Agenda packet — Dublin City Council, February 15, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

Agenda Item 7.1
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: SCS Property Community Outreach
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On March 2, 2021, the City Council approved a City-led Community Outreach process for the SCS Property to create a foundation for future discussions about appropriate land uses for the property. Staff and the consultant team lead by ELS Architecture & Urban Design and Urban Field Studio in concert with the community, Planning Commission, and City Council have worked to develop a Preferred Plan for the SCS Property. The City Council will receive a presentation and consider approving the Preferred Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation and adopt the Resolution Approving the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

All costs associated with the Community Outreach process are paid by the property owner.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The subject 76.9-acre property, known as the SCS Property, is located north of I-580 between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street and extends to the north of Gleason Drive (refer to Figure 1).

On March 2, 2021, the City Council approved a City-led Community Outreach process for the SCS Property and the use of a multidisciplinary consultant team led by ELS Architecture & Urban Design (ELS) to create a foundation for future discussions about appropriate land uses for the property and ultimately develop a Preferred Plan for the SCS Property. 369

Page 2 of 9 ends

Figure 1. Location Map
As part of the process, the City Council established principles to create a foundation for the Preferred Plan as follows:

1. The goal of the outreach process is to gain consensus on preferred land uses and future development of the property.

2. The outreach process will include a variety of interested parties including the property owner, adjacent property owners (i.e., Grafton, Lowe’s), adjacent homeowner’s associations, and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce.

3. The Preferred Plan will create the framework for a mixed-use private project including limited public amenities.

4. The Preferred Plan will establish minimum residential densities.

5. The Preferred Plan will meet the goals of the property owner to create a financially and economically feasible project in the current market and long-term sustainability for the City.

Based on these principles, the consultant team has worked with the community, property owner, City Staff, and other stakeholders to identify viable land uses and development options for the property in the form of a Preferred Plan. The work considered feedback from the community, City Staff, and other stakeholders, as well as financial and economic feasibility, recommendations from the Urban Land Institute Technical Advisory Panel (ULI TAP), and goals of the property owner.

The Community Outreach process for the SCS Property began in spring 2021 with “Task A,” which included gathering background information, conducting interviews with community stakeholders, the property owner, and City Staff, as well as a meeting with the newly formed 14-member Community Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council. The Planning Commission and the 370

Page 3 of 9 ends

City Council also provided input at meetings held during this first task on May 25, 2021, and June 1, 2021, respectively. Task A was completed in June 2021 with the ULI TAP providing their findings and recommendations for the SCS Property. The ULI TAP took place June 24 - 29, 2021, and included input and recommendations on land uses that optimize the synergy between land use, economic development, and community compatibility for the SCS Property.

The work continued in July and August with “Task B,” which focused on public engagement.

During this time, a new project website was launched and became the centralized place for all project information and announcements. In addition, a Community Survey was conducted to gather further input and help inform the outreach process, which generated responses from 71 people. Staff and the consultant team also held the first Community Meeting on August 25, 2021.

The meeting was attended by approximately 40 community members who discussed a variety of land use topics for the site including the regional context, public benefits, market demand, economics of development, connectivity, and housing.

In the fall of 2021, the work continued with “Task C,” which focused on building consensus and creating the initial conceptual land use framework. The consultant team prepared three broad land use concepts using the information gathered through stakeholder and property owner interviews, Community Advisory Committee meetings, Community Meetings, the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the consultant team’s own research and fiscal analysis of development.

The three land use concepts presented in “Task C” were responsive to dominant themes that surfaced throughout the Community Outreach process, ULI TAP recommendations, and fiscal analysis. These three concepts, summarized below and provided in Figure 2, illustrate the level of amenities that are financially feasible to provide based on the proposed number of residential units that would be needed to fund those amenities.

Concept 1 – Base Amenities - “North Street” approaches the site with a minimal amount of housing and commercial uses, and more modest community amenities.

Concept 2 - Mid-level Amenities - “Paseo” increases the number of residential units and provides a commensurate increase in amenities with a neighborhood commercial main street on Finnian Way and an open-space greenway for bikes and pedestrians spanning from Dublin Boulevard north to Gleason Drive.

Concept 3 - High Amenities - “Finnian Square” concentrates retail and restaurants north of Dublin Boulevard and introduces a finer grain street network and town square with additional residential units to support the additional community amenities. 371

Page 4 of 9 ends

Figure 2. Three Initial Concepts
Review of the initial land use concepts included meetings with the Community Advisory Committee on October 6 and October 28, 2021, a Community Meeting on October 20, 2021, and meetings held with the Planning Commission on October 26, 2021, and City Council on November 2, 2021. The result of “Task C” was support of the Mid-Level Amenities land use concept with recommendations to consider:
 Limiting family housing to the 261 units originally planned for the SCS site plus 181 units previously planned for the Emerald Glen High School site. The remainder 208 units included in Concept 2 (Mid-Level Amenities) could be low-impact senior housing.  If financially feasible, capping the total unit count at 600.  Moving the circular open space area at Central Parkway to Finnian Way.  Enhancing visibility to the grand paseo from Tassajara Road.

Preferred Plan
The culmination of all the input provided throughout this process resulted in the development of the Preferred Plan as part of the final task, “Task D.” The Preferred Plan is an illustrative land use plan that will guide the future development of the SCS Property. The Preferred Plan does not create any land uses or development but reflects the balance and location of land uses and densities supported through the outreach process. The Preferred Plan includes development capacity of the site using typical architectural prototypes creating potential building layouts, an illustrative site plan that establishes the connectivity within the site and to the surrounding context, and renderings to convey the character of the overall building massing to express scale of buildings, public streets, parks, and plazas.

The Preferred Plan, as provided in Attachment 2 and as shown in Figure 3, focuses on the following concepts:
372

Page 5 of 9 ends

 Integrate Paseo and Town Square Concepts Figure 3. Preferred Plan A town square concept is provided in the Preferred
Plan to anchor the shops and restaurants on Finnian
Way. The town square is located on the grand paseo
opening views to Mt. Diablo. In order to accommodate
a variety of activities (e.g., recreation, public
gardening, and native plan/pollinator meadows) and
compliment adjacent land uses, the width of the grand
paseo varies from 25 feet to 110 feet.
 Improve Visibility and Access to the Paseo
A new north/south street located between Brannigan
Street and Tassajara Road is provided in the Preferred
Plan along the east side of the grand paseo creating
greater access and activity to the public open space.

The paseo widens towards Tassajara Road inviting
pedestrians and bikes off the major arterial onto the
paseo. Generous bike and pedestrian paths connect
Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard.
 Diversify Housing Types
Housing throughout the site is varied with entry-level
housing, affordable housing, and family housing, all of which may accommodate senior residents. Types
range from traditional single-family homes, courtyard
homes, townhomes, and affordable apartments. The
Preferred Plan allows for a range of 500 to 550 market
rate units and a 2.5-acre site for affordable housing (70 to 150 units) for a total of 570 to 650 units.
 Dedicated Affordable Housing Site
The Preferred Plan includes a parcel to be dedicated
for construction of affordable housing. The site
location, at the prominent corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, will serve as a gateway to the larger neighborhood. The site is large enough to permit a variety of affordable housing solutions, allowing the design and amount of affordable housing to be tailored to the community’s needs. The number of units could vary substantially to respond to those needs and available funding sources. For example, units in a senior affordable housing project are typically smaller than units in a family affordable housing project and thus a senior project may have greater density than a family project.  Pedestrian-Focused Entertainment District
The entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard is set around a large pedestrian plaza (roughly 120 feet by 300 feet) creating a regional dining and family entertainment 373

Page 6 of 9 ends

destination.

Community Engagement
Over the past 11 months, City Staff has worked with ELS to engage the community in a variety of ways to gather maximum input. The following is a summary of the City’s community engagement efforts:
 SCS Property Community Outreach Website
A new project website was launched and continues to serve as the centralized place for project information, community surveys, and announcements. Presentations and recordings of all the meetings are provided on the website. The website ( https://courbanize.com/scsproperty ) also allows visitors to sign up to receive automatic updates on project information. In addition, City Staff created a page on the City’s website with an overview of the project and direct link to the coUrbanize website.  Community Advisory Committee
A Community Advisory Committee consisting of 14 Dublin residents and business owners was formed to provide input throughout the outreach process. The purpose of the Community Advisory Committee was to:
o Provide a community perspective on development of the SCS Property o Share thoughts on previous proposals for the SCS Property o Share thoughts on general priorities for development in Dublin o Provide input on the greater public engagement strategy o Provide feedback on the initial land use framework and preferred plan Three Community Advisory Committee meetings, plus additional individual meetings, were held throughout the outreach process:
o Meeting #1 (May 19, 2021): The first meeting of the Community Advisory Committee was a brainstorming session on the vision for the site. (14 members contributed)
o Meeting #2 (October 6 and 28, 2021): At this meeting, the three land use concepts were discussed. Due to limited attendance, additional outreach followed the Community Advisory Committee meeting via individual and group meetings. (13 members contributed)
o Meeting #3 (January 6, 2021): The draft Preferred Plan was presented for discussion. The Community Advisory Committee expressed support of the Preferred Plan commenting on the balance of residential units and amenities, diverse mix of housing, the main street along Finnian Way with a town square, and the generous setback along Tassajara Road. (10 members contributed)
 Community Surveys
Three online community surveys were developed during the process:
374

Page 7 of 9 ends

o Survey #1 (August 26 - September 12, 2021): The first survey continued the effort in gathering background research about the site and a brainstorming. (71 respondents)
o Survey #2 (October 29 - November 12, 2021): The second survey polled the community's thoughts on the scale of public benefits this site can deliver for the larger community. This survey asked questions based on the land planning options presented at Community Meeting #2 and the Planning Commission meeting. (66 respondents)
o Survey #3 (January 14- 31, 2022): The final survey polled the community’s thoughts on the Preferred Plan including which features should be prioritized, the preferred number of affordable housing units, and the breakdown of market rate housing and amenities. (339 respondents)
 Community Meetings
Three community meetings took place over the course of the outreach process:
o Community Meeting #1 (August 25, 2021): The first meeting covered background research about the site and an interactive brainstorming session. (40 attendees) o Community Meeting #2 (October 20, 2021): At the second meeting, the consultant team presented three land use concepts demonstrating possible configurations of the public framework of streets, plazas, parks, and land uses. Breakout rooms for smaller group discussions on the vision for the site were utilized. (10 attendees) o Community Meeting #3 (January 12, 2021): At the final meeting, the draft Preferred Plan was presented for discussion. The questions and discussion covered a variety of topics including preservation of views, affordable housing including the types and amount required to be provided, construction feasibility, sizing of the plazas, balancing the land uses, range of housing sizes, potential for a Mello Roos or Community Facilities District to pay for infrastructure and schools, and impacts to schools. (25 attendees)
 Notify Me and Social Media
Over the course of the outreach, the community was able to subscribe to the City’s Notify Me to receive notifications about opportunities to provide input on the planning process for the SCS Property Community Outreach. The City also used its Social Media platforms (e.g., Nextdoor, Twitter, and Facebook, news flashes, calendar items, and stories in the Backyard Brief), to spread the word on all meetings and surveys.

A draft resolution approving the Preferred Plan is included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report.

This resolution incorporates the Planning Commission recommendation, if economically feasible, to include for-sale inclusionary housing units integrated into the project in addition to the affordable housing site, as further discussed below.

Next Steps
Should the Preferred Plan be approved by the City Council, the next step for the property owner and/or developer is to prepare a development application to implement the Preferred Plan. 375

Page 8 of 9 ends

Although a development application is not required to follow the Preferred Plan, City Staff and the consultant team have worked closely with the property owner’s representatives though this process and it is anticipated that the development application will utilize the efforts and goals of the Preferred Plan. A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and Site Development Review Permit and Affordable Housing Agreement would be required for a future development project. Evaluation of the development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would occur prior to project approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Approval of the Preferred Plan is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) in that it would not have a legally binding effect on later activities.

PLANNING COMMISION REVIEW:

On January 25, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the Preferred Plan and adopted Resolution No. 22-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Preferred Plan (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission expressed support and appreciation for the community outreach process and the efforts made by the consultant team. During their deliberations, the Commission discussed school impacts, the placement of the commercial areas, affordable housing, and incorporating inclusionary for-sale units. Regarding the future project, the Commission noted that landscaping will be critical, including the paseo and designing for the wind, and making the plaza larger. The Planning Commission’s recommendation includes providing inclusionary for-sale units integrated into the project in addition to the dedicated affordable housing site to provide homeownership opportunities.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation to include for-sale inclusionary units dispersed throughout the project is included in the City Council’s draft Resolution (Attachment 1). It is noted that this addition requires consideration of the economic impacts of including both a dedicated affordable housing site and inclusionary units. The combination of a dedicated site and inclusionary units could require alternative funding sources to make the Preferred Plan economically viable. This would need to be evaluated as part of the future development application.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

A webpage was created to provide information on the SCS Property Community Outreach process (https://courbanize.com/scsproperty). This webpage is also accessible from the City’s website for the project (https://dublin.ca.gov/2297/SCS-Property-Community-Outreach). Notification of this meeting was provided on the project webpages, via “Notify Me,” Nextdoor, Twitter, and Facebook, 376

Page 9 of 9 ends

and to all interested persons who requested process updates, including the Community Advisory Committee and property owners. The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property 2) Exhibit A to the Resolution - Preferred Plan
3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-02
4) Public Comments
377
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX- 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING THE PREFERRED PLAN FOR THE SCS PROPERTY
(PLPA-2021-000012)
APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025 WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, the City Council denied the At Dublin project on the SCS Property without prejudice and directed Staff to leave the General Plan Amendment Study open and work with the property owner to conduct a community outreach process to gather input on the future use and development of the property; and
WHEREAS, in response to the City Council’s direction, the City released a Request for Proposals seeking the services of qualified consultants with expertise in land use planning and community engagement to assist the City with a public outreach process; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Dublin and ELS Architecture & Urban Design to assist the City with a public outreach process and prepare a Preferred Plan; and WHEREAS, June 24 - 29, 2021, the Urban Land Institute held a Technical Advisory Panel (ULI TAP) and provided their findings and recommendations for the SCS Property. The ULI TAP included input and recommendations on land uses that optimize the synergy between land use, economic development, and community compatibility for the SCS Property; and WHEREAS, City Staff has worked with ELS Architecture & Urban Design and their consultant team to engage the community in a variety of ways to gather maximum input. The Community Outreach process included development of a website to serve as the centralized place for project information, community surveys and announcements, three Community Advisory Committee, three Community Meetings, three Community Surveys and updates through Notify Me and social media; and
WHEREAS, the Preferred Plan considered feedback from the ULI TAP, community, City Staff and other stakeholders, financial and economic feasibility, and goals of the property owner; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Preferred Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) in that approval of the Preferred Plan would not have a legally binding effect on later activities; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the Preferred Plan and adopted Resolution No. 22-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Preferred Plan with the added recommendation to include for-sale inclusionary housing units integrated into the project in addition to the affordable housing site; and 378
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Preferred Plan as shown in Exhibit A, includes the following criteria as outlined below:

1. Market rate residential housing not to exceed 550 units.

2. Finnian Way and Aviano Way extended through the project site from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road.

3. Finnian Way frontage limited to commercial uses on the ground floor, which may be provided through a “Shop House” concept with substantive commercial space (not less than 400 square feet).

4. Housing types throughout the site that vary with entry level housing, affordable housing, and family housing. Types range from traditional single-family homes, courtyard homes, town homes and affordable apartments.

5. Include a combination of inclusionary for-sale units and a Public/Semi-Public parcel dedicated for affordable housing. Note: The addition of inclusionary for-sale units requires consideration of the economic impacts. The combination of a dedicated site and inclusionary units could require alternative funding sources to make the Preferred Plan an economically viable plan. This funding could come from a variety of sources and would be negotiated as part of the future development application.

6. A town square concept to anchor the shops and restaurants on Finnian Way. The town square is located on the grand paseo opening views to Mt. Diablo. The paseo connects the square to the residential areas south and north of Finnian Way.

7. The entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard is set around a large pedestrian plaza (roughly 120 feet by 300 feet) creating a regional dining and family entertainment destination; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the Preferred Plan would require approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review Permit and Affordable Housing Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property as shown in Exhibit A. {Signatures on the next page}
379
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
380
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Family Townhomes
Shop Houses
Finnian Way
Central Parkway
Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road
Brannigan Street
Aviano Way
Aviano Way
Diablo View Drive
Paseo
Shop Houses
Shop HousesShops
Shops
Family Townhomes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Large
Single
Family
Homes
Large Single Family Homes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Affordable
Housing
Commercial /
Entertainment
District
Commercial /
Entertainment
District
Commercial /
Entertainment
District
SCS Property
Preferred Plan
• Integrate the Paseo and Town Square Concepts
• Impr
ove Visibility & Access to the Paseo
• Diver
sify Housing Types
• Dedic
ated Affordable Housing Site
• A Pede
strian Focused Entertainment District
Attachment 2
381
P
P
P
Integrate the Paseo and Town Square Concepts:
• Design of the paseo has been changed to lead directly to a town square on Finnian Way.
• The Paseo narrows as it approaches the plaza to draw
people together and create a more social gathering
space.
• The Paseo varies in width from 25’ to 110’ wide.
• A walk along the Paseo will include a variety of
activities, from retail, recreational, public gardening, and native plant / pollinator meadows.

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
5k 3.5k 3.5k

2.5k2.5k
145’-0”
90’-0”

FINNIAN WAY

FINNIAN SQUARE

TASSAJARA ROAD

BRANNIGAN STREET

CENTRAL PARKWAY

DUBLIN BOULEVARD

EMERALD GLEN PARK

WATERFORD
SHOPS

EMERALD GLEN

HIGH SCHOOL

AVIANO WAY

GLEASON DRIVE

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE

PASEO DIABLOPASEO DIABLO
382
Improve Visibility and Access to the Paseo:
• Diablo View Drive (20 mph) accompanies the paseo
providing street parking, access to the activities on the linear park
• The southeast corner of Emerald Glen Park is an
important connection point. Setbacks along the
Central Parkway create a landscaped gateway to the
Paseo.

• The pedestrian and bike oriented paseo will serve the new development as well as the larger neighborhood
giving an healthy alternative to driving to shops,
restaurants, and schools.

TASSAJARA ROAD

CENTRAL PARKWAY
Setback

EMERALD GLEN
PARK
The SCS site is within a 1/2 mile of k-12 schools, a
Safeway anchored shopping center, bus service,
Emerald Glen Park and many other services. Bike
access along the paseo combined with dedicated
bike lanes on the Aviano and Finnian Way extensions
will make walking, jogging and biking a fun and family
friendly option.

The Paseo expands towards
Tassajra Road at Gleason to
provide better pedestian access.

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE

PASEO DIABLO

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS

TASSAJARA ROAD
383
P
P
P
Diversify Housing Types
• The affordable housing and higher density townhomes
are located closest to shops, restaurants reducing
vehicle miles traveled and adding life to the retail
district.
• The entry level townhomes consist predominantly
of two bedroom units catering to first time buyers
and those wishing to downsize. These are located
convenient to Emerald Glen Park as well as the shops.
• Single Family homes are located centrally to the three schools: Kolb Elementary School (.6 miles); Fallon
Middle School (.4 miles); Emerald Glen High School (.5
miles).
• Shophouses will bring small shops and local
businesses to the Finnian Way Neighborhood shops
district.

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS

FINNIAN WAY

TASSAJARA ROAD

BRANNIGAN STREET

CENTRAL PARKWAY

DUBLIN BOULEVARD

EMERALD GLEN PARK

WATERFORD
SHOPS

EMERALD GLEN

HIGH SCHOOL
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Family Townhomes
Family Townhomes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Large
Single
Family
Homes
Large Single Family Homes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Affordable
Housing

AVIANO WAY

GLEASON DRIVE

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE

PASEO DIABLO
Shophouses
Shops
Shophouses
Shophouses
Shops
384
Examples of Affordable Housing courtesy of Pyatok Architecture The Preferred Plan includes a parcel to be dedicated for construction of affordable housing.

The site location, at the prominent corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, will serve as a gateway to the larger neighborhood.

The site is large enough to allow a variety of affordable housing solutions, allowing the design and amount of the affordable housing to be tailored to the community’s needs. The number of units could vary substantially to respond to those needs and available funding sources. For example, units in a senior affordable housing project are typically smaller than units in a family affordable housing project and, thus, a senior project may have greater density than a family project.

2.5 Acres
Dedicated Affordable Housing Site:

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road
385
A Pedestrian Focused Entertainment District:
• Central Plaza - Approx. 120’ x 340’
• 55,000 to 60,000 sf of retail, restaurants,
entertainment
• Ample space for restaurant seating, plaza seating
• Plaza comprised of diverse seating options, spatial
experiences, caters to variety of group sizes, all ages • Space for outdoor music and performance

• Seasonal Programming and Events
• Freeway + Dublin Boulevard access and visibility
open’s door for higher rents and national tenants
• Parking Areas large enough for future parking garages and increased commercial development (if market
supports)
Family Entertainment
Anchor

7.5k
30k
5k5k
5k5k

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
Flex Commercial Zone:
• Office Campus
• Regional Retail or Restaurants
• Hotel
• Top Golf
Retail Parking Retail Parking
340’-0”
120’-0”
386

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
387
Design to Gather

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
388

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
389
Design to Play

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
390

Reso. No. 22-02, Item 7.1, Adopted 01/25/22

RESOLUTION NO. 22 - 02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PREFERRED PLAN FOR

THE SCS PROPERTY
(PLPA-2021-000012)
APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025

WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, the City Council denied the At Dublin project on the SCS Property without prejudice and directed Staff to leave the General Plan Amendment Study open and work with the property owner to conduct a community outreach process to gather input on the future use and development of the property; and

WHEREAS, in response to the City Council’s direc tion, the City release d a Request for Proposals seeking the services of qualified consultants with expertise in land use planning and community engagement to assist the City with a public outreach process; and

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Dublin and ELS Architecture & Urban Design to assist the City with a public outreach process and prepare a Preferred Plan; and

WHEREAS, June 24-29, 2021, the Urban Land Institute held a Technical Advisory Panel (ULI TAP) and provided their findings and recommendations for the SCS Property. The ULI TAP included input and recommendations on land uses that optimize the synergy between land use, economic development, and community compatibility for the SCS Property; and

WHEREAS, City Staff has worked with ELS Architecture & Urban Design and their consultant team to engage the community in a variety of ways to gather maximum input . The Community Outreach process included development of a website to serve as the centralized place for project information , community surveys and announcements , three Community Advisory Committee, three Community Meetings, three Community Surveys and updates through Notify Me and social media; and

WHEREAS, the Preferred Plan considered feedback from the ULI TAP, community, City Staff and other stakeholders, financial and economic feasibility, and goals of the property owner; and

WHEREAS, the Preferred Plan as shown in Exhibit A, includes the following criteria as outlined below:

1. Market rate residential housing not to exceed 550 units.

2. Finnian Way and Aviano Way extended through the project site from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road.

3. Finnian Way frontage limited to commercial uses on the ground floor , which may be provided through a “Shop House” concept with substantive commercial space (not less than 400 square feet).
391

Reso. No. 22-02, Item 7.1, Adopted 01/25/22 Page 2 of 2

5. A Public/Semi-Public parcel dedicated for affordable housing.

7. An entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard set around a large pedestrian plaza (roughly 120 feet by 300 feet) creating a regional dining and family entertainment destination; and

WHEREAS, implementation of the Preferred Plan would require approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review Permit and Affordable Housing Agreement; and

WHEREAS, approval of the Preferred Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) in that approval of the Preferred Plan would not have a legally binding effect on later activities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property as shown in Exhibit A with the added recommendation to include for-sale inclusionary units integrated within the project in addition to the affordable housing site.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: Benson, Grier, Thalblum, Tyler, Wright

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

Assistant Community Development Director
392
1 Amy Million
From: Tim Sbranti <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Amy Million
Subject: Comments for 2/15 City Council Meeting
Hi Amy‐
Please pass along my email below to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration at next week's meeting. Thank you.

Tim
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council‐
I am reaching out today as someone who was involved in planning of the SCS area for nearly 12 years duri ng my time as Dublin Mayor and Council Member, lived in the neighborhood for nearly 7 years, and most recently served on the SCS Community Advisory Committee, I wanted to reach out today to share my perspective and ask for your support of the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to adopt the Preferred Plan.

The Preferre
d Plan has several benefits. First and foremost, it creates the potential for a vibrant "Main St." style ground floor commercial development by extending Finnian Way from Brannigan to the Waterford Plaza. This type of concept is not found anywhere else in our city, and I am pl eased to see a substantial amount of commercial space frontage along with a town square concept to anchor the shops and restaurants on Finnian Way.

Located on the grand paseo opening with views to Mt. Diablo, this also connects the square to the residential areas south and north of Finnian way, which is something I surely would have ta ken advantage of during the many years I lived in the adjacent Dublin Ranch Villages. Pedestrian‐oriented connections to Tassajara Road and ultimately Emerald Glen Park that the neighbors can take advantage of is further enhanced with the extension of Aviano Way. Th e overall sidewalk and related infrastructure enhancements will be a vast improvement over the current unimproved semi‐rural conditions of Central Parkway, which will be completely inadequate for connecting to Emerald High School the moment it opens.

Beyond the immediate benefits to the neighborhood, the entertainment district that is envisioned south of Dublin Boulevard set around a large pe
destrian plaza creates a regional dining and family destination center in one of the region's most visible and accessible locations with direct access off of I‐580. There is a lot of potential for multiple high‐ profile attractions which can enhance Dublin's prestige, ge nerate revenue, create jobs, and lead to greater investments and opportunity in our City.

Personally, I would have preferred to see more housing on the site. However, after much deliberation the Community Advisory Committee settled on a fair compromise to make a recommendation not to exceed 550 market‐rate residential units. These housing type
s will be at different price points to meet different preferences and needs, including entry level housing, affordable housing, and family housing with lower density single‐family homes, courtyard homes, townhomes, and affordable apartments.

I recognize that some residents in our community are strongly opposed to housing or want to limi t it as much as possible. However, given the depth of the housing crisis we are facing, the reality is we have a responsibility to both present and future generations who wish to call Dublin home to provide opportunities for upward mobility, particularly on prime and centrally located properti es as the one being discussed this evening. As someone who currently does some Attachment 4
393
2 consulting with the Innovation Tri‐Valley Leadership Group, the number one challenge we hear from local employers that is limiting their ability to attract or retain a talented workforce is an inability to find housing for their employees.

The numbers put out by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Bay Area Council paint a similarly grim picture of the future of our region if we continue to fail in our obligations to provide a mixture of affordable and market rate housing.

In addition, as someone who works at Dublin High School and serves as a Trustee for the Chabot‐Las Positas Community College District, I see the frustration from those who grew up here that realize they are being priced out of the opportunity to remain in Dublin given the low supply and high demand of housing. This frustration will not be completely solved of course through the Preferred Plan, but it does help to address the real need that exists.

I also want to point out that the original plan for the SCS property contemplated 261 units, while the "Promenade" property where Emerald High School is being constructed called for 181 units for a total of 442 units. Thus, the total of
550 units being contemplated now for the neighborhood is within a very similar range. For a mere 108‐unit increase, the Preferred Plan provides all of the amenities described above. Furthermore, traffic mitigations have already been put in place for 442 units. If you combine the 442 units and over 1,000,000 square feet of commercial growth originally envisioned between the SCS property and current Emerald High School site (formerly the Promenade), traffic will be significantly reduced with the Preferred Plan from the original EDSP. In addition, there will be less demand for water with the reduced development currently being contemplated for the site as well.

Some argue the schools are overcrowded and cannot handle more growth. The reality is if you take a closer look at the enrollment numbers for Dublin USD, it is already beginning to level off and is not increasing nearly as much as in previous years as the city approaches build‐out. In fact, I think Emerald High can benefit from the infusion of students this project may generate, as otherwise both Emerald and other schools in the EDSP may soon begin seeing declining enrollment in the not‐to‐distant future. Declining enrollment over time leads to budget cuts and reduced educational services, something our students cannot afford.

Others argue that they want to see the amount of commercial square footage that was part of the original vision (or something approaching it). Please keep in mind that 900,000 square feet of commercial envisioned for the SCS in the
EDSP is greater than the size of the Livermore Outlets, which hardly seems appropriate at this juncture. Even if you cut that amount in half, that would still be larger than Hacienda Crossings. The question I would pose to the Planning Commission is whether commercial developments of either size are appropriate. I would argue it is way beyond the scale for an in‐fill site (which is what SCS is at this point), and even if we said we wanted to hold out for this larger grand commercial vision, the reality is that the market no longer will support that level of commercial development. There was already a growth in e‐commerce and a decline of brick‐and‐mortar commercial before the pandemic.....trends which have only been exacerbated in the last 2 years.

In the final analysis, this is the last and best chance to connect and complete the Dublin Ranch community and the
center of the EDSP. The Preferred Plan is one that the market can actually support. Further inaction and waiting for something better to come along will likely lead to ABAG and/or state‐mandated housing construction that may double or triple the unit count of what is currently being presented.....with very few of the amenities the Preferred Plan before you tonight offers.

Thank you again for your consideration of these comments and best of luck to you all in your deliberations. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss further prior to your meeting.

Sincerely,

Tim Sbranti
Former Dublin Mayor

394
1 Amy Million
From: Dean Barnes <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:01 PM
To: Amy Million
Subject: CAC member disagrees with proposals for the Dimanto property along Tassajara and Dublin, Blvd, Gleason area
Hello Amy,

I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposals from the CAC committee of which I am a member to be provided to the council as I won't be able to attend the city council meeting.

I did not select any of the choices provided to the CAC, not sure how other people felt either as I did not reach out to anyone to discuss outside of our meetings. I think the city should inquire as to how many in the committee were in favor and how many in the committee were against each option rather than suggesting we chose one option as that was not how the material was presented. When we first met for the CAC, I suggested that anything over the vested amounts (which seemed to be a reluctantly shared metric by the research firm) that the community would not get behind it as they haven't in the past. I think selecting 500 homes is just another attempt that was made a couple of years ago to build 500 homes where only 266 or so are all that are required to build and I kind of felt that this is where we were going to be led from the start. The residents already rejected those 500 homes - why do you feel that 500 homes again will win this time? The city council thankfully rejected that, listening to homeowners, but have again, made attempts to bring the project back with too many homes.

The research firm summarily dismissed less home options by suggesting more homes allows for subsidized/more retail and I believe that our committee has not done our collective due diligence in coming up with a community solution that benefits an already over stressed infrastructure that's lacking real walkable retail - a last opportunity to build a gem in east Dublin - an opportunity for the council to build a retail establishment the city, and council members, can take pride in. A solution that represents the constituents of the council. I also think that the city's approval to add 500 more homes nearby to a property that had zero vesting, should be cause for concern in the committee as that should have been discussed in coming up with ideas for this project - to identify how more homes around the area impacts our design and build out goals. That between that property and what is being suggested as the middle ground of 500 homes on this project is adding 1,000 homes to this community for these two projects (as proposed). We have water shortages, I'm concerned about safety (someone walked up and stole a bike from my neighbor's front yard over the weekend, not enough police), we have school overcrowding (even the school spoke against those 500 homes the council approved in Nov 2021), and the city didn't listen, now the residents are petitioning to overturn that decision.

Additionally, the city allowed the developer
to pay in-lieu of fees to side step required affordable housing and I fear it could be done just as easily on this project. You always sell affordable housing as a reason to allow more homes, then let the developer shirk that responsibility.

I'd like to share with you some data I pulled from the Internet:
* Pleasanton, CA. is 24.27 square miles with 81,717 people (according to 2019 data) or 3,366.99 people per square mile * San Ramon, CA is 18.72 square miles with 75,648 people (according to 2019 data) or 4,041.02 people per square mile * Livermore, CA is 26.45 square miles with 89,699 people (according to 2019 data) or 3,391.27 people per square mile * Dublin, CA is 15.23 square miles with 61,240 people (according to 2019 data, and we've definitely added since then) or 4,021.01 people per square mile.

Why does our city continue to propose we stuff more people into Dublin? Is there a prize if we fit the most people in our city? It would seem to me that Dublin and San Ramon has built their numbers up and it's time for surrounding cities to build more to accommodate housing shortages. Dublin should not be the city to solve the state shortage and it's time for the council to protect Dublin and not allow it to be ruined by overdevelopment of residential units. I'm also concerned that with state and local practices, people (and businesses) are leaving the state in record numbers. How will empty housing positively affect our city? How will declining property values due to flooding the market with more homes and declining population benefit our community? According to KTLA, from July of 2020 to July of 2021, California lost another 173,000 residents. According to ppic.org, California has lost 300,000 residents from January 2020 to July 2021.

I am concerned with the data collected in the committee and how the research firm will share their data with the city. I am concerned about validity of the results - was each person in the survey validated - do they live here (real person, real 395
2 address). It would be easy for some with alternate plans to sway the survey in the manner in which they wish to lead us (not accusing anyone, just saying anonymous or unchecked surveys have that concern for me). For the 500 homes the residents fought against just recently in Nov 2021, the city said the absence of a majority of homeowners means that overwhelmingly, Dublin residents wanted those 500 more homes to be built (a fact that is not verifiable just because people didn't show up - I didn't show up, my neighbors didn't show up, and we are opposed to those 500 homes). I fear the survey results could be misused in the same manner if the city council feels that survey results reflect actual residents and business owners or a majority of them when the survey does not represent that - I fear the council will incorrectly make assumptions from the survey data and not properly research the issues that are affecting our community. I am concerned that the city refused to open the outdated master plan. I am disappointed with the results here and I don't feel that concerns were adequately addressed with regards to the homes and the community. I am concerned that the city council always hid behind the developer friendly school board who never spoke out against adding more homes stating that "well, the school didn't speak up, so there must not be a problem". Okay, the council pretends to be blind and hide. Okay, so Nov 2021, the school board finally speaks up, and what does the city council do? The approve more homes anyways which just tells me you used the school board as an excuse in the past to push more homes and had they complained, you would have approved more homes anyways.

In the end, the research company drew up what we already rejected in the community for the former At Dublin project, 500 homes. I have to be honest - I oppose anything more than the required number of homes - we have too many already. Just this week, I was stuck in Dublin Blvd/Tassajara intersection because the freeway traffic lights backed up and I couldn't see around the traffic/cars in front of me to avoid getting stuck in the intersection. We are overcrowded - how can you not see that? Adding more retail will bring more crowds, true, but those crowds will leave and go home, may not be there when we take kids to school in the morning or go to work, or come home.

I am opposed to more housing and I don't understand why the city would consider adding more homes than required and question decisions made by our elected officials when those in attendance of meetings have spoken against these things. I just don't understand. I wish we could have had more time to come up with more community supportable options with less housing but I feel like I am being forced into and sold on the idea that building more and more homes is a foregone conclusion and thus I'm not sure how much value we provided to the committee overall as it feels like this was already decided - we are just here so the council can check a box and say "See! Even your own peers and residents said they want 500 homes!" That's NOT what I said nor did I agree to it but that's how the data is being skewed towards.

Ryan from the research firm said in a follow up email to my concerns that "[the firm] received 9 out of 14 CAC members supporting the mid scheme in task C (5xx homes) and a directive from the City Council to move forward with the mid option"

In my opinion, I felt like the low option was under developed for retail and looked barren and bereft of retail with the purpose of showing that more retail requires more homes - meaning if you want more retail, you need to sell out and can't get away with less homes. I felt like the high option (over 600+ homes) was placed to push you into the mid option which showed the mid option as a balance of pushing 5xx homes to get the desired results for retail and push the previous agenda of 500 homes anyways like trying to put a dress on a pig. How do other cities get away with building classy retail developments (i.e. Bishop Ranch - I know many residents in Dublin who go over there to shop/spend the day - heck I know many residents who park and walk down Pleasanton main street because our city has failed to deliver something like that here.), and we are stuck with the 'want retail? You need to add more homes' scenario? I think the city needs to reject the proposals. The developer only has rights to build 2xx homes and that's all you have to approve and you can force the developers to build quality retail if they want to have you approve those 2xx homes. If that means we have to sacrifice retail because we are forced to, then so be it. I would be derelict in my duties representing my community and neighbors who have voiced time and again opposition to more homes due to overcrowding if I went along with 500+ homes while being wooed with the promise of retail establishments. We don't do justice forcing homes for the prospect of retail. I don't like feeling forced into a decision like that. In addition to being vested with 2xx homes, they also have to build retail as part of the package as I recall, so they would owe us that as well - not like they are doing us some favor building retail - it's the land's designed usage. It would be in the developers best interest to build quality retail to sell their 2xx home scenario. It would be in the city's best interest as well to make Dublin stronger, look better, and receive the support of residents. We're the joke of surrounding cities. Look at the sardine housing you all approved and put over where the military base was along Dublin Blvd (across from Bart). I'm ashamed driving through there because it's just so cramped. There's no liveliness, no yards, and doesn't feel inviting. If you look at that tiny shopping center there, if you've ever been there, where Whole Foods is, parking is terrible, it's overcrowded, and the parking spaces are cramped as well. Adding more homes and small amount of retail with no parking and we exacerbate the problems of overcrowding, once more to say nothing of inviting freeway traffic to stop by and shop if it's overcrowded - they'll just move on to some other place.

396
3 Again, I didn't feel like I had a choice here - I felt like the three options were tailored to force most into the middle option. For me, personally, I don't want to pick from the three because there isn't one that I prefer or can get behind. Option 1 with 2xx homes has too little retail. Option 3 has way too many homes, and for me, the middle option is a sell out to push more homes to gain much needed retail, thus I honestly can't get behind any of them. I also question the decision of at least nine of my peers who supposedly agreed with the middle option for 5xx homes. Did any of them pick that option because they felt they had to pick one and didn't have any other option to reject all three? For me, I don't see how more homes forced on us to get retail is the best decision and I am left with the decision to respectfully reject all three as none of them contain the fit our community needs right now. We need less homes and more retail and I feel the city places obstacles on prospective businesses to make it less appealing for them to setup shop here. One of my neighbors commented one time that a buddy of theirs wanted to open up a bar in Dublin but said the fees, the hurdles were so ridiculous that they went to Livermore and Livermore practically rolled out the red carpet for them and they opened up there. We had a chance for Tesla to build a warehouse/factory here and our city blew that too. Why do you only see residential housing as the option and don't give me the line about property tax revenue. If you over build and real estate crashed due to the exodus of the populous - your real estate property taxes will decline. Retail is the only regularly sustainable income in this matter because through bad times and good, people still need to shop, eat, and buy things.

Don't make us go get more signatures again to overturn your decisions that fail to listen to residents. You waste our time and the community doesn't forget that. I mean no disrespect, but I am just so tired of the council continually approving more and more homes despite opposition to them. Destroying commercial land and adding more and more homes. Our safety is being threatened due to overpopulation. Our open land spaces are disappearing. Our water is becoming more scarce. You have the power to make positive changes. Please, do what's right here and don't approve more homes. Help us save our community, our city. Help make Dublin's last opportunity something our city can be proud of. The community would remember you for that too.

thank you,

Dean Barnes

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

397
City Council
Meeting 3

PREFERRED PLAN
February 15th, 2022
398
With you tonight
City of Dublin:

Guests: Landowner Representatives
City Consultants:

Amy Million, Principal Planner
Kevin Fryer and Bo Radanovich
Ryan Call, ELS
Jane Lin, Urban Field Studio
Frank Fuller, Urban Field Studio
Christine Firstenberg, RRER
Bob Donnelly, Bernese Lane Partners
Debbie Kern, KMA
FEBRUARY 15TH, 2022
399
Existing Conditions
Spring 2021
Community
Brainstorming
Summer 2021
Vision Options
Fall 2021
Preferred
Vision
Winter 2021 -
2022
Project Schedule
01/06
01/12
01/25
02/15
Develop a
preferred plan
from feedback
on Vision
Options
CAC Meeting 3
Community Mtg. 3
Planning Comm.

City Council
FEBRUARY 15TH, 2022
400
Engagement Process
The Preferred Plan
Community Feedback
Next Steps & Recommendation
Tonight’s Discussion
FEBRUARY 15TH, 2022
401
Why are we talking about the Future of the SCS Site?
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
402
P
P
P

FINNIAN WAY

TASSAJARA ROAD

BRANNIGAN STREET

CENTRAL PARKWAY

DUBLIN BOULEVARD

EMERALD GLEN PARK

WATERFORD
SHOPS

EMERALD

AVIANO WAY

GLEASON DRIVE

GRAND PASEO
Shophouses
Entertainment
District
Shophouses
Shophouses
Entertainment
District
Flex
Commercial
Flex
Commercial
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
We are developing an actionable
Land Use Plan for the SCS Site (not
a development plan).

Not Feasible!

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE
Shops

GRAND PASEO

TASSAJARA PLACE
403
Give the
community a
voice
Gain a better
understanding of
trade-offs
Become more
familiar with the
development
process
Build Consensus
through a public
engagement
process
Build a plan based
on community
input
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
Only realistic, economically viable,
and physically feasible options were
developed as choices.

City Council Vision: Build the foundation for a better project at the site 404
City Council Vision: Build the foundation for a better project at the site Including experts in
development, urban
design, economics,
retail, housing, and
affordable housing.

Consultant Team
Panel included
development
advisors, affordable
housing developers,
economists, and land
use experts.

ULI Technical
Advisory Panel
Committee
included Dublin
Residents that
own homes, rent
homes, work or
own a business
near the area.

Community
Advisory
Committee
Website: https:/ /
courbanize.com/
projects/scsproperty/
information
Three online Community
Meetings and three
surveys were used to
gather feedback.

Online
Community
Meetings and
Surveys
Community driven
ideas were presented
to the property
owner’s team to test
what elements of the
plan were “on the
table”.

Checking in with the
Property Owner
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
Give the
community a
voice
Gain a better
understanding of
trade-offs
Become more
familiar with the
development
process
Build Consensus
through a public
engagement
process
Build a plan based
on community
input
405
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
406
How did we get feedback?
CoUrbanize Comments
Online Surveys
Community Advisory
Committee
4 CAC Meetings
Small group of diverse
community representation.

4 zoom meetings total
One on One Phone calls
3 Community Meetings
w / Interactive Breakrooms

3 Planning Commission
Meetings
2 City Council Meetings
Additional way to particpate
Identify themes or areas
that are important

Detailed Comments
Not a ballot!

Public Meetings
407
Community Voices
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
Green
space is
breathing
Are we going
to have two
downtowns?
We are
concerned
about the
over-crowding
of schools!
How do we
capture the
“intangible”
people want on
this site?
We need to bring work
and play together. Can
retail spaces be flexible
to serve other uses
such as office?
We need to fill in the
retail we already have,
many centers are in need
of an update. We have
so many vacancies.

How do we
get foot
traffic across
Dublin Blvd.?
More
development
causes more
traffic.

Lets be careful to
consider the difference
between parks and
natural open space
Dublin’s culture is diverse,
and getting more diverse.

How can this development
respond to these cultural
forces?
Office space is obsolete
- retail is struggling, how
do we convince people
to embrace what can be
built?
Housing is too
expensive! We need
to require more
affordable housing.

Are we engaging the right
population? What about the
voices of the people who
want to live here but can’t
afford it.

How do we attract
boutique spaces, small
businesses, non-profits?
What about incubator
spaces?
408
The Options
Opportunities
• This could be an opportunity to connect existing
neighborhoods around the site
• This is an opportunity to right size and reconfigure the land uses with what the market can bear
• This is an opportunity to bring more services to the area Constraints
• Market Constraints (especially for retail, hotel, and office) • Desired Physical Scale
• Impacts to shared public services: traffic, schools, parks, etc. • Expectations are high, but the ability to do something viable is limited
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
850 Units +/-
95 Affordable Units
Reduce Green-house gasesLandmark Open Space

Placed where
walkable to existing homes
and Waterford
Shops
Entertainment
District & Local Shops
Affordable by design
650 Units +/-
Neighborhood Main Street75 Affordable Units
Reduce Green-house gasesLandmark Open Space

Placed where most economically
viable near
freeway
Entertainment
District & Local Shops
350 Units +/-Low Density
40 Affordable Units
For sale deed restricted
Placed where most economically
viable near
freeway
Entertainment
District & Local Shops
650 Units +/-
Base Mid High
409
Design Feedback on the Options
Mid: +/- 650 units
Aviano Way
Gleason Drive
Tassajara Rd.

Brannigan Street
Central Pkwy
Finnian WayWaterford
Shops
Dublin Blvd.

Emerald
Glen Park
2 Grand GreenwayGrand Greenway
Neighborhood Main StreetNeighborhood Main Street
Views of Mt. DiabloViews of Mt. Diablo
Office or Retail Office or Retail
Entertainment Entertainment
DistrictDistrict
Hsg.Hsg.Hsg.Hsg.

Hsg.Hsg.

Base: +/- 350 units
Aviano Way
Gleason Drive
Tassajara Rd.

Brannigan Street
Central Pkwy
Finnian Way
Dublin Blvd.

Emerald
Glen Park
1 Waterford
Shops
Office or Retail Office or Retail
Entertainment Entertainment
DistrictDistrict
Neighborhood ParkNeighborhood Park
Hsg.Hsg.

Hsg.Hsg.

High: +/- 850 units
Aviano Way
Gleason Drive
Tassajara Rd.

Brannigan Street
Central Pkwy
Finnian Way
Dublin Blvd.

Emerald
Glen Park Hsg.Hsg.

Hsg.Hsg.

Entertainment Entertainment
DistrictDistrict
Waterford
Shops
3 Finnian SquareFinnian Square
PaseoPaseo
PaseoPaseo

BASE MID HIGH

PREFERRED

ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT

FINNIAN
SQUARE
PASEO

RIGHT BALANCE OF UNITS

AND BENEFITS
+
+
+
+
Missing retail north of
Dublin Blvd-
Paseo
too
internal
Housing
type too
uniform
Street
wall on
Tassajara
Better for
commercial uses
Too
high
Not
enough
benefits
--
SCS PROPERTY : ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
410
Preferred Plan
Features
Integrate the Grand Paseo and Town Square
A town square concept has been added to anchor the shops and restaurants on Finnian Way. The square is located on the grand paseo opening views to Mt. Diablo.

Improve Visibility & Access to the Grand Paseo
Diablo View Drive now runs along the east side of the Grand Paseo creating greater access and activity to the public open space. The paseo now widens towards Tassajara Road inviting pedestrians and bikes off the major arterial onto the paseo.

Generous bike and pedestrian paths will connect Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard.

Diversify Housing Types
Housing throughout the site has been varied with entry level housing, affordable housing, and family housing. Types range from traditional single family homes, courtyard homes, town homes and affordable apartments. The draft land use designations allow for a range of 500 to 550 market rate units and a 2.5 acre site for affordable housing (70 to 150 units).

Dedicated Affordable Housing Site
The Preferred Plan includes a parcel to be dedicated for construction of affordable housing. The site location, at the prominent corner of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, will serve as a gateway to the larger neighborhood. The site is large enough to allow a variety of affordable housing solutions, allowing the design and amount of the affordable housing to be tailored to the community’s needs.

A Pedestrian Focused Entertainment District
The entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard is set around a large pedestrian plaza (roughly 120’ by 300’) creating a regional dining and family entertainment destination.

P P
P

FINNIAN WAY

BRANNIGAN STREET

TASSAJARA ROAD

CENTRAL PARKWAY

DUBLIN BOULEVARD

WATERFORD
SHOPS

EMERALD

GLEN PARK

SORRENTO
DEVANY
SQUARE

EMERALD

HIGH SCHOOL

AVIANO WAY

GLEASON DRIVE

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE

GRAND PASEOGRAND PASEO
SCS PROPERTY: PREFERRED PLAN
411
Integrate the Grand Paseo and Town Square Concepts:
• Design of the Grand Paseo has been changed to lead directly to a town square on Finnian Way.
• The Grand Paseo narrows as it approaches the plaza to draw people together and create a more social gathering space. • The Grand Paseo varies in width from 35’ to 110’ wide. • A walk along the Paseo will include a variety of activities, from retail, recreational, public gardening, and native plant / pollinator meadows.
5k 3.5k 3.5k

2.5k

2.5k
Community
145’-0”
Finnian Way Neighborhood Retail District is approximately 40,000 sf 90’-0”
SCS PROPERTY: PREFERRED PLAN
P
P
P

FINNIAN WAY

BRANNIGAN STREET

TASSAJARA ROAD

CENTRAL PARKWAY

DUBLIN BOULEVARD

WATERFORD

SHOPS EMERALD HIGH
SCHOOL

AVIANO WAY

GLEASON DRIVE

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE

GRAND PASEOGRAND PASEO
412
Improve Visibility and Access to the Grand Paseo:
• Diablo View Drive (20 mph) accompanies the Grand Paseo providing street parking, access to the activities on the linear park.
• The southeast corner of Emerald Glen Park is an
important connection point. Setbacks along the Central Parkway create a landscaped gateway to the Grand Paseo.

• The pedestrian and bike oriented Grand Paseo will serve the new development as well as the larger neighborhood
giving an healthy alternative to driving to shops,
restaurants, and schools.

TASSAJARA ROAD

CENTRAL PARKWAY
Setback

The Grand Paseo widens towards
Tassajara Road as it approaches
Gleason Drive for improved access
and visibility.

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE

GRAND PASEO

TASSAJARA ROAD
SCS PROPERTY: PREFERRED PLAN
413
Finnian Square
414
Finnian Square
415
P
P
P
Diversify Housing Types
• The affordable housing and higher density townhomes
are located closest to shops, restaurants reducing
vehicle miles traveled and adding life to the retail
district.
• The entry level townhomes consist predominantly
of two bedroom units catering to first time buyers
and those wishing to downsize. These are located
convenient to Emerald Glen Park as well as the shops.
• Single Family homes are located centrally to the three schools: Kolb Elementary School (.6 miles); Fallon
Middle School (.4 miles); Emerald High School (.5
miles).
• Shophouses will bring small shops and local
businesses to the Finnian Way Neighborhood shops
district.

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS

FINNIAN WAY

TASSAJARA ROAD

BRANNIGAN STREET

CENTRAL PARKWAY

DUBLIN BOULEVARD

EMERALD GLEN PARK

WATERFORD
SHOPS

EMERALD HIGH
SCHOOL
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Family Townhomes
Family Townhomes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Large
Single
Family
Homes
Large Single Family Homes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Affordable
Housing

AVIANO WAY

GLEASON DRIVE

DIABLO VIEW DRIVE

GRAND PASEO
Shophouses
Shops
Shophouses
Shophouses
Shops
416
Affordable
Housing
Examples of Affordable Housing courtesy of Pyatok Architecture Dedicated Site Strategy
To maximize the affordable benefit and provide
flexibility to respond to the City’s specific
Affordable Housing needs, our proposed strategy
for the affordable housing requirement is to
provide a large parcel to be dedicated to the
construction of affordable units.

The site location, at the prominent corner of
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard will serve as
a gateway to the larger district.

The site is large enough to provide a variety of
solutions, allowing the design of the affordable
housing to be tailored to the community’s needs.

Depending on the type of product and
construction type, the number of units could vary
substantially and may be substantially influenced
by the funding sources.

2.5 Acres

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
417
A Pedestrian Focused Entertainment District:
• Central Plaza - Approx. 120’ x 340’
• 55,000 to 60,000 sf of retail, restaurants,
entertainment
• 100,000 to 300,000 sf of Flex Commercial
development
• Ample space for restaurant seating, plaza seating
• Plaza comprised of diverse seating options, spatial
experiences, caters to variety of group sizes, all ages • Space for outdoor music and performance

7.5k
30k
5k5k
5k5k

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
Flex Commercial Zone:
• Office Campus
• Regional Retail or Restaurants
• Hotel
• Top Golf
Retail Parking Retail Parking
340’-0”
120’-0”
418
Entertainment District
419

PREFERRED PLAN CONCEPTS
Entertainment District
420
Finnian Way District
42,000 sf Restaurants, Shops, and Services
Tassajara Place Entertainment District
57,000 sf Restaurants, Shops, and Services
+ 150,000 sf to 300,000 sf of Flexible Commercial development Affordable Housing
70 to 150 units (Depends on size of unit and construction type) Entry Level Townhomes
Approximately 138 Units
Family Townhomes
Approximately 211 Units
Shop Houses
Approximately 40 Units (24,000 sf retail counted in Finnian Way District) Entry Level Single Family Detached homes
Approximately 122 Units
Large Single Family Detached homes
Approximately 28 Units
Land Use
Feasibility
Commercial UsesResidential Uses
Amenities, including retail, the Grand Paseo, plazas, streets, etc. determined the necessary range of unit counts.

Total
Commercial
Ranges 250,000 sf
to 400,000 sf
Total
Market Rate
Residential
Ranges 500 to 550
units (539 shown)
Total
Affordable
Residential
Ranges 70 to 150
units
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Entry-Level
Single Family
Detached
Family Townhomes
Shop HousesShop Houses
Shop Houses
Family Townhomes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Large
Single
Family
Homes
Large Single Family Homes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Entry Level
Townhomes
Affordable
Housing
421
Community
Feedback
SCS PROPERTY: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Areas of Contention
Areas of Consensus
Focusing on Site Related Issues
422
Base
Mid
High
Areas of Contention How much Housing are we willing to allow to get amenities?
Split on whether
affordable housing
should serve seniors or
families
Split with a slight
preference for the
dispersed inclusionary
housing limited to 79
units.

No clear lead yet on the
features that are biggest
priorities.

SCS PROPERTY: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Which viable options presented below is the
best use of the SCS Property?
Finnian Square is intended to be a neighborhood focused gathering spot and is intimate in scale. Considering the smaller scale, what plaza features should be prioritized?
Based on the 550 market-rate units that are needed to support the amenities desired, there is some flexibility on how much affordable housing is included. Which of the following do you prefer? Regarding affordable housing, who do you think it should serve? (mark as many as you like)
423
Not dense enough! This is an excellent
opportunity for a higher-density project
that would create a large quantity of
housing (both affordable and market rate)
close to jobs, transit, and other amenities..

Do like the main
street, which
Dublin desperately
needs. Don’t like
that it has so much
housing, which
will lead to further
overcrowding of
Need to see plan
for schools to
accommodate kids
from 550 homes.

We should reduce
housing in favor of
more community
space.

Criminally low amount of homes
given the location. There should
be large apartments that can fit
families, instead of single family
homes and rowhouses.

I like that there is housing but
I’d prefer more and denser
housing to create walkable
neighborhoods for even more
families and seniors
More HousingDesign Retail/Dining
General
Housing and Schools
Please limit the
number houses and
more shopping and
entertainment area,
open and kids play area
I absolutely love the paseo
bike trail and the fully
separated bike lanes. This
particular plan does a good
job at showing sensitivity to
the surrounding land uses.

Thank you for all your hard work
and for providing us the option
to voice our opinions. I really like
the plan and hope that it’s going
to be approved.

Dislike the large
number of regular
market rate
housing units.

Like that there
will be dedicated
affordable
housing.

You need to build
more schools if you
want to build any
housing
Too much single
family housing, retail
and entertainment to
replace it
It’s a good plan with
a balance for the
community. I hope there
will be small single story
family
More emphasis on the local
small stores and restaurants.

We could have a section
for only local shops and
restaurants.

Like the family entertainment
district and Grand Paseo. Focus
on making this a Dublin Landmark
with large, meaningful and
respresentative sculpture or
architectural element.

Love the idea of Finnian Way
being a central main street with
protected bike lanes, the Grand
Paseo, overall friendliness of the
pedestrian / cyclist development,
and housing to retail balance.

Why not mix
housing types?
Too suburban,
isolating
townhomes from
single family etc.,
Like Grand
Paseo walkway,
entertainment
district. Don’t
like too many
housing. The area
around is already
overcrowded with
dense housing.
424
Community Meeting 3
We are asking
the City to
require more
affordable
housing, they
must do more.

Why are our
schools over-
crowded? Why
did previous
planning efforts
let this happen?
Why isn’t there
more retail?
We need more
tax revenue.

Housing is a
burden.

Can a Mello-
Roos be used
to support
schools and
infrastructure?
The affordable
housing needs to
be built on-site.

In-Lieu fees should
not be an option.

Developers
must support
infrastructure
and schools.

SCS PROPERTY: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Can we have
a mixed-
use corridor
with greater
connectivity?
Concerns about schools and
affordable housing
425
Yes to amend land uses Yes to public amenities
Highest Priority:

Landmark Open Space
No
Areas of Consensus
Yes to connections to
Emerald Glen Park
Our Neighborhood Needs a Center
Yes to Raised Crosswalks
Yes to Pollinator Plants
and Children’s Play Areas
SCS PROPERTY: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
426
SCS PROPERTY: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Community Advisory Committee
Big improvement
over the previous
proposals
A huge amenity
for the City
that can meet
a variety of
needs and
interests
The plan does
a good job of
merging the
comments from
the previous
schemes
Think about the
key focal points
and remember
shading is
important in
Dublin
Much
consideration
has been taken
so that the
land uses are
not jumbled, it
flows well
The land uses
present a good
balance of
public benefits
and market rate
housing
The
comparison
to The Lot at
City Center is
powerful as
many people
enjoy that
space
Create a connected center
with a distinct sense of place
427
Planning Commission Meeting 3 Commentary January 25th, 2022 SCS PROPERTY: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
The inclusionary
zoning is critical for
our community to
have some affordable
housing for people
to buy
Overall I think
its quite a
collaborative
and well
thought out
plan
Realistic,
economically
feasible! There
is so much for
everyone who is
going to be part
of the community
here.

Be bold, need
to double the
affordable
housing, make
the square
bigger,
I like the fact that
it is reminiscent to
a downtown area, I
like the nod towards
the open space
maintaining the
view of the hills
It’s amazing the
amount of work
that has gone into
this, the thought,
appreciate
you have been
patient.

An
unprecedented
effort. Want to
thank all of the
neighbors who
got involved,
don’t stop!
428
Additional
Inclusionary
Housing
Planning Commission Recommendation:

SCS PROPERTY: COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
On January 25th, after the consultant presentation, and two public speakers in favor, one against, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the Preferred Plan with the following :

The Planning Commission’s recommendation includes:

Providing inclusionary
for-sale units integrated
into the project in
addition to the dedicated
affordable housing site to
provide homeownership
opportunities
Additional Inclusionary
Housing modifies proforma
requiring additional
funding. Magnitude
depends on quantity and
type of units. May require
additional trade-offs.

Preferred
Plan with
dedicated

2.5 acre
site for
affordable
housing.

429
The following sets expectations for the landuses and public benefits that have been defined through the community outreach process as key elements necessary for a development of the SCS property to meet the greater needs of the community:

Must Haves:

1. Market rate residential housing not to exceed 550 units.

2. Finnian Way and Aviano Way extended through the project site from Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road.

3. Finnian Way frontage limited to commercial uses on the ground floor, which may be provided through a “Shop House” concept with substantive commercial space (not less than 400 square feet).

5. Include a combination of inclusionary for-sale units and a Public/Semi-Public parcel dedicated for affordable housing. Note:

The addition of inclusionary for-sale units requires consideration of the economic impacts. The combination of a dedicated site and inclusionary units would require alternative funding sources to make the Preferred Plan an economically viable plan.

This funding could come from a variety of sources and would be negotiated as part of the future development application.

7. The entertainment district south of Dublin Boulevard is set around a large pedestrian plaza (roughly 120 feet by 300 feet) creating a regional dining and family entertainment destination.

Resolution

NEXT STEPS
430
Next Steps for the SCS Property
• The next step is for the property owner to submit
a development project
• A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with
a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Tentative
Parcel Map, and Site Development Review Permit
and Affordable Housing Agreement would be
required for a future development project
• Evaluation of the development project under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
would occur prior to project approval

NEXT STEPS
431
Recommendation
• Receive presentation on the SCS Property
Preferred Plan, provide feedback and adopt a
Resolution recommending that the City Council
approve the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property.

RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SCS PROPERTY
432
February 15, 2022

SB 343

Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials
that have been received by the City Clerk’s office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets
have been distributed to the City Council be available
to the public.

The attached documents were received in the City
Clerk’s office after distribution of the February 15,
2022, Regular City Council meeting agenda packet.

Item 7.1
433
1 Amy Million
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 7:59 PM
To: Amy Million
Subject: SB343 to the City Council
Hi Amy,

I appreciate the team requesting community input for green space, paths, features, etc. but I feel we were not heard when it comes to the housing issue. For me, and I have consistently said, my friends, neighbors, and people I meet in Dublin all have said “enough housing” ‐ we want a downtown with entertainmen t, family fun, retail, etc. in this space.

In short, we were told the developer/landowner had to subsidized with housing and family entertainment was not affordable and somehow, Dublin and the surrounding communities could not support these this business type in this economy. I see Pleasanton, Concord, San Jose, San Ramon and Livermore, it is possible. Fast forward, we were presented with 3 options “which one we thought was best” – fast forward again, this is what is being pres ented and now we are right back where we were with “at Dublin” project with over 500 units, but now “community input” has been added to the language. Then we were sent a survey supporting this agenda – carefully word crafted questions all in support of this project “which one you like best”.

To be
clear, I do not support this amount of housing. Personally, I would like to see ¾ of this for land for retail, entertainment, family, downtown and perhaps the smaller lot towards Emerald Glenn to be designated for “some” housing.

Thank you all for your efforts.
________
________________
Kevin McAuliffe
[email protected]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

434
1 Amy Million
From: Brandon Evans <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 11:32 PM
To: Amy Million
Subject: Letter To City Council
Hello Amy,
Here is my letter addressed to city council in regards to the CAC group I was in to discuss potential development in East Dublin off of Santa Rita Road.

“
Members of Council,

I hope this reaches you all in good health. My name is Brandon Evans and I have most recently been a member of the CAC regarding the property boardering Tassajara, Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road.

I would like to voice my support to move this project forward.

I am a proud resident of Dublin and the Treasurer of my local electrical workers union based out of Dublin (IBEW Local 595). As a proud tradesperson and member of this community I strongly support this project. I think if executed correctly it can provide not only a fine community space and extra housing but work for skilled and local tradespeople.

There is nothing quite like working close to home and seeing some thing you helped build on a regular basis. It is my wish and that of those that I speak for that we get the opportunity to showcase skilled union craftsmanship on this project.

I fully support the preferred plan for this project as it has been presented and am honored to have been chosen as part of this CAC.

Sincerely,
Brandon Evans

“

I hope this can still be included. My apologies for mentioning “planning commission” instead of CAC originally.

Regards,
Brandon Evans

Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not clic k links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

435
1 Amy Million
From: Kathy Blackburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 1:54 PM
To: Amy Million
Cc: 'Ryan Call'
Subject: Comment for City Council on SCS preferred plan To the City Council regarding SCS preferred plan:

I was part of the Citizens Advisory Council for this project and I want to thank the Council for sponsoring this effort to solicit community input.

The consultants did as well as could be expected given the parameters around the amount of housing needed. I preferred this option over the others we were given but in truth, none of the options was in my view good for Dublin. It is as if we have to develop this parcel so what are we going to do with it, rather than looking at how this parcel fits in with the larger communi
ty. I am concerned that this development decision is being made without looking at 1) how it will impact traffic, schools and infrastructure; 2) how it fits with the plan to develop a downtown in Dublin; 3) how it will impact and be impacted by the new school across the street, and 4) how it helps to connect our community which is, in my view, a bit of a jigsaw puzzle of individual neighborhoods and housing developments rather than a connected community.

I hope that the Council will consider these bigger picture questions as you consider whether to approve thi s option or
another for this parcel.

Thank you,

Kathy Blackburn

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

436
1 Amy Million
From: Sri Muppidi <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 9:02 PM
To: Amy Million
Cc: Ryan Call
Subject: Re: Reminder - NEXT WEEK February 15th! City Council Meeting to discuss the SCS Preferred Plan Hi Amy‐‐ here are my comments in advance of Tuesday's meetings. Thanks!

Dear Honorary Members of the Dublin City Council‐‐

I'm currently a Dublin resident and was on SCS CAC. I'd encourage the committee to adopt the guiding resolutions.

I think it's important for Dublin to continue supporting affordable and entry‐level housing development and I' d
encourage the committee to agree to supporting the 550 unit count. We should favor more condensed units to accomodate more residents, especially those who qualify for affordable and/or senior housing. Residents should have their own parking designated so that traffic from the entertainment area wouldn't encroach and create p arking/traffic pressures for the residents there. Concerns around school pressures can also be mitigated as the development of Emerald High will reduce immediate, short‐term pressures in the future, especially as it will take time for this development to finish.

A reduction of single family homes in favor of conde nsed units will also enable more opportunities for town square/paseo concepts which will bring more of a sense of community to the East Dublin area and encourage more traffic from the neighboring Tri‐Valley area for shopping/entertainment/restaurants. I like the paseo and town area concept on Finnian Way and I think ground‐ floor shopping (Shop House) encourages people to stroll around and drive more business in the area. It's important that safety is considered in the paseo/town traffic area ‐‐ pedestrian safety is important and should be prioritized over car traffic. Bike lanes should also be incorporated. If possible, parking structures should be more compac
t (i.e. vertical or underground) so that there's more pedestrian‐friendly spaces instead of large parking lots. Stop lights shouldn't be extraordinarily long (from personal experience, for example, Tassajara pedestrian stoplights tend to be very long and don't encourage pedestrian‐friendly walkways). There should also be a lot of trees, plants, and gar
dens to create shady and protected areas for pedestrians.

Thanks,
Sri

‐‐
Sri Muppidi

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:50 PM Amy Million <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you to those that have provided their comments thus far. I was just informed that we will publishing the City Council agenda packet today, so the first deadline for comments is today at 3:30 p.m. My apologies for the confusion.

437
1 Amy Million
From: Avni Kansara <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Amy Million
Subject: Notes for City Council Meeting re SCS Property Hello Amy,

Please see below some notes for the city council meeting:

* I appreciate the residential housing limit to be at 550 units versus over 600. As someone who lives right across the street from this open lot (Brannigan Street), I generally don't like the idea of more housing. However, it has been explained that there needs to be more housing in order to afford the amenities and that is my top priority. I still would be happier if that number could be reduced further without impact on the amenities offered. Again, amenities are my number one priority.

* I really love the use of Finnian Way to serve as the area with small shops and cafes to create the community feel while still providing engaging experiences that could attract people from Dublin. Also it's close distance to the Emerald Glen Park and the Waterford Shopping is also helpful because I could see families spending a day filled with activities.

* One of my biggest concerns I bring up is parking and while it may seem repetitive, I want to continue to stress the importance of planning adequate parking to sustain the business and residence in that plan. The reason I bring this up is that it is already extremely difficult to find parking for a guest given the current number of houses that currently exists so the addition of new houses and shops could cram up those spaces even further, making it a bit difficult for people who live there.

* While there may be a lot of limitations (Budget, etc) that might make this impossible at the moment, but I do think it'll be crucial to think about increasing the ease of pedestrians who want to cross, specifically near across dublin to get to the entertainment district.

Let me know if you need any further information. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Avni

Avni Kansara
| Director of Student Experience
She/Her/Hers
Evening & Weekend MBA Program
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
[email protected] | 510.642.1281 | @ewmba office In Office: Tuesday, Thursday
Remote: Monday, Wednesday, Friday

Join me in my virtual office on my remote days to say hi! 438

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item 7.2
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize a Budget Shift to Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project
Prepared by: Laurie Sucgang, City Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider shifting funds to Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space project (CIP No. PK0422) to allow for design work to begin in the current fiscal year on the first phase of the project to meet a State Grant deadline for a completed project by December 31, 2023.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve a budget change authorizing the shifting of funds to Fiscal Year 2021-22.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

As approved in the 2020 – 2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the total budget for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project is currently $11,563,000, funded partially by Public Facility Fees ($7,081,000) beginning in Fiscal Year 2022-23 (Attachment 1). The remaining funding is a combination of State Park Grant and unidentified funds. A budget change is proposed to shift the current funding to Fiscal Year 2021-22 to allow the project work to commence immediately.

DESCRIPTION:

The adopted 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project and provides for the planning, design, and construction of 12.13 acres of a nature park and open space adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail, from the Dublin/San Ramon city limit to the confluence of Alamo and South San Ramon Creeks.

In 2013, the City Council adopted the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan in 439

Page 2 of 3 ends

partnership with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone) to seek project grant funding and develop the site. The total scope encompasses approximately 35 acres of land, comprising 12 acres owned by the City of Dublin as the public park, as shown on page 1 of Attachment 4, and 23 acres owned by Zone 7.

On December 7, 2021, the City Council approved the filing of an application for the Local Assistance Specified Grant from the State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Office of Grants and Local Services in the amount of $2,294,000 (Resolution No. 135-21). The State Grant program guidelines require that project construction be completed by December 31, 2023. For Staff to complete the design, environmental, right-of-way, and construction phases by the deadline, the project must begin immediately. Since December, Staff completed the State Grant application and has obtained proposals from the various design consultants to begin work a soon as funding is allocated to the current fiscal year.

Given the limited funds secured and the restrictive State Grant deadline, Staff recommends utilizing the grant funds to construct the first phase of the Project, consistent with the adopted Master Plan, which may include the following elements:
 Approximately 2,000 linear feet of new trail, 10-feet wide paved with two-foot-wide shoulders on each side. The approximate location is shown on page 2 of Attachment 4.  Gathering spaces
 Outdoor classrooms
 Shade features
 Benches and boulders for sitting
 Trail markers, educational signage, and wayfinding signs  Trail entry feature at the intersection of the Iron Horse Trail with Amador Valley Boulevard  Spur trails or connections to the existing paved trail and stub-out trails to future destinations (e.g., Stagecoach Park)
Upon approval of the shifting of funds to the current fiscal year, Staff will immediately begin work with the design consultant. Construction of the first phase is anticipated to begin in summer 2023 and be completed by the State Grant deadline of December 31, 2023.

Status of Zone 7’s Portion of the Project
City Staff and Zone 7 staff communicate regularly, and while the City has obtained funding for a portion of the public park and is ready to begin the Project, Zone 7 is currently updating its Flood Management Plan to determine appropriate measures that may be incorporated into the Project as a flood control benefit. Zone 7 has applied for a State Proposition 68 Department of Water Resources grant for their Alamo Creek Pilot Bank Stabilization Project, which is just downstream and immediately adjacent to the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project. If Zone 7 is successful in securing the grant and the pilot project is implemented, Zone 7 plans to use similar bank stabilization and enhancement measures within their portion of the Project, as it will improve creek stability, enhance creek vegetation, and add shade and aesthetic amenities for the trail users and residents of the City.
440

Page 3 of 3 ends

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 166-13 adopting the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project. No further action is required at this time.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) CIP No. PK0422 as Approved in 2020-2025 CIP
2) CIP No. PK0422 with Funding Shift
3) Budget Change
4) Approved Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan Excerpts 441
Number PK0001 Program PARKS
PRIOR
YEARS
2020-2021
BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
FUTURE

YEARS T
OTALS
9100 $60,400 $102,900 $85,000 $248,300
9200 $400,000 $780,000 $646,505 $1,826,505
9400 $1,000,000 $7,867,695 $8,867,695
9500 $1,250 $619,250 $620,500
$461,650 $2,502,150 $8,599,200 $11,563,000
PRIOR
YEARS
2020-2021
BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
FUTURE

YEARS T
OTALS
4100 $461,650 $2,502,150 $4,117,200 $7,081,000
9998 $4,482,000 $4,482,000
$461,650 $2,502,150 $8,599,200 $11,563,000

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT
2020-2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE
TOTAL
Miscellaneous

ESTIMATED COSTS

FUNDING SOURCE
TOTAL
Public Facility Fees
Unidentified
Salaries & Benefits
Contract Services
Improvements

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for the planning, design, and construction of 12.13 acres of a nature park and open space adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail, from the Dublin/San Ramon city limit to the confluence of Amador and South San Ramon Creeks, that will be developed in partnership with Zone 7 Water Agency. The park size could increase to over 20 acres of usable parkland when combined with adjacent Zone 7 Water Agency property. The park will be designed in accordance with the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan, which was approved by City Council on October 1, 2013. The City has already acquired the 12.13 acres and the balance of the parkland would be accessible through an easement and operational agreement with Zone 7 Water Agency. It is anticipated that planning will begin in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

In addition to the Public Facility Fee, possible funding sources are statewide grants for projects that provide non-motorized infrastructure and enhancements that promote new or alternate access to parks, waterways, outdoor recreational pursuits, and forested or other natural environments to encourage health-related active transportation and opportunities for Californians to reconnect with nature, such as Active Transportation Program grants or Proposition 68.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: TBD
MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Attachment 1
442
Number PK0422 Program PARKS
PRIOR
YEARS
2020-2021
BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
FUTURE

YEARS T
OTALS
9100 $60,400 $102,900 $42,500 $42,500 $248,300
9200 $400,000 $630,000 $600,000 $196,505 $1,826,505
9400 $2,294,000 $344,100 $6,229,595 $8,867,695
9500 $1,250 $109,250 $255,000 $255,000 $620,500
$461,650 $3,136,150 $1,241 ,600 $6,723,600 $11,563,000
PRIOR
YEARS
2020-2021
BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
FUTURE

YEARS T
OTALS
4100 $461,650 $842,150 $1,241,600 $4,535,600 $7,081,000 9998 $2,188,000 $2,188,000
2403 $2,294,000 $2,294,000
$461,650 $3,136,150 $1,241 ,600 $6,723,600 $11,563,000

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT
Unidentified
Salaries & Benefits
Contract Services
Improvements
2020-2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE
TOTAL
State Park Grant
Miscellaneous

ESTIMATED COSTS

FUNDING SOURCE
TOTAL
Public Facility Fees

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for the planning, design, and construction of 12.13 acres of a nature park and open space adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail, from the Dublin/San Ramon city limit to the confluence of Alamo and South San Ramon Creeks, that will be developed in partnership with Zone 7 Water Agency. The park size could increase to over 20 acres of usable parkland when combined with adjacent Zone 7 Water Agency property. The park will be designed in accordance with the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan, which was approved by City Council on October 1, 2013. The City has already acquired the 12.13 acres and the balance of the parkland would be accessible through an easement and operational agreement with Zone 7 Water Agency. The City will continue to pursue the acquisition of the Alameda County portion of the Iron Horse Trail corridor to add to the City's portion of the parkland. It i s anticipated that planning and design will begin in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and construction of the first phase will begin in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

In addition to the Public Facility Fee, possible funding sources are additional statewide grants for projects that provide non-motorized infrastructure and enhancements that promote new or alternate access to parks, waterways, outdoor recreational pursuits, and forested or other natural environments to encourage health-related active transportation and opportunities for Californians to reconnect with nature, such as Active Transportation Program grants or Proposition 68.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: TBD
Attachment 2
443
Budget Change Reference #:

From Un-Appropriated Reserves X et Transfer Between Funds From Designated Reserves Other
Account Amount Account Amount
PK0422.9100.9101 (Salary/Benefits) $60,400
PK0422.9200.9202 (Design) $250,000
PK0422.9200.9206 (Testing) $50,000
PK0422.9200.9207 (Professional Svcs) $100,000
PK0422.9500.9203 (Printing) $1,000
PK0422.9500.9505 (Postage) $250
3500.9501.49999 (Transfers In) $461,650
PK0422.4111 (4111.9501.89101) -Community Nature Park Fund Transfers Out $461,650 2/15/2022
Posted By: Date:

As Presented at the City Council Meeting
**********Finance Use Only**********

CITY OF DUBLIN

REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BUDGET CHANGE FORM

DECREASE BUDGET AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET AMOUNT
City Council's Approval Required
EXP: Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space (PK0422)
Appropriation of funds to Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space project to allow for design work to begin in the current fiscal year on the first phase of the project to meet a State Grant deadline for a completed project by December 31, 2023.

G:\CIP\_Active Projects\PK0001 (P‐21) Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space\City Council, Commissions, Resolutions, Etc\CC 2022‐02‐15\09_PK0422 Iron Horse Nature Park_02152022
Attachment 3
444
9 B O U L E V A R D

SOUTH SAN RAMON CREEK
ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

IRON HORSE PARK & OPEN SPACE

FORMER SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

GAS LINE EASEMENT

ALAMEDA COUNTY PROPERTY

A M A D O R V A L L E Y
North
City-owned
Parcels
KEY
Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan (Excerpts) Approved by the City Council on October 1, 2013
Attachment 4
445
15 MOSAIC
trail head facilities
picnic meadow
flexible open space
connection to
alamo creek
connection to
dublin bart station
connection to
dublin civic center
new connection to
douGherty open space
nearby neiGhborhood connection to project site
existinG connection to
douGherty open space
pipeline easement typical
tertiary hikinG trail with restinG areas
crossinG at amador valley boulevard
expanded wetland with boardwalk
trails and wildlife viewinG platforms
GatherinG space and outdoor classroom
refurbished railroad trestle historical remnant
expanded and naturalized south san ramon creek
rocky outcrop
re-Grade to enhance physical link with staGecoach park
GatherinG space and outdoor classroom
connection to hiGh school
public access
children’s Garden
community Gardens
re-aliGned iron horse trail - typical
secondary hikinG trail at creek edGe
limited access neiGhborhood connection
oak savannah
Grassland
wetland
wetland
riparian forest
meadow
connection to
san ramon

LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
North
Phase 1
Location
KEY
Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan (Excerpts) Approved by the City Council on October 1, 2013
446
Item 7.2
Authorize a Budget Shift to FY
2021-22 for the Iron Horse Nature
Park and Open Space Project
February 15, 2022
447
Background
• Master Plan approved Oct 1, 2013
• Adopted Environmental Document
Property Owners:
• Zone 7 – area of channel and existing Iron Horse Trail • City of Dublin – 12 acres
• Alameda County – gas pipeline easement and fiber optic lease Stakeholders:
• EBRPD – Maint and License Agreement
• HOAs, homeowners, adjacent property owners
• DUSD – connection to Dublin High School
• KinderMorgan, Fiber Optic, other utilities
Funding:
• Public Facility Fees $7M
• State Grant $2.3M
448
Property Owners
Property Owners:
• Zone 7
• City of Dublin
• Alameda County
449
Master Plan
• 12.13 acres
• From San Ramon
City Limit
• To confluence of
Alamo and South
San Ramon Creeks
450
Proposed Phase 1
Challenges:
• Tight Schedule
• State Grant: deadline for a completed project by Dec 31, 2023
• Consistent with adopted Master Plan
• Environmental Permitting
• R/W and Easement Acquisition
• Utility Coordination
451
Consistency with adopted
Master Plan - CENTER
452
Proposed Phase 1
• New trail, spur
trails
• Gathering spaces
• Outdoor
classrooms
• Shade features
• Benches
• Trail markers,
educational sign
age, wayfinding
• Entry feature at
Amador Valley
Blvd
453
Proposed Amenities
Outdoor Classroom/Gathering Space
454
Proposed Amenities
Shade Structures
455
Proposed Trail Gateway
Amador Valley Boulevard
456
Staff Recommendation
• Approve a budget change authorizing the shifting of funds to Fiscal Year 2021-22
457
Questions
458

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 6 ends

Agenda Item 8.1
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Transition to District-Based Councilmember Elections Prepared by: Jordyn Bishop, Assistant City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Earlier this year, the City received a notification threatening litigation under the California Voting Rights Act if the City did not convert from at-large elections for electing members of the City Council to district-based elections. The City Council will consider adopting a resolution of intent to transition from at-large elections to a district-based councilmember election system.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Declaring Its Intention to Transition From an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

If the City Council concurs with Staff’s recommendation, there will be significant staff time associated with the transition to district-based elections and to administer the process moving forward, including the need for at least five public hearings. The City will also incur costs for a demographer to assist with drawing district maps and soliciting public input in order to draw district maps. These costs are currently estimated at approximately $50,000. Additionally, the City may be required to reimburse a prospective plaintiff for its documented attorney’s fees and costs, up to $30,000 (plus an annual adjustment for inflation). If City Council chooses to maintain at-large elections and defend a potential lawsuit, the costs and attorneys’ fees would likely approach several million dollars. 459

Page 2 of 6 ends

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The City of Dublin utilizes an at-large election system for electing its Mayor and Councilmembers. An at-large election system means that all electors in the City elect each of the four (4) Councilmembers and Mayor. A district-based election system would be one in which the City would be physically divided into separate districts, each represented by one Councilmember who resides in and is chosen by the electors residing in that same district. Under such a system, the Mayor would continue to be elected by the electorate of the entire City.

On January 4, 2022, the City received a letter, included as Attachment 1, from Kevin Shenkman of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, alleging a violation of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and demanding that the City move away from an at-large election system. The letter claims there is “racially polarized voting” in Dublin and threatens litigation if the City declines to voluntarily convert to district-based elections. “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters of a protected class, than in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate. Specifically, the letter asserts that the City’s current at-large election system dilutes the ability of Indian American voters to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of City Council elections, and that, as a result, Dublin’s at-large election system violates the CVRA.

After discussing the claim in closed session conferences with legal counsel, the City Council directed staff to move forward with drafting the attached Resolution declaring intent to transition from at-large to district-based elections, for consideration at the February 15, 2022 meeting.

The California Voting Rights Act
The CVRA prohibits at-large election systems from impairing the ability of a protected class (members of a race, color, or language minority group) to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election. Modeled after the Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA) (42 U.S.C. § 1973), the CVRA was specifically enacted in 2002 to make it easier for plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits against public entities that elected their members to its governing body through “at-large” elections.

To prove a violation of the CVRA, plaintiffs need only show the existence of racially polarized voting. (Elec. Code §§ 14026(e), 14028(a).) Other factors are also relevant in determining liability. Plaintiffs are not required to show that members of a protected class live in a geographically compact area or prove intent to discriminate on the part of voters or officials. If a CVRA violation is found, the court has authority to impose district-based elections and determine district boundaries with input from the plaintiff’s attorney. (Elec. Code § 14029).

As a result, cities and other agencies throughout the State have increasingly been facing legal challenges to their “at-large” systems of electing councilmembers or board members. Almost all have settled claims out of court by agreeing to voluntarily shift to district-based elections. Locally, the City of Pleasanton, the City of Livermore, the Dublin Unified School District, the Dublin San Ramon Services District, and the Pleasanton Unified School District have all transitioned, or are in the midst of 460

Page 3 of 6 ends

transitioning to a district-based election system.

Significant financial costs are associated with litigating a challenge under the CVRA. The CVRA grants a prevailing plaintiff the right to recover reasonable attorneysʼ fees and expert witness fees. This has resulted in payment of huge amounts of money in attorneys’ fees by cities that have chosen to litigate the CVRA challenge. Conversely, a city prevailing against a CVRA challenge has no right to recover either attorneysʼ fees or costs. Also, the city would remain vulnerable to subsequent litigation brought under the CVRA by different plaintiffs.

In recent cases brought under the CVRA, awards to prevailing plaintiffs have approached $5 million, which does not capture other significant costs incurred during the course of litigation, such as citiesʼ own attorneysʼ fees and staff time.

Existing legislation (discussed in the next section) provides a “safe harbor” mechanism for an agency to consider its options after receiving a CVRA litigation threat and take steps to convert to district-based elections without fear of paying substantial attorneysʼ fees to the plaintiff.

Safe Harbor under Assembly Bill (AB) 350
Effective January 1, 2017, AB 350 (2016) amended Elections Code section 10010 and attempted to provide a “safe harbor” for agencies facing CVRA litigation if they take immediate steps to transition to district-based elections. If a city receives a demand letter from a “prospective plaintiff,” the city is given 45 days of protection from litigation to assess its situation and determine a course of action. If within that 45 days, a city adopts a resolution declaring intent to transition from at-large to district-based elections, outlining specific steps to be undertaken to facilitate the transition, and estimating a timeframe for action, then a potential plaintiff is prohibited from filing a CVRA action for a 90-day period from the resolutionʼs passage.

The city and the prospective plaintiff may enter into a written agreement to extend that 90-day time period for up to an additional 90 days in order to provide additional time to conduct public outreach, encourage public participation, and receive public input. The extension must be in writing and must require the district boundaries be established at least six months before the next regular election.

Within 10 days of signing the extension agreement, the city must post a tentative public outreach/public hearing schedule on its website. Thus, the “safe harbor” legislation provides a minimum of 135 days, and up to 225 days upon mutual agreement, for a city to assess and implement a transition to a district- based system before a lawsuit may be filed. Under AB 350, a city’s liability is capped at $30,000 (plus an annual adjustment for inflation) if it follows this safe harbor process after receiving a threat, and the plaintiff must show financial documentation that these costs were actually incurred.

Regardless of whether the city is transitioning on its own initiative, or under “safe harbor” in response to a demand letter, the Elections Code sets out a number of steps a city must take in the effort to assess and transition to a district-based election system, steps which are laid out in further detail below.

Transition from At-Large to District-Based Elections
Under Elections Code section 10010, a city is required to hold at least five public hearings during the transition process. The first two public hearings will give the community an opportunity to provide input on the composition of the districts before any maps are drawn. Subsequently, draft district maps 461

Page 4 of 6 ends

will be drawn and two additional public hearings will be held for the public to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections. The maps must be published at least seven days before the public hearings. The fifth, and final, public hearing will be for the City Council to consider an ordinance that establishes the district-based elections and approves the maps.

Most communities have taken a phased approach to implementing district-based elections. If district elections are initiated by the city, the City Council may determine the potential sequence of the elections. (Elec. Code § 10010(a)(2)). If a city is compelled to adopt district elections as a result of litigation, district boundaries will be drawn by the presiding court with input from the plaintiff.

In establishing a district-based election system, no councilmember’s term may be cut short (Gov. Code § 34873; Elec. Code § 21606(a)), but when their term ends, an incumbent can only run from the new district in which he or she resides. The term of office for each councilmember remains four years. (Gov.

Code § 34879). In determining the final sequence of the district elections, the City Council must give special consideration to the purposes of the CVRA. This may require that the election in a district with a majority of voters of a protected class be scheduled in the presidential election year when voter turnout is typically much higher than in the gubernatorial election year.

The district boundary maps must meet certain criteria. In particular, the districts must be roughly equal in population, excluding incarcerated persons. (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (a).) The districts are further subject to the following criteria in order of priority:
 geographical contiguity
 minimize the division of any local neighborhood or local community of interest  easily identified and understood by residents
 geographical compactness (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (c).) Process and Timeline
The proposed Resolution declares the City Council’s intent to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing district-based elections beginning with the November 2024 regular municipal election. The specific steps to be undertaken to facilitate the transition and the estimated timeframe for doing so are set forth in Exhibit A to the Resolution (Attachment 1), and presented below:
462

Page 5 of 6 ends

Date Event / Action
February - March 2022 City conducts public outreach to explain the districting process and to encourage public participation
April 2022 City holds first and second public hearings (over a period of no more than 30 days) to obtain input regarding the composition of the districts May - June 2022 City prepares and posts draft maps and potential sequence of councilmember elections
June-July 2022 City holds third and fourth public hearings (over a period of no more than 45 days) to obtain public input regarding content of the draft maps and potential sequence of councilmember elections
August-September 2022 Introduction and adoption of ordinance establishing district-based elections and a final map
The candidate nomination period for the November 8, 2022 regular municipal election opens on Monday, July 18, 2022. The County Registrar of Voters has asked for final district maps no later than six months before the election date, which is approximately May 8, 2022. Ordinances take effect 30 days from adoption, meaning the City Council would need to adopt a district-based ordinance and a final map before approximately April 8, 2022 to meet the County’s requested deadline for incorporating the City’s new district map in time for the 2022 election.

If the City Council adopts the proposed Resolution on February 15, 2022, that would leave 52 days to conduct the full districting process, which is not enough time to complete the transition in time for the November 2022 elections. That timeline would provide insufficient time to meaningfully engage in the necessary public process to adopt and implement the maps. As stated above, a city is required to hold at least five public hearings during the transition process. The first and second public hearings must be held over a period of no more than 30 days, and the third and fourth public hearings must be held over a period of no more than 45 days. A final, fifth public hearing is required for adoption of the ordinance and map, and all draft maps must also be published at least seven days before the public hearings.

It is the City’s desire that the to-be-adopted maps reflect, to the greatest extent possible, meaningful public participation. A 52-day process would severely limit the City’s ability to conduct outreach to the public to explain the districting process and to encourage public participation. The City’s recent experience demonstrates that extra effort is required to engage the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the City’s discussions with demographic consultants that will be used to assist with conducting outreach and hearings and prepare maps indicate that they will continue to be busy during the next several months, as they complete decennial census redistricting. Their unavailability is likely to both delay the process and limit the various map options that the community might desire to consider. In addition, after the maps are completed, the residents of the districts, their various communities of interest, and potential candidates would have a short period of time to identify, organize, and develop potential candidacies, potentially disrupting the existing plans of potential candidates and campaign organizations.
463

Page 6 of 6 ends

As a result, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution declaring intent to transition to district-based elections beginning with the 2024 election, outlining specific steps to be undertaken to facilitate this transition, and establishing the estimated timeframe for doing so.

It is also recommended that the City Council provide the authority to the City Manager to enter into agreements necessary to initiate and facilitate this process when those contracts exceed $45,000.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Declaring Intention to Transition from an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System
2) Demand Letter from Shenkman & Hughes
464
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO TRANSITION FROM AN AT-LARGE ELECTION

SYSTEM TO A DISTRICT-BASED ELECTION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, members of the City Council of the City of Dublin (“City”) are currently elected in “at-large” elections, in which each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 permits the legislative body of a city to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an “at-large” system to a “district- based” system in which each councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, the City received a letter on January 4, 2022, from Kevin Shenkman of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its unidentified members residing within Dublin, alleging that the City’s at-large councilmember electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, under Elections Code section 14028(a), a violation of the CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections. “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026, subd. (e)); and WHEREAS, the City denies that its at-large councilmember electoral system violates the CVRA or any other provision of law, and asserts the City’s election system is legal in all respects and further denies any wrongdoing in connection with the manner in which it has conducted its City Council elections; and
WHEREAS, under Elections Code section 10010, a prospective plaintiff can file a lawsuit if the City does not adopt a resolution of intent to transition to district-based elections within 45 days of receipt of a letter sent by certified mail asserting that the City’s method of conducting elections may violate the CVRA; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code section 10010 provides a method by which a city can expeditiously change from an at-large elections system to a district-based election system and avoid the high cost of litigation; and
WHEREAS, under Elections Code section 10010, if the City adopts a resolution outlining its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections, including specific steps it will undertake to facilitate this transition and an estimated timeframe for doing so, then a prospective plaintiff may not bring a CVRA lawsuit within 90 days after that resolution’s passage and attorneys’ fees would be capped at a maximum of $30,000; and
465
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, prior to the City Council’s consideration of an ordinance to establish district boundaries for a district-based electoral system, Elections Code section 10010 requires all of the following:

1. Before drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the City shall hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. Before these hearings, the City may conduct outreach to the public, including to non-English-speaking communities, to explain the districting process and to encourage public participation;

2. After all draft maps are drawn, the City shall publish and make available for release at least one draft map and, if members of the City Council will be elected in their districts at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections. The City shall also hold at least two additional hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if applicable. The first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven days before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it shall be published and made available to the public for at least seven days before being adopted; and WHEREAS, the City intends to retain an experienced demographer to assist the City to develop a proposal for a district-based electoral system.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat the City Council of the City of Dublin declares its intention to consider adoption of an ordinance to transition to a district-based election system beginning with the November 2024 regular municipal election, as authorized by Government Code section 34886.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council authorizes and directs staff to work with a demographer, and other appropriate consultants as needed, to provide a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and any other information or data necessary to prepare a draft map that divides the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the CVRA and all other applicable laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with a demographer, and other appropriate consultants, in excess of $45,000 to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council directs staff to make every effort, prior to the commencement of the hearings required by law, to conduct outreach to the public, including to non-English speaking communities, to explain the districting process and to encourage public participation in the process for determining the composition of the districts and the sequence of district elections.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares its intention to take the specific steps, and approves the estimated timeline for taking such steps, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The City Manager may adjust such timeline if she deems it necessary, provided that any such adjustments may not prevent adoption of an ordinance in sufficient time for district-based elections to be used at the November 2024 regular municipal election.
466
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Resolution, or any part hereof, is held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or portions of this Resolution.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Resolution irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
5056821.5
467
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A
Estimated Timeframe for Transitioning to District-Based Elections Date Event / Action
January 4, 2022 City received letter asserting violations of CVRA February 15, 2022 City adopts resolution of intent to transition to district- based elections
February - March 2022 City conducts public outreach to explain the districting process and to encourage public participation
April 2022 City holds first and second public hearings (over a period of no more than 30 days) to obtain input
regarding the composition of the districts
May - June 2022 City prepares and posts draft maps and potential sequence of councilmember elections
June - July 2022 City holds third and fourth public hearings (over a period of no more than 45 days) to obtain public input
regarding content of the draft maps and potential
sequence of councilmember elections
August-September 2022 Introduction and adoption of ordinance establishing district-based elections and a final map
468
Attachment 2
469
470
471
472
Item 8.1
Transition to District-Based
Councilmember Elections
February 15, 2022
473
Background
• January 4, 2022
– City received a letter from Shenkman & Hughes, on
behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education
Project, alleging a violation of the CVRA
• California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
– Prohibits at-large elections from impairing the ability of a protected class (members of a race, color, or language minority group) to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election
474
At-Large vs. District Elections
• At-Large Elections (current)
– All voters in Dublin elect each of the four (4)
Councilmembers and Mayor
• District-Based Elections
– Create maps to physically divide City into separate
districts of equal population
– Each district represented by one Councilmember
who resides in and is chosen by voters residing in
that same district
475
Legal and Financial Impacts
• CVRA lawsuits
– Plaintiff has low bar to prevail in a CVRA lawsuit
– Even if City prevails, another plaintiff may allege CVRA violation later
• Costs to litigate
– Must pay plaintiff ’s legal fees if City is unsuccessful – Legal fees in past cases have approached $5 million
– Court orders district elections & draws maps
476
CVRA Safe Harbor
• Method to expeditiously change to a district-based
election system and avoid the high cost of litigation
• Within 45 days of CVRA demand letter:
– Adopt a resolution of intent to transition to district- based elections
• Prospective plaintiff may not bring a CVRA lawsuit
within 90 days after resolution’s passage and
attorneys’ fees capped at $30,000 (plus inflation)
477
Transition Process
• Minimum of Five Public Hearings Required
– 2 public hearings for input on the composition of the districts before any maps are drawn
– 2 public hearings on content of the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections
– Introduce and adopt ordinance
• 2022 Election Dates
– City is committed to engaging in an open and deliberate public process to educate and seek input from the City’s various constituencies and communities of interest
– Insufficient time to meaningfully engage in the public process to adopt and implement the maps for use in 2022 election 478
Estimated Timeframe
Date Event / Action
January 4, 2022 City received letter asserting violations of CVRA February 15, 2022 City adopts resolution of intent to transition to district-based elections
February - March 2022 City conducts public outreach to explain the districting process and to encourage public
participation
April 2022 City holds 1st and 2nd public hearings to obtain input regarding the composition of the districts
May - June 2022 City prepares and posts draft maps and potential sequence of councilmember elections
June - July 2022 City holds 3rd and 4th public hearings to obtain public input regarding content of the draft maps and potential sequence of councilmember elections
August - September 2022 Introduction and adoption of ordinance establishing district-based elections and a final map
479
Staff Recommendation
• Adopt a Resolution of Intent to transition to
District-Based Elections outlining the specific
steps to be undertaken to facilitate this
transition, and establishing the estimated
timeframe for doing so
• Authorize the City Manager to enter into
agreements necessary to initiate and facilitate
this process when those contracts exceed
$45,000
480

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item 8.2
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding City Council Salaries
Prepared by: Marsha Moore, MMC, City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will discuss options regarding adjustments to Councilmember salaries.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss and provide direction to Staff regarding adjustments to City Council salaries.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Should the City Council adopt an increase at the maximum allowed by law, the financial impact of a partial year (December 2022 – June 2023), including salary-based taxes and contributions, would be an increase of $3,951.60. The full year (12 months) additional cost would be $7,903.20.

DESCRIPTION:

Government Code Section 36516(a) allows a general law city to provide a salary to City Councilmembers. An increase in compensation is allowed by ordinance, and “may not exceed an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted” (Government Code Section 36516(4)).

The City Council last adjusted salaries for the City Council in December 2020 (Attachment 1), which became effective after the November 2020 election. City Councilmembers’ salary is currently set at $1,285.10 per month. Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.40 (Attachment 2) provides an additional $100 per month to the Mayor over the salary received as a Councilmember.

The Mayor’s current salary is $1,385.10 per month.

The allowable increase for calendar years 2020 through 2022 was calculated as follows:
481

Page 2 of 2 ends

Current compensation (established in 2020): $1,285.10
5% increase, 2020 to 2021: $1,349.36
5% increase, 2021 to 2022: $1,416.82
If the maximum increase is adopted, the financial impact for a partial year (December 2022 – June 2023) including salary-based taxes and contributions would be $3,951.60. The full year (12 months) additional cost would be $7,903.20.

If it wishes to take such action, the City Council can direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration. In accordance with Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.020B and State Law, the increase would not become effective until newly elected Councilmembers are sworn into office following certification of the November 2022 election.

The City Council could also consider:
 Increasing the salaries by an amount less than the maximum permitted by law  Not increasing the current salary (take no action)
 Reducing current salaries
 Eliminating salaries altogether
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance No. 10-20 Amending Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 and Providing for an Increase in the Salary for Members of the City Council
2) Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.020
482
Attachment 1
483
484

2.08.020 Salary for members established.

A. Pursuant to Section 36516 of the Government Code which provides that a City Council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the City Council shall receive a salary which shall be determined by a schedule of population for cities, the members of the City Council shall receive a salary of one thousand two hundred eighty-five dollars and ten cents ($1,285.10) per month.

B. No Councilmember shall be eligible to receive the increase provided herein until one (1) or more Councilmembers begin a new term of office. (Ord. 10-20 § 2; Ord. 7-18 § 2; Ord. 10-16 § 2; Ord. 2-12 § 2; Ord. 17-09 § 1 (part): Ord. 5-08 § 2; Ord. 3-06 § 2; Ord. 7-04 § 2; Ord. 7-02 § 2; Ord. 23-99 § 2; Ord. 6-91 § 2; Ord. 1- 90 § 2; Ord. 3-89 §§ 2, 3: Ord. 4-88 §§ 2, 3: Ord. 8-87 §§ 3, 4: Ord. 22-85 § 3: Ord. 6, 1982)

2.08.040 Mayor’s salary.

The Mayor shall receive a monthly salary of one hundred dollars ($100), in addition to that which he/she receives as a Councilmember. (Ord. 17-09 § 1 (part): Ord. 13-92 § 2) The Dublin Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 10-21, passed December 7, 2021.

Dublin Municipal Code 2.08.020 Salary for members established. Page 1 of 1 Attachment 2
485

Dublin City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

Dublin City Council
February 15, 2022