1 $13.4 million $11.4 million Phase 2 $13.0 million $11.0 million Phase 3 $11.2 million $9.4 million Phase 4 $5.0 million $4.1 million Phase 5 $13.0 million $10.9 million Total Project $55.7 million $46.8 million Debt service on the bonds will be funded by a special tax on each residential unit, which is secured by a lien on each property. It is estimated that the annual special taxes will range from $2,200 to $3,700 per unit, which translates into .46% to.5% of the assessed "Gross Bond Proceeds" reflect the total amount of bonds that will be issued. A portion of the gross proceeds will be used to fund issuance costs, capitalized interest, and reserve accounts and will not be available for construction costs. "Net Bond Proceeds" reflect the amount of bond proceeds that are available for construction costs. 2 Calculations may not reconcile due to rounding. 001 -001; jf 11982.004 To: Subject: Joni Pattillo, City Manager April 12, 2013 Preliminary Assessment of Feasibility of Dublin Crossing Community Facilities District (CFD) Page 3 value of each unit. Including the current ad valorem tax rate of 1.153% and estimated other assessments of $762 per unit, the total property tax burden on the residential units is anticipated to total 1.75% of assessed value, or $8,400 to $13,000 per unit, per year.. Any HOA dues that will be levied on the homeowners would be in addition to the special tax obligations. Preliminary Review of CFD Proposal There are a number of considerations that potentially impact the feasibility of CFD bond issues. The following is a summary of key factors and KMA's review of the proposal relative to each factor. ■ Consistency of Proposed Tax with Marketplace and Competing Residential Developments — Probable Market Acceptance The project sponsor's consultant — DPFG- has provided data on existence of CFDs and the tax burdens of other residential projects that are being marketed in the Dublin area.3 DPFG identified 16 projects that are currently selling units in the marketplace, with eight project located in Dublin, one in Pleasanton, and six in San Ramon. Of those 16 projects, only Norris Canyon Estates in San Ramon has a CFD burden. The projects in the Dublin market area without a CFD are priced similarly to Dublin Crossing, with 2,200 square foot units being marketed at $655,000, but the total tax burden is in the 1.3% to 1.4% range. In comparison, Dublin Crossing is proposed to have a total tax burden of 1.75% of value. If Dublin Crossing homes were to be marketed today, taxes on a Dublin Crossing home would exceed taxes on comparable competing new homes by approximately $2,600 per year. Even with a CFD, the Norris Canyon project's total tax burden is 1.33% of value. While new competing projects may, in the future, also consider CFDs, they are not currently prevalent in the Dublin market area. It is not certain if the qualities of Dublin Crossing will be sufficiently attractive relative to the competition to compel buyers to choose a home a Dublin Crossing over another home in the marketplace with a significantly lower annual tax burden. If homebuyers are resistant, the homebuilders may need to reduce home prices until the homes are perceived to be of comparable value to the competition. DPFG did not provide any market data regarding Dublin Crossing's competitive position in the marketplace or a discussion of why potential buyers will accept a higher tax burden at Dublin Crossing. 3 The DPFG report, dated January 31, 2013 is attached to this memorandum. 001 -001; jf 11982.004 To: Joni Pattillo, City Manager April 12, 2013 Subject: Preliminary Assessment of Feasibility of Dublin Crossing Community Facilities District (CFD) Page 4 DPFG also noted that new residential CFDs have been extremely limited throughout California. In 2012, only three were issued throughout the entire state. While many have not been issued, the CFD bond issuance for Bay Meadows in San Mateo was very successful, raising $31.8 million. The total tax burden on Bay Meadows homes will average approximately 1.7% of value. Market acceptance of the CFD and achievable home prices is primarily a financial risk to the land developer and the home builders. However, cities do have a vested interest in ensuring that the CFD expectations are realistic. ■ CFD Special Tax as a Percent of Assessed Value As reported by DPFG, the Dublin Crossing properties are currently subject to the following property taxes and assessments that result in current burden rate approximating 1.27% of value. Ad valorem tax rate: 1.153% of value Assessments: $762 per parce14 The proposed CFD for infrastructure will represent approximately .48% of value, resulting in a total tax burden on Dublin Crossing homes equal to 1.75% of assessed value. The traditional industry standard for the maximum "all in" total tax burden that may be acceptable to homebuyers is 2% of assessed value. The proposed levy is obviously less than the accepted industry maximum. DPFG provided information on the tax levies of three other projects in California that adopted CFDs in 2012, as follows: Bay Meadows in San Mateo: 1.7% of value; Jurupa in Eastvale: 1.8% to 2.0% of value; Victorville: 1.9% to 2.3% of value 4 Source: January 31, 2013 letter to Kristi Bascom from DPFG. The reported breakdown of assessments is as follows: City Street Lighting 83 -1 $ 19.34 CSA Paramedic $ 27.68 Mosquito Abatement $ 1.74 Paramedic Supplement $ 10.00 CSA Vector Control $ 5.92 Dublin -SR SVC District $ 355.44 DUSD Measure L Tax $ 96.00 East Bay Trail LLD $ 5.44 CSA Vector Control B $ 4.08 1 Can Garb /Recycle $ 234.12 Mosquito Assessment 2 $ 2.50 001 -001; jf 11982.004 To: Joni Pattillo, City Manager April 12, 2013 Subject: Preliminary Assessment of Feasibility of Dublin Crossing Community Facilities District (CFD) Page 5 CFDs have historically been much more commonplace in Southern California than in the Bay Area and higher burden rates are also more common, consistent with the rates on these new projects. ■ Available CFD Capacity to Fund Municipal Service Costs KMA is currently evaluating the fiscal impacts to be generated by Dublin Crossing. If the fiscal impact analysis indicates that the Project will generate recurring net deficits to the City's General Fund, a financing plan will need to be established for mitigating the projected deficits. One potential component of the financing plan could be a CFD to fund a portion of service costs, such as maintenance costs and /or public safety costs. Given the absence of CFDs in the marketplace it is unlikely that the total burden rate at Dublin Crossing could be increased beyond 1.75% of value. If all of this capacity is used, as proposed, for infrastructure, there will not be any capacity for funding municipal services through the CFD. If the City of Dublin determines that it would like to adopt a CFD for services, it is likely that CFD funding for infrastructure will decline to less than the desired level of $46.8 million. It will be important to revisit the capacity for infrastructure once the fiscal impact analysis is complete. ■ Underwriting Assumptions In general, the bond underwriting assumptions used by DPFG to estimate the bonding capacity of CFD revenues are not unreasonable. In summary, the key assumptions include: ■ 5% interest rate; ■ 30 -year term; ■ 110% debt service coverage factor; ■ Net yield of 84 %; ■ CFD on multifamily apartments, with an assumed apartment valuation of $480,000 per unit. Based on our experience, it may not prove to be financially feasible to levy the CFD on the rental apartments and the value estimate of $480,000 per apartment unit may be somewhat high. If the apartments were excluded from the CFD levy, it is estimated that available CFD revenues would decline by approximately $600,000 per year, which would reduce the amount of net proceeds available for construction costs by $6.3 million (from 001 -001; jf 11982.004 To: Subject: Joni Pattillo, City Manager April 12, 2013 Preliminary Assessment of Feasibility of Dublin Crossing Community Facilities District (CFD) Page 6 $46.8 million to $40.5 million) The accuracy of the underwriting assumptions are primarily a risk to the land developer. Preliminary Recommendations Based on this preliminary review, we would recommend the following: ■ The CFD proposal should be revisited once the findings of the fiscal impact analysis are available. ■ If the fiscal impact analysis indicates that the Project will generate an annual fiscal deficit, then the City of Dublin should consider the options for mitigating the projected deficit, including adopting a CFD for municipal services. ■ If the City determines that it would support a CFD for municipal services, then the City and Sun Cal should reach agreement regarding the portion of CFD Capacity that will be used to fill the municipal services gap and the remaining capacity for infrastructure. ■ The adopted Development Agreement should stipulate a maximum all -in tax burden for properties, expressed as a percent of assessed value. ■ The adopted Development Agreement should stipulate a maximum dollar value of net CFD bond proceeds that can be levied for infrastructure. 001 -001; jf 11982.004 CFD Levy on All CFD Levy Excludes Residential Units Rental Apartments Net Bonding Capacity (funds $46.8 million $40.5 million available for construction costs) Difference $6.3 million Preliminary Recommendations Based on this preliminary review, we would recommend the following: ■ The CFD proposal should be revisited once the findings of the fiscal impact analysis are available. ■ If the fiscal impact analysis indicates that the Project will generate an annual fiscal deficit, then the City of Dublin should consider the options for mitigating the projected deficit, including adopting a CFD for municipal services. ■ If the City determines that it would support a CFD for municipal services, then the City and Sun Cal should reach agreement regarding the portion of CFD Capacity that will be used to fill the municipal services gap and the remaining capacity for infrastructure. ■ The adopted Development Agreement should stipulate a maximum all -in tax burden for properties, expressed as a percent of assessed value. ■ The adopted Development Agreement should stipulate a maximum dollar value of net CFD bond proceeds that can be levied for infrastructure. 001 -001; jf 11982.004 City Goals for Private Development at Camp Parks Approved by City Council July 20, 2004 1. Plan should have a net positive fiscal impact on the City. 2. Plan should provide a strong connection between the eastern and western parts of the City while also evaluating a "village" concept. 3. Plan should link to the Transit Center and BART. 4. Plan should provide a unique feature — either publicly or privately funded — which strengthens the image of the City and further increases the quality of life for residents and /or strengthens Dublin's position as a destination. 5. Plan should accommodate some unmet public agency /public facility needs (i.e. school facility, maintenance facility, park or community facility, etc.) 6. Analysis of the land use plan should look at the property itself as well as the impact of developing the property on other parts on the City in relation to traffic, market demands, fiscal impacts, and schools. 7. Plan should consider a new route between Dougherty and Arnold Roads to accommodate new development. 8. Plan should provide an attractive transition between the Camp Parks RFTA and private development.