Figure 1. Park Location
Community Input Process
The Community Input Process for the park design included collecting feedback from the community (the Listening Phase), developing three conceptual plans for the park (the Interpretation Phase), adjusting the community-preferred concept plan, and receiving recommendations from the Parks and Community Services Commission (the Refining Phase).
The Community Input Process concludes upon approval of the concept plan by the City Council. The public outreach process resulted in 660 participants who provided verbal and written feedback regarding their preferences for the parks.
Listening Phase
In early August 2025, Staff provided direct mail communications to the neighborhoods surrounding the park, as well as emails to a Parks and Community Services Department distribution list to receive community input. The communications included a link to a survey. As a result of the public outreach, the City received 402 responses to the survey. Survey results are provided in Attachment 1.
Interpretation Phase
After the Listening Phase, the consultant team analyzed the feedback received from the survey and developed three design concepts for the park. The design concepts were entitled The Promenade, Touch the Earth, and Wonder. The second engagement with the public occurred during the City’s Splatter event on September 13, 2025, where 258 community members visited the project booth that presented the three design concepts.
At the conclusion of Interpretation Phase, 127 votes were received that favored the Wonder design concept, while the design concepts Touch the Earth and The Promenade received 79 and 52 votes, respectively. Features that received positive feedback included trees with flowers/seasonal color, grassy mounds and hammocks, open turf, and a playground, with swings and monkey bars in the play area.
470
Refining Phase
Staff, the Developer, and the design team, Roach and Campbell, further refined the design for the Wonder concept based upon the public input and the concept plan cost estimates. To stay within the agreed-upon project budget of $1,834,591, the Wonder design was refined to include large areas where turfgrass, shrubs, and trees were removed or reduced in size, and replaced with large areas of wood mulch. Subsequently, the Developer offered to provide an additional project contribution of $158,335 to fund reverting the large wood mulch areas back to areas that include either shrubs or turf, larger sized trees, and the irrigation system needed to support this landscape.
The Wonder concept plan, as presented in Attachment 2, includes the following amenities:
Reservable picnic area with shade elements and BBQ
Combined playground for ages 2 to 5 years and 5 to 12 years Relaxation area with hammocks
Grass area for free play
Trees for shade and seasonal color
Interior pathways for circulation
Bordering the park on the east side is a 12-foot-wide Class I Bikeway and pedestrian path lined with trees that will also include a bike repair station as well as bike racks. These adjacent amenities add to the experience of the park site.
Parks and Community Services Commission Feedback
On November 17, 2025, the Parks and Community Services Commission recommended approval of the Wonder concept plan with a few requested alterations such as more barbecues. In reviewing the overall space this site offers, Staff believes the current plan provides sufficient barbecues, picnic tables, and shade on the most northern parcel and is well suited to serve the immediate residents’ needs. Therefore, Staff does not recommend additional barbecues.
The Commission also expressed interest in additional flowering tree species. Staff will further review the selection of tree species to ensure that flowering varieties are included, that they align with trees selected for the overall development, and that they are suitable for the local climate and attract pollinators.
The Commission further expressed some concern regarding perceived conflicts with pedestrians, bicyclists and e-bikes on the proposed Class I multi-use path proposed along the east side of the park and fully separated from vehicle traffic. However, this Class I path is designed to the standards of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and includes a 12-foot paved trail and two-foot-wide shoulders that are designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, and e-bikes. Additionally, a parallel Class IV separated bikeway will be constructed approximately 300 feet to the west of the park along Tassajara Road, to provide an alternative, dedicated facility for cyclists. The location of the Class I and Class IV paths are consistent with the City’s adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The City Council also recently adopted Ordinance No. 06-25 establishing local regulations and enforcement tools for e-bikes to reduce potential conflicts between pedestrians and traditional bicycles. Together, the Class I shared- 471
use path and the parallel Class IV bikeway help ensure that safe facilities are available for all modes of transportation.
Finally, the Commission expressed interest in pedestrian safety at the intersections along the linear pathway. The pedestrian crossings at each street intersection along the linear pathway are designed to City standards. The intersection at Finnian Way, which connects the retail parcels to the south boundary of the park, will have a flashing beacon and crosswalk. The other intersections along the linear pathway at the neighborhood streets include crosswalks that conform to City standards.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted and emailed to the individuals who participated in the public meetings.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) The Park at Dublin Centre Survey Results
2) Dublin Centre Neighborhood Park Concept Plan
472
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
Goal 1 - The park will provide unique active and passive recreation opportunities to surrounding community Does goal 1 align with what you want to see in the project? Answer Choices
Yes 87.12% 345
No 12.88% 51
Answered 396
Skipped 6
Responses
Yes No
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Does goal 1 align with what you want to
see in the project?
Responses
Attachment 1
473
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
Goal 2 - The park will connect the community physically and socially Does goal 2 align with what you want to see in the project? Answer Choices
Yes 87.24% 342
No 12.76% 50
Answered 392
Skipped 10
Responses
Yes No
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Does goal 2 align with what you want to
see in the project?
Responses
474
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
Goal 3 - The park will connect the community to nature
Does goal 3 align with what you want to see in the project? Answer Choices
Yes 87.75% 351
No 12.25% 49
Answered 400
Skipped 2
Responses
Yes No
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Does goal 3 align with what you want to
see in the project?
Responses
475
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
If you selected no for any of the above, please provide an explanation.
Answered 64
Skipped 338
Responses Tags
Lovely to have a beautifully structured long walking lawn that connects to nature More hanging out should bevthere
I think it should either be located along Tassajara or along Brannigan NOT in the middle of that new development.
I don't think the proposed area is enough to justify the proposed goals. We need more green, spreading across the area also.
I live nearby (Bellevue Circle) and overall, I’m supportive of the goals. That said, I’d really like to see the park designed in a way that feels peaceful and welcoming for the local community without turning into a destination that brings in big crowds or traffic issues. A few things that I t hink w:ould hp el Keep parking limited or controlled to avoid spillover into th e neighborhoods.Make sure there’s a solid maintenance plan — trash bins, cleanup, etc.Include areas that are quieter and more nature-focused, not just active zones.Aim for smaller community-driven programming over big events.Also, having things like shaded seating, walking paths, and some natural barriers Our extensive park system already easily meets goals one and two. We need more nature focused park activities.
How about having outdoor exercise equipment at the park? All of this development is coming at the cost of reduced open spaces, so any chance to integrate nature with the community is welcome. I would also like to see Dublin becoming more pedestrian-friendly, and so planning to have physical activity and socially connecting is important.
The park is already close to the Emerald Park which fulfills goals 1 and 2. But we need a lot more trees and nature scenes.
Parking is limited in Dublin. We need parking.
Just create more parking for the neighborhood. No parking available in that area already. We don’t need a park we need more parking as residents. We have plenty of parks.
Goal 3 is vague
Will be in a very dense and connected community already.
A thin slice of land like this can hardly provide connection with nature. Unless there is a plan to cover this up with lots of trees.
I would rather have the park than more housing. Dublin is crowded as it is.
Lots of building being built in Dublin and I see trees being just planted. In maybe 15-20 years, it will be green Too confined space between homes to serve as an active recreation area nature in the strip between the buildings..not Nature..by building this complex you have destroyed nature already. stop being pretentious about it.
I don’t care about the other people in the community connecting with me when I’m at the park with my kid.
What nature? All of the development in the area has wiped out anything natural.
I feel we have plenty of natural beauty nearby.
I have no idea what “passive recreation” is. But I have no strong feelings against Goal 1.
Too small to satisfy community
The park is not a park. It's a glorified walking path. It will become extra "yard" space for the residents immediately adjacent to the "park". Anyone else will simply be an intruder or passing through. Why on the west side closer to Emerald Glen? Put it on the East side and support residents who have a longer walk to a real park. Or in the middle so there is equity for residents? And why not demand that each block get an equal amount of "park" space per resident? focusing on nature is what our community needs most.
Other parks nearby already have similar functions
That's not what the park is there for. Connecting socially will likely result in more concrete and less trees.
Dublin has plenty of parks already that promote a connection to nature. It would be better to have a park that promotes art and culture.
Re #1 The only recreation I'm interested in is hiking. Re #2 I don't see a park as an instrument of connecting the community than greeting people in a grocery store.
It’s not clear what this would mean. If it means picnic/party areas then I’d prefer indoor community party space as outdoor spaces are unusable most of the time due to cold winds and weather We already have enough parks in goal 1 and 3. Do something novel with goal 2 We all know Dublin is BIG on nature. Like the hikes and walks and being able to see green. That’s why most people who move out here love the greenery! N/A
There's already a large space to nature in Emerald Glen Park, utilize the space for recreation opportunities will be more efficient.
I would like it just be nature, there is a park right near by that provides for goal 1 and 2 Emerald Glen is right across the street and seems to already fit goal 1 and 2 There is bigger Glen park available near by for that.
Don't understand what 'connect the community physically and socially' meant. Will like to see the project bring more nature (e.g trees/garden paths/benches) in.
Suggestion: 2 separate off leash dog parks- 1 for large dogs and 1 for small dogs.
We already have a lot of parks in the area that meet the other two goals. Since this area will also have some businesses/commercial would be nice to use this park to connect to that somehow.
How will the park provide neurodiverse kids an opportunity to enjoy the facilities? The park is too small for a community that large
The park needs to be unique and different. Lot’s of enchanted lights and entertainment for kids and adults around a water feature fountain! Dublin has many parks already. What we need is a family friendly plaza where we can hang out grab food ice cream and coffee and spend time with family and friends. I would love to have a place like city center in san Ramon in our city Yes
I dont care about nature that much.
I just don’t have interest of goal 2.
Many of the parks are surrounded by dense housing which defeats the purpose of enjoying an outdoor space I don’t know what is meant by “active and passive recreation” I want to see more wilderness, more greenery, more walkable sidewalks. I want less of the high density housing which causes traffic, pollution and crowding.
Wasting of city tax payers money for some private park for a community. Instead improve the parks that are neglected on the West part.
The shape of the park is not looking conducive to too many recreation opportunities.
How can a tiny park “connect with nature” when it’s surrounded by multi story buildings? Dublin is rapidly growing and evolving. We need to ensure we continue to prioritize nature and connecting our people to it. This is one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world, let's not just cover it in concrete. too narrow of a space to realistically experience nature.
No one will use goal 3. Too small of an area to do so anyways.
We need more community gathering space.
WOULD RATHER SEE LEANING TOWARD NATURE
Emerald Glen Park is right next to the proposed park.
I think the park space should be wider to relieve your eyes from all the buildings.
N/A
Goal 2 is my lowest priority. I prioritize fitness stations and just being outdoors.
Considering it's such a narrow strip of land, divided by a major road, I don't see a lengthy opportunity like a running trail or physical exercises opportunities. I think it would be better to create social spaces, not exercise spaces. This could be nature-oriented, but again it's a small amount of real estate. I think picnic tables, benches, maybe some outdoor me spaces, would benefit the densely packed people living nearby. For exercising they should continue to Emerald Glen park across the street. For "further nature", they should continue further to the Tassahara Creek trail. This dense living & shopping area needs social spaces that are free to be in & become social, just downstairs or across the street #2 does not explain how the park will connect with a diverse community. 476
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
Where do you live?
Answer Choices
Within 1/4 mile of the proposed park 18.00% 72
Within 1/2 mile of the proposed park 30.50% 122
Within the City of Dublin 45.25% 181
Outside of the City of Dublin, but I work and/or recreate in Dublin 5.00% 20 I am considering moving into the new Dublin Centre development 1.25% 5 Answered 400
Skipped 2
Responses
Within 1/4
mile of the
proposed park
Within 1/2
mile of the
proposed park
Within the
City of Dublin
Outside of the
City of Dublin,
but I work
and/or
recreate in
Dublin
I am
considering
moving into
the new
Dublin Centre
development
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Where do you live?
Responses
477
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
Who would you come to the park with? Insert a number for each category. Please include yourself.
Answer Choices
Seniors (65+ years-old) 33.16% 126
Adults (18-64-year-olds) 93.16% 354
Teens (14-17-year-olds) 31.05% 118
Pre-teens (10-13-year-olds) 22.63% 86
Children (5-10 year-olds) 34.74% 132
Young Children (2-5-year-olds) 26.05% 99
Infants (under 2) 17.11% 65
Dogs 28.42% 108
Answered 380
Skipped 22
Responses
478
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
How would you anticipate getting there? (select all that apply) Answer Choices
Walking 61.77% 244
Biking 31.65% 125
Driving 57.47% 227
Public Transportation 2.28% 9
Answered 395
Skipped 7
Responses
Walking Biking Driving Public
Transportation
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
How would you anticipate getting there?
(select all that apply)
Responses
479
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
Please select all the following you/your family would be interested in.
Answer Choices
Walking (people only) 79.15% 281
Walking (with dog/s) 41.97% 149
Running/jogging 42.54% 151
Playing at a playground 54.65% 194
Sitting 67.61% 240
Picnicking 63.10% 224
Socializing 64.79% 230
Enjoying Nature 77.18% 274
Answered 355
Skipped 47
Responses
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Please select all the following you/your
family would be interested in.
Responses
480
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
1 / 1
Q9 Please rate the following features in order of preference. Click the arrows to move the feature up or down the list. Items listed at the top are your favorite and those at the bottom are your least favorite.Pictures are for example only and don't depict the actual element or exact design.
Answered: 356 Skipped: 46
33.99%
121
19.94%
71 16.01%
57 14.33%
51 4.78%
17 3.37%
12 3.93%
14 2.25%
8 1.40%
5 356 7.19
25.56%
91 17.42%
62 22.47%
80 17.70%
63 8.15%
29 5.90%
21 1.97%
7 0.56%
2 0.28%
1 356 7.04
14.89%
53 17.98%
64 17.42%
62 16.01%
57 10.67%
38 8.71%
31 4.78%
17 4.21%
15 5.34%
19 356 6.12
6.74%
24 19.66%
70 17.70%
63 18.26%
65 14.89%
53 10.96%
39 6.74%
24 3.93%
14 1.12%
4 356 5.99
9.55%
34 12.64%
45 7.87%
28 12.64%
45 18.82%
67 11.52%
41 9.55%
34 7.02%
25 10.39%
37 356 5.11
1.69%
6 2.53%
9 5.90%
21 6.18%
22 14.89%
53 25.28%
90 17.70%
63 13.20%
47 12.64%
45 356 3.81
5.34%
19 3.37%
12 4.49%
16 6.18%
22 7.30%
26 11.24%
40 13.20%
47 28.65%
102
20.22%
72 356 3.42
0.56%
2 1.69%
6 3.65%
13 3.93%
14 10.11%
36 15.17%
54 29.49%
105
23.03%
82 12.36%
44 356 3.26
1.69%
6 4.78%
17 4.49%
16 4.78%
17 10.39%
37 7.87%
28 12.64%
45 17.13%
61 36.24%
129 356 3.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL SCORE
Shade Shelter
Walking Path
Lawn Space
Picnic Tables
Play Structure
Demonstration
Garden
Outdoor Fitness
Community
Gathering
Games
481
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
Are there any additional features not listed above that you would like to see at the park? Answered 121
Skipped 281
Responses Tags
No
Art installations. This is not that important to me, however.
Pickleball court with lights
No
Zipline
Bird bath and feeders, native plants for local pollinators Should have soil based paths for walking (non concrete) BBQ grill and drinking water fountains
Water fountains
Quiet Zones / Nature Pods: Small tucked-away areas with benches, shade, and maybe some native plants. Designed for reading, relaxing, or just being outside without the noise.
Water feature for kids. A type of creek that kids could play in restroom, garbage cans, lights
Sports
Bike lane for cyclists
Water features
Ponds
Public restrooms, hand washing stations outdoors, water drinking refill fountain, book birdhouse Picnic tables shaded with tree; redwood trees
Restrooms
Pickleball courts, Water area,
No
Dog park
hydration stations, dog waste stations, adequate lighting Extra parking for visitors
No
I would like to see dog free park. As many of Dublin park allows dogs/pets in all areas and owners doesn't follow rules and causes discomfort.
A playable water fountain feature young/younger children can run and play when hot Water refilling stations, bathrooms
Near picnic places please.
community garden beds for rent
making sure the playground has lots of seating for parents and shade Performance areas
Adirondack chairs or other lounging options, Bar/food options Basketball court
Outdoor fitness and local events hosted at the park that are announced. Having more volunteer spots available for community gardens Water features
Dog park, there are not enough in Dublin
misting sprays to keep people cool as they walk to enjoy and admire the new nature park Shade structures are nice but please plant trees that will mature into natural shade! Zip line
TREES! Open Lawn Spaces - the photo shows a tree, but the description does not. Dublin needs a LOT more trees in its barren parks.
Exercise stations
Pool
Art
Dog area
Good bicycle access to and from the park, restrooms, water refill stations I would like to see all of Dublin Parks well maintained. Martin Canyon is not.
I would maybe like to include something a bit more unique than all the other parks at dublin: I feel like if there was a specific spot for yoga or aerobics there would be lots of popularity. spray pad/misting center
Shaded playground structures! Not enough in Dublin!
Apart from the shaded areas, lots of trees would be great if possible. I also like parks where I can sit at one place and watch my kid from a distance without blind spots. botanical garden
Pickleball courts, basketball, good lighting for night walks and playing Water feature
Trees. Many new parks lacks tree shade.
Pickleball, tennis, big grass area
2 enclosed off leash dog parks - 1 for large dogs and 1 for small dogs Splash feature / water play
No. But i want to emphasize that this park should have things that are not present in other nearby parks. For example, shaded lawn spaces. We and our friends spend most of our times in San Ramon city center because it has everything in one - shaded lawn spaces, water play, shops, restaurants. If Dublin can offer that through this project, this would be a go to place for families and attract foot traffic from other cities. water play. there's not enough in Dublin. have to go to san ramon for it.
Statues/Public art
Bathrooms
Pickleball courts
Enclosed dog park
Pool please. We do not have any community pool in Dublin Little library, water station, washroom, lost and found room/box, sand pit, nature classes for kids Grills
Restrooms
Fields that can be used for pickup volleyball, soccer, etc.
Space for live music
Fountain/water feature
Please make the area waterproof so that we can enjoy even during the winter Splash pad/water feature
None of these provide options are neurodiverse friendly Pickle Ball Courts
Shade above the
playground
482
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
1 / 1
Q11 Please rate the following gathering options in order of preference.
Click the arrows to move the feature up or down the list. Items listed at the top are your favorite and those at the bottom are your least favorite.Pictures are for example only and don't depict the actual element or exact design.
Answered: 336 Skipped: 66
37.50%
126
27.98%
94 21.73%
73 8.33%
28 3.57%
12 0.89%
3 336 4.85
26.19%
88 20.24%
68 20.83%
70 14.88%
50 14.58%
49 3.27%
11 336 4.19
8.04%
27 20.83%
70 25.89%
87 24.70%
83 16.37%
55 4.17%
14 336 3.67
13.10%
44 15.18%
51 14.88%
50 17.56%
59 14.29%
48 25.00%
84 336 3.20
13.39%
45 12.50%
42 7.14%
24 19.05%
64 33.93%
114
13.99%
47 336 3.10
1.79%
6 3.27%
11 9.52%
32 15.48%
52 17.26%
58 52.68%
177 336 1.99
1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL SCORE
483
The Park at Dublin Centre Survey
1 / 1
Q12 Please rate the following play equipment types in order of preference.
Click the arrows to move the feature up or down the list. Items listed at the top are your favorite and those at the bottom are your least favorite.Pictures are for example only and don't depict the actual element or exact design.
Answered: 319 Skipped: 83
29.78%
95 25.71%
82 17.24%
55 12.23%
39 6.90%
22 5.96%
19 2.19%
7 319 5.33
25.71%
82 28.84%
92 15.05%
48 11.29%
36 6.90%
22 5.33%
17 6.90%
22 319 5.12
23.82%
76 16.93%
54 17.55%
56 21.63%
69 11.29%
36 6.58%
21 2.19%
7 319 4.92
14.42%
46 11.29%
36 15.36%
49 17.55%
56 27.90%
89 11.60%
37 1.88%
6 319 4.24
2.82%
9 8.46%
27 9.72%
31 18.50%
59 16.61%
53 16.61%
53 27.27%
87 319 3.03
3.13%
10 5.33%
17 8.46%
27 9.40%
30 16.61%
53 36.68%
117
20.38%
65 319 2.77
0.31%
1 3.45%
11 16.61%
53 9.40%
30 13.79%
44 17.24%
55 39.18%
125 319 2.59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL SCORE
484
Attachment 2
485
Dublin Centre Park
December 16, 2025
486
Project Location – Dublin Centre Project
487
Background
• 2.01-acre Neighborhood Park
• Developed in alignment with Park Improvement Agreement standards • Small-scale, high quality play structures.
• Shaded informal seating areas.
• Group picnic facility with BBQ amenities.
• Class IB shared use path with 12’ paved surface, bike racks, and bike repair station.
• $1,834,591.32 budget + $158,335 augmented cost by Developer.
Construction budget approximately 75% of total budget.
488
Process
Council
Dec. 16 Spring ‘26
‘26-’27
Preferred
Plan
Outreach
2023
Online
Survey
July 18 –
Aug. 3
Splatter
Sept. 13 Nov. 17
Construction
Documents
Construction
Commission
489
Listening Phase
Online Survey, closed August 3 with 402 responses.
Key findings:
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Please select all the following you/your
family would be interested in.
Responses
• Walking, enjoying nature, and sitting are
the top anticipated uses.
• Shade, walking paths, and grassy areas
were the most popular features. Picnic
areas and playgrounds followed.
• Climbing elements, nature play, and
swings were the most popular play
elements.
490
Interpretation Phase – 3 concepts
Touch the Earth – prioritize nature
The Promenade – prioritize social spaces
Wonder – focus on play
491
Interpretation Phase – Public Meeting
Booth at Splatter on September 13th
• ‘Open house’
style with sticker
voting on the
three concepts.
• Opportunity for
verbal and
written
comments.
• Over 250
participants.
492
Interpretation Phase – Meeting Results
Wonder was the preferred option with 49% of the votes
Top preferred elements included:
Colorful play Swings Hammock Open turf field Flowering trees Other comments
requested:
• More trees
• More shade
• Monkey bars
493
Refinement Phase
The Wonder concept was revised based on input from the meeting and an increased budget due to Developer contribution.
• Adjusted playground equipment.
• Added trees and flowering trees.
• Reduced mulch areas and increased turf and shrub areas. 494
Refinement Phase
Shade structure and tables BBQs Swing 2-5 year-old play equipment Play structure with monkey bars
495
Refinement Phase
Open Turf Field
Lighted multi-use path with decorative crossing
496
Refinement Phase
Grassy Mounds and Hammocks Trees with seasonal color
497
Refinement Phase
Bike repair station Bicycle racks
498
Thank you - Questions?
Next Steps:
• Approval of conceptual plan.
• Construction documents and construction.
499
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 8.3
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Colleen Tribby, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Resolution Formally Opposing the Reopening of the Federal Correctional Institution Dublin for Any Future Detention or Correctional Operations Prepared by: Jordan Foss, Senior Management Analyst
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approving a resolution formally opposing the reopening or repurposing of the former Federal Correctional Institution Dublin for any use related to detention or correctional operations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Opposing the Reopening or Repurposing of the Former Federal Correctional Institution Dublin for Any Future Detention or Correctional Operations.
DESCRIPTION:
During Item 9 of the November 18, 2025 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to bring back for consideration a resolution opposing the potential use of the shuttered Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Dublin by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Background
FCI Dublin, located within the federal jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Dublin, opened in 1974 and operated for decades as a low-security federal correctional institution for women. In 2023–2024, widespread failures in facility oversight and staff misconduct—including criminal prosecutions of prison employees—resulted in national scrutiny and exposed systemic issues within the institution.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced a phased closure of FCI Dublin in April 2024. The facility was fully closed on December 5, 2024, after detainees were relocated and staff reassigned. Since its closure, the facility has remained vacant.
In early 2025, according to news reports, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials visited the former FCI Dublin site allegedly to assess the suitability of the site as a potential 500
immigrant detention center. Since then, ongoing public protest activity has reflected community opposition to ICE presence in the Tr-Valley area and to the repurposing of FCI Dublin.
City Actions and Response from BOP
The City has consistently maintained that no form of detention operation is appropriate at the former FCI Dublin location, given its history of abuse, infrastructure deterioration, and associated impacts on the community. Following the facility’s closure and public speculation, the City has engaged in ongoing communication with federal partners, including Congressional and Senate offices. Through meetings, emails, and phone calls, the City has communicated concerns regarding any future use of FCI Dublin for detention or correctional purposes.
Federal representatives have acknowledged these concerns, and the City continues to track federal actions related to the site.
The City has also transmitted two formal letters to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal BOP reflecting the City’s consistent and comprehensive stance that reopening FCI Dublin for any detention-related use is incompatible with community values, public safety, and long-term planning objectives:
April 4, 2025 – The City sent an initial opposition letter expressing its concerns following reports that the federal government was evaluating FCI Dublin for potential immigration detention use. The letter documented the facility’s history of operational failures, infrastructure issues, and inappropriate conditions for any detained population.
November 17, 2025 – After receiving no response from federal agencies, the City submitted a second letter reiterating and strengthening its position. The letter emphasized the City’s firm opposition to any reopening of FCI Dublin for detention purposes, including but not limited to use as an ICE facility.
Recently, the City received two correspondences from the Federal BOP declaring that it will no longer be operating, and will be divesting itself from, FCI Dublin:
December 5, 2025 – The City received a letter (Attachment 2) advising that the Federal BOP has no plans to reopen FCI Dublin and no indication that the facility will be repurposed for use by ICE.
December 10, 2025 – the City received an email with an attached letter (Attachment 3) advising that the Federal BOP is planning to “permanently deactivate, close, and dispose of FCI Dublin, and to divest itself of the facility with custody and accountability for FCI Dublin transferred to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) for ultimate disposition.”
There has been no information provided from any other federal agency, and no indication as to how FCI Dublin might be used in the future.
Resolution for Consideration
The attached resolution formally establishes the City Council’s position opposing the reopening of FCI Dublin for any detention or correctional purpose and reinforces the City’s request to be 501
involved in future federal discussions regarding the property. If approved, the resolution would be transmitted to federal officials, including the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Congressional and Senate representatives.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Opposing the Reopening or Repurposing of the Former Federal Correctional Institution Dublin for Any Future Detention or Correctional Operations 2) Letter from Bureau of Prisons, received December 5, 2025 3) Letter from Bureau of Prisons, received via email December 10, 2025 502
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-25, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2025 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
OPPOSING THE REOPENING OR REPURPOSING OF THE FORMER FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DUBLIN FOR ANY FUTURE DETENTION OR
CORRECTIONAL OPERATIONS
WHEREAS, the former Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Dublin, located within the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Dublin, previously operated as a low-security federal correctional facility for women until its closure by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on December 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the facility was closed following extensive reports of systemic failures, including documented staff misconduct, inadequate oversight, multiple criminal prosecutions, and the identification of dangerous infrastructu re issues, resulting in significant loss of public trust in the operation of the institution; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has grown rapidly over the last 1 5 years due to its high quality of life including : its consistent ranking among the safest cities in California; its desirable school district with many schools earning multiple distinctions like National Blue Ribbon, California Distinguished School, and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports awards for overall excellence ; its proximity to public transportation and high - paying technology employment centers; its family -friendly amenities; and its t hriving business environment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin was named an "All-America City " in 2011 by the National Civic League , recognizing it as a community that leverages civic engagement, collaboration, inclusiveness , and innovation to successfully address local issues; and
WHEREAS, the City is now home to a large immigrant population, with roughly 40% of its residents having been born outside of the United States , and is a majority - minority City with over 80% of residents having United States citizenship; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the many positive contributions of its immigrant population to the community, and champions a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion; and
WHEREAS, since the closure of FCI Dublin , credible reports and public speculation have suggested that the federal government or federal contractors may consider reactivating the site for detention or correctional operations, including but not limited to use as an immigration detention facility operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and
503
Reso. No. XX-25, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2025 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the City is aware of documented incidents in which ICE presence and heightened immigration enforcement has created an environment of fear and anxiety in communities, as well as incidents in which ICE activities are targeted not only based on judicial warrant, but on an individual’s race and/or appearance; and
WHEREAS, the City anticipates that ICE presence in the community could lead to decreased public participation in the local economy and patronage of Dublin’s small businesses, erosion of trust in City leadership, decreased involvement in special events and volunteering, decreased use of City facilities and programs, absenteeism in schools, and apprehension about interacting with public safety officers and local social support providers; and
WHEREAS, the former FCI Dublin facility lacks the necessary infrastructure to facilitate immigration enforcement or processing for detainees and was not built to support the legal, medical, and logistical needs of individuals undergoing immigration proceedings; and
WHEREAS, reopening or repurposing the former FCI Dublin facility would require extensive infrastructure and security measures that co uld negatively impact the surrounding residential areas; and
WHEREAS, the BOP has already determined that the former FCI Dublin facility is unfit for active service due to severe infrastructure issues including asbestos and mold contamination, making it a health hazard for any individuals detained there, as well as for staff; and
WHEREAS, frequent, ongoing protests in the Tri-Valley area have demonstrated the deep resistance felt by the public for ICE presence in Dublin and in the surrounding communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby formally opposes the reopening or reuse of the former Federal Correctional Institution Dublin for any detention or correctional purpose, including but not limited to its use as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin urges the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and other relevant federal agencies to engage in open and transparent communication with the City regarding any decisions affecting the site.
{Signatures on the following page}
504
Reso. No. XX-25, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2025 Page 3 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin this 16th day of December 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
505
Attachment 2
506
U
.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
C
entral Office
Washington, DC 20534
December 4, 2025
R
e: Disposal of Federal Property Associated with Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California
T
he Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, is responsible for carrying out judgements of the Federal courts whenever a period of confinement is ordered. Its mission is to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.
O
ne of BOP’s strategic long-term goals is to maintain its facilities in an operationally sound condition and in compliance with security, safety and environmental requirements and standards.
The BOP has determined that the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) located in Dublin, California (FCI Dublin), where most of the buildings and infrastructure were developed in the 1970s, is no longer needed to house inmates, requires substantial capital investment to meet standards, and is costly to operate and maintain. With that, operations at FCI Dublin ceased by April 2024 and the facility was vacated by December 2024, with the BOP transferring inmates and staff to other facilities within the Federal prison system.
T
he BOP is proposing to permanently deactivate, close, and dispose of FCI Dublin, and to divest itself of the facility with custody and accountability for FCI Dublin transferred to the U.S.
General Services Administration (GSA) for ultimate disposition (the Proposed Action). Disposal of FCI Dublin will allow the BOP to accomplish its mission better, make more effective use of available resources, and provide for the continued safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. Since the facility was vacated, the BOP has maintained only a small staff to perform minimal administrative and maintenance activities to ensure the facility is properly secured.
F
CI Dublin is a low-security correctional institution in Dublin, Alameda County, California 15 miles southeast of Oakland and 25 miles east of San Francisco. The facility resides on 87-acres of federal land once occupied by the U.S. Army’s Camp Parks in an unsectioned portion of the Rancho San Ramon Mexican Land Grant in Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. The property is regionally accessible via Interstate 580 and locally via Dougherty Road and 8
th Street (see attached exhibits).
T
he property comprising FCI Dublin is improved with over 40 primary buildings and associated structures and comprising approximately 304,000 square feet of floor space. The campus-style facility consists of administrative offices, inmate housing, master control, visitation, indoor and outdoor recreation, medical and dental units, kitchen and dining, vocational education, laundry, and maintenance among other functions and uses. All of the buildings were constructed with a Attachment 3
507
2 slab-on-grade concrete floor with metal frame or built up concrete walls with metal or shingle roofs.
The transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control is considered to be an action with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, BOP is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to ensure that the environmental consequences of the proposed action are thoroughly documented and that compliance is achieved with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental statutes including the Clean Air Act of 1974; the Clean Water Act and Amendments, the Endangered Species Act of 1973; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, among others. Preparation of NEPA documentation is being conducted to demonstrate that BOP has considered the potential environmental impacts during the decision-making process and to provide opportunities for the elected and appointed officials, Native American tribes, regulatory agencies, stakeholders and the public to voice their interests and provide input and comments concerning the proposed action. The BOP is the federal lead agency and will coordinate disposal of the property through the GSA.
Following preparation of the EA, the document will be widely circulated to allow for public review with the comment period lasting no less than 30 calendar days. At that time, individuals with an interest in the proposed action will have an opportunity to review the analyses and offer additional information that should be considered by the BOP during the decision-making process. Following the end of the public comment period, the BOP will issue its decision as to whether it will or will not proceed with the proposed action, a decision that will consider all environmental analyses and public comments and be documented by a Finding of No Significant Impact as stipulated by the NEPA regulations.
We appreciate your interest and welcome your input; please contact Rock Bortell, Site Selection Specialist concerning the proposed action and preparation of the EA at [email protected], or by phone at (202) 598-0931. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Kimberly S. Hudson, Chief
Construction and Environmental Review Section
Facilities Management
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cc: R. Bortell, BOP
R. Nardi, M. Amorelli, WSP
Attachments: FCI Dublin Property Location
FCI Dublin Property Layout
508
3 509
4 510
Resolution Formally
Opposing the Reopening of
FCI Dublin for Any Future
Detention or Correctional
Operations
December 16, 2025
511
Background
• November 18, 2025 - Council direction for
this item.
• FCI Dublin opened in 1974 as low-security
federal corrections institute for women.
• Numerous documented failures resulted in
national scrutiny.
• April 2024 – announced phased closure of
FCI Dublin.
• December 5, 2024 – facility fully closed.
512
Background, 2
• February 2025 – according to news reports, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials visited FCI Dublin site.
• Ongoing protest activity since February.
513
City Actions
• No form of detention operation is appropriate at the former FCI Dublin location.
• City has engaged with federal partners regarding concerns. • Congressional representatives
• Senate representatives
• Two formal letters submitted to US. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
• April 4, 2025 – initial opposition letter
• November 17, 2025 – Follow up letter after no response 514
Response from U.S. Bureau of Prisons
• Two correspondences received from Federal
BOP:
• December 5, 2025 – letter from BOP Director in
response to submitted letters.
• December 10, 2025 – received an email with an
attached letter advising of Federal BOP plan to
dispose of FCI Dublin.
• No response from DHS or other federal
agencies.
• No indication for future use of FCI Dublin.
515
Resolution for Consideration
Contextual Provisions
• Includes statements about the Dublin community
• Is recognized as a desirable place in which to live
• Comprises a large immigrant population
• Champions a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion • Addresses the existence of public speculation about the potential for FCI Dublin to be repurposed for ICE. • Acknowledges that ICE presence can negatively impact residents’ interaction with the local community. • Summarizes the significant health and safety issues and inadequate infrastructure of FCI Dublin. • Points to the fact that the Bureau of Prisons deemed the facility unfit for active service. • Refers to the demonstrated public resistance to ICE presence in the community.
Concluding Statement
• City Council opposes the reopening of FCI Dublin for any detention or correctional purposes. • Urges federal agencies to involve the City in future discussions regarding the property. 516
Recommendation
• Adopt the Resolution Opposing the Reopening or Repurposing of the Former Federal Correctional Institution Dublin for Any Future Detention or Correctional Operations.
• Questions?
517
December 16, 2025
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 December 16,
2025, Regular City Council meeting agenda packet.
Item 8.3
518
519
Darlene Baker
520
1 December 16, 2025
Mayor Sherry Hu, [email protected]
Vice Mayor Kashef Qaadri, [email protected]
Councilmember Jean Josey, [email protected]
Councilmember Michael McCorriston, [email protected] Councilmember John Morada, [email protected]
Re: Public hearing December 16, 2025 – FUTURE USE OF FCI DUBLIN FACILITY
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
My name is Darlene Baker. I live near Seattle, Washington. I was incarcerated inside the FCI Dublin Prison Camp from April 2022 – February 2023. During that time, I was sexually assaulted by former Medical Officer, Jeffrey Wilson. Wilson has pled guilty to one of many sexual assaults of Dublin victims, and is pending criminal sentencing set for January 29, 2026. Wilson is the 9
th former Dublin officer
convicted of sexually assaulting FCI Dublin incarcerated women.
After reporting the sexual assault, I suffered severe retaliation by Dublin officers and staff. During this time, I served as a whistleblower, forwarding details of abuse and neglect to former Congresswoman Jackie Speiers who was actively investigating the “toxic culture” of Dublin. A group of us also signed releases for our records to be released prior to the U.S. Senate hearing in December 2022.
Since my release, I have volunteered as an advocate with the Dublin Prison Solidarity Coalition and CCWP. This includes help with media. One of many comprehensive news reports was through News Nation:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=584861611303509. I was also part of the first wave of civil settlements reached last year with the Bureau of Prisons, totaling over $116M.
I respectfully urge the Council to use every means available to ensure this facility is never opened again, including and especially use as an ICE facility housing vulnerable immigrants, many with language difficulties, limited advocacy and detention without due process.
1. The “toxic culture” at the Dublin “rape club” was hidden for decades by senior government officials. There are over 20 former Dublin officers who are still on paid leave, pending on-going criminal investigations—going on over three years now. I fear these officers may be rehired and ICE detainees placed at risk of continuing assaults and retaliation. Many of the senior government officials are still in place—in spite of covering up crimes occurring inside these walls for decades. The “toxic culture” has never been remedied.
521
2 2. While I was inside the Camp, I worked with fellow “Campers” who were employed as construction workers throughout the FCI Dublin campus, and made detailed whistleblower reports from these sources. The sources included trades such as electricians, plumbers, HVAC, and general maintenance. The FCI Dublin buildings are literally falling apart. When it rained, there were rivers of water flowing through the roof and onto the floors. There are huge leaks and black mold on the ceilings from the years of water damage.
3. There is asbestos throughout the buildings. The plumbers reported asbestos inside the water lines, which provides the drinking water for the facility. The workers were required to paint over the underlying asbestos on walls with black paint. When they discovered asbestos under a handicap shower, they were ordered to cover up this with new material. There is asbestos in the flooring material throughout the buildings and cell rooms. This was confirmed by an environmental inspection/report from a third party in February 2024. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24534944- fci-dublin-mold-and-asbestos-report/
BOP was required to post notices of asbestos contamination on the front doors, which they did--for 1 day. After that, officials took the notices down.
Any other entity would be required to remediate the asbestos, and confirm this with a third party inspection/report. The costs to remediate this contamination to make the facility fit for human living is exorbitant.
4. The sewer system is failing. There were regular leaks outside the Camp building, which flowed into the walking path and was an overwhelming nauseating smell. The kitchen pipes regularly overflowed sewage into the sinks and floor. There is a grease trap outside the kitchen. This also leaked and there was a river of waste flowing onto the grounds.
5. The hot water heaters above the main floor are insufficient to provide hot water for showers, and would need replacement and full updated re- plumbing throughout the buildings.
6. The kitchen equipment is old and non-functioning. The freezers regularly broke and the meat and frozen items within would defrost, then staff would refreeze the items. These thawed items would be served to incarcerated persons in spite of the contamination. The dry storage is filled with rat and bug contamination. While I was inside the Camp, the kitchen was closed after failing multiple Health inspections.
7. There is black mold inside the sleeping cells, from years of leaks around the windows and walls. The HVAC vents inside the rooms collect black debris from contaminated furnace and pipes. Around 75% of the Dublin residents suffered from asthma and allergies, from breathing the contaminated air.
There is no air conditioning system, which is a hazard during the California heat waves.
8. Over the years, many of our families/advocates reported these hazards to both federal and local health district offices. The impression was that this facility was permitted to be exempt from oversight and inspection by any health/environmental authority, including City of Dublin authority. 522
3 9. Former BOP Assistant Director, William Lothrop, cited in federal court testimony in 2024 that the cost to repair the FCI Dublin facilities are estimated to be in the “tens of millions of dollars.”
https://www.ktvu.com/news/judge-slams-bop-trying-dismiss-fci-dublin- case-grills-deputy-director
Based upon my experience over the past several years, it is likely federal officials would ignore this remediation and continue to place humans in these hazardous conditions.
I urge Council members to make a firm statement—the Bay area will not permit any detention of human beings in a facility in their back yard with these egregious and well-documented hazards. Some tools may include consideration of ordinance powers re: health and safety, health department scrutiny, local police/fire/medic unavailability, etc. The beautiful City of Dublin should shine a beacon of light and loudly proclaim that they will no longer tolerate being the home of the “Dublin Rape Club.”
Respectfully yours,
/s/
DARLENE BAKER
523
524