The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 7.3 Camp Parks Land Use CITY CLERK File # n@~lOl-~ . AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AprilS, 2005 SUBJECT: Final review of Alternative Land Use Plans for future private development at Camp Parks Report Prepared by: Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner 01- ATTACHMENTS: L 2, 3, 4. Notes from Febroary 15,2005 City Council meeting Land Use Plan Alternative 3 Land Use Plan Alternative 4 Land Use Plan Alternative 5 RECOMMENDATION: L 2. Receive Staff Report. Staff recommends that the City Council consider Staff's analysis of the Top 3 land use alternatives and provide direction on the preferred land use mix and residential density for the site, ~(ßf FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 1, 2004, the City Council approved a contract for planning and design consultants to guide the . City through a Strategic Visioning Process for possible future private development on 182 acres at Camp Parks. The conclusion of the visioning process was five master plan alternatives developed and ranked by the participating community group. At the February 15,2005 City Council meeting, Staff asked the Council members to discuss the positive and negative aspects of the Top 3 land plans developed so that Staff and the Anny could understand suecificallv what it was about each of the alternatives that the City Council did and did not like, The intent was for Staff to then prepare a technical analysis of the plans, explaining how they could be modified to reflect the City Council's concerns, In particular, Staff asked the City Council to comment on the following issues as they pertained to Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: L Location and types of housing 2. Location and sizes 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 The City Council discussed the issue of parks and open space at the March 15, 2005 City Council meeting, and tonight will be discussing traffic and circulation as well as the land use mix on site. . COPIES TO: In-House Distributiol Property Owners/Applicants G:\PA#\2003\03.015 Com¡> Porks OPAIVisioninlll'JO_ICC StaffR<port ¡.oview AI.. 04.0$.0$.&0 1~1o ITEM NO. '(.1 city Councilfeedbackfrom February 15,2005 meeting: The City Council's detailed comments are included as Attachment lto this Staff Report, but several common issues emerged ftom the City Council's discussion on housing, traffic/circulation, and land uses. . Housing: · Council members want to ensure a good mixture of housing types throughout the site and to avoid segregating housing types into one area or another. · Council members voiced concerns that there are too many housing units and the housing proposed is too dense, .. Council members do 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, ifany), or the placement of single-family homes ftonting any major high traffic volume street (for instance the northem-most' street in Alternative 5), CounciImembers also suggested considering a different housing type around the central park space in Alternative 5 (i. e, single-family rowhouses instead of higher density townhomes, condominiums, or apartments.) Circulation and Transportation: · Council members 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, Council members supported the creation of a northern east-west road (much like in Alternative 5) that connects from Dougherty Road to Arnold Road at some point north of Central Parkway and south of Gleason Drive. This road would serve better as a more direct route through the site 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. Other Land Uses: · Council members voiced their desire to accommodate some public/semi-public facilities in the . project area (i.e, future post office, place of worship) . Council members voiced concerns that there may not be enough retail and/or office space in the project area, but liked the mixed-use/retail/office configuration in Alternative 4 the best, . Council members liked plans that showed the elementary school site adjacent to a park. ANALYSIS: Staff considered the feedback from the City Council and also examined the Top 3 alternatives :&om a technical perspective. At their meeting on March 15, 2005, the City Council discussed parks and open spaces issues on the Camp Parks site and gave Staff direction to pursue a combination of linear park facilities on the site in addition to the City's standard park requirements and to retain a park planning consultant to research the unique park space issue. To finish the Camp Parks discussion, Staff presents the following information on traffic/circulation and the site land use mix analysis for City Council consideration. Traffic and Circulation: Provide an east-west road that connects Dougherty to Arnold. Public Works Staff have exaf)lÎned the various circulation plans proposed for the site and have concluded that the optimal street network for the site would include a main east-west street that connects to Dougherty Road in the west and to Arnold Road in the east in two locations: (1) at Central Parkway and (2) at a point north of Central' Parkway as close to Gleason Road as is feasible. The concept, as mirrored above by the City Council comments, is to serve project-destined traffic by providing access to local streets (via Central Parkway) and to facilitate . east-west traffic circulation :&om Dougherty Road to Arnold; providing potential relief to traffic congestion .on Dublin Boulevard (via the Northern Road) for those seeking sÍfJ1ply to get across the project site to Arnold Road and points further east A rough sketch of the optimal arterial and collector street configuration is shown on the following page: Page 2 of6 Gleason Drlv . ...---------...- .. _ CamD Parks border ------------....--... , I I .,. ~.. Amol Road Northern .Road (or further north If possibla) DouQherty central Parlwlev DUblin Boulevard (Note: this sketch does not illustrate the many local-servlng residential collector streets, only those streets that were a matter of discussion at the City Council meetings) Since the Council members' input on this issue is in concurrence with Staff's analysis, there is no direction being sought on this issue. It is here for informational purposes only to let the City Council know what direction will be provided on the circulation plan from Staff to the Army for their formal project application, Housinl!. Land Use Mix and Traffic: . The City Council will recall that one of the Anny's goals was that the selected project satisfy certain financial requirements to enable the Anny to develop facilities on the base. At the conclusion of the October 4,2004 Camp Parks Community Workshop, the Top 3 land use alternatives were detennined and the Army began internal discussions to detennine which, if any, of the alternatives would be financially feasible and worth pursuing. The Army indicated concern with the fmancial feasibility of Alternative 4 (exactly as proposed) because that alternative had only 1,484 residential units combined with the highest amount of dedicated open space as well as ,the highest amount of square footage devoted to civic/public/semi-public uses, This made the Alternative financially undesirable from the Anny's perspective, Alternative 5 was the Community Workshop group's preferred alternative, as well as the most profitable to the Army, and as such the Anny hopes to have the eventual project proposal be similar in financial benefit to the Army as Alternative 5, irrespective of the actual land uses permitted, At the Febroary 15, 2005 City Council meeting, Council members voiced concerns that there could be too many housing units on the site in all of the alternatives and that the housing proposed could be too dense, In light of these comments, Staff has developed a possible land use mix, based on Alternative 5 that would address two of the comments made by Council members on Febroary 1511>: (1) to reduce the number of and density of housing units on the site, and (2) to increase the amount of retail square footage, The main limiting factor to what can be placed on the Camp Parks site is traffic capacity at the . Dublin/Dougherty intersection. Therefore, the Public Works and Planning Staff have worked with TJKM Transportation Consultants to compare the traffic generated by the Original Alternative 5 land use mix against the traffic generated by a "Reduced Yield Alternative 5" land use mix (less housing, less residential density, more retail as requested by Council members at the Febroary 15th meeting), The intent was to compare how the two options impact traffic at Dublin/Dougherty and to see if they are both Page 3 of6 feasible from a traffic perspective, according to the City's new Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCT A) gravity flow traffic modeL This information will help the City Council understand whether the :reduced yield alternative could be considered further. The details of the Original Alternative 5 and the Reduced Yield Alternative 5 options axe explained . below: 1996 216 1 180 Scenario 2: Reduced Yield Alternative 5 (fewer residential units, less residentiaJ deJlsi more retail 1600 260 744 296 Land Use Designation Scenario 1: Alternative 5 CCTA Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio for the P.M. Peak Hour at DublinlDou h .... . Note: Public/Semi-public, perks, and school uSeS not factored into the traffic analyBis for the site because they are low PM peak hour trip generators and very difficult to model unless the exact use is knOWIl. .* Note: Base V/C ratio for Dub1in/Dougherty intersection usiD.g the new CCTA model (assuming full buildout of the General Plan) is ,93 (LOS E) without the Camp Parks project. e In order to measure and describe the operational status of local roadway networks, traffic engineers commonly use a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) analysis. LOS A indicates relatively free- flowing traffic conditions with minimal delays. LOS E indicates unstable traffic flow conditions with traffic volumes at or near intersection design capacity. Intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F will have major peak hour delays for vehicles crossing the intersection (55-80 seconds per vehicle on average), resulting in long peak hour queues extending backon all intersections approaches. LOS is determined by calculating the volumes of conflicting vehicle turning movements during a one- hour period and dividing the total by the intersection's design capacity to accommodate such movements. The resulting calculation yields a volume to capacity (V Ie) ratio that indicates an LOS rating. The preliminary traffic analysis conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants dated March 18, 2005 concluded that from a traffic perspective, both the Original Alternative 5 and the Reduced Yield Alternative 5 (less housing, less housing density, more retail) would have the same impact on the DublinlDougherty intersection., and would lead to a P.M, peak hour Volume to Capacity ratio of ,98, (This traffic study examined the P.M. peak hour Level of Service only, because that is the time in which the intersection is closest to capacity levels.) The City Traffic Engineer has stated that the Reduced Yield Alternative 5 impact would likely be the same if office square footage were increased by a certain amount instead of retail square footage, A Volume to Capacity ratio of 1 :00 is considered the upper limit of Level . of Service E and the City Traffic Engineer would not recommend a project that took the VIC ratio above .98, as this would push the intersection conditions to capacity loads, Page 4 of6 Although the measurable difference between the base VIC ratio 6f ,93 (without a Camp Parks project) and .98 (with either Alt. 5 or Reduced Yield Alt. 5) is .05 points, the "real life" perception for individual drivers passing through the intersection is difficult to measure, as their actual stopped delay would depend . on when they arrive at the intersection and the direction they are traveling. The higher V/C ratio mayor may not lead to a noticeable difference in the navigability of the· intersection because both of the numbers fall within the LOS E category and may.be difficult for the average driver to differentiate between. Both Alternative 5 and the Reduced Yield Alternative 5 have a V/C ratio of .98, and are therefore equal in tenus of traffic impacts to the DublinlDougherty intersection. However, the City should recognize that the two options are likely not equal in terms of their financial benefit to the Army. Using a very basic analysis ofJikely profit to a developerllandowner for either residential units orretail square footage, it can be generally assumed that the land zoned for medium-density residential (400 units) would be twice as profitable than the same land zoned commercial retail (104,000 square feet). Therefore, although it could be desirable to the City to substitute residential yield with retail yield, as it could improve the costlbenefit to the City's annual operating budget, it may not be desirable to the Anny because· of the likely reduced financial benefit to them. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the above analysis and provide direction on which land use mix and residential density is most desirable for the site so that information can be provided to the Army for their formal application. SUMMARY: Staff will be providing the Army a comprehensive memo summarizing the direction given by the City Council on all issues related to parks and open space, housing, traffic/circulation, and land uses as discussed in the last three City Council meetings, This inforn1ation will aid the Anny in developing the . land use plan that will ultimately become their project proposal. However, it is important to note that there are still unknowns regarding the project that may impact its outcome and the eventual land use plan that is proposed for the site, including: . · A lake or water feature, Council members noted that this is a desirable feature for the development, but until the specifics of the size, capacity, and water requirements of any proposed feature are known, it is difficult for DSRSD to assess whether or not it is viable. · There are environmental resources on the site that could restrict development in certain locations. Until a detailed project application is submitted and the environmental review process begins, it is difficult to determine what type of requirements the State and Federal resource agencies might have regarding the riparian corridor on the project site, and it is difficult to determine how the agency requirements might impact the layout of the site and the feasibility of the proposed development. · The City will need to ensure that the project is fiscally positive. Through the Strategic Visioning Process, the City's consultants took a cursory look at the possible fiscal impacts of the various alternatives to ensure that each would have a net positive fiscal impact on the City (one of the City's eight goals), However, it is difficult at this stage to assess the exact nature of the fiscal impacts and whether one alternative is markedly different than another, A detailed fiscal study will be conducted when a formal project application is submitted, · The CitywW need to further analyze the traffic impacts of the project. The City and the Applicant completed a traffic study when the General Plan Amendment request was initiated in 2003, That study aimed to provide an understanding of the amount of vehicle trips that could be generated by the site given the City's existing and future infrastructure network. In addition to this 2003 study, the focused CCTA traffic analysis was recently completed for the DublinlDougherty intersection; in particular, and compared the Original Alternative 5 to the Reduced Yield Alternative 5 to determine how these two scenarios impact the intersection under the new modeL However, once a formal project application is made with a final land use plan, final density mix, a more refined circulation Pa.geS of6 plan, etc., with more detail than has been available to date with the conceptual land use plans, the traffic study will produce more precise results and establish a more accurate picture of the project impacts. . Staff will recommend to the City Counc1l that the future project be approved only after 8 .. Development Agreement has been executed, Development Agreements have long been 8 part of ., vesting land use entitlements for an extended duration of time. For instance, there is a 20-year Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch that stipulates what public improvements must be made at what stages of the development of the overall project. Due to the unique nature of the Camp Parks site and the wide range of land use entitlements that will be sought, it will be important for the City and the Applicant to agree up ftont to the nature, timing, and expectations of the various public benefits to be gained from the approval of the project. This can be accomplished through the negotiation of a Development Agreement, and Staff will propose that the D A be finalized prior to the approval of any land use entitlements (i.e, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, etc,) CONCLUSION: The Top 3 alternative land plans each have a variety of strengths and weaknesses, and each plan accomplishes the City's goals for the prorct to varying degrees. After receiving the City Councilmember's input ftom the February 15 March 15'" and AprilS'" meetings, Staff will draft a comprehensive letter to the Anny suntmarizing the City Council direction and higblightiJlg the keys issues brought up in this Staff Report for the Anny's knowledge and for them to share with potential master developers. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council consider Staff's analysis of the Top 3 land use alternatives and provide direction on the preferred land use mix and residential density for the site, . . Page 6 of6 . e e \vf.9 City Council Input on Top 3 Alternatives at Camp Parks (notes from February 15, 2005 City Council meeting) ALTERNATIVE 3 Positive elements Thlnos that should be chanced · Linear Parks as they provide · Linear Parks should be wider (to opportunities for bike paths and make more usable) Should include opportunities for active/passive room for multiple uses (CM) recreation areas (CMUL\ · Lake is desirable (CM\ · Enlarqe Parks (CM) · Good mix of housing types - well · Make sure there is adequate balanced (KH) parkland close to serve Transit Center residents (GZ\ · Office campus good on Arnold - no · Location of Large Park in back of housing desired (KH) site is poor; you have to drive through too many neighborhoods to oet to- (JL) · Mirrors Transit Center Housing mix · Parks need to be closer to housing (KH) IJU · Linear parks are good as they · Change Single Family on Dublin provide easy accessibility to Blvd (KH/JL) - either move or residents and kids right outside their change to multi-family door I JU · Reduce total # of housing - add more retail (CM) · Central Parkway should not be designed to be a cut-through street (CM\ · Add roundabout to Central (GZ) · Roadways should go further north to connect to Arnold IGZITO) · Central Parkway should not be a substitute for 580 IGZ) · Location of the big park is not good IJU · We should direct through traffic to Gleason, not Central (JL) · This alt. is third on the list (JLITO/KH) 4-S~ oS: 1.3 ATTACHMENT J ALTERNATIVE 4 Positive elements · Large Park is great (TO/GZlKH) · Separation of active uses from passive uses in Large Park (GZ) · Large Park is ajewel; wonderful features; everything you would want in a ark CM · Blend of Single and Multi family good, but move multi family off Arnold GZ · Good land use mix overall · Retail location good (nice main street feel) ~ office location better JL · Public use/college space good for community · Enlarge campus office space if feasible from a market ers ective · Likes the larger mixed use area GZ ;< tI() 0 Thin s that should be chan ed · Road splitting park may be too big JL · Central Pkwy should be local serving - not cut through project TO/JL · East-West street should run further north to connect with Arnold · We need to consider alternatives for the college space if it is not needed GZlKH · Single family segregated off to west side of site - should mix better JL · Too many housing units - need more retail (CM) · Need more office (if feasible) (CM) e e e · · · ALTERNATIVE 5 Positive elements · Central Park is a unifying feature between east and west - brings together both areas of community; doesn't necessarily see park as a regional draw; lake nice if possible CM · Central Park serves as a grand entrance to the development; likes housing fronting park; location good to attract outsiders JL · Central Park - lake; see park from BART; unites east & west; bandstand TO · Good mix of single family and town homes JL · Northern road good to connect to Arnold/Gleason Gzrro · School site good adjacent to park (TO) · Roadway system good (KH/JL) · Cultural facility good to be located in Central Park JL · Likes lake (TO) · 3iiblf Thin s that should be chan ed · Linear Parks should be included (CM/TO) · Need more open space (CM) · Housing adjacent to parks should be changed from town houses 10 row houses (KH) · Park acreage should'include acreage over and above what is needed to serve develo ment KH · Housing fronting northern park may not be ood GZ · Plan includes the least amount of o en s ace of the To 3 KH · Housing too dense - too much housing - need more retail GZICM/TO/KH · Move townhomes off Arnold KH/TO/JL · Enlarge retail - include some retail on west side JL · Reconsider single family fronting northern road depending on the type of roadway it ends up bring JL · Likes retail In Plan 4 better (GZ) · Housin is too dense KH '. , U)(fJ</) I-!::!:: cncn Zss ~~ ~U'J,,~ 0 LL. u.. L.I- U U ::>", f5 '" (fJ (fJ (fJ <>:. <>: O,¡;; "'''':II:!Ii:::'=:.'<t = ~<'';'' WW II) ,.. '"' '" .. ,","t!: t!:C::,ØI¡!! ::t..' ~' u· u U...,~ . .,.ø;.'....::1;:'!: õ: '(i,\¡;¡,~ ~ ;':':"'-'" M '~)·rn '~ ~ "ä""'~ .~. i? ..J _ '~:....::, W"D: UJ ..J""O~~I-<>:() ~ I.LI! Z,.:...!.. In ,0, LL.o 1§9':"..i1 1-,.... Z.>b", :1:'_. 1'1. .. 1110. Z,"~,>--"'w_ '0 ~'~·~'~¡¡¡¡ißS¿¡¡¡ :¡;; '~,3 (ìj~ " IIi"",:>".... u., I ~:i,t 'a:ÄfTAêHMENT 2. " II. ,Iii' J I I r¡¡lr1: ,) . , I \I./,L" . I 1,ljI"))'11 ¡ I ,., . e... ·'¡-¡;,r" I.:';': M y ot14 iIJlII"'i II\<\;!, ~"", ~' , ~ i ~, , '" :"I! ;' !1'!;'I"g i.','..'.'.. :'t ~\ "J.,iF., "I" rv~ïl rf:'. W.iJ¡~;~ ~~L"\~' ~~I~ 'Û..-ro:1~,ri\ e . .~~~"" """I..". ,~":",.' . . e e e I' : ':1\'., I " \ I¡II : '( II ¡II/ . ;11111111'1 ¡ , :- '''''''''''''1· e (, e c 6""tJbÌf' I" ~ ~ ~:, !%1~.." ¡;..".'.:. ;¡,~ ~I ,. ¡I ;.'1 . ¡ ~:I '~'I '" UÆ:"r¡ ,~.! 1.¡ ~( ''',....... -',-<...., . 1,1) (f) 1,1) ~+_. '^ (f) ~ -- "' z :s ~'" ... ~.,~ _"'w.· u.. uu ::>.~ g ~.~ ~.(f) «« C~U'>IX'SI:¥::¡::o:tll:) o:t. '. NC'I'" 1I:)::g~·'~·.äJ..",... . ! u U'('..l)",~::~,:,~' «~ «$ . ã;s¡;¡g ~ ;>';""-' '" :.:.J. U) '::J .,. - W..___ ::¡:·"":i:S""w;... «.""'.~.... ~ ~ .... u..·0 j1u..1-::- «,Q :'f1JJ:I::.l.,,,,0u..~.cJ ~. :.......~.,I:;,.~...;;. ....f'I... (f)....!.o..·· Z,,'¡'tZJ >' ';';;';¡ W. - a W;¡;o:::J;;t!22.¡¡¡:r Q"'~:iE....:..,>,,,-u. '~ÂiiÂ(rH(f)MENT ? ~:L lib il~'~Ù1-cl~ !. ¡%' ~"," iBWE!t~ :ë:~",,,,," ',', ;~," ~.~..~. ZZZ tf)tf) '" => ~..:;¡" llJ llJ ~"','fl&J Q 0 a:..c:: :O',:1~ CO 0 ¡L u.... LL U U Q.<N,-tþ<J)tf)tf)«« """':,!,' ~ ''','''. UI,':ILJJllJW:':::'::*=CO ,cn1ra:a:a:CDfD"'-U'J ,end" '. ,..111 en. ... ....,. ,~,SJ·9,......,.. ,...-....""'- .......':. .;....o,.¡ ":!!:~>Ò5,Õ 23,'· ,OZ- " N,tþ 4' 0'\" ~,...." IJ: ..;.tf) ::; .In ..J'~ ..~'.'.:E.' 5 ..,; - .....,"",0 « ;1:, llJa:llJ ;;:, ... I LJ..' f- « () f--.Z~"'O""··,,:( ,~~·~~':;žœ'l'!~â tit -UJ f-â"""'S?U Zø 1/1)..., .",þU;;,>::;llJ,¡r; ":,U,:W':'''.. ,i..ï:..... .. .',,'."".' .,,'........:::)...'....,,'c...... L!J ",a;: "" ."a;:","><U'ø IJ). lTTAcHMENT ~ _I~ø ''''''''1 ' JìiilII' .... ~I 0 ~¡ III I I ! \ 1 \1 I >,t./:\ ,,' ' 1'1 I·' " I ' I' ,'II I' \ "" <"' '"- ,. ;r--- ë7: / ~ Q :::=. .~ ~ ::::- II) W ~ ..J :;: III II) æ: w Q .¡.¡ llJ :> ~ z a: llJ ::; « (Ptb0 e tit