HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Dublin Crossing Project Status Update G`�y OF y
19' �} ,82
90:_s� STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
motor
CITY COUNCIL File #420-20
DATE: June 18, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager cis re
SUBJECT: Dublin Crossing Project Status Update
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
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. At the City Council
meeting on May 7, 2013 when the draft Agreement Points were presented, the City Council
asked for more information on what was being proposed, how it compared to other projects, and
an assessment of what the City is receiving in exchange for leniency on meeting certain
requirements. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Development
Agreement Points that will be the basis of a future Development Agreement.
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) Approve the Development Agreement Points as outlined in the Staff Report.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
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
Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 7.1
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, and 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 and SunCal was in a position to move forward, 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.
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 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. Following
the May 29, 2012 meeting, Staff and SunCal continued to meet to discuss refinements to the
Draft Land Plan, potential changes to the project to respond to direction provided by the City
Page 2 of 5
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.
In the intervening year, Staff worked with SunCal to address many of the project issues.
However, there were still a few items that the City Council provided feedback on at the May 29,
2012 meeting that had not been resolved to enable the completion of the Draft Dublin Crossing
Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, on May 7, 2013, the City Council
reviewed several questions posed by Staff and provided feedback to Staff and SunCal on five
key issues (Attachment 1):
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 is willing to authorize and
participate in the creation of such a District?
2. Is the size of the Community Park acceptable?
3. Is SunCal's proposal to include a five acre Neighborhood Park in the Mixed Use District
on the Draft Land Plan acceptable?
4. What is the preferred process by which the Neighborhood Park and Community Park in
the project will be designed and built?
5. Are the other Development Agreement Points as proposed by SunCal acceptable?
At the meeting on May 7, 2013, the City Council provided clear direction on the first four items.
On item five, the City Council asked for additional information on the proposed contributions,
how the contributions compared to those of other projects, and an assessment of what the City
is receiving in exchange for leniency on meeting certain requirements.
Based on the direction received from the City Council on May 7, 2013, SunCal made revisions
to their Draft Land Plan to provide a 30 net acre Community Park as directed by the City Council
and to change the location of the proposed school site (Attachment 2). SunCal also revised the
Draft Development Agreement Points (Attachment 3) to ensure that a larger portion of the
Community Benefit Payment will be made earlier on in the project phasing and anticipated build
out. Another revision was to combine the $7,500,000 Community Benefit Payment and the
$11,200,000 Affordable Housing "Buyout" into a single $18,700,000 Community Benefit
Payment that can be spent at the City Council's direction.
Staff and SunCal have spent that last several weeks negotiating and fleshing out further details
on the Development Agreement Points, and have concluded that the terms proposed are
supportable by both parties.
ANALYSIS:
The Draft Land Plan, combined with the Draft Development Agreement Points, 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.
These Draft Development Agreement Points will form the basis for a future Development
Agreement for the project, which will eventually be reviewed and considered by the City Council
at the same time as the EIR and the rest of the project entitlements.
The proposed project benefits and tradeoffs were outlined in more detail in the May 29, 2012
Staff Report (Attachment 4). In the following table, the financial contributions and parkland
dedications proposed to be made by SunCal are summarized.
Page 3 of 5
Project DA Phase 1 It Phase 2 i - Phase 3 ( Phase 4 '; Phase 5 1� Total
Contributions execution t, m t
Community Park $9,375 per unit at each Final Map $15,000,000
Construction (or before dependent on SunCal dedication of park land)
Community Park $833,333 when the City completes construction of each 10 acre $2,500,000
Maintenance Community Park phase
Endowment
Iron Horse Bridge $50,000 $50,000
Design
Iron Horse Bridge $625 per unit at each Final Map $1,000,000
Const.
Community Benefit $11,687.50 per unit at each Final Map $18,700,000
Payment (includes (or before in accordance with the timeline outlined in the
Affordable Housing Agreement Points)
contribution)
ACSPA contribution $2,800,000 $2,800,000
Total Cash Contributions $40,050,000
Other Deal Points
Community Park land 10 acres 10 acres 10 acres 30 acres
dedication
Neighborhood Park 5 acres 5 acres
land dedication
ACSPA loan Loan of up to full cost of acquiring ACSPA parcel from County Unknown at
(minus$2.8M contribution) offered beginning in Phase 2. City to this time
repay within 4 years beginning FY 2017-2018
In exchange for the Project Contributions noted above, SunCal will not have to make the
following expenditures that would have otherwise been expected:
Project Exemptions i, ' Value
In-Lieu Inclusiona Zonin•/Affordable Housin• Fee U• to $26,751,250*
Exemption from Semi-Public Facilities Policy
re•uirements A••roximatel $8,000,000**
No Civic/Desi.natedDevelo•mentsite A••roximatel $18,000,000***
Total Estimated Project Exemptions A• •roximatel $52,751,250
*If the maximum project size (1,995 units)were achieved and all required affordable units (250 units)were allowed to be bought
out at the current in-lieu fee rate of$107,005.
**Equivalent to a conservative estimate of residential fair market value of$2M per finished acre for 4 acres.
***Equivalent to a conservative estimate of residential fair market value of$2M per finished acre for 9 acres.
The exemption from the Inclusionary Zoning Regulation would be based on a City Council
finding that the applicant's proposal meets the purposes of the Regulations because the
project's anticipated product types is such that a sufficient number of units in the project will be
affordable-by-design. Staff believes that such a finding can be made.
NEXT STEPS:
Preparation of the Draft Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are nearly
complete. 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, 35 acres of public park land, and associated roadways and infrastructure to
serve the new community. The Draft EIR is expected to be released for public review and
comment on June 21, 2013.
Page 4 of 5
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. May 7, 2013 City Council Staff Report
2. Updated Draft Land Plan
3. Updated Draft Development Agreement Points
4. May 29, 2012 City Council Staff Report
Page 5 of 5
0
•
111 , � ►11
19 � � 82
DATE: May 7, 2013
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager ;14_04
Dublin Crossing Project Status Update
Prepared by Krisfi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
CITY CLERK
File
1+20-27 0
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
a a, I t L S, � -,� I ILI
VIR e.
y,00 pp sq; uw papujoad wt woo p jRd spun 09,
0; dil, sasin pqwDpis RA PLY4 iUvj C) js O)o org
woqL a4,1 o[ Lmvpjppv u[ sass, paRwwo,
JO �S 0009L Put, YOd pmpoqigFnN ilO sayA
................
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 smallerthan 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 fields)
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
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
So
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 GIP. 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 $7.51M 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.
LEGEND
DC -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE
DC- MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
GENERAL COMMERCIAL PARK
DC- MEDIUM DENSITY ESIDENTIAL
GENERAL COMMERCIALI OPEN SPA CE
DC -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Cl PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
1
I
'G STREET
` \ w
- � G
� N EET c
S, STR i
CENTRAL PARKWAY
� "H' STREET
�S f
9 w
O
\ '1' STREET '1' STREET
T -1
DUBLIN BLVD
El
DUBLIN CROSSING LAND USE APPLICATION -aft-
CITY OF DUBLIN. ALAMEDA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package
June 12, 2013
Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package
Development Agreement Points
The following package would be the basis for a Development Agreement between SunCal (Dublin
Crossing Venture LLC) and the City of Dublin. It is based upon a land plan that would include
approximately 1,600 residential units (with a CEQA 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 30 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 on a privately owned
1.5 acre parcel within the boundaries of Central Park, but not included in the 30 acres.
Underground detention facilities to be allowed within the 30 net acres. Ownership of Chabot
Creek storm water flow area and underground detention facilities to be at City's discretion to be
owned and or maintained by either a future HOA or other entity acceptable to both parties.
• SunCal will dedicate to City 5 net acres of Neighborhood Park(s).
• As the value of the park dedications (Central Park and Neighborhood Park) described below
exceed the park dedication and improvement obligations that would otherwise be required to be
offered or paid for the 1,600 -1995 units and all commercial development proposed in the Specific
Plan, all park land components of the Public Facilities Fee and Quimby requirements will be
deemed fully satisfied and paid through these dedications. In order to receive park land credits
prior to dedications being made, SunCal shall provide security acceptable to the City (including
but not limited to bonds or quitclaim deeds in escrow for some or all of acreage to be dedicated)
that ensures that fees in -lieu of land dedication (Quimby) and the Public Facilities Fee
community park land component will be received even if future dedications are not made.
• Other components of the Public Facility Fee as described in the City Fee Schedule (not related
to park land acquisition and park improvements) shall continue to apply.
• Phase I of Central Park and dedication to City to coincide with phase two (of five) of master plan
build out. Phase 2 of Central Park and dedication to City to coincide with phase three (of five) of
master plan build out. Phase 3 of Central Park and dedication to City to coincide with phase five
(of five) of master plan build out. Each Central Park dedication to City to be ten acres in size.
Neighborhood Park dedication to City to coincide with phase four (of five) of master plan build
out.
• Subject to the provisions of the CFD section below, SunCal shall pay through the Dublin
Crossing Development Agreement Fee $15 million (divided equally across 1,600 units) that shall
be used by the City solely for development of Central Park and the Neighborhood Park within the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area to enable construction of all 35 acres of parks within the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. Fees to enable construction schedule based upon dedication
schedule above.
• City will spend the $15M only on the two parks in the Specific Plan area. No more than six -
sevenths of the $15M collected shall be spent on the Community Park.
• City agrees to complete construction of Community Park phases within 24 months following
dedication of the park land by SunCal and acceptance of the park land by the City and provided
—1—
Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package
June 12, 2013
that SunCal has funded park construction for that phase of the park in the amount of $4,285,714
per phase.
• City agrees to complete construction of Neighborhood Park within 24 months following
dedication of the park land by SunCal and acceptance of the park land by the City and provided
that SunCal has funded park construction for the Neighborhood Park in the amount of
$2,142,858.
• For maps creating lots for which park construction has not been fully funded, SunCal shall
provide security acceptable to the City that ensures that the community park land component of
the Public Facilities Fee will be paid. Such security will be released when the park construction
is funded.
• City will accept each phase of the Community Park and will accept the Neighborhood Park upon
completion of rough grading of dedicated park site and completion of associated improvements
(including park frontages with curb, gutter, sidewalk and access roadways) with the required
improvements to be defined in the approved Tentative Map. City agrees to utilize additional
funding sources for construction of entire Central Park
• Above fees due at builder Final Map recordation on a per unit basis spread equally across the
entire project at 1,600 units. Once fees have been paid for 1,600 units, further units will not be
subject to this fee.
• No maps smaller than 40 units will be allowed to pay on a per unit basis. If a map is filed for less
than 40 units that filing will be required to pay for 40 units.
ACSPA Parcel
Prior to Council adoption of the DA, City to secure an agreement with the ACSPA to purchase the 8.7
acre ACSPA parcel with an option to purchase until at least December 2016.
• The City to use funds not provided by SunCal plus a $2.8M contribution (subject to the provisions
of the CFD section below) from SunCal in the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee to
purchase the ACSPA parcel, which contribution shall be made by SunCal within Phase Two of
master plan.
• 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 acre ACSPA parcel for 8.7 acres of parkland to
be dedicated in the 30 acre Central Park, which properties are agreed to have equivalent value.
It is anticipated that the property swap will coincide with City's acquisition of the property from
ACSPA and SunCal's ownership of and improvements to Phase 1 of the Community Park site.
Improvements shall include rough grading and completion of associated improvements (including
park frontages with curb, gutter, sidewalk and access roadways) with the required improvements
to be defined in the approved Tentative Map.
• Subject to the provisions of the CFD section below SunCal agrees to lend to the City an
additional amount to be agreed to by the parties for ACSPA land acquisition (as early as phase
two of master plan build out). If accepted by the City, the loan shall be repaid over a four year
period by City beginning in Fiscal Year 2017 -2018 or one year after the loan is executed,
whichever date is later.
—2—
Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package
June 12, 2013
Transportation Fees
• SunCal will pay a transportation fee at each building permit based on the amount such
development would be subject to under the City's Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ( "EDTIF ").
The amounts will be fixed for the term of the Development Agreement based on current EDTIF
rates on the effective date of the Development Agreement.
• SunCal will receive a credit against the transportation fee obligation for EDTIF projects
constructed by it above its fair share of project expense based on traffic mitigation measures in
the EI R. Amount of the credit will be based on actual construction costs. Developer will not
receive any credit for necessary project right of way owned by it, but costs associated with all
other right of way acquisitions will be eligible for transportation fee credit.
Iron Horse Trail /Dublin Bridge
• SunCal agrees to fund $50,000 for bridge design upon execution of DA. This advance will be
credited against per -unit Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee obligations until
exhausted.
• Subject to the provisions of the CFD section below, SunCal agrees to contribute $1 million
through the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee which shall be used by the City
toward construction of the potential future Iron Horse Trail /Dublin Bridge. The Iron Horse
Trail /Dublin Bridge contributions will be made on a per unit basis at each phase. The $1 million
contribution is agreed to satisfy any fair share contribution which may be a recommended
mitigation measure for project related traffic impacts to this intersection. Above Fees due at
builder final map recordation on a per unit basis spread equally across the entire project at 1,600
units. Once fees have been paid for 1.600 units, further units will not be subject to this fee.
• No maps smaller than 40 units will be allowed to pay on a per unit basis. If a map is filed for less
than 40 units that filing will be required to pay for 40 units.
Central Park Maintenance Endowment
• Subject to the provisions of the CFD section below, SunCal agrees to a $2.51VI Park Endowment
contribution through the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee.
• Endowment contributions to be paid proportional upon completion of Central Park acreage
construction as outlined above ($2.5 million divided by total Central Park acres).
• SunCal to provide security for each phase of endowment contributions in the form of a bond or
other acceptable instrument due 18 months prior to the City's obligation to improve a particular
park or park phase. The bonds or other security attributable to a phase will be released upon
payment of such phase's endowment contribution. If security is not provided, City is not
obligated to improve a particular park or park phase.
Use of Funds by City
Fees paid by SunCal pursuant to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee (and not
Public Facility Fees) shall be allocated by the City in the timing and manner as described herein
and in accordance with Table 1 (below), so that project funding is coordinated with the timeline
—3—
Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package
June 12, 2013
for development of on -site improvements described herein. The Dublin Crossing Development
Agreement Fee is fixed (not subject to escalation).
In total, the various components of the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fees payable
on a per unit basis (spread over 1600 units) equal $25,031. The components are: Park
Construction, $9,375; Community Benefit, $11,688; Iron Horse Bridge Design, $31; Iron Horse
Bridge Construction, $625; ACSPA parcel contribution, $1,750; and Park Maintenance
Endowment, $1,563.
All advances of components of the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee will be treated
as credits against future per unit Dublin Crossing Development Fees, without respect to the
individual component for which the advance was made. For example, the $50,000 initial
contribution due for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Design will be credit against the entire $25,031
fee, rather than just against the $31 component associated with the Bridge Design. So, the first
two units will pay $62 (2 units times $25,031 per unit fee minus $50,000 credit from Bridge
Design advance.
• Community Benefit Payments use shall be limited to municipal capital improvements and
available for any projects citywide which are CFD eligible.
• Park Construction contributions shall be used for park construction in the Specific Plan area only.
• Iron Horse Trail Bridge Construction contribution shall be used for construction of the bridge.
Should the bridge not be constructed, the $1M shall be considered an additional Community
Benefit Payment for use on other municipal capital projects which are CFD eligible.
CFD
• SunCal will apply for and City will process and consider for approval a CFD(s) for up to 1.75%
effective tax rate; 2% escalator; 35 year bond.
• SunCal shall not be obligated to make the foregoing Community Benefit Payments, Park
Construction Payments, Park Endowment and Iron Horse Trail Bridge Construction Payment if
SunCal applies for a CFD (consistent with the foregoing requirements) and the City Council
elects not to approve it (and resolution of necessity and all other formation documents and
instruments irrevocably approved). In the event such obligations are terminated, SunCal will be
required to pay the community park improvement component of the Public Facilities Fee.
• If after formation by the City of the CFD as described above, a Community Benefit Payment,
Park Construction contribution, or Iron Horse Trail Bridge Construction contribution is not made
in accordance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the City shall have the right, in
accordance with the process described in the development agreement statute, to take action to
terminate the development agreement.
• City /DCSP /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 fee.
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.
ME
Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package
June 12, 2013
Civic /Designated Development site dedication
No Civic /Designated Development site will be required for dedication to the City.
Affordable Housing compliance with inclusionary zoning ordinance and additional Payment
• City to make finding of compliance with inclusionary zoning ordinance based upon alternative
method of compliance which shall include the project meeting the City's affordability and Housing
Element goals through the construction of medium and high density of a certain size which shall
exceed more than 25% of the project's total unit count and payment of a Community Benefit
Payment as outlined below.
• Any affordable units required above the 1,600 unit baseline shall comply with the City's
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
Community Benefit Payment
• Subject to the provisions of the CFD section above, SunCal agrees to a Community Benefit
Payment of $18.7 million
• City agrees to designate funds solely to municipally owned capital projects so that these funds
are CFD reimbursable /fundable.
• Above Fees due at builder Final Map recordation on a per unit basis spread equally across the
entire project at 1,600 units until the maximum is reached. Once fees have been paid for 1,600
units, further units will not be subject to this fee.
• Maps of fewer than 40 units must advance the difference between actual units and 40 units. Any
such advance will be credited against per -unit Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee
obligations until exhausted.
• Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the City has not received payments (with Final Maps
or CFD disbursement) in the amounts specified below by the applicable due date, SunCal shall
advance the difference by the due date:
o $5 million at 12 months,
o $5 million at 30 months,
o $5 million at 48 months,
o $2.5M at the recordation of the last Final Map in Phase 4, and
o $1.2M at the recordation of the last Final Map in Phase 5.
Periods above to start following project approval and expiration of statute of limitations for
challenges to project approvals or the successful completion of litigation challenges. Any such
advances will be credited against per -unit Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Fee
Payment obligations until exhausted. Advances may be paid via CFD disbursement/
reimbursement, builder Final Map recordation fees or check from Dublin Crossing Venture to
achieve these funding levels on these dates.
Land use designations
• Require commercial development of a minimum 75,000 SF as defined in the Specific Plan and
maximum of 200,000 SF of commercial buildings.
• 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.
—5—
Dublin Crossing Community Benefit and Potential Land Use Package
June 12, 2013
Development Agreement Term
15 year DA with option to extend for 5 additional years at $200K per year
2092724.2
•
•
G �
19 82
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
May 29, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager 61� aujz
Dublin Crossing Project Status Update
Prepared by Krisfi 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.
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 13 ITEM NO. 3.
DESCRIPTION:
Background 0
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 5t" 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 16. 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) 0
• 8.0 net acre site adjacent to the Community Park.
• Site could revert to residential uses if the School District determines that it is not needed.
Project Agreement Points (Attachment 3)
The Draft Land Plan proposed by SunCal is associated with a package of community benefits
and, in some cases, requests for exemptions from certain requirements. The Project
Agreement Points form the basis of a future Development Agreement for the project. The
Agreement Points in their entirety are included as Attachment 3, but a brief summary of the key
discussion areas is provided below.
Parks:
• SunCal will provide 28 net acres of Community Park acreage and 5 net acres of
Neighborhood Park acreage. This acreage will remain constant regardless of whether
the residential unit count in the project ends up being in the lower range at 1,695 units or
up to 1,996 units. This would constitute a dedication of 4.3 to 7.35 acres more than the
minimum park acreage requirement.
• Two to four acres of the Community Park would be subject to joint use with the adjacent
school site. If the City and School District cannot agree to a suitable joint use
arrangement, two to four acres of the Community Park would revert to school site
acreage and the Community Park would be reduced commensurately.
• To the greatest degree possible, the Community Park will be programmed to
accommodate the special amenities desired by the City Council as well as the
recreational facilities required by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. However, to do
so may require overlaying sports fields (i.e, combined soccer /baseball).
• The Community Park will include acreage to accommodate water detention/retention
from the Dublin Crossing project. The exact size and configuration of the water
detention/retention areas are not yet known.
• All three parks will be improved by SunCal and provided to the City without
reimbursement.
• The Community Park will be developed and dedicated to the City in multiple phases.
• SunCal will provide a Park Maintenance endowment of $2.5 million that is paid
proportionally as the improved park acreage is delivered to the City.
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ( ACSPA) Parcel:
• The 8.7 -acre parcel of land owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority at
the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Drive (also known as Site F -1 in the
Transit Center Master Plan) will be included in the Dublin Crossing project.
• The 8.7 -acre parcel is currently designated to be developed as a Neighborhood Park.
• The City will endeavor to reach an Agreement with the ACSPA to acquire the parcel on a
timetable to coincide with SunCal's planned development of that portion of the project
site.
• The park acreage will be included within the larger Community Park on the Dublin i
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:
o The Draft Land Plan will allow areas with the potential for increased residential density
• on the perimeter of the project site (Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, and Scarlett
Drive).
o The 8 -acre school site will have a residential overlay so, if the site is not acquired by
the School District after a certain period of time, residential units could be built.
Page 5 of 13
o Granny /in -law units are expected to be constructed with some portion of the single -
family homes, but they will not be considered a separate unit for the purposes of
determining the project unit count. 0
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. •
Project 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
detentionlretention 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 lnclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning
Ordinance) by guaranteeing construction of 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units
within the development as affordable units. SunCal is proposing an option to "buy out" of
the City's requirement at a reduced rate. At this point it is unknown how many units
SunCal is proposing to "fee out" from, but their proposal is to pay an up -front rate of
$56,000 per unit for some or all of the affordable units required. The current in -lieu fee
for units is $103,888. The payment of the fees would occur within 48 months of
execution of the Development Agreement and the funds collected could be used to
support other affordable housing efforts underway in Dublin or another community benefit
as determined by the City Council.
In order for this approach to meet the requirements of Chapter 8.68, the City Council can
approve alternate arrangements if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds,
that they meet the purposes of the Chapter. If this is the City Council's direction, findings
to this effect would be drafted by Staff for the City Council's consideration at the time of
formal project consideration.
3. Project Phasing. Buildout of the Dublin Crossing project is a multi- phased process that
is closely tied to the construction of on -base improvements at Camp Parks. The Dublin
Crossing project site will be developed in accordance with the Preliminary Phasing Plan
(Attachment 7), and it will not be developed all at once. The City should expect that from
the commencement of development of Phase 1 in 2014, it could easily be another 12 -16
years before the improvements in Phase 6 are completed.
In addition to the complications involved in phasing the project over an extended period
of time, the Phasing Plan illustrates the complex layout of the different phases. The
Phasing Plan has driven the Draft Land Plan to a great degree, which has resulted in a
plan defined not necessarily by good land planning practices or the desires of the Project
Applicant or the City, but instead by the desires of the U.S. Army and the facilities to be
built on the base. If the site were unencumbered by the phasing requirements, Staff
believes that the Draft Land Plan would likely look quite different.
4. No Designated Development site. When the conceptual land planning work was done
in 2004/2005 for the project site, the City had expressed an interest in having the project
incorporate a "Designated Development Site" in the land plan for future use by the City.
It was uncertain at that time how the site would be utilized, but the concept was that it
could enable economic development or be used for a future civic purpose. Land plans
that were developed during the charette process in 2005 included the Designated
Development Site of approximately nine acres, but SunCal is not proposing to include a
site in the Draft Land Plan.
Project Discussion Items
1. Joint Park /School facilities. In the Draft Land Plan, SunCal has identified 28 net acres
for the Community Park and 8 net acres for an elementary school site for a total of 36
acres. The Dublin Unified School District has indicated that the current State guidelines
for elementary school sites are 12 acres. If the School District determines that an
elementary school is needed in the Dublin Crossing project area, they have indicated that
8 net acres will not be sufficient and additional acreage is necessary. S
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 8of13
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 band 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, 2412, 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 G: Does the City Council consider a CFD an acceptable financing too/ 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,
,tune 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 S
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 REQUIREMENTSIPUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council on proposed policy direction.
However, notification of this meeting and a copy of the Staff Report were provided to the Project
Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Meeting Minutes, August 16, 2011
1. 2. Draft Land Plan
3. Project Agreement Points
4. Concept Community Park Program, Option 1
5. Concept Community Park Program, Option 2
6. Notice of Preparation for the Dublin Crossing EIR
• 7. Preliminary Phasing Plan
8. Letter to the Army regarding the Valley Children's Museum, dated
May 3, 2006
•
Page 13 of 13
Dublin Crbssing-s Project Update and Strategic Visioning Process Recap
8:30:20 PM 8.2 (420 -20)
Principal Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that in 2004, the City, in
partnership with the U.S.-Army Reserve, engaged community members in a "Strategic Visioning
Process" for the 187 -acre Dublin Crossings project site. The result of the Strategic Visioning
Process was the identification of a preferred concept land plan (Alternative 5) and a series of
follow -up letters to the U.S. Army Reserve with direction from the City Council regarding the
land uses, circulation system, and parks and open space in the plan. Staff thought it
appropriate to engage the City Council in a review of the land plan discussions that have taken
place to date and to receive updated direction and feedback from the City Council, as
appropriate. Staff would use this information to assist in evaluating the proposed land plan that
will be prepared by the Applicant.
Mayor Sbranti asked the City Council if they had any questions regarding what Ms. Bascom had
presented so far.
Cm. Biddle stated this related back to (Alternative) Five, There,was one more change. The
numbers had been changed. Now it was 1,600 residential units.
Ms_ Bascom stated yes. That was _part of Staff's 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 9,/�r;i✓�,��
AUGUST 16, 2011
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. .lust 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. is
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 sand 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
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
=4Glt RNvr
. Cm. Biddle- stated there was some acreage, eight acres, set aside for the possible school. The
Dublin Unified School District (School District), as far as they knew, had not made up their mind
about whether there would or would not be a school.-
Ms. Bascom stated she knew there was a representative from the School District here this
evening and he had a speaker slip in and would probably address that.
Cm. Swalwell stated he knew at least one person at the meeting from Las Positas College
wanted to -speak about a park. He asked if the City Council preferred that he ask that person to
come up when he got to that part of what he would like to see or it they would like him to speak
like anyone else.
Mayor Sbranti stated that anyone that wanted to speak should put a speaker slip in.
Cm. Swalwell asked if it was OK for that person to come up during the City Council's
discussion.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated no.
Cm. Swalwell stated it just might be. out of context was what he was afraid of.
Mayor Sbranti stated why did they not do this. He had a number of speaker slips and others
might want to fill them out. What he envisioned was the City Council would finish asking Ms.
Bascom general questions. Then they would let the applicant speak first, address any
concepts, anything they wanted to review. Then they would go through the speaker slips and if
anybody had any specific questions, or related to a speaker, that might be the opportunity at
that time.
Cm. Swalwell stated sure.
Mayor Sbranti stated if there was someone else in the audience he was referencing, for which
he did not have a speaker slip, they should fill one out and give it to the City Clerk.
Vm. Hart asked Ms. Bascom to put the cursor where the school was proposed.
Ms. Bascom stated in this concept land plan, it was identified right up here adjacent to what
remains as Camp Parks.
Vm. Hart stated so right there off of Central_
Cm. Hildenbrand stated it was going to use the fields, how they all seemed to be doing now.
Mr. Joe Guerra, Suncal Companies, thanked the City Council and Staff very, very much for their
time this evening. He may again sound like a broken record, because he said this every time
he was here, but-he wanted to thank them for the amazing professionalism of City Staff. While
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING irr/�� �+
AUGUST 16, 2011 19�`G 3
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
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1G, 20'11
�crrog�
were several of them there from Suncal this evening. They were happy to come back up and
answer any questions as the City Council got into the specifics. But frankly, they were here to
listen to the City Council's feedback and then work with City Staff to try to bring back the best
land plan they could.
Vm. Hart stated he was sorry they never touched bases with his schedule this last week. But
had he had conversations with the new Commander and how did that go?
Mr. Guerra stated they actually, Tom Stoller (sp) from Suncal, and he actually attended the
Change of Command ceremony and had as much of a conversation as they could in the
receiving line to meet him. They did talk to him about wanting to come in and brief him on
everything. They had had previous discussions with Larry Smith who, as the City Council knew,
was the ongoing civilian, commands not the right term, but civilian on the base, about wanting to
come in and do that. So they offered to do that. They told him they understood he was buried
right now with the change and had suggested that when they were ready, they would be happy
to both come in talk about what had happened before and to begin the conversation. Frankly,
they just talked to the Army Corp office in Sacramento last Tuesday about what was the
process going to be for having a conversation about if they did need to change the lines. And
that conversation with the Corp was, we will go meet the Garrison and get their input on what
Suncal might want to do based on the City Council's feedback. And how did that work and
keep the mission going in the meantime.
Vm. Hart stated but Larry Smith continued to stay there, so he was their constant.
Mr. Guerra replied yes he was their constant. Suncal was very glad there was now a constant
at the base.
Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Guerra if the phasing as he mentioned, was pretty fixed by the Army
modification. Was there any work, a developer normally does work offsite of roads and such,
so the only work they had on their agenda, was that section of Scarlett that ran diagonal. Was
that part of their scope?
Mr_ Guerra stated they knew that was one of the offsite improvements that would need to take
place as part of the project because as they said, connecting Scarlett where it ends into Dublin
was in the City's Master Plan. They were fully expecting that they would build that as part of the
project. It was too soon for him to say that was the only thing. They would have to work through
a traffic engineer and Public Works and City folks to find out if there were any other
improvements that needed to be done.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she had comments but she thought they were related to the questions
at hand.
Mayor Sbranti asked related to the phasing, in terms of infrastructure and roads, because they
had different phases for the project, but they had roads that needed to be built to kind of serve
as the entire thing. How did something, and he knew that they were going to have the
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 17
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING 19
AUGUST 16, 2011 'g� ��
conversation on east -west and what that looked like and it was part of one of the questions, but i
did they build like part of a road and then they would stop and then when the next phase came
in. How would something like that work?
Mr. Guerra stated yes. The answer to his question. So yes, for example, they would build out
Phase 1. There would be streets that would dead end at that property line between Phase 1
and Phase 3, Phase 1 and Phase 2. The next segment would then be picked up. That was
from a use standpoint. One of the aspects of this project that was in the exchange agreement
was they would get something that was called a Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance of the
entire property. Working with the Garrison, they might build some of that infrastructure early. It
did not make sense,- necessarily, to stop after a half mile of your asphalt. As long as it was not
in the way of the mission, and they could accommodate the access of the Army's
communications, there might be some of those streets that got built. Maybe they were built for
emergency vehicle access. The fire department already had agreements with the base to be
able to come through for emergency purposes. So say for example, they built Phase 3 and this
Phase 5 was in the way to connect with Arnold, there was an existing road, an existing bridge
there that could be used for an emergency vehicle access point. For that type of infrastructure,
emergency use. Yes you were right, one of the things they would have to struggle with was how
do you make sure you have adequate traffic circulation in each of these Phases. One of the
things that would probably move some of these lines, as they moved forward was where do the
streets have to go and where did the east -west connectors connect. At what point you pop
through? Which Phase did they move to be through so you just did not have traffic jams inside
the project?
Mayor Sbranti stated he knew that Mr. Guerra had referenced that already that there was
potentially a mechanism for some flexibility working with the Army Corps. But it just seemed
like, particularly from an infrastructure standpoint, in terms of the street and being able to have
that flow and in some instances, Phase 1, clearly it was self - contained; that could kind of dead
end there. But some of these, and actually, he referenced 5, that was the exact one he was
looking at. Well, you had Arnold, and you had 5, there might be some needs there.
Mr. Guerra stated the other thing to point out was the order of the buildings they were building
for the Army was the Army's priority list. That was when they wanted them built. So for
example, the buildings that existed in Phase 6, what they call the DPWDOL, that was the last
project they were building for them by their priority of how things moved out. So that one, as a
very particular example, especially when you talked about when you could put streets,
connecting into Scarlett, that had to go last. He really could not get it until that building, until the
mission was moved up. The other point that he forgot to mention was the size of the phases
was set because the number of acres they got related to the value of the buildings they were
building in each of those phases. So, not only were they oddly shaped because of what existed
on the base, they were not all the same size. They were not six thirty -acre pieces. They were
varying degrees, as small as 18, as small as 40 in some instances and that was all driven by
the value of the buildings they were providing for the military.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 18
VOLUME 30 Or
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
c�, as
iMayor 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.
is 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 parr 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 a� DUB
REGULAR MEETING ivl��isi
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
Army, was Suncal was required to close on the NASA parcel
Phase 4, the Army parcel. The Notice of Availability that wer
algebraic formula to determine how much NASA got for tl-
negotiations with NASA right now to formalize that acquisition.
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.
exchange agreement with the
no later than when they took
out that they bid on had an
property. So they were in
3ut from the standpoint of the
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
REGULAR MEETING
or �xr�
AUGUST 16, 2011
•
. 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. Kalb 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
REGULAR MEETING 19r -1
AUGUST 16, 2011 +V f
`1
was on the current site or whether there was a new site would be something they were open to 40
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 987 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
REGULAR MEETING
F9�
AUGUST 16, 2011
• 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
REGULAR MEETING i
' shy
AUGUST 16, 2091 �
of N
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 Counciimembers 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
VOLUME 30 -
24
REGULAR MEETING
y07
AUGUST 16, 2011
19 ,r� fa
19 vwt
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 or B
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
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.
�i
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 0
REGULAR MEETING n�/�� „►
AUGUST 16, 20'11
• 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 Housin
Comment 1 -a (April 13, 2005 letter):
Less dense housing. Councilmembers voiced concems 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 Staff's 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
REGULAR MEETING ur �u✓ ti��
AUGUST 16, 2011
�I R�
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 3a
REGULAR MEETING�n�i ✓���►
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 of
REGULAR MEETING rrr ,n
AUGUST 1S, 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 30oF+ari
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 20'11
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 of
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
r �
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. Swalweli 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 �Ue�
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1.G, 2011 19iz'= �_i�31&
Gtr u�m
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 horses 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 or
REGULAR MEETING r►; ;�
AUGUST 16, 2011
1 �•D
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 fine, 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
.
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
�tf air
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 1 r
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 201'1
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 46
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011 ig
qtr uN`1
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.middie 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 of
REGULAR MEETING
rrr
AUGUST 16, 2011
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
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
�ar�oa�
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 ru ,ti
AUGUST 16, 2011
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 is
VOLUME 30 of
REGULAR MEETING ,9`'�m
AUGUST 16, 2011 19 /�
SCm. 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, 2008, 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.
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
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 30,040 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 `�gobo
REGULAR MEETING
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
REGULAR MEETING 191,E
AUGUST 16, 2011
Lf R�'
and probably others that they had not thought of that the developer and the City Staff would •
bring to them as part of this. But he would like it, at least, to be part of the study in terms of the
overall land plan. He knew there were other sites in the City that were being considered and
worked at, but the applicant was moving closer in terms of having financing in place, a potential
applicant. He thought there might be some opportunities here. They had identified the
Alameda County Surplus property. There was some acreage there. There was the civic
acreage. How exactly it worked remained to be seen. But he would like that at least to be —
because it was in.the middle of the City, because it was close to transit, it could be part of a
vibrant development. He thought it was something that should at least be looked at as part of it.
Cm.Swalwell stated he agreed. Definitely, at least at this point, look at it.
Cm. Biddle stated they were doing a study.
Issue Area 3: Circulation and Transportation
Comment 3 -a (April 13, 2005 letter).
East -West connection through the proiect site. Councilmembers support the idea of having
Central Parkway as a local - serving street and not designed for cut- through traffic that would
normally use Dublin Boulevard or 1 -580. Instead, Councilmembers supported the creation of a
northern east -west road (much like in Alternative 5) that connects Dougherty Road to Arnold
Road at some point north of Central Parkway and south of Gleason Drive. This road would
serve as a more direct route through the site for those seeking to move between Dougherty and
points eastward on Amold 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^�
REGULAR MEETING n viii+
AUGUST 16, 2011 ,`���
.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 19 �
,82
AUGUST 16, 2011 �C�
4L1�7RN�
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 30o�r�
REGULAR MEETING ui/,�Yf✓ n+
AUGUST 16, 2011
�LIt�R
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, #ram an
engineering standpoint, like great, let us move traffic, but from a planning standpoint, that could
bifurcate the project. So something that still served the neighborhood and did provide an east -
west, he was not married to where it was on this, map. In fact, it probably was not the best
location for it. It could meander a little bit, but there needed to be a connection. But more
neighborhood oriented. So really the only folks that were really going to use it were primarily
still going to be people within the development. But it still provided that secondary access to
Dublin Boulevard because he would not want to have 1 ,600 units worth of housing all pouring
out onto Dublin Boulevard either. Speaking to Cm. Biddle's other point, obviously there would
be traffic studies as part of this. If the traffic study showed that it was not warranted, or showed
that it was absolutely warranted, there was no way this project worked unless there was a major
road, the traffic study would show that. But if the traffic study showed, you know what, there
was not going to be much of an impact, again, the study would show that. But his gut sitting
here tonight with the limited information they had, was some type of a connection but it did not
necessarily need to be the way it was described here.
Vm. Hart stated he would just want it to be noted that he would be concerned for public safety
access. That should be a priority and not having that be more of a disadvantage.
Ms. Bascom summarized, the City Council direction, in general, was the establishment of an
east -west connection through the project'site was very important. One City Councilmember in
particular, would like to see two east -west connections for the purposes of public safety. But in
general, the City Councilmembers seemed to be open to alternatives and more leaning toward
letting the traffic study determine what was warranted in terms of what would be needed in
terms of east -west connections and ensuring that the roads as they go through do not bifurcate
the project into two. But that connection between Dougherty and Arnold be accomplished in
some meaningful way.
Cm. Biddle stated, on a related issue he thought one of his priorities as far as traffic was
concerned, he would like to see Scarlett Court opened up pretty quickly in the process.
Because there again, that relieved a lot of pressure off of Dougherty.
Mayor Sbranti asked if Cm. Biddle meant Scarlett Drive.
Cm. Biddle stated, yes, Scarlett Drive. From the Dougherty Dublin interchange that would be
the cut through to the BART station. To him that was one of the priorities of the project.
Assistant City Manager Chris Foss stated that Scarlett Court extension was one of the City's
Capital Improvement Projects. Remember, they just transferred $6 million up to Dougherty
Road that was allocated for that project. He thought Mr. Guerra mentioned that he thought that
would be part of this project to have to build that Scarlett Drive extension. He thought there was
• DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 47
VOLUME 30 oe
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2011
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 offce 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 /offce/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. dust kind of glancing at this right now under what they knew at this time, he thought
it was pretty clear they had a lot of retail in other places that was still not built out yet, that was
slated to go in. Given the fact that not just near the transit center where you had the 300,000
square feet of retail as part of the entitled Blake Hunt project, so you had 300,000 square feet of
retail that he believed was entitled after this land plan was developed. So this land plan was
developed and then Blake Hunt came in with a project that still was entitled for a lot more retail
and that retail made sense closer to the freeway than this one further up. Having less retail
here probably made sense. Plus they still had retail they were trying to get with Grafton and the
Promenade and Fallon Gateway and the Downtown. Given all of that, probably less retail here
did make sense. He loved the idea of a first class hotel, you know some type of a five star
hotel. He did not know if this was the location. He did not know if the market feasibility could
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 48
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING - 19 Wl.
AUGUST 16, 2011
0'.
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 of Drd
REGULAR MEETING '` l
X83
AUGUST 16, 2011
l��m
Ms. Bascom stated she would .let Suncal tell them directly. But the would like a more
Y
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
REGULAR MEETING 19
AUGUST 16, 2011
171
•
•
C i
r
Y
s
r
AVM]ILYd
76x17N H01A
C r
3fIN7M1V
StJIH�111H
���aYN30
F
4
6'
a 3
3f1M7AY A{nTT3jg6oh m Z a
W
m
O
Ix
IE
x h
{
� 7fIN3A7 tdGJYNa3J y1jl O
r 1�
3AWAY
tj �a
3111l1AY 9AYn
f' ,r --T'
o
q'rga Axa3�noa E YI
o e R 4 s g s
Agreement Points for Dublin Crossing
• The following package of amenities and exemptions /buyouts would be the basis for a potential
Development Agreement (DA) between SunCal (Dublin Crossings CP LLC) and the City of
Dublin. It is based upon a Draft Land Plan that includes a minimum 1,695 residential units with
an allowance to go'up to 1,996 residential units and approximately 8.4 acres of mixed use
commercial /residential. Approval of the proposed project requires appropriate CEQA review.
Parks
• SunCal will dedicate to City 28 net acre Community /Central Park. City to pursue
discussions /agreements with DUSD regarding the joint use (during school hours) of
sports fields at Community /Central Park. Park size to be reduced commensurately if
DUSD requires a dedication of more than 8 acres (up to a maximum of 12 acres) for
potential school site. Same total park acreage if density pool is utilized.
• SunCal will dedicate to City 5 net acres of Neighborhood Park. Same total acreage if
density pool is utilized. All neighborhood parks to be 2 net acres in size at a minimum.
• City Staff is O.K with exploring water detention /retention within non -sports fields in the
proposed 28 net acre Community Park if designed to both City and SunCal satisfaction.
Detention /retention to be allowed along edge of park in proposed chain of ponds.
• Sports field overlay desirability to be determined by City Council based on review of
. park design /amenities.
• SunCal will turn -key all park improvements and no park fees of any kind will be due
from any commercial or residential uses above these park construction costs and land
dedications discussed above. Other Public Facility fees as described in the City Fee
Schedule (not related to park land acquisition and park improvements) shall continue to
apply.
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority ( ACSPA) parcel
Prior to execution of the DA, City to secure an agreement with the ACSPA to purchase the 8.7
acre parcel for the Park Fee rate in effect at the time of SunCal's Phase 5 take down from the
Army. The City will use funds from the Public Facilities Fee Program plus a $2.8M contribution
from SunCal to purchase the property. The property will be provided to SunCal for
development per the Specific Plan in exchange for a 28 net acre Central Park. ,
Community Benefit Payment
Community Benefit Payment of $7.5 million. total
Timing:
• Payment schedule proposed to coincide with the 6 development/takedown phases of
the project.
• Funds due at Final Map Stage on a per unit basis spread equally across the entire
• project. Cost per unit to be determined based upon lowest approved residential unit
' _ Dublin Crossing Agreement Points
count (1,695) divided into $7.5 million (est. $4,424 per unit). The per -unit payment is
made regardless of units actually constructed in the project area.
• No maps smaller than 40 units will be allowed to pay on a per unit basis. If a map is
filed for less than 40 units that filing will be required to pay for 40 units.
• Granny /In Law units do not count towards the per unit calculation and do not require
payment of the per -unit Community Benefit payment
Central Park Maintenance Endowment
$2.5 million Park Endowment paid proportional upon delivery of turn -key Central Park acreage
($2.51VI/total CP acres.; 28 acres x est. $89,300 per acre). Early phase endowment
contribution to' be commensurately higher if SunCal's maintenance analysis indicates that early
phases have higher than average maintenance costs.
Community Facilities District (CFD)
• CFD of up to 2% effective tax rate, 2% escalator; 35 year bond given the tradeoffs in the
package described herein.
• City /DSRSD /Zone 7 /DUSD fees are likely to be included in CFD as are some
infrastructure improvements.
• Park facilities will not be included in the CFD.
Semi - Public Facilities designated land
No exclusive Semi - Public land will be required in General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning
package. Semi Public uses will continue to be allowed within other commercial /industrial
zoning districts.
Civic /Designated Development Site designated land
No Civic /Designated Development site will be required for dedication to the City.
Affordable Housing buyout/Community Benefit Payment
• Affordable Housing buyout/Community Benefit Payment at reduced rate ($56K per unit
bought out instead of $103,888 in lieu fee) of some or all of contemplated affordable
units required.
• Payment required in three equal installments. First installment 12 months after DA is
executed, second installment 30 months after DA execution and third installment 48
months after DA execution. Number of affordable units to be "purchased" at the $56K
per unit buyout rate needs to be determined and stated in the DA and cash -only
installment payments are based on that number. No refunds.
Commercial Land use requirement
• Without a market analysis to determine minimum acreage required, allow less
commercial, more residential. •
Dublin Crossing Agreement Points
• Require - 8.4 acres to have Mixed Use zoning with a minimum of 56,500 SF and
• maximum of 200,000 SF of'commercial land uses
Residential Density Pool
•
•
• Allow flexible residential zoning whereby residential zoned land could have additional
units increased in specific geographic areas (roughly the areas defined as frontage of
Arnold, frontage of Scarlett and area bounded by Dublin Blvd, Arnold, Central Parkway
and Central Park.
• "Granny" units will not count toward total units in GP and zoning allowances.
• Allow school site to have residential overlay. Any additional units build on this parcel
would be subtracted from Residential Density Pool
Development Agreement Term
15 year DA with option to extend for 5 additional years at $200K per year
Dublin Crossing Agreement Points
r-I
LJ
F- -I
LJ
•
A&
�Y
a
«yl W y ^
d
jC E!
❑ '^ N
C = 4) p d d = A
�i ` R a W
'11 w
LL L
Ln
i Q U
0 n C =e
u i a u C d C C
IL M a L7ya]H ] ] U
I �
t f a
-- -- Z
L uj y
C
A w
M li
u r� �
q V L �1
O Y C [7 l W L 0 C
U) M V .- ' .fi r � L
Ow
CL
Ma
O
u u
C u
4a G
uj 1 D IA
V W Qom"
d A
L
7
el b d L ro V
y 3 a 7
IA
H 00 °a r C a+
sa y L�� a r� C
Q d 10 0 rn •� vi a v 3
t a+ eti VI d L O L
C a O = u ❑
00 ; o� O
O c U
u L
LJ
•
M �
Z~
� d a
moo
is
a !.0
w
a
m �
w f41
A
m
c
�o
dr
o �
A
m
a
a
r►
tf
m
� c
m a
a E
A 1 a
o `L
m3'
O
u
u
c
a
u
�► C
--�
i
A
W
a
d
�
a s
�
A
W
s
d a
E
L Q
�
0 H
„Lu4vLO
,f] a ,v
C L
c
L
A N
a
W
a'w
I
N
N
E 0 i
�ro
O
O
O
L
V
T.
a+ v
ry IL
N
N
u =
u
U V
u
U
7A..
a
a
a
C
u
C
3 N �
i�7
r►
tf
m
� c
m a
a E
A 1 a
o `L
m3'
O
u
u
c
a
u
�► C
--�
A
W
a s
A
W
s
d a
E
L Q
�
„Lu4vLO
C L
c
L
A N
a
W
a'w
I
N
E 0 i
�ro
7 C=
O
a n'"
a o
u O a
u =
r►
tf
m
� c
m a
a E
A 1 a
o `L
m3'
O
u
u
c
a
u
• Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and
Notice of a Public Scoping Meeting
for the Dublin Crossing Project
Date of Notice: May 30, 2012
In implementing its duties under Section 15021 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Dublin will serve as the Lead Agency in preparing a project -level
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Dublin Crossing Project (Project). The City
is requesting your comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The EIR will address the
potential physical, environmental effects of the Project for each of the environmental topics
outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is
being sent to the Office of Planning and Research, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies,
and other interested parties. Responsible Agencies are those public agencies, besides the City
of Dublin, that also have a role in approving or carrying out the Project. If you are an authorized
representative of a Responsible Agency, or a Trustee Agency, a transportation planning
agency, agency with transportation facilities that may be affected, or a Federal agency involved
in approving or funding the Project, the City needs to know the views of your agency as to the
scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the Project. Your agency will need to use this EIR when
• considering your permit or other approval for the Project. In responding, please also provide the
name, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the contact person for your agency.
Scoping comments on the EIR should focus on discussing possible Project impacts on the
physical environment, ways in which potential adverse effects might be minimized, and
alternatives to the Project in light of the EIR's purpose to provide useful and accurate
information about such factors.
As specified by the CEQA Guidelines, the NOP will be circulated for a 30 -day review period
from May 30, 2012 to June 30, 2012. In the event that no response or request for additional
time is received by the end of the review period, the City of Dublin may presume that your
agency has no comment. Comments on this NOP should be directed in writing to:
Kristi Bascom
Principal Planner
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
or via email to: kristi.bascom(a)dublin.ca.pov
Questions regarding the Project or the process can be directed to Kristi Bascom at (925) 556-
4557. Comments on the NOP must be received at the above mailing or e-mail address by 5:00
p.m. on June 30, 2012 (30 days from the date of this notice). Please reference "Dublin
Crossing PA 08 -049" in all correspondence.
•
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Comments may also be provided at the EIR Public Scoping Meeting to be held on June 20,
2012. The EIR Scoping Meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Regional Meeting Room at the
Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
Project Title: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (PA 08 -049)
Project Summary: Residential mixed -use Project with up to 1,996 single- and multi-
family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office
and /or commercial uses; a Community Park; two Neighborhood
Parks, and the provision for an 8 -12 acre elementary school.
Project Location: Approximately 191 acres located within the boundary of the
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The Project site
is bound by 5th Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west,
Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east.
Interstates 580 and 680 are the nearest regional highways to the
Project site (see Figure 1: Project Site Location).
Project Applicant: Dublin Crossing CP, LLC
300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 342
Oakland, CA 94612
PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
As shown in Figure 1: Project Site Location, the Project site is located in the City of Dublin in
Alameda County, California. 1 •
A portion of the Project site (approximately 182 acres) is currently owned by the United States
government and is administered by the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense
and NASA as part of the larger 2,485 acre active Camp Parks Reserve Force Training Area
(RFTA), located in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. There are 20 existing
buildings /structures on the Project site.. There is an additional warehouse building on the site
which is owned by NASA, but it is essentially vacant and not being utilized. An additional
vacant parcel, approximately 9 acres located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road, is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA).
Notable land uses in the surrounding area include the commercial and residential land uses
along Dublin Boulevard and the East Dublin BART station to the south, the Iron Horse Regional
Trail and downtown Dublin to the west, and the Santa Rita Jail (Alameda County) to the
northeast.
BACKGROUND
Camp Parks is seeking to consolidate their military base activities within a 487 -acre Cantonment
Area located north of the Project site. The US Army prepared a Camp Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area (RFTA) Base Master Plan (2004) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
(2009) for the redevelopment of Camp Parks. It includes the exchange of approximately 181
acres within the City of Dublin from Federal to private ownership for development as the Dublin
Crossing. In return, Camp Parks would receive new installation facilities at a value
commensurate with the value of the exchanged land.
Page 2 of 7
A�
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Most of the Camp Parks facilities on the Project site are currently in use. Functions and
• activities associated with these facilities will be relocated to the proposed Camp Parks
Cantonment Area, as identified in the Base Master Plan and EIS. The Final EIS (FEIS) included
an evaluation of the Project site future private development. The FEIS was certified in July
2009.
0
In April 2003, the Department of the Army, Army Reserve Division requested that the City
initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to consider different land uses on the Project site.
The Army proposed studying a combination of commercial retail, office and residential uses.
The Dublin City Council agreed to study the proposed land use changes. The initiation of the
study did not change the Army's Public Lands land use designation on the property, but rather
permitted the City and the Army to proceed with further studying proposed land use changes.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2008, the Project Applicant submitted a Pre - Development Application to the City of Dublin
and began discussions with the City about potential future development at the Project site. On
May 21, 2012, the Project Applicant submitted a written description and Draft Land Use
Diagram of the proposed Project for consideration by the City (see Figure 2: Draft Land Use
Diagram). The Draft Land Use Diagram is intended to illustrate the general layout of land uses
across the Project site. The Plan is expected to be refined as the Project is further studied and
analyzed.
The Project Applicant proposes to redevelop the Project site into a new, mixed -use community
with residential, commercial, retail, and parks and open space land uses. Development of the
Project site will be constructed according to the proposed Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The
Specific Plan will identify the ultimate land use plan, circulation, infrastructure, and fiscal impacts
on public services. The Specific Plan will also include a set of development regulations and
design guidelines that will be referenced as part of all subsequent development reviews and
approvals.
The Project Applicant proposes to build 1,695 residential units. However, depending on the
possible variations in the amount of commercial development, as well as potential to develop
the 8 -12 acre school site (should it not be necessary), the maximum total number of residential
units may be as high as 1,996. While the Specific Plan will identify flexible build -out
development scenarios, the EIR will address a most intense development plan as required
under CEQA.
Table 1 (below) summarizes the main elements of the development plan, as currently
envisioned. These land uses are also described in more detail to follow.
Table 1: Proposed Land Use Program
Page 3 of 7
of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Land lJs i e /Dens fiy
Residential Up to 1,996 units •
Non - residential uses including commercial, office, Up to 200,000 square feet
retail, business park /industrial, and semi - public
Public Parks and Open Space Minimum of 28 net acres of Community
Park acreage and 5 net acres of
Neighborhood Park acreage
School site 8 -12 acres
Residential Land Use: The Project consists of 1,695 residential units on the Project site. The
residential density across the Project site would be generally limited to a maximum of 20
dwelling units per acre. Increasing density in particular planning areas within the Project could
result in up to 1,996 residential units on the Project site. These additional units would come
from a pool of residential unit capacity that could be built on the potential 8 -12 acre school site,
the reduction of commercial acreage, or specifically identified portions of the overall Project site
where densities could be increased.
Affordable housing will be provided to the City through payment of fees or construction of units
per the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68). All affordable housing units
constructed would be included within the total Project maximum except for units built as
secondary units to a single - family home (i.e. "granny" or "in -law units "), which could be up to
250 units. Second units are not counted separately toward the maximum unit count at the
Project site, although they will be analyzed in the EIR impact analysis.
Commercial /Semi - Public Land Use: The Project will include up to 200,000 square feet of
non - residential uses including; commercial, office, retail, business park/industrial, and /or
semi - public uses. At present, these commercial uses are envisioned along Dublin Boulevard
and Arnold Road.
Parks and Open Space Land Use: The Project will include a Community Park as well as a
number of Neighborhood Parks and private recreational amenities and open space. The
amount of park land will be determined as part of the development of the Specific Plan, but will
be in excess of the acreage requirements as identified in the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (2010). The Project will provide for a new public Central Park that has access from
both Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive, as well as public neighborhood parks and private
recreational amenities. Additionally, the on -site parks and open space will be connected by a
network of on- and off - street walking and bike trails and sidewalks, to encourage safe
pedestrian and bicycle access and interconnectivity.
School Uses: Approximately 8 -12 acres of land for a potential public elementary school may
be reserved adjacent to Central Park to enable the potential for joint use opportunities within the
Project site. Should it be determined that a school is not appropriate /required for the site (based
on discussions with the Dublin Unified School District), residential units will be constructed.
Transportation: Transportation improvements will be linked to specific phases of development
with a goal of encouraging use of public transportation and ride sharing, and reducing and /or
internalizing trips Circulation within the project site would consist of a network of streets
designed to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to all portions of Dublin Crossing.
The Project is adjacent to and will be connected with the Iron Horse Trail which is the longest
Page 4 of 7
of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
trail system in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The Iron Horse Trail provides a direct link
• with the East Dublin BART station, located one -half mile south of the Project site.
Infrastructure: The Project site is served by a variety of utility providers including: Dublin San
Ramon Services District ( DSRSD) for water and sewer and Pacific Gas and' Electric (PG &E) for
gas and electricity. As part of site development, all existing utility systems will be replaced
and /or upgraded within the Project site.
The Project includes the onsite construction of new sanitary sewer and potable and recycled
water infrastructure to accommodate future DSRSD capacity to service the Project.
The Army and NASA are responsible for environmental remediation of existing hazardous
materials on the Project site and have agreed to remediate the property to state and federal
requirements. Contamination that remains after the Army or NASA transfers the property to the
developer will either be remediated by the developer or by the Army or NASA, prior to and
during site grading and demolition activities. Any contaminated soil and groundwater on the site
will be remediated to support the proposed land uses (see further discussion below). Several
possible grading concepts are being considered to address existing and potential geotechnical
conditions. Mass grading operations will be phased to align as closely as practical to the overall
development phasing of the Project. The Project will construct new on -site storm drainage
facilities to collect and convey the post- construction - Project storm drainage runoff to the existing
Zone 7 and City of Dublin storm drainage facilities located near the Project site.
Project Phases: As shown in Table 2: Project Phasing, the Project is expected to be
developed in six phases beginning in 2014. Each phase is estimated to take approximately 2 -3
years and Project build out is projected to be completed in 2030. The actual timing of
construction would depend on provisions described in the Exchange Agreement between the
U.S. Army and the Project Applicant, as well as environmental remediation activities, biological
permitting requirements, market conditions, and other factors.
Table 2:
Phase
Will
1
Project Phasing
Estimafie creage
21
Proposed L_an » s
Residential and potential commercial. uses
2
14
Residential and public park /open space
3
37
Residential
4
- 56
Residential, public park /open space, and potential
commercial uses
5
35
Residential, public park /open space, and potential
commercial uses
6
28
Residential
TOTAL
191 acres
Project Approvals: The Project will require text and map amendments to the City of Dublin
General Plan, text and map amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, approval of.a
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, approval of a Large Lot Tentative Map and Phase 1 Small Lot
Tentative Map, and adoption of a Development Agreement pursuant to California Government
Page 5 of 7
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
Code sections 65864 et seq. Approval of these entitlements will occur subsequent to the
certification of the Dublin Crossing Final EIR. 9
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Under CEQA, environmental documentation must include an analysis of a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. The proposed Specific Plan
being prepared for the proposed Project will guide the selection of alternatives. The alternatives
will be evaluated in less detail than the proposed project and will be contrasted with the
proposed Project in terms of the extent to which Project objectives and reduction in adverse
impacts are achieved. The environmentally superior alternative will be identified.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Because the Lead Agency has determined that an EIR will be required, no Initial Study has
been prepared for the Project. The EIR will evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project on
each of the following environmental topics: Aesthetics; Air Quality and Global Climate Change;
Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and
Housing; Public Services and Recreation; Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Service
Systems. Environmental factors that will be considered but eliminated are proposed to be
Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources.
The project -level EIR will examine the environmental impacts of the whole of the Project,
identify mitigation measures, and analyze whether proposed mitigation measures would reduce
any significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level as defined by CEQA.
The Project site may contain limited amounts of contaminated soil and groundwater. However,
the Army and NASA have conducted all necessary hazardous materials investigations. The CA
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has determined that "No Further Action" is
required for all parcels with the exception of Parcel No. 36 (Ltr. from DTSC to LTC David R.
James, Commanding Officer, US Army Garrison — Camp Parks, dated 1/20/2012). Any future
remediation activities on Parcel 36 will be performed by the Project applicant and require the
necessary approval by DTSC prior to construction. The EIR will examine the proposed
remediation and determine if any additional mitigations are required.
Existing buildings and structures on the Project site will be demolished. The EIR will examine
potential effects regarding air quality and hazardous materials related to the demolition.
A portion of the Project site lies within the 100 -year flood plain. This flood plain generally
extends north to south along an existing drainage channel on the Project site. There is also a
known.drainage channel that runs along the easternmost portion of the project site and between
the Army and ACSPA parcel near the southeast corner of the Project site. Site soils and
biological resources (including, but not limited to disturbance and loss of riparian vegetation,
jurisdictional wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities or special- status species habitat,
construction disturbance of species- status terrestrial species) will be investigated as part of the
EIR for the Project.
A majority of the Project site is designated in the Dublin General Plan as Public Lands with the
exception of the ACSPA parcel which is designated as Parks /Public Recreation, as identified in
the City's Transit Center Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. A majority of the site
Page 6of7
•
•
City of Dublin Dublin Crossing Notice of Preparation
is zoned Agriculture (A), with the exception of the ACSPA parcel, which is zoned Planned
Development (PD).
Given the size and location of the Project, transportation and traffic will be a critical issue to be
evaluated in the EIR. A traffic impact analysis will study intersections, roadway sections, and
freeway interchanges within the project vicinity.
When the Draft EIR is published, it will be sent to all Responsible Agencies and to others who
respond to this NOP or who otherwise indicate that they would like to receive a copy.
May 30, 2012
PA 08 -049
Attachments:
Figure 1: Project Site Location
Figure 2: Draft Land Use Diagram
Page 7 of 7
Kristi Bascom
Principal Planner
H
* m
a.
v
IL,_ _ a4
s
W
f i co
i
' T
N
U]
� [t3
L •- r
i N
N
- - t U!
N
- Q =
� Z
a
9
(( r
II�
I
I
r
rT
o
0) to
N
L
L
E U 3
a
fa -< v U3
Namp Ea
Qfy <mQo
r N m V i17 ID
7t Yt Yt # Yt
Q
V
G
U7
May 3, 2006
Kurt Haglund
The Staubach Company
401 Ninth Street, Suite 1050
Washington D.C. 20004
Dear Kurt,
As you may be aware, the Board of Directors of the Valley Children's Museum had
discussions with Colonel Jim Doty to possibly build a facility on the Camp Parks
property prior to his reassignment. As the Army Reserve has continued to move forward
with the Real Property Exchange (RPX) for the 187 acres they are considering for private
development, the status of the Valley Children's Museum negotiations with officials at
Camp Parks became uncertain.
Because the Valley Children's Museum is hoping to open its permanent museum facility
• in the Tri- Valley in the next 3 -4 years, the Board of Directors approached the City of
Dublin with the request to be considered when the City negotiates with the future Master
Developer of the Camp Parks Project Area so that they can secure a location somewhere
on the RPX site. The Museum Board made a formal request for a show of support from
the Dublin City Council and a commitment from the Council to help the Museum secure
a location on the Camp Parks site.
At its meeting on April 18, 2006, the City Council discussed the Children's Museum's
request and unanimously agreed to support the inclusion of the Museum facility within
the 46 -acre park site the City expects to see in the future land plan for the Camp Parks
site (as referenced in my previous letter to you dated February 27, 2006). The Council is
very excited about the prospect of including the Valley Children's Museum in the future
master plan for the parkland portion of the project, and is willing to work with the future
Master Development and /or Army Reserve to find a location that makes sense.
Since the Army's developer selection process and preliminary site planning is still in the
early stages, it was the City Council's intent that this information be communicated to the
Army at the earliest point possible. As the Army begins to engage developers in the
information gathering and selection process, it is hoped that you will share this letter (as
well as previous letters we have written relating to development on the site) with
interested parties. These letters provide valuable. insight into the issues, the City will be
focusing on as the development of this site moves through the entitlement process.
•
The City of Dublin looks forward to seeing the next stage of this project, and to learning
when the Notice of Availability will be released so that we can plan our efforts to provide
information to potential developers in a timely and organized fashion.
Thank you in advance for doing all you can to help us coordinate this process.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Ambrose
City Manager
City Councilmembers
Linda Spencer, Valley Children's Museum, P.O. Box 305, San Ramon, CA 94583
Larry Bell, The Staubach Company, 1331 N. California Blvd. 4170, Walnut.Creek, CA 94596
Dave Robinson, USAR
Colonel Scott Wood, West Coast Garrison /Camp Parks, Building 790, 5t" Street, Dublin, CA
94568
Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
Chris Foss, Economic Development Director
Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director
Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner •
L J