Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Draft CC 10-4-04 Min SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER. 4. 2004 (WORKSHOP-STUD\' SESSION) A special meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Monday, October 4,2004, beginning at 6:30 p.m., in the Regional Meeting Room of the Dublin Civic Center. . ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Sbranti, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. Councilmember Oravetz Other Charrette Participants: Angela Muetterties, Bert Michalczyk, Bob Fasulkey, Chris Foss, Dan Scannell, David Haubert, Diane Lowart, Doug Benson, Eddie Peabody, Herma Lichtenstein, Jeri Ram, Colonel James Doty, John Sugiyama, Kasie Hildenbrand, Larry Bell, Libby Silver, Mary Lou Bielke, Melissa Morton, Mike Parsons, Ray Kuzbari, Rich Ambrose, and Tom McCormick. Staff! Consultants: Kristi Bascom, Chris Kinzel, Jerry Keyser, Nate Cherry, and Kurt Nagle. Public Members in attendance: Paul Menaker, Jessica Grossman, Brian Olin, Steven Jones, Erlene DeMarcus, Lori Rose, Brian Steele, Jeff Wong, Brian Klees, Marty lnderbitzen, Bob Harris, Rich Guarienti, Jodi Winters, John Nemeth, Jeff Melrose, Rick Beaumont, Norm Lee, John Salon, Alcina Wegrzynowski, Jim Young, Pat Croak. .. FOLLOW UP TO CAMP PARKS PLANNING AND DESIGN WORKSHOP (610-20) In 2003, the Army Reserve approached the City of Dublin to discuss the possibility of private development on 182 acres at Camp Parks. Because of the size, scope, and community-wide importance of this property, the City Council determined that the citizens of Dublin should be involved in creating a community vision for the future uses of the land. This summer, the City began a Strategic Visioning Process with community leaders to determine what development might be feasible at the site. At the first design charrette/workshop on August 6-7, 2004, several conceptual alternatives for the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 SPECIAL (WORKSHOP STUDY SESSION) MEETING October 4, 2004 PAGE 452 ð----- c.. 1 !~f; --'.1. -'-.,. , , property were developed by small groups and presented to the larger group. At the end of the two-day event, the City's consultants left with several concepts and ideas for the site that were to be studied further. The consultants have analyzed the alternatives and have a preliminary determination of their feasibility from economic, traffic, and land use viability perspectives. The next step of the Strategic Visioning Process was to return to the original charrette participant group at a follow-up workshop and present the results of the analysis for the group's consideration, discussion, and recommendation. The recommendation will go to the City Council at a later date and the Strategic Visioning Process should be concluded by the end of 2004. The Army will then prepare a development application for the site based on the results of the program. The meeting began with the consultants reviewing the opportunities and constraints that are presented on the site and summarizing the conclusions from the Planning and Design Charrette of August 6th and 7th. They then presented the five alternative plans that had been developed and also their evaluation of the merits of each alternative. At that point, members of the public and workshop participants had an open discussion regarding the pros and cons of the five different development alternatives, as detailed below. . PUOUC COMMENT Cm. Sbranti stated he felt housing fronting Arnold is not a good idea because of proximity to Santa Rita Jail. There needs to be a buffer there. Kasie Hildenbrand brought up the Sybase fencing situation and stated she would hate to see this area become housing. There are ways that you can buffer it. The Consultant stated from a safety standpoint, neighborhoods where houses are are safer. Richard Ambrose stated once people have served their time, the County must release them and we do have problems in that area from time to time. John Sugiyama discussed Option #5 and stated from a manageable design point of view, specific concerns could be addressed. It is a nice balanced approach. Mayor Lockhart talked about taking out some of the low density. It ties together east and west. Vm. Zika commented it discourages people from cutting through" neighborhoods. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 SPECIAL (WORKSHOP STUDY SESSION) MEETING October 4, 2004 PAGE 453 Cm. Sbrantistated he also prefers Option #5, but in another option, he loves the park right down the middle of the spine. He felt there could be a little more looking at park space interspersing. John Sugiyama discussed the fact that they will not build an elementary school for 250 kids. The multi-family units don't yield as many kids. David Haubert discussed Options 4 and 5 which offer amenities for the City and various facilities, but do we need another big thing like this in Dublin. He stated he likes the east-west traffic flow of having Central go through. We have a plan for the flow of Santa Rita Jail. Maybe we can look at some type of a bus system and work with the County for whatever goes along Arnold. He likes Options 4 and 5. An elementary school is a potential use. You can swap big chunks of land based on what may happen in the future. Kasie Hildenbrand discussed the Parks Master Plan and the identified deficiency with not enough parks in the west. Based on our deficiency, we determine how much park land we will need. David Haubert stated Options 4 and 5 exceed this requirement. The Consultant advised that each scenario exceeds the amount needed. Richard Ambrose stated the City Council adopted a Strategic Plan this last year and some of these accomplish a potential passive park. We can look at what's missing in the Tri- Valley regarding amenities. A botanical garden would be one amenity that we could look at. Cm. Sbranti asked about the timeline. If the Army agrees, the next process would be a private developer would have to make some improvements on the base. He asked if public amenities would be the last piece of improvements. Would they be near the end of the process? Richard Ambrose stated this is part of negotiation. This is jumping way ahead of the process. This will be way down the road. They will have to file a land use application and then do environmental studies. We are looking at a number of years before this happens; 18 months to 2 years for the entitlement process. Cm. Sbranti stated it sounded like the process could be 5 years. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 SPECIAL (WORKSHOP STUDY SESSION) MEETING October 4, 2004 PAGE 454 David Haubert asked why it takes that long. Richard Ambrose replied this is not like a developer building a building. They have to build a building before land can be released to be developed. David Haubert asked why they can't concurrently lease the building. Commander Doty stated the acid test will be who will lend the developer money. Brian Klees asked if there is some way to mesh the different scenario options. The Consultant stated they will refine in order to go forward. The framework will represent in a significant manner the option that is picked. They are determining the framework. John Sugiyama discussed Option 1. He asked if there is a differential weighting to the categories. There are some good features there. John Nemeth commented transit ranked lower in Option 5. Why is this? The Consultant cautioned everyone to look at the overall and "follow your heart". Richard Guarienti congratulated everyone for looking at all the options. Option 3 has a number of good features. He wants a good mix of affordable housing and a good trail network and passive/active park areas. We need to look at where the park goes. On Option 5 there is not a connecting trail. He cautioned that we not make a mistake like Hacienda Business Park made with the Iron Horse Trail. We should have a nice trail thru the riparian area. Rick Beaumont stated a Valley Children's Museum would be ideal to have in the area. They are seeking right now 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. They would like to find a site here in Dublin. The Army also strongly backs the Children's Museum. Being close to BART would be good for Dublin. Lori Rose talked about the east-west linkage and requested that we reconsider option of having a high school in the area. She was concerned about safety of the children during construction at Dublin High School. If you truly want to link east and west, you have to consider this option. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 SPECIAL (WORKSHOP STUDY SESSION) MEETING October 4, 2004 PAGE 455 Mike Bouchard stated he was disappointed that the alternatives don't address the need for a high school. He would like to see a new Option 6 to include a high school. Jodi Winters asked that we think of what's north of this site. Option 5 has the worst uses in 20 years against the base. Option 4 has a lot better usage south of the Camp Parks site. She stated she has an office on the base now. Alcina Wegrzynowski stated she backs the Children's Museum. There are a lot of good options. She echoed concerns about building homes right across from the jail. She stated she would not be comfortable having her daughter ride her bike right in front of the jail. We should come up with some kind of a one-way taxi ride directly to BART. She asked that we please reconsider a high school. The current location is a nightmare for traffic at the high school. This will raise the property value of all homes in Dublin. A member of the group advised that at the last meeting, a high school was considered a non -starter. The Consultant explained that the charette group determined this. A member of the group stated it was determined not to be economically viable. You can do anything you want to do. It is just more difficult. David Haubert stated the School Board Members individually voted, but they took no position as a Board. Three members voted against it. Bob Fasulkey advised that his group talked about this and they determined that as soon as you get to a second story, you have requirements that cannot be met. The Consultant summarized that they are motivated by the charette grou p and then by the City Council. Jeff Wong stated he felt it needs to have input from residents, not just the City Council. This could be short-sighted. Following the discussion amongst participants and the public, the workshop participants were directed by the consultant to use their voting dots and indicate their first, second, and third choice of the different development scenarios. The meeting concluded with all the participants voting on the different plans. The votes for the development scenarios were as follows: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 SPECIAL (WORKSHOP STUDY SESSION) MEETING October 4, 2004 PAGE 456 Option 1 received 0 first place votes, 5 second place votes, and 8 third place votes. Option 2 received 0 first place votes, 1 second place votes, and 4 third place votes. Option 3 received 2 first place votes, 4 second place votes, and 7 third place votes. Option 4 received 6 first place votes, 12 second place votes, and 6 third place votes. Option 5 received 18 first place votes, 4 second place votes, and 1 third place votes. .. ADJOURNMENT - 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Mayor A ITEST: City Clerk r~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 SPECIAL (WORKSHOP STUDY SESSION) MEETING October 4, 2004 PAGE 457