Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01(a) DraftCC09-19-2005 Min MINUTES OF THE Crn' COUNCIL OF THE Crn' OF DUBLIN SPECIAL JOINT MEETlN6 - SEPTEMBER 19. 2005 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING between the City Councils of Dublin and Pleasanton was held on Monday, September 19, 2005, in the Pleasanton Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 4:34 p.m., by Pleasanton Vice Mayor Steve Brozosky. · ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dublin Council members Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart Pleasanton Council members Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan and Thorne ABSENT: None Pleasanton Mayor Hostennan arrived at 5:08 p.m. · PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Councils, Staff and those present. · MEETING OPEN TO PUBUC No comments were made by the public at this time. · DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (a) www.ci.dublin.ca.us l--{. I WEST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION Jerry Iserson, Director of Planning and Community Development for the City of Pleasanton, presented a brief report and background. This matter was previously discussed by the City Council and the Pleasanton-Dublin Liaison Committee in June- August of 2003. More recently, staff members from both cities met with BART and its development team in early August 2005 to receive a presentation on the project. On August 25, 2005, BART and its development team presented the proposed project to the PIeasanton-Dublin Liaison Committee. The presentation and discussion that followed focused on design and parking. Two design options were presented, and the unanimous recommendation of the Committee was to support Scheme B. He noted that there is a financial and fiscal component to this project; a discussion of the new financial proposal will be addressed at a later date. Bob Russell, representing Ampelon Development Group, LLC, provided an overview, which included the brief project history, project design concepts including proposed Site Plans and Building Elevations, and West Dublin and Pleasanton Station Parking Structures. VBN Architects presented the architectural design of the Bart Station. Cm. McCormick noted that one of the proposed site plans showed the stairs coming down from one level to the next within the Station and it looked to her as if the stairs went outside. Mr. Russell said two escalators as well as stairs are located inside the Station to the ground level. Cm. McCormick asked if there were a budget for public art and if so, how much is allocated? Mr. Russell said there is no budget for public art. He noted that funding is being conducted under a public/private venture and there is a limited amount of funding based upon ridership figures and proceeds from cities and other agencies. A location to display public art would be made available; however, the funds to provide public art is not included in the budget to build the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Cm. Sullivan asked how the uses were selected for the two sites. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (b) www.ci.dublin.ca.us Mr. Russell said Ampelon conducted a market study in 1999 and at that time the uses were similar but slightly different. At that time a 170,000 square foot office building was included on the site near the Stoneridge Mall. On the Dublin side, 160 apartment units were included and a 240-room hotel. At that time the office and hotel market was great and residential market was marginal but not as dynamic as it is today. As time has progressed, Ampelon has maintained that a similar use be continued on the PIeasanton side but not on the Dublin side. Ampelon has increased the density on the apartments to 210 units, created a smaller hotel to match the market and created a retail element so that it would be complimentary to the hotel and allow for some retail uses in the area. As to whether Ampelon would be considering alternative uses on the Pleasanton side is up for discussion. The only constraint is that BART is scheduled to close on the land in November 2005 and although an alternative use would be an open idea, it could not be conditioned upon the close of the land because the developer would wait to rezone which would entail a lengthy process. Mr. Sullivan believed the Pleasanton side was mostly parking, including a parking garage and lot with an office building, which was not very imaginative to him. Mr. Russell said the Pleasanton side area is primarily a service park area. A "village green" is proposed between the office building and Stoneridge Mall and left intentionally open in front of the office building in order to create an amenity for a large corporate user, which could include uses such as an amphitheater, volleyball court or pleasant open green space. Pleasanton City Manager Nelson Fialho said there were two items that drove the use on the Pleasanton side which were the zoning and CC&R's established by the developer of the Stoneridge Mall. Mr. Sullivan asked if a bus drop off was included on the PIeasanton and Dublin sides? Mr. Russell said yes. He noted that there are additional bus locations on the Dublin side as there are three to four routes on the Dublin side. Mr. Sullivan asked if Pleasanton's traffic model for its General Plan update included traffic for the BART Station? Pleasanton staff said yes. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (c) www.ci.dllblill.ca.us In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Russell said the main exterior building material would be "Kal-Wall," a fiberglass-like material that is translucent and off-white in color. Cm. Oravtez was concerned about construction. He asked if construction would begin in January? Mr. Russell said yes. Cm. Oravetz asked if construction would occur at night in order to eliminate holding up traffic? Mr. Russell said Ampelon is working with CalTrans with regard to the road conditions. Construction work will entail moving traffic out on to the shoulder of the highway to construct a majority of the station and would not include eliminating a lane of traffic. He noted there would be some lane closures at midnight, which would occur when the bridges are installed. Cm. Oravtez asked if PIeasanton and Dublin Councils would be informed of lane closures and asked how long the construction of the Station would occur? Mr. Russell said the construction of the Station would take approximately two years. He noted that lane closures would only occur with the actual structural steel work and the exterior skin. Cm. Oravetz inquired about the look of the "Kal-Wall" main exterior building at night. A representative from VBN Architects said the "Kal-Wall" main exterior building would produce a halo-lit effect with a soft glow at night without calling too much attention to itself in the middle of the freeway. Cm. McGovern mentioned that the East BART Station is extremely noisy. She asked if Ampelon had conducted studies regarding how noisy the platforms would be for people who are awaiting the arrival of a train and if the noise would be less than the East Station? Mr. Russell said the noise would be much less than the East Station. Ampelon has created a covered environment to eliminate noise, wind and rain. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (d) www.ci.duhlin.ca.lls Cm. McGovern asked if there would be ample area for people to sit and wait for a train? Mr. Russell pointed out there are two locations to wait for a train: at p1atform level or the concourse level. He noted that benches would be located along the bridge, including the concourse and platform levels. Cm. McGovern believed someone would have to go to the lower level to catch a train. Mr. Russell said that was correct. He noted that there would be a train sign on the Station Agent's Booth. Cm. McGovern asked if Scheme B was chosen because Scheme A looked like a waste transit station? Mr. Russell said yes. He noted that a third design option was available which was reviewed at the staff and liaison committee level. He noted that both in-house staff and members of the Pleasanton-Dublin Liaison Committee chose Scheme B. Cm. McGovern inquired about a purple building located to the right side of the Master Plan. Mr. Russell said the purple building was the existing BART substation for powering the track way. Cm. McGovern noted that the office building on the Pleasanton side was a five-story 175,000 square foot building. She asked how much of the parking would be for the business that takes over this building? Mr. Russell said the service parking around the building is for the businesses and the BART parking structure is dedicated solely for BART. Ms. McGovern asked if people would try and park in the office area? Mr. Russell believed people would try and park in the office area, which would need to be monitored. Cm. McGovern pointed out that there is a large difference between the amounts of available parking spaces for the Dublin side versus the Pleasanton side. She asked why the Pleasanton parking structure was smaller than the Dublin parking structure. DUBLIN CITY COlJNCIL MINUTES VOLlJME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329(e) www.ci.dublin.ca.\ls Mr. Russell said it was a result of traffic modeling and looking at the traffic patterns coming from south PIeasanton up through the north, which also included the EIR work. The traffic patterns showed that a greater concentration would be coming southbound on Interstate 680 so the vast majority of people would be using the Dublin Station. Cm. McGovern expressed her concern regarding the lack of available parking at the East Dublin Station. She asked if parking at the new parking structures would be free for BART customers. Mr. Russell believed BART customers would need to pay to park at the new parking structures. He noted there would be reserved parking until 10 a.m. Cm. Thorne mentioned there were several questions at the Pleasanton-Dublin Liaison Committee meeting, which he believed were important. He pointed out the parking structure would be built in such a way that it would allow for future parking decks to be added. He noted that the replacement panels would be graffiti resistant but not scratch resistant and could be replaced. He was assured that the replacement panels would not have a checkerboard effect. Mr. Russell said Ampelon has a certain percentage over the material order in which it has to stock for any future problems. Cm. Thorne expressed concerned about how the construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station would interact with the expansion of the Mall. Mayor Hosterman mentioned that Mr. Thorne, Mayor Lockhart, Ms. Hildenbrand and she had an opportunity to query BART representatives regarding the proposed future BART Station. She was looking forward to the new station, which she believed would be a tremendous amenity for both cities as well as the entire Tri-Valley area. She asked if Councilmembers had the opportunity to understand the parking on the Pleasanton side of the freeway and the flat parking scheme versus the actual parking structure and the fact that it might be a few years down the road before this structure was built. Mr. Russell pointed out there is only one other private/public development in the country. He noted there are three financing mechanisms: (1) the private development which would be a ground lease with BART and the ground lease will be prepaid; (2) grant funds from the CMA and the TVTC; and (3) a bond issue, the revenues of which would be coming from the Station and the parking garages and the County is currently DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (f) www.(~i.duhlill.ca.us working on a financial support plan for this bond issuance. The largest unknown was related to the private development side because the office market is not doing well and even though absorption is doing better and vacancies are down, the rents are not anywhere near where they need to be to support the development; the hotel industry closely follows the office industry. Ampelon believes that the person with whom it contracts with will be securing all foul' properties would build the entire development. BART has prepared a fall back plan if funding sources are not available and if for some reason the residential and the retail are removed, which is desired to be built immediately, there will be a shortage of funds. BART'S strategy is to surface park the office building lot with the required 420 parking stalls and it would be a surface location on the Pleasanton side. When the market matures and justifies the sales price needed, the lot would be sold and a parking structure would be built. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Russell said BART would delay the construction of the office building and the parking garage if funding sources were not available. Mr. Sullivan asked if there were any consideration given to the loss of parking spaces at the East Dublin Station? Mr. Russell said there would be no loss of parking spaces at the East Dublin Station and the amount of parking is self sufficient for this Station. Mayor Hosterman pointed out there may be a situation where the parking structure on the PIeasanton side would not be built immediately and if that occurred, would Pleasanton would be assured that there were adequate number of parking spaces in order to function on the Pleasanton side? Mr. Russell said yes. Mayor Lockhart asked if Ampelon was using Green Building Standards and if so, how. Mr. Russell said Green Building Standards are being used to construct the Station. Part of the reason for using the translucent panels was because it allowed natural light into the concourse, thus saving energy during the daytime. He noted that some of BART's requirements are stringent and there are limits on concrete strength. Ampelon is looking at lowering lighting levels, fluorescent lighting and trying to create as many of the Green elements as possible while keeping in mind that it has to meet certain BART criteria for safety reasons related to the lighting loads. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19,2005 PAGE 329(g) www.ri.dublin.ca.us Mayor Lockhart was satisfied with Scheme B and believed it worked for both communities and served not only Dublin, but also neighboring communities. If housing is selected instead of a commercial development on the Pleasanton side, Vm. Brozosky asked if a supplemental EIR needed to be conducted to accommodate the change? Mr. Russell said the environmental impact would need to be addressed. He believed a General Plan amendment plus a specific plan amendment and rezoning would be required. Vm. Brozosky pointed out that Pleasanton is currently conducting its General Plan update and it is timely for Pleasanton since it is approaching build out to figure out where these homes would be located. He encouraged Ampelon to make its decision regarding housing versus commercial so that it may be included in pleasanton's General Plan. He mentioned that beside LA VTA, the County Connection delivers people into the San Ramon area and he wanted to make sure there were adequate bus pullouts to accommodate two bus systems. He asked if Ampelon had discussed this matter with both the County Connection and LA VT A staff? Mr. Russell noted that on the Dublin side, there are WHEELS and the County Connection bus services. He indicated that eight bus bays and only four or five buses are arriving within 20-minute intervals so there are more than adequate locations to accommodate the bus systems. Vm. Brozosky concurred with Ms. McCormick's comments regarding public art, which he believed would make the Station look attractive. He inquired about the monitoring system for parking at Stoneridge Mall. Mr. Russell said there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Pleasanton, BART, and the Stoneridge Mall owners for the entire parking process, which included a monitoring procedure and signage. Vm. Brozosky believed Pleasanton should assume that it would never acquire the additional level of parking because he did not believe BART would have sufficient funds and would have other higher priorities. DlJßLlN CITY COUNCil, MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL .JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19,2005 PAGE 329 (h) www.d.dublin.ca.lIs Glenn Hage, a Pleasanton resident, asked if BART expected more customers when the West Dublin/pleasanton Station was built. Mr. Russell said yes and noted that the East Dublin Station is at capacity. Mr. Russell reviewed the proposed schedule for the private and public development process. Currently a due diligence phase is included in which the private developer is reviewing the property and looking at the conditions and costs with escrow closing around November 22. More recently, staff members from both cities met with BART and its development team in early August 2005 to receive a presentation on the project. He believed the bond support agreements would be negotiated with the City and County for providing support for the bond issue with an agreement between both parties to occur in October 2005. Ampelon is continuing its design work for both the Station and parking garages and appreciated the opportunity to address both Councils and receive their feedback this evening. He noted that significant design changes would put the project behind in trying to accomplish a guaranteed maximum price contract. He anticipated issuance of the bonds and construction to begin in January 2006. Mr. Sullivan asked when Pleasanton Council would conduct its PUD review process? Mr. Iserson said the process would not include a separate PUD approval as this is not a PUD application or area, and Council's action this evening would be related to the site plan and building elevations as presented this evening. He noted there would be another meeting regarding the financing plan. BART as a governmental agency is not obligated to gain approvals of any city and it is working closely with both cities for its input and Council's recommendation. BART has requested an expedited process and this is how it is being handled. Cm. McGovern found it hard to approve Scheme B of the BART station and the proposed design of the parking structure without the financial plan. She asked when the financial discussion would occur? Mr. Fialho said he and Mr. Ambrose, Dublin City Manager, agreed they would hold the financial discussion individually with each of its respective City Councils. He planned to present the financing issues to Pleasanton Council on October 4. Vm. Br07.osky reminded both Councils that it needed to provide a recommendation to support Scheme B of the BART station and the proposed design of the parking structure. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasantoo City Council) September 19, 200S PAGE 329 (i) www.Ó.dublin.ca.us Dublin City Manager Richard Ambrose said there would be a time when BART would present a financing agreement to both cities and the County of Alameda for consideration, and what Mr. Fialho referred to is more of an informational report in terms of what the proposed commitment from the two cities is. BART is actually putting an agreement together that would formalize that commitment. Cm. McGovern asked if both Councils could approve Scheme B based upon the future approval of the financing plan. Mr. Ambrose said it was his understanding the funding that is being requested of the two cities and Alameda County is requisite for moving the project forward and relates to providing additional reserve funds for debt service in the future. He pointed out there is an existing current MOU with BART that both cities of Dublin and Pleasanton entered into with BART specifying what type of financial commitment would be made. BART is proposing a change to the way in which this commitment was made. It was his understanding that Mr. Fialho would present this change to the Pleasanton Council at its October 4 meeting and Dublin Council would be discussing this change at its September 20 meeting. Both cities would not take any final action until the final details were spelled out in an agreement between BART and the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. Mr. Sullivan believed the urgency and/or time line was being determined by the land sale and bond issues. Mr. Russell said the time line is being driven by the issuance of the bonds. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, and by unanimous vote, the Dublin City Council supported Scheme B of the BART station and the proposed design of the parking structure. On motion of Mayo!' Hosterman, seconded by Cm. Thorne, and by unanimous vote, the Pleasanton City Council supported Scheme B of the BART station and the proposed design of the parking structure. Mr. Ambrose clarified the motion, which was to allow both Councils the opportunity to provide comments with respect to the design of the station and the parking structures. He noted that both communities would have an opportunity to further review and comment on the actual private improvements that are going to be constructed on BART property which is the office building on the Pleasanton side and a hotel and residential complex on the Dublin side. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (j) www.ci.dublill.ca.us Mr. Sullivan asked what further discretionary review would the Pleasanton Council have with respect to the office building and parking structure. Mr. Iserson said the office building or whatever it may turn into would come back to Council for its review, as this is a private development piece. What is before Council this evening is the BART structure itself, the station and the two parking structures. He noted this would not come back to Pleasanton Council by way of a design review because it is a BART project. Mr. Sullivan believed Council was approving the entire project based upon this evening's presentation. Mr. Iserson said the office building on Pleasanton's side is not a part of tonight's approval. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McGovern, Mr. Fialho said Pleasanton Council is not approving a financing plan at this point and all it approved was Scheme B. He noted that staff would return to Council to conceptually discuss the financing plan on October 4. As previously mentioned by Mr. Ambrose, once the financing details are ironed out between BART, pleasanton and Dublin, staff would formally return to both Dublin and Pleasanton Councils prior to bond issuance. Vm. Brozosky further defined the motion in which Pleasanton Council agreed to support Scheme B of the BART station and the proposed design of the parking structure, and any other designs for the office building including the financing plan would return to Council at a future date. .. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINlJTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (k) www.ci.dublill.c.a.us The Minutes of this Special Joint Meeting were prepared by Dawn G. Abrahamson, CMC, PIeasanton City Clerk. . AQJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Councils, the Special Meeting of the and Dublin and Pleasanton City Councils adjourned at 5:38 p.m. Mayor A TIEST: City Clerk .~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING (with Pleasanton City Council) September 19, 2005 PAGE 329 (1) www.ci.dublill.ca.lls