The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 7.1 Camp Parks Land Use CITY CLERK File # D~[gd[Q]-[lJ[/j] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 15, 2005 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION4J( ~: FINANCIAL STATEMENT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Review of park and open space issues with the Alternative Land Use Plans tbr future private development at Camp Parks Report Prepared by: Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Notes from February IS, 2005 City Council meeting Land Use Plan Alternative 3 Land Use Plan Alternative 4 Land Use Plan Alternative 5 Neighborhood Square Standards and Neighborhood Park Standards from the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Receive Staff Report. Staff recommends that the City Council consider Staffs analysis of the Top 3 land use alternatives and provide direction on the following issues: a. Si%e and configuration oflinear parks; and b. Retaining a consultant tbr park planning purposes. None at this time. However, should the City Council decide to engage the services of a consultant to assist the City in identifYing options for a unique park and/or public space use, that would require a budget adjustment for FY 2004/2005 in the amount of the contract, which would be reviewed by the City Council at a later date. On June I, 2004, the City Council approved a contract for planning and design consultants to guide the City through a Strategic Visioning Process f(,r possible future private development on 182 acres at Camp Parks. The end result of the visioning process was intended to be several master plan alternatives tbr City Council review and discussion. The main components of the Strategic Visioning Process were three community meetings. The first and second meetings were a Planning and Design Charrette with community leaders to solicit, discuss, analyze, and evaluate design alternatives tbr the property. These meetings took place on Friday Au~,'ust 6, 2004 and Saturday August 7, 2004. The eharrette was attended by the invitees as well as a number of guests and interested citizens. The consultants then developed five conceptual alternatives for the group's consideration, and a follow up workshop took place on Monday, October 4, 2004 where the group examined the pros and cons of the five alternatives and voted for their first, second, and third preferences. COPIES TO: Property Owners! Applicants G:\PA#\2003\03-015 Camp Park!> GPA\Visiuning Progrnm\CC Staff Report Review Alts 03. IS.OS.doc \Ob~ ~1 ITEM NO. tJ At the February 15, 2005 City Council meeting, Staff asked the City Councilmembers to discuss the positive and negative aspects of the Top 3 land plans so that StafI and the Army could understand sDecificallv what it was about each of the alternatives that the City Council liked and did not like. The intent was for Staff to then prepare a more detailed, technical analysis of each plan, highlighting how the plan should 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: I. Location and types of housing 2. Location and sizes of parks 3. Location and number of east-west cOlmections 4. Location of office and mixed use development 5. Overall mix ofland uses 6. Connection to future Transit Center development City Council feedback from Pebruary 15, 2005 meeting: The City Council's detailed comments on each plan are included as Attachment I to this Staff Report, but several common issues emerged from the City Council's discussion: Parks and ODen Soace: · Councilmembers liked the concept of linear parks and/or small parks running through the development to provide convenient recreational opportunities adjacent to residents. · Councilmembers liked having a large, centrally-located park space that could serve the immediate development, act as a bridge between the eastern and western parts of Dublin, and possibly serve the greater region (depending on the park's eventual programming). · Councilmembers liked the presence of a lake in the public space, if it is feasible from DSRSD's perspecti ve. · Councilmembers want park space easily accessible to Transit Center residents. · Couneilmcmbers want 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. Housing; · Councilmembers want to ensure a good mixture of housing types throughout the site and to avoid segregating housing types into one area or another. · Councilmembcrs voiced concerns that there are too many housing units and the housing proposed is too dense. · 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 ITonting any major high traffic volume street (tor instance the northern-most street in Alternative 5). Councilmembers 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 TransDortation: · Councilmembers support the idea of having Central Parkway (especially as it connects to Arnold and point-s east) 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 inclusion 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 Page 2 of6 • 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. Other Land Uses: • Councilmembers voiced their desire to accommodate some public/semi-public facilities in the project area (i.e. future post office, place of worship) • Councilmembers 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. • . Councilmembers 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 from a technical perspective. As there were a,number of issues to review, and because the traffic/circulation portion of the analysis required more time to review, Staff felt it would be best to break the discussion into two meetings. Tonight's discussion will center on park and open space issues and Staff will return to the City Council on April 5, 2005 to discuss housing, land uses and densities, and traffic/circulation. With regards to parks and open space issues as expressed above by the City Council on February 15, 2005, Staff offers the following analysis for City Council review and discussion. Adequate park acreage and additional open space. The project plan is required to include a minimum amount of park acreage to serve the population generated by the development. This park requirement is 5.0 net useable acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Of this amount, 1.5 acres is designated Neighborhood Park/Square and 3.5 acres is designated Community Park. In addition to the park requirements for the residents, the plan will also need to include 8.7 acres of parkland for the Transit Center development and an additional 1.2 acres for Eastern Dublin. Given the population estimates for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, the minimum amount of parkland required to be provided varies from nearly 24 net useable acres in Alternative 3 to 30 net useable acres in Alternative 5, as shown in the table below. . The net usable acres have minimum performance standards to serve neighborhood and community park needs, and shall be designed to accommodate play areas, sports facilities, picnic facilities, and natural areas as required by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Neighborhood Park 4.18 a 4.45 a ' 6.0 a Community Park 9.74 a 10.39 a 14.0 a Transit Center 8.7 a 8.7 a 8.7 a Eastern Dublin 1.2 a 1.2 a 1.2 a Minimum amount of park acreage required 23.82 acres 24.74 acres • 29.9 acres (net useable acres) Linear parks. Councilmembers indicated an interest in seeing the project plan incorporate linear parks that link the various sections of the development to one another. However, the size and function of linear parks can vary greatly, which will have.an impact on the resulting land plan. Staff has examined two locations in the Tri Valley where linear parks are in place: Page 3 of 6 Case Study 1: Tassajara Creek Trail in Dublin Twenty teet wide in most cases, this linear park is really a trail with open space to the side that allows for passi ve recreation. In places the creek trail widens to 70 feet, but it is narrow for the most part, designed to serve as a recreational trail as opposed to formal recreation space. Most linear parks occur next to a natural resource such as a creek or occur as a widened parkway next to a major street. These parks primarily serve the function of allowing pedestrians to get somewhere without being on a street with vehicular traffic and offer a more comfortable walking or bicycling experience. However, there are other types of linear parks, including those as described below. Case Study 2: Valley Trails Park in Pleasanton Valley Trails Park in Pleasanton is approximately a half-mile long, and is 60-70 feet wide in most places. The approximately 6.I-acre park is designed so that it runs down the middle of the Valley Trails subdivision and is accessible from at least fifteen different streets and cul-de-sacs. The narrowest point of the linear park is approximately 20 teet wide, and there is a point where the park widens out to approximately 150-175 feet to accommodate a basketball court, swing set, and children's play structure. The park is completely protected from vehicular traffic and is widely used by children and families. The park's strength is that it is easily accessible from all ofthe homes in the subdivision because it has so many connections and each cul-de-sac in the development opens onto the park, which makes it highly visible and safety surveillance possible. Linear parks can simply create a pedestrian circulation system that allows people to move from one area to another without having to navigate streets with vehicular traffic, or they can also be programmed to include typical recreational facilities, depending on the size and configuration of the park. In Dublin, in order for a developer to receive credit for a linear park to count towards the City's park requirements, the park space would have to meet the minimum requirements of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and would have to fall within the definition of either a Neighborhood Square (minimum 2 acres), or Neighborhood Park (minimum 5 acres). If the linear park could not meet these minimum requirements, it Page 4 of6 would serve as an open space amenity to the project area, but would not be eligible for park credit and usable park space would need to be accounted for elsewhere in the development. Staff recommends that the City Council determine what type or types of linear parks are desired for the Camp Parks project area: linear parks that simply provide pedestrian and bicycle circulation opportunities, linear parks which have the opportunity to provide other recreational amenities as well and could be cligible for park credit if designed to the standards of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, or a combination of the two. CentraUy-located park space/unique park facility. In addition to the minimum amount of parkland required to serve the development as noted above, the project plan should also include additional park space to accommodate a unique facility, public space, or community amenity. At the February 15th City Council meeting, Councilmembers indicated an interest in having the project 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 westen1 and eastern portions of Dublin, provide a grand entry into the project site, and provide a unique space tor a range of programming opportunities. There arc two processes that the City could use to determine what type of uses might be desirable for this unique park space as well as the amount of space (land and building, if appropriate) needed to accommodate the use. 80th of these processes involve hiring a consultant with expertise in park and facilities planning: Ootion I: Research and Analvsis. The City could hire a consultant to conduct research on recreational and civic amenities which currently exist in the greater Tri Valley area. The consultant could then identify facilities that are currently not available. The consultant would provide the City with a report of the types of facilities that might be appropriate for the project area and the size and parking requirements for each type of facility. The report could then be presented to the City Council tor their review and consideration. Option I would likely cost $20,000-$30,000 and could take 6-8 weeks to complete. Ontion 2: Communitv process. The City could hire a consultant to help the City through a community process of identitying the type of unique facility the City would like to see. Instead of going outside the community to research what facilities there is a demand fbr in general, this process would invite community involvement and ask the citizens of Dublin what they would like to see in their community. This process could involve input fiom the City's commissions and advisory boards (or others as deemed appropriate) through a series of questionnaires, interviews, and/or workshops. This process would be more costly and time-intensive. Option 2 would likely cost $50,000-$60,000 and could take 4-6 months to complete. Either of these processes could occur while the Army is going through the process of selecting a Master Developer tor the project site and should not impact the timing of the Army's eventual project application. Page 5 01'6 Staff recommends that the City Council determine if either of these options is desirable. If they are, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize Staff to prepare and distribute a Request for Proposals to solicit a consultant for the work. RECOMMENDATION: There are two main issues that need to be discussed and resolved regarding park issues: I. What type or types of linear parks the City Council would like to see in the Camp Parks development: either a trail-like linear park designed primarily to provide pedestrian linkages between destinations, larger linear parks that could provide traditional recreational amenities in additional to pedestrian linkages, or a combination of the two. 2. What type of process the City Council would like to go through to determine the type of unique facility that could be appropriate for Dublin: either a research and analysis approach or a community-oriented approach with public involvement. Staff recommends that the City Council consider Staffs analysis and provide direction on these two tssues. Staff will return to the City Council on AprilS, 2005 to discuss issues regarding housing, land use mix, and traffic/circulation. After the April5'h meeting, Staff will prepare a letter to the Army summarizing the City Council's direction on the range of issues and those issues which need to be addressed in their formal development application. Page 6 of6 I~ß City Council Input on Top 3 Alternatives at Camp Parks (notes from February 15, 2005 City Council meeting) ALTERNATIVE 3 Positive elements Thinas that should be chanaed · 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 (CM/JL) · 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 Qet to- (JL) · Mirrors Transit Center Housing mix · Parks need to be closer to housing (KH) (JL) · 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 (JL) · 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 (GllTO\ · Central Parkway should not be a substitute for 580 (GZ) · Location of the big park is not good (JL) · We should direct through traffic to Gleason, not Central (JL) · This alt. is third on the list (JLITO/KH) 3 -15-DS'" /, ATTACHMENT \ ALTERNATIVE 4 Positive elements · Large Park is great (TO/GZlKH) · Separation of active uses from passive uses in Large Park (GZ) · Large Park is a jewel; 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 2Cb~ 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) 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 GZlTO · 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) · ~rJb'Þ Thin s that should be chan ed · Linear Parks should be included (CMITO) · Need more open space (CM) · Housing adjacent to parks should be changed from town houses to 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 GZ/CMITO/KH · Move town homes off Arnold KHITO/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 e ft 0 '. '" '" ~ ~ ,~ ,. '-< ~ /. '" ~ ~ '" '" cL :;: :::: I!! u æ Iii is ~ u z ¡:: III is (\oj uJ > Ei Z n: uJ ::; <:( ....,."..........,',:'¡-,·:,"':.n-c <I) <1)1-- <I) I- I-- zzz <1)<1) ,'" ::J ::J ::J uJ LJJ ::J a: a: Q!:::!¡¡¡¡;¡u.u.U.UU ",,,,,,,<1)<1)<1)<:(<( S/LJJuJLJJ 11::11::11::... 0 rta:n:a: ID.....rt III... "UUUCIIIII'" <:(<:(<(..~... èi50cs a: N.,. « "-' u. ::::J" .. _<I)::; rt ..J~:E~a;"';- <:(U.O«~~O:LJJ ¡:::~~"rlllb¡f~ z(:1:>6....!.;:t",n::..J LJJZ:>::J..JW....!.<I)O º¡¡;2::¡;<~uzO <I) 1-'u.->uJ:I: LJJ wu._,,-u a: O:OUOI/) Y Db'î{ ATTACHMENT 2. e f_. ;," ," '" i1 :g :i.wl'~ '1.'. !Ø\ '.~"" I -." I '.4 "0.-;:;;"':'1\"" "\"";:. ",1:,"1 ~':'~'fu2/:; ,', .... t; \7; '" c.J '"' ? '"' oJ ?~ ci Ò ¡.: ..... =-= f CI z ¡¡ CI Of W > ~ Z c:: W ':i « ,II) 9 " 1&1 s: VI VI VI 1-1-1- zzz VI VI "~:::J~ Ww - ~ ~ c:: a: ::::I.,oogLJ..LJ..LJ..UU c::!gèi\VlUJVI«« !www=-==-==-="'· 'iJa:a:c::IIIN"''''' "'UUUGlIII'" ««<c"'~'" a;õa a: .. '" '" i!:. ~"":": _UJ::¡ III :::i!W__-> -,<c:::i!:::i!C::-'_ <cLJ..O<i!:.j:!!a:w ¡::~:I:~IIIOi!:.U zc>~':i->~",:f-, WZÈ:::J-'W->UJO Qii'iI-:::i!;¡¡:~UZO UJ f"LJ..->W::!: I.LI wU-_Q-U c:: C::OUOVl S'b'i .-j'"'" ATTACHMENT? .., en en en 1-1-1:: ZZ~ 1313 :¡:::J~ a:: a:: _II>IDoo,,-,,-u..SISI ::Þt"""(O~(f)(J)cn-....... 0"':= :.!:.!:.!oco (II WWa:I(II....1II ø~a::c:UØ)cn~ CÐUU "P "«<4: - ".....(3 a:: WOlD < ..N u.. ?:j<ii:>; II! -W=__ ::¡¡::¡¡:¡;a::....._ .....~0<¡:¡:z:1=!~~ < ::('+IIIO"-!!( ¡:::~Z- .::(..,0:..... ZC~:;-¡¡¡ .(1)0 ~£;ðl-~;i~~t'5ª -(I) ""........>D.-U (I) wu..-ocn ~a:: ATTACHMENT t1 , . . , "" " .f$ :'¡/iDI",) , -'~::'J"L,; 'I, :-1 -""1'1"""!1"". ,. .'. . -----:-:-:-~- i ',- ,.\.:,':!~;:pr;.:¡¡~,\T":;;, :,¡~,I;(' ¡ .;,"""". ":'.,~: '; '\" ~ :""'1\'~ ')':r ":".,i:i. "'''''\'1'':' <. , ,I. ·",·m.,'. " ,,~,_I¡: .t:,." ' ":":""':¡¡' . of' ;,:;'i'."' ..... ." ",~~;,:., ,;. ,;¡' f;;';;~',·~t'F';r ;. :" êO =:= ~- o!:i ~ -'~'-'-'-'-',~'~'- ¡:::~. 4: 'if:i:: 'F,),¡ , . z '~:,,,,,,,.: a:: " ":, ,!I " " " ~ ~ . W ft'11Õ~ ~ b . .;"z/'d .,. « If, ,":J i.rJv¡J ~ 11 , I~'''~ , .' w.~ u~~/, "', " Neighborhood Square Standards ÎCSf)'t '}, :Þ " (, '\ N eigbborhood Square' provide speciaj~ed facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or special interest group such as young children Or senior citi~ens. The Neighborhood Square is a scaled-down version of the Neighborhood Park, with an average size of2 acres and located in high density residential urban areas where a green pocket is the central focus ofthe neighborhood. AcC'tss/Locatíon: Prominent location preferably a.t cross street. Within neighbQrhoods and in close prox.imity to apartment complexes, townhouse development or housing for the elderly. ¡",inked wíth trai]s and pedestrian walkways. Each park should have unique characteristìcs sllch as public art, fountain, bandstand, formal gardens~ etc. to create .a. focal point for high density areas. Dc:velop plaza areas for gathering and neighborhood social events. I Site Cha.racterístics: 2 net acres minimum. Predominately leve! site_ ,. Park Design, :=;-tANDARDS \; ,. ~ P]ay Area: Small sca¡., high quality play structures. Parents seating area. o;¡j '~ ;~ ::1 ¡c: Potential Sports Pacìlities~ As appropriate to user groups in adjacent homes; proyjde tennìs court, yolh::yball court, or basketball court. Picnic Facilities; Tables and benches with limited open space for individual use:, Seatwalls for informal picnicking. "'-:' , Natura.l Areas: Views afld vistas are desirable. 'ï '/'. A.s necessary for security only. '.:) '..,1 î Porking' Lighting, Not provided. Street parking. RestroorTIs: ~.' )~ ,.f , " " \ ATTACHMENT S DUBLIN PARKS 54 Neighborhood Park Standards ßqý' The neighborhood park can be the visual and social center for the local community. In addition to meeting the 10e.l residents' recreational needs, the neighborhood park is also a "village green". These parks should b. designed to reflect the unique character of each neighborhood. Neighborhood parks aro developed to provide space for improvement in relaxation, play and infonnal recr~ation activitiM in a specific neighborhood Or cluster ofresid¡mtial units. The park improvements are oriented toward the individual recreational needs of the neighborhood in which itis located. Facilities should be designed to include practice fields and noHor ones competitive use, whicb traditionally bring more traffic into a neighborhood. Development Criteria: 1.5 acre 1'nìn;mum per 1 ,000 persoT1~ 5 to 7 net acres mìnimuITI. Service Area: Service area defined by major arterìals or topography. Adjac~nt to neighborhood boundaries or open space area, visible from neighborhoQd entry. STANDARDS ~ Site Characteristics~ Major percentage of the site should be level to accommodate active recreation uSes. Natura.l Or visual qualities to mhancc the character. Access/Location: Minimum of2 public street frontages. On cQllector or residential streets; no major arterials. Central green/socia] center for neighborhood. Refle¡::t character of setting r natural featl,lres or QrchHecturQ style of homes. Play Area: Tot lot for chìldren 2·4 years. Appa.ratus play area adjacent to tot lot. Parents seating 9.rea. Park Design: Potentia] Sports Facilities: Turfflelds graded and mairrrained for practice softballlbaseball (minimum 250' outfield) and soccer (mínìrnum 1801). Tennis courts. V olicybali courts. Outdoor basketball courts. Bacot bali COurt,. Picnic Facilities: Tables and secluded space for in.formal family pícnics up to 6-8 people:.. Barbecue facilities in family-sized picnic areas. Natural Areas; Open space meadow for informal 5pOrtS, games and passive activÜies. Fenced area for dog, offleash. Off-street parking for i 0-20 ears where minimum street trontage, are not provided. Lockable parking for 6-1 0 bicycles. Provide lighting for security purposes not for 'Iight~use activities. A void penetration of unwanted light into adjacent neighborhood. PariGng: Lighting: DUBUN PARKS 52 ~ - - I I I