HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 3, 2017 Agenda PacketOctober 3, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 1 of 4
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Council Chamber, 100 Civic Plaza
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
A G E N D A
Agendas and Staff Reports are posted on the City’s Internet Website (www.dublin.ca.gov)
Agendas may be picked up at the City Clerk’s Office for no charge, or to request information on being placed on
the annual subscription list, please call 833-6650.
A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports and exhibits relate to each item is available of public
review at least 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to City Council
members less than 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is
available in the City Clerk’s Office and also at the Dublin Library.
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.1. Employee Introduction: Oscar Antillon
The City Council will be introduced to new City Staff member Oscar Antillon, Public Works
Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Welcome City of Dublin Staff member.
3.2. Proclamation for Bicentenary of the Birth of Baha'u'llah
The City Council will present a proclamation recognizing October 22, 2017 as the
Bicentenary of the Birth of Baha'u'llah.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
3.3. Public Comment
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and
clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with
State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may
respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the
matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a
future City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the City Council MAY discuss and/or take action on items not
appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Council with
one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Council who would like an item removed from the Consent
Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor to remove the item.
4.1. Approval of the September 19, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the September 19, 2017 Regular
City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the September 19, 2017 Regular City Council meeting.
4.2. Fire Prevention Week Proclamation
The City Council will proclaim October 8-14, 2017 as Fire Prevention Week. Established by
October 3, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 2 of 4
the National Fire Protection Association, the annual Fire Prevention Week campaign began
in 1922 as a commemoration of the Great Chicago Fire and as a way to annually emphasize
the need for fire safety through out communities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
4.3. Service Agreement with the Med-Project for a Host Collection Site for Unwanted
Prescription Medicines
In 2012, the County of Alameda approved an Ordinance for the disposal of household
pharmaceuticals. Subsequent to this Ordinance, the ‘Med-Project Product Stewardship Plan’
began to provide kiosks at Host collection sites to collect Unwanted Prescription Medicines.
The City Council is being asked to consider approval of an agreement with the ‘Med-Project’
to obtain a kiosk and have a location for the community to dispose of their unwanted
pharmaceuticals in a safe manner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Agreement with the Med-Project for the Services of
Collection and Destruction of Unwanted Pharmaceuticals.
4.4. Manufacturing Day Proclamation
The City Council will proclaim Friday, October 6, 2017 as Manufacturing Day in Dublin.
Sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Manufacturing Day campaign
began in 2012 as an effort to positively change the public perception of modern
manufacturing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
4.5. The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 - Fiscal Year 2017-
18 Project List
The City Council will consider approving a list of projects funded in Fiscal Year 2017-18 by
Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The City Council will also
consider approving a budget change for the Annual Street Resurfacing (ST0117) and
Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening (ST0116) projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving a List of Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2017-18 by Senate
Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017; and, approve a budget change for the
Annual Street Resurfacing and Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening Projects.
4.6. Acceptance of Work – Project No. ST0117, Annual Street Resurfacing (2017 Slurry
Seal) Project
The City Council will consider accepting the Annual Street Resurfacing Project (2017 Slurry
Seal, CIP No. ST0117). The project included the resurfacing of 68 city street segments with
a slurry seal that will prolong the life of the paved surfaces. The project was successfully
completed on time and within budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Annual Street Resurfacing Project (2017 Slurry Seal,
CIP No. ST0117).
4.7. Acceptance of Work – Project No. ST1312, Storm Drain Trash Capture Project
The City Council will consider accepting the Storm Drain Trash Capture Project, (CIP No.
ST1312) which provided for the installation of two City furnished hydrodynamic separators
and modifications to the storm drain on Amador Valley Boulevard east of I-680 and south of
the terminus of Regional Street near I-580. The project was successfully completed on time
and within budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Storm Drain Trash Capture Project (CIP No. ST1312).
October 3, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 3 of 4
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION – NONE
6. PUBLIC HEARING – NONE
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.1. BART to Livermore Draft Environmental Impact Report - Staff Comments
The City Council will receive Staff comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the BART to Livermore Extension Project. Staff comments are focused on DEIR
sections for Air Quality, Land-Use, Noise and Transportation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Staff comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1. At Dublin General Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request
The City Council will a consider a request by Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS
Development Company, to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for an approximate 76-
acre site primarily bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason
Drive. The Study would evaluate a proposal to change the existing General Plan land use
designations to accommodate the development of 450,000 square feet of commercial
development and 700 residential units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to
Evaluate Changing the Land Use Designation of Approximately 76 acres Primarily Bound by
Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive; OR, adopt the
Resolution Denying the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to Evaluate
Changing the Land Use Designation of Approximately 76 acres Primarily Bound by
Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive.
8.2. Dog Park Public Art Deaccession
The City Council is being asked to approve the deaccession of Michele Alacantra's Animal
Series Sculptures at Dougherty Hills Dog Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the deaccession of Michele Alacantra's Animal Series Sculptures at Dougherty Hills
Dog Park. Provide Staff direction if the City Council wishes to consider commissioning new
artwork for the Dougherty Hills Dog Park.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports
and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).
10. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a)
If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make
a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-
6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Mission
October 3, 2017 Dublin City Council Agenda Page 4 of 4
The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters
new opportunities.
Vision
Dublin is a vibrant city committed to its citizens, natural resources and cultural heritage. As Dublin grows, it will
balance history with progress, to sustain an enlightened, economically balanced and diverse community.
Dublin is unified in its belief that an engaged and informed community encourages innovation in all aspects of City
life, including programs to strengthen our economic vitality, and preserve our natural surroundings through
environmental stewardship and sustainability. Dublin is dedicated to promoting an active and healthy lifestyle
through the creation of first-class recreational opportunities, facilities and programs.
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Employee Introduction: Oscar Antillon
Prepared by: Taryn Gavagan Bozzo, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will be introduced to new City Staff member Oscar Antillon, Public
Works Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Welcome City of Dublin Staff member.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
New City of Dublin Staff member Oscar Antillon, Public Works Manager, will be
introduced to City Council.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
3.1
Packet Pg. 5
2495
None
Page 1
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
N
o
n
e
.
(
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Proclamation for Bicentenary of the Birth of Baha'u'llah
Prepared by: Taryn Gavagan Bozzo, Executive Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will present a proclamation recognizing October 22, 2017 as the
Bicentenary of the Birth of Baha'u'llah.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will present a proclamation to the Baha'i community, recognizing the
Bicentenary of the Birth of Baha'u'llah, founder of Baha'i Faith.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Bicentenary of the Birth of Baháulláh Proclamation 20 17
3.2
Packet Pg. 7
A
P
R
O
C
L
A
M
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
U
B
L
I
N
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
“B
i
c
e
n
t
e
n
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
B
i
r
t
h
o
f
B
a
h
á
’
u
’
l
l
á
h
”
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
t
h
e
B
a
h
á
’
í
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
,
w
a
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
1
9
8
8
,
a
n
d
a
c
r
y
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
o
f
h
u
m
a
n
i
t
y
i
s
t
h
e
ac
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
u
n
i
t
y
,
p
e
a
c
e
a
n
d
j
u
s
t
i
c
e
i
n
o
u
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
;
a
n
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
i
n
t
h
e
n
i
n
e
t
e
e
n
t
h
c
e
n
t
u
r
y
,
B
a
h
á
’
u
’
l
l
á
h
,
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
B
a
h
á
’
í
F
a
i
t
h
,
b
r
o
u
g
h
t
a
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
o
f
h
u
m
a
n
di
g
n
i
t
y
,
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
o
n
e
n
e
s
s
s
u
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
c
o
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
l
i
f
e
,
a
n
d
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
2
,
2
0
1
7
m
a
r
k
s
t
h
e
t
w
o
-
hu
n
d
r
e
d
t
h
a
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
b
i
r
t
h
o
f
B
a
h
á
’
u
’
l
l
á
h
;
a
n
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
s
i
n
c
e
1
9
8
8
,
t
h
e
B
a
h
á
’
í
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
,
h
a
s
st
r
i
v
e
n
t
o
a
p
p
l
y
t
h
i
s
v
i
s
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
sp
i
r
i
t
u
a
l
l
i
f
e
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
i
r
f
e
l
l
o
w
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
;
a
n
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
th
e
B
a
h
á
’
í
s
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
,
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
,
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
c
o
l
l
e
a
g
u
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
bi
c
e
n
t
e
n
a
r
y
,
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
B
a
h
á
’
í
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
w
o
r
l
d
;
NO
W
,
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
,
B
E
I
T
R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,
th
a
t
w
e
,
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
d
o
h
e
r
e
b
y
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
2
,
2
0
1
7
,
as
B
i
c
e
n
t
e
n
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
B
i
r
t
h
o
f
B
a
h
á
’
u
’
l
l
á
h
,
a
n
d
u
r
g
e
a
l
l
t
o
re
s
o
l
v
e
o
n
t
h
i
s
d
a
y
;
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
re
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
h
o
s
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
b
r
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
o
n
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
hu
m
a
n
i
t
y
;
t
o
e
m
b
r
a
c
e
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
;
a
n
d
t
o
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
o
u
r
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
,
i
n
o
u
r
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
,
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
w
o
r
l
d
.
DA
T
E
D
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
7
M
a
y
o
r
D
a
v
i
d
G
.
H
a
u
b
e
r
t
Vi
c
e
M
a
y
o
r
D
o
n
B
i
d
d
l
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
A
b
e
G
u
p
t
a
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
A
r
u
n
G
o
e
l
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
M
e
l
i
s
s
a
H
e
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
3.2.a Packet Pg. 8Attachment: 1. Bicentenary of the Birth of Baháulláh Proclamation 2017 (Baha'i Proclamation)
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of the September 19, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting
Minutes
Prepared by: Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk/Records Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the September 19, 2017
Regular City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the September 19, 2017 Regular City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the September 19, 2017
Regular City Council meeting.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Minutes of the September 19, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting
4.1
Packet Pg. 9
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REGULAR MEETING – SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
A Regular Meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, September 19,
2017, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM., by
Mayor David Haubert.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Title Status
David Haubert Mayor Present
Don Biddle Vice Mayor Present
Arun Goel Councilmember Present
Abe Gupta Councilmember Present
Melissa Hernandez Councilmember Absent
2. Pledge of Allegiance – The pledge of allegiance was recited by the City Council, Staff
and those present at the meeting.
2. Oral Communications
By consensus, the City Council agreed to move Item 3.4, Public Comment, before Item
3.3, BART Presentation.
3.1. Employee Introductions: Amandeep Kang, Ka Wun Yip, Aachal Prasad, and
Roel Blanco
The City Council welcomed the new Staff members.
3.2. Certificate of Recognition for Green Gator Swim Team
The City Council presented the Certificate of Recognition to the Green Gator
Swim Team.
3.3. BART Presentation - BART to Livermore Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report
Andrew Tang, BART Planning Manager, made a presentation and responded to
questions posed by the City Council.
John McPartland, BART Board Member, provided comment.
Shawn Costello, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
Marianne Payne, Supervisor Scott Haggerty representative, provided public
comment.
The City Council received the report.
3.4. Public Comment
Shawn Costello, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
David Bewley, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
Marlene Massetti, Dublin resident, provided public comment.
4. Consent Calendar
Mayor Haubert recused himself from voting on item 4.1.
The City Council took the following actions:
4.2. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 121 – 17
CONFIRMING CITY OF DUBLIN PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT
4.3. Proclaimed the week of October 2, 2017 through October 6, 2017 as “Walk and
Roll to School Week” in the City of Dublin.
4.4. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 122 – 17
FINDING THAT DEVELOPERS HAVING OBLIGATIONS UNDER ACTIVE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS AS
AMENDED, HAVE COMPLIED IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE TERMS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS
4.5. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 123 – 17
DESIGNATE A.S.I. CYBER CONCEPTS LLC AS AN APPROVED COLLECTOR
OF ELECTRONIC WASTE FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN
4.6. Received the Payment Issuance Report.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
4.7. Waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 09 – 17
ADDING CHAPTER 7.97 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE AN
EXPEDITED, STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCEDURE FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING STATIONS
4.8. Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 124 – 17
APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD
SQUARE SITE WITHIN THE TASSAJARA HILLS DEVELOPMENT
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS 4-0]
MOVED BY: David Haubert, Mayor
SECOND: Don Biddle, Vice Mayor
AYES: David Haubert, Don Biddle, Arun Goel, Abe Gupta
ABSENT: Melissa Hernandez
4.1.
Draft Minutes of the September 5, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS 3-0]
MOVED BY: Arun Goel, Councilmember
SECOND: Don Biddle, Vice Mayor
AYES: Don Biddle, Arun Goel, Abe Gupta
ABSENT: Melissa Hernandez
RECUSED: David Haubert
5. Written Communication – None.
6. Public Hearing – None.
7. Unfinished Business
7.1. Dougherty Road Improvement Update
The City Council received the update.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
8. New Business – None.
9. Other Business – Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff,
including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB1234).
By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to return with an item to discuss adding a
special needs person to the Human Services Commission.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
D
r
a
f
t
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
7
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Fire Prevention Week Proclamation
Prepared by: Bonnie Terra, Divison Chief/Fire Marshal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will proclaim October 8-14, 2017 as Fire Prevention Week.
Established by the National Fire Protection Association, the annual Fire Prevention
Week campaign began in 1922 as a commemoration of the Great Chicago Fire and as
a way to annually emphasize the need for fire safety through out communities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
In 1920, President Woodrow Wilson issued the first National Prevention Day
proclamation and since 1922, Fire Prevention Week has been observed on the Sunday
through Saturday period in which October 9 falls.
Each year a theme is established. The theme for 2017, "Every Second Counts: Plan 2
Ways Out!", effectively serves to educate the public about the vital importance of
developing a home fire escape plan with all members of the household and practicing it
twice a year.
During the week of October 8-14, 2017, the City is asking residents to develop a home
fire escape plan.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
4.2
Packet Pg. 14
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
4.2
Packet Pg. 15
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Service Agreement with the Med-Project for a Host Collection Site for
Unwanted Prescription Medicines
Prepared by: Nate Schmidt, Captain Dublin Police Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2012, the County of Alameda approved an Ordinance for the disposal of household
pharmaceuticals. Subsequent to this Ordinance, the ‘Med-Project Product Stewardship
Plan’ began to provide kiosks at Host collection sites to collect Unwanted Prescription
Medicines. The City Council is being asked to consider approval of an agreement with
the ‘Med-Project’ to obtain a kiosk and have a location for the community to dispose of
their unwanted pharmaceuticals in a safe manner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Agreement with the Med-Project for the Services
of Collection and Destruction of Unwanted Pharmaceuticals.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are no associated costs to enter into this agreement.
DESCRIPTION:
Prescription drugs are a necessary medical technology that successfully allow us to live
longer, healthier, and more productive lives. However, the public, particularly children
and the elderly, are at significant and unnecessary risk of poisoning due to improper or
careless disposal of prescription drugs and the illegal re-sale of prescription drugs.
Groundwater and drinking water are also at risk of being contaminated by unwanted,
leftover or expired prescription drugs passing through our wastewater and treatment
centers.
For the reasons outlined above, in 2012, the County of Alameda passed Ordinance 6.53
to establish a drug stewardship program allowing citizens to have location to safely
dispose of their unwanted prescription medication. Subsequent to this Ordinance, the
4.3
Packet Pg. 16
Page 2 of 2
Med-Project Product Stewardship Plan was established. ‘Med-Project LLC’ provides
the following services to Host collection sites:
· Delivery and installation of an authorized prescription medication collection kiosk;
· Processing, packaging and disposal of the prescription medication on a schedule
agreed upon by both the host and the ‘Med-Project’;
· The ‘Med-Project’ will respond to the host location to service the kiosk should it
be full or have any malfunction;
· The ‘Med-Project’ is currently and shall remain in compliance with all applicable
laws regarding the collection, handling, processing, and disposal of unwanted
medicine;
· The ‘Med-Project’ possesses all required authorizations and authority to enter
into an agreement with the City of Dublin and this Agreement has been duly
authorized and executed by the ‘Med-Project’ in compliance with all required
authorizations; and
· The ‘Med-Project’ will provide the services outlined, free of any associated costs.
To provide the community a safe place to dispose of their unwanted prescription
medications, Staff is asking for approval of an agreement with the ‘Med-Project’ and
establish a host location. City staff has conducted research for the location of the
prescription medication collection kiosk and have found the lobby of the Police Services
building to best meet the needs for this project. This location will provide access to the
kiosk on a continuous basis. City staff has met with a representative from the ‘Med-
Project’ and confirmed the kiosk will fit in the desired location and will not conflict with
the current décor.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving the Agreement with The Med-Project for the Services of
Collection and Destruction of Unwanted Pharmaceuticals
2. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Kiosk Service Agreement with Med-Project
4.3
Packet Pg. 17
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE MED-PROJECT FOR THE SERVICES OF
COLLECTION AND DESTRUCTION OF UNWANTED PHARMACEUTICALS
WHEREAS, the public, particularly children and the elderly, are at significant and
unnecessary risk of poisoning due to improper or careless disposal of prescription drugs and the
illegal re-sale of prescription drugs, and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda approved the Ordinance for the disposal of household
pharmaceuticals and subsequently the ‘Med-Project Product Stewardship Plan’ began to provide
kiosks at host collection sites to collect unwanted prescription medicine.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby
approves the Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with the ‘Med-Project’ allowing Dublin
Police Services to be a host site and provide members of the community a safe location to dispose
of their unwanted pharmaceuticals.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or designee (Chief of Police), is
authorized to execute the Agreement and make any minor modifications as necessary to carry
out the intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
h
e
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
o
f
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
U
n
w
a
n
t
e
d
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
-
K
i
o
s
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
M
e
d
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Manufacturing Day Proclamation
Prepared by: Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will proclaim Friday, October 6, 2017 as Manufacturing Day in Dublin.
Sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Manufacturing Day
campaign began in 2012 as an effort to positively change the public perception of
modern manufacturing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present the proclamation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
DESCRIPTION:
Manufacturing Day started in 2012 as an annual celebration of modern manufacturing
during which manufacturers invite their communities, including students, educators,
business people, media and politicians, to their facilities in a collective effort to educate
visitors about manufacturing career opportunities and improve public perceptions of
manufacturing.
On Friday, October 6, 2017, the City is participating in the Tri-Valley Manufacturing Day
event. Tri-Valley Manufacturing Day is a collaborative effort between local educational
institutions, participating manufacturing businesses, and the cities of Dublin, Livermore
and Pleasanton. The goal is to celebrate modern manufacturing and inspire the next
generation of manufacturers. The day-long event features facility tours and
presentations at Tri-Valley manufacturers, as well as a lunch reception and exhibit of
manufacturers. Selected local high school students from the Tri-Valley Regional
Occupation Program, college students from Las Positas Community College, and
members of the SME Silicon Valley Chapter will be attending the facility tours.
4.4
Packet Pg. 31
Page 2 of 2
Participants will also be joining the lunch reception and exhibit of various manufacturing
businesses.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Manufacturing Day Proclamation 2017
4.4
Packet Pg. 32
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF DUBLIN
CALIFORNIA
“Manufacturing Day”
October 6, 2017
WHEREAS, the United States National Institute of Science and Technology announced October 6, 2017 as National
Manufacturing Day;
WHEREAS, we join the nation to celebrate modern manufacturing and inspire the next generation of manufacturers
to keep our economy growing stronger; and
WHEREAS, collaboration between government, education, and industry is essential to job creation in our
community;
WHEREAS, manufacturing businesses in Dublin provide vital employment opportunities and services for our more
than 46,000 residents; and
WHEREAS, Manufacturing Day is a time to celebrate and to raise awareness of our manufacturing businesses and
their contributions to our communities, our economy, and our nation;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council proclaims October 6, 2017 as “Manufacturing Day” in Dublin, and encourages
residents to learn more about the City’s manufacturing businesses and how we can support them.
DATED: October 3, 2017
Mayor David G. Haubert Vice Mayor Don Biddle
Councilmember Abe Gupta Councilmember Arun Goel Councilmember Melissa Hernandez
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
D
a
y
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
7
(
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
D
a
y
)
Page 1 of 5
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 -
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Project List
Prepared by: Andrew Russell, Asst. Public Works Director/City Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider approving a list of projects funded in Fiscal Year 2017-18
by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The City Council will
also consider approving a budget change for the Annual Street Resurfacing (ST0117)
and Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening (ST0116) projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving a List of Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2017-18 by
Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017; and, approve a budget
change for the Annual Street Resurfacing and Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening
Projects.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Update accounted for revenue the City will receive as
a result of the passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act
of 2017. This law provides funding through increased gasoline excise taxes, diesel fuel
sales taxes, and vehicle registration fees via the new Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). It is projected that the City will receive $3 30,716 of
RMRA funds in Fiscal Year 2017-18 and approximately $972,000 of RMRA funds
annually in future fiscal years. This funding is in addition to the annual Highway Users
Tax Account (or Gas Tax) funds the City receives.
To include RMRA as a funding source, a budget change is proposed for two Capital
Improvement Program projects. The proposed budget change will add $30,716 to the
Annual Street Resurfacing Project (CIP No. ST0117) and will include $300,000 of
RMRA funds in the Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening project (CIP No. ST0116)
in lieu of Measure BB funds.
The proposed budget change for each project will result in the following:
4.5
Packet Pg. 34
Page 2 of 5
Annual Street Resurfacing, CIP Project Number ST0117
Proposed FY
2017-18 Budget
$76,834
$375,287
$2,815,915
$9,524
$30,716
$3,308,276
2201 State Gas Tax $2,022,100
2204 Measure B Sales Tax - Local
Streets Fund (ACTC)$465,460
2214 Measure BB Sales Tax - Local
Streets Fund (ACTC)$790,000
2220 Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (NEW)$30,716
$3,308,276
Add'l Improvements (NEW)
Project Funding Sources
TOTAL
Project Expenditures
Salaries & Benefits
Contract Services
Improvements
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening, CIP Project Number ST0116
Proposed FY
2017-18 Budget
$51,283
$357,355
$408,638
4301 Traffic Impact Fee – Category 1 $108,638
2217 Measure BB Grants (REMOVE)$0
2220 Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (NEW)$300,000
$408,638
Project Funding Sources
TOTAL
Project Expenditures
Salaries & Benefits
Contract Services
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION:
In April 2017, the State Legislature passed and Governor Brown approved Senate Bill 1,
the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statues of 2017). SB
1 provides a significant, stable and ongoing increase in state transportation funding. SB
1 created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred
maintenance on the state highway system and on the local street and road system.
Funds for the program are deposited into the State Transportation Fund, Road
4.5
Packet Pg. 35
Page 3 of 5
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA).
SB 1 is projected to generate over $5 billion annually for state and local transportation
improvements. Cities and counties are slated to receive $1.5 billion at full
implementation of SB 1. According to analysis by the League of California Cities, SB 1
will double the amount of revenues cities receive from the state for local street
maintenance and rehabilitation needs, with allocations to cities based upon population.
The RMRA receives funds from the following new taxes imposed under SB 1:
A 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1,
2017.
A 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November 1,
2017, half of which will be allocated to Trade Corridors Enhancement Account
(TCEA) with the remaining half to the RMRA.
A new vehicle registration tax called the “transportation improvement fee,”
effective January 1, 2018, based on the market value of the vehicle.
An additional new $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emission vehicles model
year 2020 and later effective July 1, 2020.
Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the
ZEV fee), and every July 1 thereafter for the change in the California Consumer
Price Index. The first adjustment to be made on July 1, 2020 will cover CPI
change for two years: November 1, 2017 through November 12, 2019.
RMRA funds are in addition to the existing/traditional state gas tax funds which have
been in place for decades and are allocated by the state through the Highway User Tax
Account (HUTA).
The Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Update, adopted by City Council in May 2017,
included the increased gas tax revenue projections based upon the passage of SB 1.
Gas tax revenues in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget are shown below, along with
projected Fiscal Year 2018-19 revenues.
State Gas Tax Fiscal Year 2017-18 Projected 2018-19*
Existing (HUTA) $1,272,787 $1,344,761
New (RMRA, SB 1) $330,716 $972,025
Total $1,603,503 $2,316,786
* Fiscal Year 2018-19 revenue projections based upon May 11, 2017, report from
The California Local Government Finance Almanac.
The Fiscal Year 2018-19 revenues, and future years’ revenues, provide the City an
opportunity to expand and enhance street maintenance activities and to fund existing
and new street projects. Funding in future years will be included as part of the City’s
two-year budget and Capital Improvement Project adoption process.
The rules associated to use of RMRA funds are similar, but not identical to the rules
associated with HUTA funds. RMRA local streets and roads funds must be used for
4.5
Packet Pg. 36
Page 4 of 5
projects that include, but are not limited to the following:
Road maintenance and rehabilitation
Safety projects
Railroad grade separations
Traffic control devices
Complete streets components, which include active transportation projects,
pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and storm-
water capture projects in conjunction with other allowable projects.
Additionally, if a city or county has an average Pavement Condition Index of 80 or more
(very good to excellent), then the city or county may spend its RMRA funds on
transportation priorities other than those listed above. The City of Dublin currently has a
Pavement Condition Index of 86.
Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
SB 1 requires that RMRA funds not supplant existing general revenue funds that the
City of Dublin is using on streets and roads. This is referred to as the maintenance of
effort (MOE) requirement. The MOE is calculated by the State Controller based upon
the City’s average spending for street and road purposes for Fiscal Years 2009-10,
2010-11, and 2011-12. The City of Dublin’s MOE was calculated at $1,229,320. For
Fiscal Year 2017-18, the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program, Annual Street
Resurfacing Project has a total budget over $3.3M, however this reflects budget carried
over from prior fiscal years. In future years beyond Fiscal Year 2017-18, the five-year
Capital Improvement Program includes proposed annual budgets of $1.7M per year.
Reporting Requirements
In order for the City to receive RMRA funds from the state, SB 1 requires the City to
annually submit, to the California Transportation Commission, a project list pursuant to
an adopted budget. For Fiscal Year 2017-18, Staff is recommending that City Council
approve the project list to include the Annual Street Resurfacing project and the
Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening project. In conjunction with the project list,
Staff recommends City Council approve corresponding budget changes for both
projects to include RMRA as a funding source.
The project list must include a description of the project location, a proposed schedule,
and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The two projects are summarized
below.
Annual Street Resurfacing (CIP No. ST0117)
The project provides for a variety of pavement surface treatments and repairs to
existing City streets. The project is budgeted annually to help maintain the
significant investment the City has in the street system. For Fiscal Year 2017-18,
a pavement overlay of the entire length of San Ramon Road and an overlay of
Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road to Silvergate Drive is planned.
4.5
Packet Pg. 37
Page 5 of 5
Proposed FY2017-18 RMRA Funding: $30,716
Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening (CIP Project ST0116)
The project provides for the preliminary engineering, design, right-of-way
acquisition and eventual construction of Tassajara Road from North Dublin
Ranch Drive to the northern City limit. The project is currently in preliminary
engineering with the development of a new roadway alignment, design cross-
section, environmental document preparation and related General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments. For Fiscal Year 2017-18, following
certification of the environmental document and approval of the preliminary
engineering efforts, it is planned that detailed design to begin.
Proposed FY2017-18 RMRA Funding: $300,000
In future years, the project list will be taken from the adopted Budget and Capital
Improvement Program, which will identify projects that are budgeted to use RMRA
funds.
In addition to the annual submittal of a project list, SB 1 also requires the City to submit
to the California Transportation Commission an annual report updating the status of
projects for which RMRA funds were expended. The report must also include project
descriptions, locations, fund expended, completion date, and useful life of the project.
At this time, annual report guidelines from the California Transportation Commission
have not been finalized.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving a List of Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 2017-18 by Senate Bill
1
2. Budget Change Form
4.5
Packet Pg. 38
RESOLUTION NO. XX- 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING A LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 BY
SENATE BILL 1, THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the
Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation
funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will
ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our
community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive
funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB
1, in the City budget, which must include a description and the location of each
proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated
useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive and estimated $330,716 in RMRA funding in
Fiscal Year 2017-18 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public
input into our community’s transportation priorities; and
WHEREAS, the City used the adopted Capital Improvement Program and a
Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are
being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the
community’s priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate
streets, bridges, sidewalks, traffic control devices, and help add active transportation
infrastructure throughout the City this year and into the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs
Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an “very good” condition and
this revenue will help us maintain the overall quality of our road system; and
WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, city streets and county
roads would have continued to deteriorate, having many and varied negative impacts on
our community; and
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
a
L
i
s
t
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
F
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
b
y
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
1
(
T
h
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets
and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work,
bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable
local transportation network; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system provides well-paying
construction jobs and boosts local economies; and
WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical for farm to market
needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and
WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable
roads to react quickly to emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a matter of
life and death; and
WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good
condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and
make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce
vehicle emissions helping the City and State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions reductions goals; and
WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which
results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-
off; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and
roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete
streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will
have significant positive co-benefits statewide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin does hereby approve a list of projects funded in Fiscal Year 2017-18 by Senate
Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following is the approved list of projects
planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues in
Fiscal Year 2017-18:
1. Annual Street Resurfacing (CIP No. ST0117): The project provides for a
variety of pavement surface treatments and repairs to existing City streets.
For Fiscal Year 2017-18, a pavement overlay of the entire length of San
Ramon Road and an overlay of Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road
to Silvergate Drive is planned to be constructed in summer 2018. Upon
completion, the new road surface is estimated to have a twenty-year
useful life.
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
a
L
i
s
t
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
F
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
b
y
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
1
(
T
h
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
2. Tassajara Road Realignment & Widening (CIP No. ST0116): The project
provides for the preliminary engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition
and construction of Tassajara Road from North Dublin Ranch Drive to the
northern City limit. For Fiscal Year 2017-18, the project is planned to
complete preliminary engineering, including with the development of a
new roadway alignment, design cross-section, environmental document
preparation and related General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments. The project is also planned to begin detailed design upon
completion of preliminary engineering. Upon project completion, the new
pavement surface is estimated to have a twenty-year useful life.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
City Clerk
4.5.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
a
L
i
s
t
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
F
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
b
y
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
1
(
T
h
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
Budget Change Reference #:
From Un-Appropriated Reserves X Budget Transfer Between Funds
From Designated Reserves Other X
Account Amount Account Amount
EXP: CIPS
ST0117.9400.9401 (Annual Street Resurfacing) - Improvements $30,716
3600.9601.49999 (Transfers In)$30,716
ST0117.2220 (2220.9601.89101) - RMRA Transfers Out $30,716
ST0116.2220 - Tassajara Road Alignment & W idening (2220.9601.89101) - RMRA Transfers Out $300,000
ST0116.2217 (2217.9601.89101) - Measure BB Grant Transfers Out ($300,000)
REV: Road Repair and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)
2201.3201.49131 (Gas Tax Fund)- Misc Revenue ($330,716)
2220.0000.47250 (RMRA Fund - Gas Taxes)$330,716
10/3/2017
Posted By:Date:
As Presented at the City Council Meeting
**********Finance Use Only**********
CITY OF DUBLIN
CIP adjustments due to funding from Road Repair and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). The estimate of additional funding from
RMRA was accounted for in Gas Tax Fund, a new fund is created for RMRA to meet the State's reporting and accounting
requirements. Measure BB Grant funding is transfered out of ST0116 because the project did not receive this discretionary
funding from the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE
FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
BUDGET CHANGE FORM
City Council's Approval Required
C:\Users\walfreds\appdata\roaming\iqm2\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\2494 2494
4.5.b
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
B
u
d
g
e
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
F
o
r
m
(
T
h
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
o
f
2
0
1
7
-
S
e
n
a
t
e
B
i
l
l
(
S
B
)
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
)
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Work – Project No. ST0117, Annual Street Resurfacing
(2017 Slurry Seal) Project
Prepared by: Michael Boitnott, Capital Improvement Program Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider accepting the Annual Street Resurfacing Project (2017
Slurry Seal, CIP No. ST0117). The project included the resurfacing of 68 city street
segments with a slurry seal that will prolong the life of the paved surfaces. The project
was successfully completed on time and within budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Annual Street Resurfacing Project (2017 Slurry
Seal, CIP No. ST0117).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Annual Street Resurfacing Project (2017 Slurry Seal, CIP No. ST0117) has a
current total budget of $3,277,560, which represents funding from both Fiscal Year
2016-17 and 2017-18. The project is funded by State Gas Tax, Measure B Sales Tax,
and Measure BB Sales Tax. The 2017 Slurry Seal project is now complete, with a total
of $913,231 spent. Upon City Council’s acceptance of the project, the remaining budget
of $2,364,329 will be retained within Annual Street Resurfacing Project for use on a
future construction project.
DESCRIPTION:
On June 6, 2017, the City Council awarded a contract to American Pavement Systems
Inc. in the amount of $739,250 for the Annual Street Resurfacing Project (2017 Slurry
Seal, CIP No. ST0117). The slurry seal program provides for the preventative
maintenance of our local streets and roads. As streets begin showing wear and stress
cracks, it is important to seal the cracks to keep water from getting under the roadway
pavement. Slurry seal is a preventative maintenance technique used to prolong the life
of asphalt concrete surfacing. The seal coat consists of a sand/oil mixture which seals
cracks and provides a new uniform wearing surface.
4.6
Packet Pg. 43
Page 2 of 3
The project consists of removal and replacement of failed asphalt concrete, crack
sealing, slurry seal placement and pavement striping. This project provided for the seal
coating of approximately 1.5 million square feet of asphalt and 74,000 square feet of
asphalt pavement repair.
Staff has determined that the project is complete, and recommends that the City Council
accept the project and begin the warranty period. The remaining project budget of
$2,364,329 will be retained within the Annual Street Resurfacing CIP, for use on a
future project. It is anticipated that the project next year will include an asphalt concrete
overlay of San Ramon Road and a portion of Dublin Boulevard west of San Ramon
Road.
Amador Plaza Road Microsufacing: A portion of the budget for the Annual Street
Resurfacing Project (CIP No ST0117) was utilized for separate asphalt maintenance
treatment on Amador Plaza Road. The Amador Plaza Road work, which consisted of a
microsurfacing treatment, was performed through an agreement with the City of
Livermore and construction was completed in fall of 2016. City Council approved the
agreement with Livermore on July 19, 2016, by Resolution 128-16.
Through the agreement, Livermore included Amador Plaza Road as part of their larger
pavement maintenance project. Livermore’s contractor, Telfer Pavement Technologies,
LLC, completed the construction and Dublin paid Livermore for the actual construction
cost plus $4,000 for Livermore’s project administration services, which totaled $85,884.
The 2017 Slurry Seal project cost summary is as follows:
Project Funding Sources
Gas Tax $2,022,100
ACTC Measure B Sales Tax $465,460
ACTC Measure BB Sales Tax $790,000
Total Funding $3,277,560
Slurry Seal Expenditures
American Pavement Systems Contract $739,250
Construction Change Orders $(26,903)
Amador Plaza Road Micro Surfacing $85,884
Design and Administration $115,000
Total Slurry Seal Expenditures $913,231
Project Balance $2,364,329
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Accepting the Annual Street Resurfacing Project
4.6
Packet Pg. 44
Page 3 of 3
4.6
Packet Pg. 45
ESOLUTION NO. - 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT (2017 SLURRY SEAL, CIP
NO. ST0117)
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, The City of Dublin entered a contract with American
Pavement Systems Inc. to perform Project No. ST0117, Annual Street Resurfacing Project
(2017 Slurry Seal); and,
WHEREAS, said improvements have been completed in accordance with plans and
specification, and any approved modifications thereof, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of
the City of Dublin; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby accept the improvements, Project No. ST0117, Annual Street Resurfacing Project (2017
Slurry Seal), and authorize Staff to file a Notice of Completion with Alameda County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
authorize the City Manager or his designee to release the retention, if after 35 days of filing the
Notice of Completion there are no subcontractor claims.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
4.6.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
2
0
1
7
S
l
u
r
r
y
S
e
a
l
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
)
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Work – Project No. ST1312, Storm Drain Trash Capture
Project
Prepared by: Michael Boitnott, Capital Improvement Program Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider accepting the Storm Drain Trash Capture Project, (CIP
No. ST1312) which provided for the installation of two City furnished hydrodynamic
separators and modifications to the storm drain on Amador Valley Boulevard east of I-
680 and south of the terminus of Regional Street near I-580. The project was
successfully completed on time and within budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Accepting the Storm Drain Trash Capture Project (CIP No.
ST1312).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Storm Drain Trash Capture Project, CIP No. ST1312, has a total budget of
$860,000, funded by the General Fund reserve for Municipal Regional Permit
requirements. The project is now complete, with a total of $712,657 spent. Upon City
Council’s acceptance of the project, the remaining budget of $147,343 will be returned
to the General Fund reserve for Municipal Regional Permit requirements.
DESCRIPTION:
On May 2, 2017, the City Council awarded a contract to McGuire and Hester
Corporation in the amount of $521,913 for the Storm Drain Trash Capture Project, CIP
No. ST1312. This project provided for the installation of two storm water trash capture
devices and related modifications to the existing storm drain systems at Amador Valley
Boulevard, east of I-680, and within an easement south of the Regional Street terminus,
near I-580. The trash capture devices use swirl concentration and continuous deflective
separation to screen, separate and trap trash, debris, sediment, and hydrocarbons from
storm water runoff prior to the treated water discharging into a creek or channel.
4.7
Packet Pg. 47
Page 2 of 2
Staff has determined that the project is complete and recommends that the City Council
accept the project and begin the warranty period for the Storm Drain Trash Capture
Project, CIP No ST1312. The remaining project budget of nearly $147,000 will be
distributed back to the General Fund Undesignated Reserve at the end of this Fiscal
Year.
The project cost summary is as follows:
Project Funding Sources
General Fund $860,000
Total Funding $860,000
Project Expenditures
McGuire and Hester Contract $521,913.00
Construction Change Orders $(35,100.00)
Trash Capture Units $114,393.49
Design and Administration $111,450.67
Total Expenditures $712,657.16
Project Balance $147,342.84
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Accepting the Storm Drain Trash Capture Project
4.7
Packet Pg. 48
RESOLUTION NO. - 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
ACCEPTING THE STORM DRAIN TRASH CAPTURE PROJECT (CIP NO. ST1312)
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2017, The City of Dublin entered a contract with McGuire and
Hester Corporation to perform Project No. ST1312, Storm Drain Trash Capture Project; and,
WHEREAS, said improvements have been completed in accordance with plans and
specification, and any approved modifications thereof, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of
the City of Dublin; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby accept the improvements, Project No. ST1312, Storm Drain Trash Capture Project and
authorize Staff to file a Notice of Completion with Alameda County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
authorize the City Manager or his designee to release the retention, if after 35 days of filing the
Notice of Completion there are no subcontractor claims.
PASSED, AP PROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
4.7.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
e
p
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
S
t
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
T
r
a
s
h
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
S
D
T
r
a
s
h
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
)
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
BART to Livermore Draft Environmental Impact Report - Staff Comments
Prepared by: Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive Staff comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the BART to Livermore Extension Project. Staff comments are focused on
DEIR sections for Air Quality, Land-Use, Noise and Transportation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Staff comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On July 31, 2017, BART issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
proposed BART to Livermore Extension Project. The comment period for the DEIR will
close on October 16, 2017. The Proposed Project, which is also referred to as the
Conventional BART Project, would extend transit service 5.5 miles east into eastern
Alameda County from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Dublin/Pleasanton
Station) within and adjacent to the I-580 right-of-way (ROW), through the cities of Dublin
and Pleasanton, to a proposed new terminus station located at the Isabel Avenue/I-580
interchange in the City of Livermore.
The DEIR evaluates the potential impacts of the Proposed Project and three Build
Alternatives - the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative (which includes a variant
referred to as the Electrical Multiple Unit [EMU] Option), the Express Bus/Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Alternative, and the Enhanced Bus Alternative. The three Build
Alternatives and a No Project Alternative (or No Build Alternative) are evaluated at the
same level as the Proposed Project in the DEIR. Below are summary descriptions of the
Proposed Project and the three Build Alternatives.
7.1
Packet Pg. 50
Page 2 of 6
Conventional BART Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project involves
extending the Daly City-Dublin/Pleasanton Line from its existing terminus at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station approximately 5.5 miles to the east, to a new station located
at the Isabel Avenue/I-580 (State Route 84) interchange in the City of Livermore. The
new alignment and the new Isabel BART Station (Isabel Station) would be constructed
in the I-580 median. New parking facilities, a parking structure and surface lot
containing a total of approximately 3,412 spaces, would be constructed immediately
south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 68-acre
BART storage and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I-580, beyond the
Isabel Station.
To accommodate the widening of the I-580 median for the new BART alignment and
Isabel Station, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ROW would be
widened along approximately 5.6 miles. I-580 lanes would be relocated by a total of
approximately 46 feet, from just east of the Hacienda Drive interchange to west of the
Portola Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. At the proposed Isabel Station, I-580 would be
relocated by approximately 67 feet to accommodate the new station within the median.
The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads.
DMU/EMU Alternatives. The DMU Alternative differs from the Proposed Project in
terms of vehicle technology. DMUs are self-propelled rail cars that use a diesel engine
to generate their own power and run on a standard-gauge rail track, whereas BART
trains use electricity and run on wide-gauge rail track.
The DMU Alternative would have a similar median alignment and station configuration
as the Proposed Project, but would have a longer total length of freeway alignment
changes and includes a new transfer platform at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. A new
parking structure for the Isabel Station, with approximately 2,428 parking spaces, would
be constructed immediately south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a
new, approximately 32-acre storage and maintenance facility would be constructed
north of I-580, beyond the terminus of the alignment.
To accommodate the median widening, approximately 7.1 miles of I-580 would be
relocated by a total of approximately 46 feet, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard
Road interchange to the Portola Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. Around the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side of I-580 would be relocated to accommodate
the new DMU transfer platform. At the proposed Isabel Station, I-580 would be
relocated approximately 67 feet to accommodate the station within the median. The
relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads. The DMU Alternative includes the same feeder bus component as the
Proposed Project, including new and modified bus routes connecting the new station to
areas east of the BART system.
A variant of the DMU Alternative-the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Option is also being
considered. The EMU Option is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that
it is electrically powered rather than diesel-powered.
7.1
Packet Pg. 51
Page 3 of 6
Express Bus/BRT Alternative. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative seeks to achieve the
project goals using bus technology only. This alternative does not include an extension
of BART rail service or development of a new rail station. Under this alternative, new
bus transfer platforms would be constructed at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Buses would enter these bus-only transfer areas via direct bus-only ramps from the I-
580 express lanes, allowing passengers to transfer from bus to BART within the station.
To accommodate the new bus transfer platforms and facilities under this alternative,
approximately 2.2 miles of I-580, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road
interchange to the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road interchange, would be relocated by
approximately 88 feet. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some
interchanges and surface frontage roads.
A new parking lot or garage on the Pleasanton side with approximately 210 parking
spaces would be constructed at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to replace the 210
parking spaces removed for the relocation of I-580 to accommodate the bus platforms.
In addition, a remote, approximately 230-space park-and-ride lot would be constructed
at Laughlin Road; regular bus service would be provided during peak hours from the
Laughlin parking lot to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Enhanced Bus Alternative. Like the Express Bus/BRT Alternative, the Enhanced Bus
Alternative uses bus-related technology only and does not include an extension of
BART rail service or the development of a new rail station. Unlike the Express Bus/BRT
Alternative, however, this alternative does not include any major capital improvements
and would not involve the development of bus transfer platforms or direct bus ramps.
Table 1 provides a summary of ROW take for Conventional BART and Build
Alternatives.
Table 1
7.1
Packet Pg. 52
Page 4 of 6
Staff Comments:
Staff has reviewed the relevant sections of the DEIR and has prepared comments
(Attachment 1) for the City Council’s consideration and input. The key issues and
concerns for the City to consider are summarized below.
Land Use and Business Impacts - While the Proposed Project would have some
impacts to the City’s ROW along the north side of the I-580, the two build alternatives
(DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT) would cause significant impacts to the businesses
and properties in the City.
Staff has significant concerns about some of the ROW acquisition required for the
DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT Alternatives. Many of Dublin’s key revenue and
employment generators are located along I-580. As such, any potential purchase of
ROW will need to identify the full impacts, including short and long-term viability of
affected businesses and ongoing revenue impacts to both the businesses and to th e
City.
The DEIR identifies the surface frontage roads and structures adjacent to I-580 that
would need to be relocated in order to accommodate the Proposed Project and
Alternatives. The relocation of the frontage roads would result in potentially significant
impacts to some of the existing and key businesses in the City of Dublin.
The DEIR did not provide specific details on each ROW impact. However, BART staff
provided additional details that are shown in attached Figures 1 to 3. Staff’s specific
comments on the land use concerns are detailed in Attachment 1.
Transportation Impacts - The DEIR discloses many Transportation Impacts and
provides mitigations. However, Staff noted several modeling assumption errors and
issues that could result in incorrect answers. Some of the key issues are listed below:
1) An overall problem with the Draft EIR is its failure to adequately analyze the
impacts of the DMU, Express Bus/BRT, and Enhanced Bus alternatives within
the City of Dublin, and particularly near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
2) The DEIR has assumed that the BART garage expansion at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station would only occur with the Isabel Neighborhood Plan
(INP) implementation in Livermore. However, the DEIR did not include the
funding for the garage expansion as part of the BART system. This is not the
correct way to assume improvements while not including the funding for it,
especially when garage construction is the responsibility of BART on its own
property.
3) The DEIR assumed that under the Cumulative scenarios for 2025 and 2040, INP
in Livermore will have additional land-use changes that could not be evaluated
separately from the Dublin/Pleasanton Garage Expansion traffic patterns. This
leads to not knowing the impacts that would be with the INP land-use addition to
the Proposed Project and alternatives in conjunction with or without a
Dublin/Pleasanton Garage Expansion.
7.1
Packet Pg. 53
Page 5 of 6
4) The DEIR has proposed mitigation at Dublin Blvd and Dougherty Road
intersection due to the Proposed Project and the Alternatives. The proposed
mitigation would add a third southbound left-turn lane and a second westbound
right turn lane, which will require widening of the intersection through property
acquisitions from existing businesses. Widening of the intersection is no t
recommended due to a longer crossing distance for pedestrians and property
impacts to existing businesses. As an alternative mitigation, staff suggests that
BART should implement an Adaptive Traffic Signal system along Dougherty
Road to mitigate the significant impacts.
5) The DEIR has several incorrect model assumptions for the City of Dublin’s
roadway infrastructure. The incorrect assumptions would create incorrect model
results for impacts to the City of Dublin roadway infrastructure and intersections,
and any related mitigations need to be redone.
6) Under the DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT Alternatives, DEIR (Chapter 2,
Project Descriptions) did not provide any time loss for transfer of passengers
from one type of vehicle to the Conventional BART at Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
This loss of time is critical in comparing the Conventional BART with other
Alternatives.
Air Quality and Noise Impacts - The DEIR discusses Air Quality and Noise impacts
but did not disclose the impacts associated with the relocation of I-580 that will bring the
freeway closer to the City boundary, thus creating potential significant Air Quality and
Noise impacts. Additional construction related Noise impacts were disclosed by the
DEIR, but it failed to provide alternative approaches and technologies that could fully
address these impacts.
CONCLUSION:
Staff has found significant impacts to the City of Dublin's land-uses due to the BART to
Livermore Extension Project's Build Alternatives (Diesel Multiple Unit/Electric Multiple
Unit [DMU/EMU] and Express Bus/BRT) as compared to the Proposed Project
(Conventional BART). These Build Alternatives will significantly alter the City's ROW
along the north side of I-580 freeway causing impacts to the existing businesses and
public facilities. Furthermore, the DEIR failed to provide appropriate mitigation details for
the land-use impacts in the City of Dublin.
Staff has noted several errors in modeling assumptions in Transportation impacts
analysis. These errors may have led to incorrect results associated with various traffic
circulation and access impacts for the Proposed Project and Alternatives. Therefore it is
requested that the model assumptions be corrected and disclosed in the Final EIR.
Air Quality and Noise impacts are not properly analyzed especially those that will occur
due to the widening of the I-580. This shift will bring the freeway traffic closer to the City
of Dublin’s land-uses, thus creating significant impacts.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
7.1
Packet Pg. 54
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report
2. Exhibit A to the Staff Comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report
3. Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative Impacts
4. Figure 2 - DMU/EMU Alternative Impacts
5. Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative Impacts
7.1
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment 1
Staff Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
BART to Livermore Project
Proposed Project and Alternatives Descriptions
Conventional BART Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project involves extending
the Daly City-Dublin/Pleasanton Line from its existing terminus at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station (Dublin/Pleasanton Station) approximately 5.5 miles to the east, to a new station located
at the Isabel Avenue/I-580 (State Route 84) interchange in the city of Livermore. The new
alignment and the new Isabel BART Station (Isabel Station) would be constructed in the I-580
median. New parking facilities—a parking structure and surface lot containing a total of
approximately 3,412 spaces—would be constructed immediately south of I-580 along East
Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 68-acre BART storage and maintenance
facility would be constructed north of I-580, beyond the Isabel Station.
To accommodate the widening of the I-580 median for the new BART alignment and Isabel
Station, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way (ROW) would be
widened along approximately 5.6 miles. I-580 lanes would be relocated by a total of
approximately 46 feet, from just east of the Hacienda Drive interchange to west of the Portola
Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. At the proposed Isabel Station, I-580 would be relocated by
approximately 67 feet to accommodate the new station within the median. The relocation of I-
580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface frontage roads.
Diesel Multiple Unit/Electric Multiple Unit Alternatives. The (DMU) Alternative differs from
the Proposed Project in terms of vehicle technology. DMUs are self-propelled rail cars that use
a diesel engine to generate their own power and run on a standard-gauge rail track, whereas
BART trains use electricity and run on wide-gauge rail track.
The DMU Alternative would have a similar median alignment and station configuration as the
Proposed Project, but would have a longer total length of freeway alignment changes and
includes a new transfer platform at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. A new parking structure for
the Isabel Station, with approximately 2,428 parking spaces, would be constructed immediately
south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 32-acre storage
and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I-580, beyond the terminus of the
alignment.
To accommodate the median widening, approximately 7.1 miles of I-580 would be relocated by
a total of approximately 46 feet, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange to
the Portola Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. Around the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side of
I-580 would be relocated to accommodate the new DMU transfer platform. At the proposed
Isabel Station, I-580 would be relocated approximately 67 feet to accommodate the station
within the median. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and
surface frontage roads.
The DMU Alternative includes the same feeder bus component as the Proposed Project,
including new and modified bus routes connecting the new station to areas east of the BART
system.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
A variant of the DMU Alternative—the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Option—is also being
considered. The EMU Option is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that it is
electrically powered rather than diesel-powered.
Express Bus/BRT Alternative. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative seeks to achieve the project
goals using bus technology only. This alternative does not include an extension of BART rail
service or development of a new rail station. Under this alternative, new bus transfer platforms
would be constructed at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station. Buses would enter these bus-
only transfer areas via direct bus-only ramps from the I-580 express lanes, allowing passengers
to transfer from bus to BART within the station.
To accommodate the new bus transfer platforms and facilities under this alternative,
approximately 2.2 miles of I-580, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange
to the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road interchange, would be relocated by approximately 88
feet. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads.
A new parking lot or garage on the Pleasanton side with approximately 210 parking spaces
would be constructed at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to replace the 210 parking spaces
removed for the relocation of I-580 to accommodate the bus platforms. In addition, a remote,
approximately 230-space park-and-ride lot would be constructed at Laughlin Road; regular bus
service would be provided during peak hours from the Laughlin parking lot to the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Enhanced Bus Alternative. Like the Express Bus/BRT Alternative, the Enhanced Bus
Alternative uses bus-related technology only and does not include an extension of BART rail
service or the development of a new rail station. Unlike the Express Bus/BRT Alternative,
however, this alternative does not include any major capital improvements and would not
involve the development of bus transfer platforms or direct bus ramps.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
DEIR’s Analysis Scenarios
Year 2040
Land use at
Isabel
Land use
elsewhere
DP
garage1
expansion
BART or
Alternative
Future Baseline
(PBA)
PBA2 2040 PBA 2040 No No
Future Project PBA 2040 PBA 2040 No Yes
Future Cumulative INP3 2040 PBA 2040 Yes Yes
Year 2025
Land use at
Isabel
Land use
elsewhere
DP garage
expansion
BART or
Alternative
Future Baseline
(PBA)
PBA 2025 PBA 2025 No No
Future Project PBA 2025 PBA 2025 No Yes
Future Cumulative INP 2025 PBA 2025 Yes Yes
Year 2013
Land use at
Isabel
Land use
elsewhere
DP garage
expansion
BART or
Alternative
Existing Conditions Existing Existing Existing No
1. DP Garage – Dublin Pleasanton BART Garage expansion
2. PBA – Plan Bay Area/ABAG
3. INP – Isabel Neighborhood Plan
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
City of Dublin COMMENTS
A. Land Use Impacts
The City of Dublin has significant concerns about some of the right-of-way (ROW) acquisition
required by the Proposed Project, DMU & EMU Alternative and Express Bus Alternative
currently being considered and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the
DEIR. Many of Dublin’s key revenue and employment generators are located along I-580. As
such, any potential purchase of ROW will need to identify the full impacts including short and
long-term viability of affected businesses and ongoing revenue impact to both the businesses
and to the City.
The DEIR identifies the surface frontage roads and structures adjacent to I-580 that would need
to be relocated outward in order to accommodate the Proposed Project and Alternatives. The
relocation of the frontage roads results in potentially significant impacts to some of the existing
and key businesses in the City of Dublin. The proposed roadway footprints as provided in
Appendix B: Footprint Map Books of the DEIR, provide insufficient information to determine the
severity of the potential impact to each parcel. The DEIR does not provide any dimensions or
details on the necessary roadway and parcel modifications required to relocate the ROW and
how those impacts will be mitigated. For example, under the DMU Alternative, the relocation of
Scarlett Court shows the potential roadway to extend into the Hyundai and Volkswagen
Dealerships parking areas; however, no details are provided as to how much of the existing
parking lots will need to removed, number of parking spaces eliminated, how the removal of the
landscape buffer strip will impact the public safety and aesthetics and how the new roadway
alignment will impact the on-site circulation. No mitigation has been provided to address these
impacts. Auto dealerships are very sensitive about location, visibility of dealership and
automobiles, and inventory storage. The ability to showcase and store vehicles is critical and
these ROW purchases could have significant impacts, not only to the dealership’s revenues, but
potentially the City’s tax base. The table below provides an outline of all potentially significant
ROW impacts to the City of Dublin identified in Appendix B of the DEIR that are not sufficiently
detailed in the analysis.
Table A. Potentially Significant ROW Impacts
PROPOSED PROJECT – Conventional BART
ROW Parcel Impact Potential Impacts
Northside Drive Lowe’s
(985-0061-007-00/-015-
00)
The relocation of Northside Drive shows the
potential roadway and ROW need impacting the
Lowe’s parking lot. Any reduction in parking level
may impact future ability to construct new stores
or replace existing tenants in the future.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE – DMU & EMU Alternatives AND Express Bus Alternatives
ROW Parcel (APN) Potential Impacts
Scarlett Court Hyundai Dealership
(941-0550-025-02)
Volkswagen Dealership
(941-0550-032-02/-03)
The relocation of Scarlett Court shows the
potential roadway to extend into the Hyundai and
Volkswagen Dealerships parking areas, thus
removing the landscape buffer, parking area and
impacting on-site circulation. This parking impact
is a significant impact to access and circulation,
and no mitigation has been provided to address
this impact.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
Scarlett Court El Monte RV Rentals
(941-0550-016-04)
U-Haul Truck Rental
(941-0550-037-05)
The relocation of Scarlett Court creates potential
access issues for the business west of Scarlett
Drive. This road serves the recreational vehicle
operator, U-Haul Truck Rental and El Monte RV
Rentals as well as automotive delivery trucks to
the Dublin Mazda Dealership. City staff feels that
any narrowing would cause significant impacts to
the adjacent uses.
Scarlett Court Alameda County Fire
Department and Dublin
City Maintenance
Building
(941-0550-077-01)
The relocation of Scarlett Court has significant
impacts for the City and Alameda County’s
operations. In 2014, the Alameda County facility
was remodeled and the City Corporation Yard
was constructed. Both of these facilities provide
maintenance support to local and regional
government agencies and will be challenging to
relocate, if necessary. The relocation will impact
the parking and frontage improvements at a
minimum. The loss of the City’s maintenance
facility will be costly to replicate.
I-580 Frontage Hacienda Crossings
(986-0008-001-00)
Hacienda Crossings is a very popular regional
shopping and entertainment destination with tight
parking during the weekend.
Express Bus Alternative:
ROW expansion identifies removal of the
landscape buffer along I-580 which serves both
an aesthetic and public safety function between
the parking lot and the freeway. This impact
could be a significant impact; however, no site
level details are provided so that the impacts can
be identified and no mitigation has been provided
to address this potential impact.
DMU/EMU Alternative:
The ROW expansion includes those impacts
identified above for the Express Bus Alternative
and further removal of a large portion of the
parking area near the Hacienda Drive off-ramp.
This ROW expansion will have a significant
impact to parking and on-site circulation in this
area of the shopping center and no mitigation
has been provided to address this impact. Any
proposed ROW adjustment will need to be
carefully crafted with the property owner to
ensure full replacement of the displaced parking,
as well as thoughtful construction placement to
ensure no loss of visibility of existing businesses.
I-580 Frontage Toyota Dealership
(986-0016-023-00/024-
00)
ROW expansion identifies removal of the
landscape buffer along I-580 which serves both
an aesthetic and safety function between the
parking lot and the freeway.
I-580 Frontage Chevrolet/Cadillac
Dealership
ROW expansion identifies removal of the
landscape buffer along I-580 which serves both
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
(986-0016-004-01)
an aesthetic and safety function between the
parking lot and the freeway.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE – DMU & EMU Alternatives ONLY
ROW Parcel Impact Potential Impacts
Northside Drive Lowe’s
(985-0061-007-00/-015-
00)
The relocation of Northside Drive shows the
potential roadway and ROW need impacting the
Lowe’s parking lot. Any reduction in parking level
may impact future ability to construct new stores
or replace existing tenants in the future.
I-580 Frontage IKEA Retail Center
Project
(986-0033-005-02/-006-
00)
The impact to the future development of this
parcel is significant. The current property owner
is exploring development scenarios for this site
and we believe the impacts would be
unacceptable as they would significantly impact
the ability to develop the site.
Dublin/Pleasant
BART Station
Access Road
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station (986-
0034-019-00)
This alternative relocates the ROW into the
surface parking area of the future garage
expansion at the Dublin Pleasanton BART. This
alternative will move Altamirano Road into the
surface lot for Dublin/Pleasanton BART station
on the Dublin side next to the existing BART
garage removing available parking. This parking
impact is a significant impact to access and
circulation, and no mitigation has been provided
to address this impact. Our review indicates that
a similar parking impact on the south side of I-
580 in Pleasanton under the Express Bus/BRT
alternative was mitigated by either providing new
surface lot parking or by building a garage (see
Chapter 2, Page 151). So it is not clear why
BART has not addressed a similar significant
impact on the north side of I-580 in Dublin under
a different alternative. Additionally, the
Cumulative analyses for the Project and all
alternatives have assumed a future BART
garage expansion at the Dublin Pleasanton
BART station. By having the space for the future
BART garage expansion impacted without
mitigation, cumulative analysis results for the
Express Bus/BRT alternative are not valid and
need to be redone.
As stated in the DEIR, “Acquisition of privately owned land—including businesses, farm
operations, and/or parking”—is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project
[DMU/EMU Alternative and Express Bus Alternative] would result in a potentially significant
impact related to displacement of businesses. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-2, which would require BART to
implement an acquisition and relocation program. (p. 543)
Mitigation Measure PH-2: Acquisition of Property and Relocation
Assistance. (Conventional BART Project and DMU Alternative/EMU
Option)
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
BART’s Real Estate Department will implement an acquisition and relocation
program that meets the requirements of applicable State acquisition and
relocation law. Acquisition will involve compensation at fair market value for
properties, and relocation assistance would include, but is not limited to, down
payments or rental supplements, moving costs, business reestablishment
reimbursement, and goodwill offers as appropriate. All benefits will be provided
in accordance with the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Guidelines.
While the acquisition and relocation program may meet the applicable State acquisition
and relocation law, the issue lies in the DEIR not disclosing the actual physical impacts
to each property. The level of detail provided in the DEIR does not provide sufficient
information to determine what acquisition would be required and how that acquisition
would impact each parcel. As previously stated, the properties along I-580 are home to
some of the community’s key businesses and impacts to public safety, aesthetics and
functionality of the property that remove parking, modify circulation patterns, limit
visibility from I-580 are considered to be significant impacts and no mitigation has been
provided to address these impacts.
Requested Change:
Provide detailed ROW acquisition needs by each parcel and provide
description on how each acquisition would impact the property. Include
proposed mitigation to address public safety, aesthetics and functionality
of the property with removed parking, changed circulation patterns, and
visibility from I-580.
B. Transportation Impacts
An overall problem with the Draft EIR is its failure to adequately analyze the impacts of the
DMU, Express Bus/BRT, and Enhanced Bus alternatives within the City of Dublin, and
particularly near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Both the DMU and Express Bus/BRT
alternatives contemplate significant infrastructure improvements at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station, including new platforms and track extensions. And the Enhanced Bus Alternative
contemplates operational changes at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, particularly a
significant increase in bus traffic on existing streets. And yet, portions of the EIR expressly
exclude analysis of impacts in and around this station. For example, page 252 states that "The
bicycle study areas include all bicycle facilities within a 15-minute bike ride of the proposed
Isabel Station" and page 256 similarly states that "The study area for pedestrians comprises all
pedestrian facilities . . . within a 15-minute walk from the proposed Isabel Station." These
statements suggest that the Draft EIR did not study bicycle and pedestrian impacts resulting
from project changes to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, notwithstanding the fact that
these alternatives contemplate significant infrastructure and/or operational changes at that
location. This is a problem with the Draft EIR's analysis of those three Build alternatives but not
of the Conventional BART Project alternative, since that alternative does not contemplate
significant infrastructure or operational changes at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
Traffic Model Assumptions
1. The Draft EIR (DEIR) has assumed that the BART garage expansion at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station would occur with the Project in Cumulative conditions, but did
not include the funding for the garage expansion. This is not the correct way to assume
Project Cumulative conditions while not including the funding for it, especially when
constructing a garage is the responsibility of BART on its own land. This needs to be
corrected in the model to reflect the proper No-Project conditions that would also change
the traffic patterns under the “With” and “Without” Project scenarios. Garage Expansion
at the Dublin Pleasanton Station should either be part of the future baseline (background
development) without Project or be kept as currently it is in the DEIR but with funding
provided for the garage construction as part of the Project. Furthermore, as per the
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Page 226, DEIR assumed that under the Cumulative
scenarios for 2025 and 2040, Isabel Neighborhood Plan (INP) in Livermore will have
additional land use changes that could not be evaluated separately from the Garage
Expansion traffic patterns, which in turn impacts the With Project analysis results. For
example, it is not clear what impacts would be with the INP land use addition in
conjunction with the Project and the Alternative alone would have on the system.
Requested Change:
Move the BART Garage expansion at Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to
the future 2025 and 2040 baseline Without Project Conditions, similar to
many other local and regional projects in this corridor.
2. The DEIR’s Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Table 3.B-18, Page 281, provides 2025
and 2040 roadway improvements assumptions used in traffic models. There are several
incorrect assumptions in this table for the City of Dublin’s roadway infrastructure. The
incorrect assumptions would create incorrect model results for impacts to the City of
Dublin roadway infrastructure and intersections, and any related mitigations need to be
redone.
Requested Change:
Use the attached (Exhibit A) corrections to Table 3.B-18 and update the
traffic models network.
Other Transportation Related Technical Issues
1. Under the DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT Alternatives, DEIR (Chapter 2, Project
Descriptions) did not assume any time loss for transfer of passengers from one type of
vehicle to the Conventional BART at Dublin/Pleasanton Station. This loss of time is
critical in comparing the Conventional BART with other Alternatives. Additionally, there
was no mention of travel time for buses under the Express Bus/BRT Alternative. This will
be an important factor to know and compare as part of the information disclosure about
project alternatives.
Requested Changes:
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
i. Provide the transfer time loss for DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT
Alternatives.
ii. Provide travel time of Express Bus/BRT from Park and Ride facilities
connecting the Express Bus/BRT to conventional BART at Dublin
Pleasanton BART station.
2. DEIR failed to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian related impacts outside the INP. The
bicycle and pedestrian impact evaluation was considered for access within 15 minute
ride or walk from the future Isabel Station.
Requested Change:
Identify and evaluate the bicycle and pedestrian impacts at
Dublin/Pleasanton Station and surrounding streets that will be impacted by
the Project and Alternatives.
3. Chapter 3 of the DEIR on Page 226 provides the Cumulative Projections for population,
employment, and housing. It states that “For the quantitative sections, the cumulative No
Project Conditions for 2025 and 2040 are based on the traffic volumes forecast for those
years determined by the Travel Demand Model. The Travel Demand Model is a
computer model used to forecast travel volumes by different travel modes (BART, bus,
automobile, etc.) across a transportation network based on projected land uses.”
However in Appendix E, the DEIR states, “the proposed Dublin/Pleasanton Station
Parking Expansion and the City of Livermore’s INP are two specific probable future
projects/plans that are the focus of the projects/plans considered in the cumulative
analysis. In addition, a list of other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects in the
BART project corridor was developed.” Then in Chapter 3, Page 226, DEIR states, “This
EIR uses a combination of the two approaches for the analysis of cumulative impacts;
that is, the projections-based approach is used, but is augmented where appropriate
with the list-based approach of past, present, and probable future projects in the project
area.” It is not clear if list projects were coded into the model by replacing the assumed
land use in the Alameda CTC’s regional model’s TAZs with the projects in the list.
Requested Change:
Provide a clarification on how the list projects were used in the travel
demand model forecasts for Cumulative conditions in 2025 and 2040. Was
the model land use modified or not? Or something else?
4. Table 3.B-23 of the DEIR shows the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station boardings. Then
on the next page third paragraph, it states “Under 2040 Cumulative Conditions, which
includes a net expansion of the Dublin/Pleasanton Station parking by 540 spaces, that
station attracts a large number of additional park-and-ride BART patrons—a higher
number than the increase in supply, as some spaces are used more than once during
the day or serve multiple patrons who are carpooling together.” However, a similar
change or relative change did not occur between the No Project and With Project
conditions for Park and Ride mode when there will significantly be more BART service to
the Isabel Station. So why no change? Additionally, a recent BART Board action has
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
modified the garage construction with hybrid parking supply plan. The supply of hybrid
parking will not be concentrated at the planned garage site. How this Board action would
impact the assumed circulation under the cumulative scenarios for Project and other
build alternatives.
Requested Changes:
i. Provide the reasoning behind no change in Park and Ride mode share
between the No Project and Project Conditions in Table 3.B-23.
ii. Provide an analysis on traffic circulation changes due to a decision by the
BART Board on supplying planned 540 parking spaces through a hybrid
parking supply scheme instead of a parking garage on Dublin Side of
the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Also to note that the hybrid
parking supply will have different traffic circulation and operations due to
the distributed location of parking as compared to a garage. Due to
these changes many of the current traffic analysis outcomes may no
longer be valid.
5. Table 3.B-30 provides VMT Reduction summary for the Project and Alternatives for
various future year scenarios. The results indicate an increase in VMT when there is
additional parking spaces are provided at the Isabel Station and at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The explanation on the next page states; “The cumulative
analysis for 2025 results in smaller VMT reductions for the Proposed Project and DMU
Alternative than the VMT reductions for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative in the
2025 project analysis. This is due to the level of parking supply assumed for the
Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative under the cumulative analysis in comparison
to the project analysis. The Proposed Project and DMU Alternative provide enough
parking supply at the Isabel Station to meet the parking demand projected for the
station, as well as to absorb a substantial portion of the latent parking demand
originating from areas relatively close to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The presence of
new parking at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station under the cumulative analysis—in addition
to the significant proposed supply of parking at the Isabel Station—in total offers enough
parking to attract park-and-ride trips to the station from greater distances, ultimately
resulting in an increase in auto VMT under the cumulative analysis relative to the project
analysis.”
This conclusion is confusing. Given the fact that if one passenger goes to BART Station
due to the availability of additional parking supply, then there should be a reduction in
the length of the trip when compared to the same passenger driving to the final
destination, like San Francisco. So it is critical to check the difference or the delta of trip
length to BART and to that of driving all the way to the final destination. Also it is not
clear what share of riders came from San Joaquin County due to the expanded BART
service. This would provide some idea on trip lengths that were attracted to BART with
and without expanded parking.
Requested Changes:
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
i. Provide a comparison of trips diverted from the roadway network
including I-580 under various scenarios for 2025 and 2040 due to the
availability of expanded BART service and additional parking at
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Isabel Station.
ii. Provide an explanation on how the Passenger VMT was calculated as
indicated in Table 3.B-30.
iii. Provide the actual number of riders that came from San Joaquin
County to take BART under the Project and Alternatives to properly
disclose the impacts.
iv. Provide a table that shows delta of trips that were attracted to BART
parking expansion VS those that had to drive after not finding parking.
6. Tables 3.B-32 to 3.B-35 have several discrepancies in V/C for freeway lanes when
compared to earlier tables 3.B-14 and 3.B-15. For example, V/C for freeway segment
between Vasco Road and Greenville Road is shown as LOS D in Table 3.B-14 with
delay of 0.87. But in Table 3.B-32 it is shown as LOS E with a delay of 0.977. Similar
issues were noted in Tables 3.B-36 to 3.B-39.
Requested Change:
Review and reconcile different numbers in tables for Freeway segments.
7. Table 3.B-40 indicates a significant impact at Segment 7 (Livermore Ave to Springtown
Blvd/First Street). But the text on Page 337 (page after Table 3.B-43) indicates a wrong
segment for mitigation under the DMU Alternative.
Requested change:
Correct text accordingly.
8. Mitigation Measures TRAN-7a, TRAN-7b, TRAN-19b, TRAN-19c, TRAN-20a, TRAN-
20b, TRAN-20c, and TRAN-20d recommend adding a third southbound left-turn lane
and a second westbound right turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Blvd and Dougherty
Road. This mitigation is suggested to address the peak hour significant impacts to this
intersection in 2025, and 2040 under with project/alternatives and Cumulative Scenarios.
The proposed mitigation is not compatible with the existing land use at this intersection.
It also would impact the pedestrian access by increasing the crossing distance for
pedestrians on two approaches. Therefore this mitigation is not supported by the City of
Dublin. In order to improve operations at this intersection, the City recommends that
BART contributes towards implementing an Adaptive Traffic Signal system along
Dougherty Road. Enhanced signal operations under the Adaptive Traffic Signal system
would minimize the significant impacts.
Requested Change:
Modify TRAN-7a, TRAN-7b, TRAN-19b, TRAN-19c, TRAN-20a, TRAN-
20b, TRAN-20c, and TRAN-20d by providing Adaptive Traffic Signal
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
system along Dougherty Road in the City of Dublin to minimize the
significant impacts at the intersection of Dublin Blvd and Dougherty Road.
C. Air Quality Impacts
1. The Draft EIR Does Not Adequately Address Toxic Air Contaminants and Health
Risks. The methodology and impact analysis (Draft EIR pages 1,120 – 1,125 and pages
1,160 – 1,165, respectively) indicate that the risk/TAC analysis focused on passenger
vehicles, DMU vehicles, maintenance trucks, buses, shuttle vans, and emergency
generators. However, there is no mention of an analysis associated with widening of the
I-580 freeway right-of-way (ROW ). I-580 currently has 219,000 daily vehicles, including
14,828 daily trucks traveling through Dublin.[1] Freeway ROW widening would move
truck traffic (and associated diesel particulate matter [DPM] emissions) closer to
receptors along the freeway. It should be noted that the VMT reductions associated with
implementation of the Build Alternatives would affect passenger vehicles and would not
reduce heavy duty truck traffic. As such, the Draft EIR does not demonstrate that it has
adequately analyzed operational TAC/risk impacts.
Requested Change:
The Draft EIR must be revised to clearly identify impacts
associated with moving heavy duty diesel vehicles (due to ROW
widening) closer to receptors located along the freeway.
D. Noise and Vibration Impacts
1. The Draft EIR Should Identify Additional Options to Mitigation Pile Driving Noise.
When technically feasible, silent press-in piling (such as the Giken Silent Piler) should be
the preferred method rather than drilling to reduce noise and vibration impacts. This
option should be included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
2. The Draft EIR Does Not Include All Feasible Options to Mitigate Construction
Noise. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 should include noise monitoring during construction to
ensure the 90 dBA Leq limit is not exceeded. If it is exceeded, construction activities
should halt until a remedy is implemented to reduce the noise levels below the 90 dBA
Leq limit.
Requested Change:
The noise monitoring should be incorporated into the following section of
Mitigation Measure NOI-1:
To reduce potential daytime construction noise impacts to
residential uses immediately south of the realignment of the
eastern extent of East Airway Boulevard (Proposed Project and
DMU Alternative), BART contractors shall employ moveable noise
curtains or barriers along the southern side of East Airway
Boulevard to shield daytime construction noise impacts to
residential uses to the south. These temporary noise barriers shall
be employed for construction along East Airway Boulevard, east
of Sutter Street. Implementation of this measure will ensure that
[1] California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch, Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on
the California State Highway System, 2015.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
daytime construction activities do not exceed FTA noise criteria for
daytime construction at residential uses (90 dBA Leq).
Additionally, noise monitoring shall be conducted during
construction to ensure this limit is note exceeded. If it is
exceeded, construction activities should halt until a remedy is
implemented to reduce the noise levels below the 90 dBA Leq
limit.
3. The Draft EIR Does Not Include All Feasible Options to Mitigate Construction
Vibration Impacts. Vibration monitoring should be conducted while these construction
activities are taking place to ensure the vibration limit (0.2 PPV in/sec and 72 VdB) is not
exceeded. If it is exceeded, construction activities should halt until a remedy is
implemented to reduce the vibration levels below the limit.
Requested Change:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 should be revised as follows:
To reduce potential vibration impacts to residential uses
immediately south of the realignment of the eastern extent of East
Airway Boulevard (Proposed Project and DMU Alternative), BART
contractors shall use non-vibratory excavator-mounted
compaction wheels and small smooth drum rollers for final
compaction of asphalt base and asphalt concrete. If needed to
meet compaction requirements, smaller vibratory rollers will be
used to minimize vibration levels during repaving activities where
needed to meet vibration standards. These methods shall be
employed for construction along East Airway Boulevard, east of
Sutter Street. Vibration monitoring shall be conducted while these
construction activities are taking place to ensure the vibration limit
(0.2 PPV in/sec and 72 VdB) is not exceeded. If it is exceeded,
construction activities shall halt until a remedy is implemented to
reduce the vibration levels below the limit.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
Attachments:
Exhibit A
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
7.
1
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
7
0
Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to the Staff Comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Staff
7.
1
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
7
1
Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to the Staff Comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Staff
Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative
Lowes: 30
parking spaces
lost
N
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
-
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
-
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
A
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Dublin
Volkswagen:
25 parking
spaces lost
Dublin
Hyundai: 45
parking
spaces lost
Scarlett Court
moved 35 ft North.
Turn around at E end of
Scarlett court is moved
35 ft. north and 100 ft.
west
Parking along the
southern edge of the
Corp yard would be
removed
I-580 road widening begins .2 miles W est of
Dougherty/Hopyard overcrossing and reaches maximum at .2
miles W est of Iron Horse Trail. Widening continues on Dublin
side until Livermore border.
N
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
D
M
U
/
E
M
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
)
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Dublin Toyota Scion: 40
parking spaces lost Hacienda Shopping center: 75
parking spaces lost
I-580 road widening begins 0.2 mile West of Dougherty/Hopyard
overcrossing and continues to Livermore
N
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
D
M
U
/
E
M
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
)
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Lowes: 30
parking spaces
lost
N
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
D
M
U
/
E
M
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
)
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
N
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
D
M
U
/
E
M
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
D
E
I
R
)
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Dublin
Volkswagen: 25
parking spaces
lost
Dublin
Hyundai:
45 parking
spaces lost Turn around at east end of
Scarlett court is moved 35 ft.
north and 100 ft. west
Parking along the
southern edge of the Corp
ward would be removed
Scarlett Court
moved 35 ft. north.
Widening of I-580 begins 0.2 miles W est of Dougherty/Hopyard overcrossing. Widening
gradually starts and reaches maximum at 0.2 miles W est of Iron Horse Trail. The maximum
widening occurs from there to about .2 miles East of Iron Horse Trail. From there, widening
tapers down and ends on Dublin side at Tassajara/Santa Rita overcrossing.
Max widening of 88 ft.
from about 0.2 miles
west of Iron Horse Trail
to about 0.2 M east of
Iron Horse Trail. More
widening on
Pleasanton side then
on Dublin
N
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
-
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative
N
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
-
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Widening ends on Dublin
side.
N
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
-
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
S
t
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
B
A
R
T
t
o
L
i
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
At Dublin General Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will a consider a request by Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS
Development Company, to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for an
approximate 76-acre site primarily bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan
Street and Gleason Drive. The Study would evaluate a proposal to change the existing
General Plan land use designations to accommodate the development of 450,000
square feet of commercial development and 700 residential units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to
Evaluate Changing the Land Use Designation of Approximately 76 acres Primarily
Bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive; OR,
adopt the Resolution Denying the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to
Evaluate Changing the Land Use Designation of Approximately 76 acres Primarily
Bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact to the City. All costs associated with preparing the General Plan
Amendment Study, if authorized by the City Council, would be borne by the Project
Proponent.
DESCRIPTION:
On August 23, 2017, the City received a request letter from Shea Properties, in
partnership with SCS Development Company, to initiate a General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan amendment to support the proposed development, At Dublin.
8.1
Packet Pg. 81
Page 2 of 6
Background
The At Dublin project is proposed on the property formerly owned by the Dublin Land
Company. The 76.2 acre property is located north of I-580 between Tassajara Road
and Brannigan Street and extends to the north of Gleason Drive as shown in Figure 1
below. The property is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (ED SP) area and
has Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104 -94) adopted with the EDSP.
The site is generally surrounded by commercial uses to the southwest and southeast
and residential uses to the northwest and northeast as shown in Figure 1 and Table1.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
8.1
Packet Pg. 82
Page 3 of 6
Table 1. Adjacent Uses and Land Use Designations
Existing Use Land Use Designations
North Single Family Detached homes Medium Density Residential
South Interstate 580 / City of Pleasanton --
East Sonata - Single-family detached homes
Sorrento West - Townhomes
The Cottages - Condominiums
The Villas - Townhomes
Vacant/Commercial - Lowes Home Improvement
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
General Commercial/Campus Office
West Tassajara Meadows - Single Family Detached
Emerald Glen Park
Waterford Place - Apartments & Commercial
Gateway Medical Center
Dublin Corporate Center
Medium Density Residential
Parks/Public Recreation
General Commercial
Campus Office
Campus Office
The Project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher
elevation at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly
boundary. At one time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has
remained vacant (except for temporary seasonal uses) with low lying native and non-
native grasses turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group
of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway.
No grading for development purposes has occurred to date.
The site currently has General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations
of Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium High Density Residential,
High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public as shown in Figure 2 below. The
majority of the site is designated General Commercial with varying densities of
residential along Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed average development intensity for each land
use designation. As summarized in Table 2 below, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
anticipated development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of commercial
on this site (the acreages shown are approximate and were based on information
available at the time the Specific Plan was adopted).
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located with the Airport
Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in
which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection
factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a
designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission.
8.1
Packet Pg. 83
Page 4 of 6
Table 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Development
Land Use Designations Acres Res.
Units
Commercial s.f.
General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 --
Medium High Density Residential 5.3 106 --
High-Density Residential 3.2 112 --
Public/Semi-Public 3.3 -- --
Total 80.1 261 902,563
Shea Properties and SCS Development Company are proposing to amend the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to modify and redistribute the existing land uses
in order to accommodate a proposed mixed use development on the property. It is the
City Council’s policy to initiate all General Plan Amendment Studies prior to accepting
an application and beginning work on such a request.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project consists of a mix of lifestyle retail and residential uses. In order to
accommodate the proposed project, the applicant proposes to r edistribute and simplify
the six existing land use designations in the Study Area to four land use designations
organized in large blocks. The proposed land use designations are generally consistent
with the land use patterns of the surrounding properties. The proposed land uses, from
the south to the north are: General Commercial; Mixed Use; Medium High Density
Residential; and Medium Density Residential. The proposal would allow up to 450,000
square feet of commercial uses and up to 700 residential units as shown in Figure 3 and
Table 3 below.
8.1
Packet Pg. 84
Page 5 of 6
Figure 3. At Dublin Proposed Land Uses
Table 3. At Dublin Proposed Development
Land Use Designations Acres Res.
Units
Du/Acre Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
General Commercial 22.1 -- -- .39 370,000
Mixed Use 15.1 300 -- .74 80,000
Medium High Density Residential 15.2 210 16 -- --
Medium-Density Residential 23.8 190 10 -- --
Total 76.2 700 -- -- 450,000
At this time, the Applicant is requesting initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study.
Development of the site would require additional entitlements including: a) Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment consistent with the proposed General Plan
Amendment; b) Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans; c) Tentative Map; and d) Site Development Review Permit.
If the City Council initiates a General Plan Amendment Study, Staff would then:
1. Determine the associated impacts from the land use change;
2. Complete a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed land use changes;
3. Conduct the appropriate level of environmental review and documentation;
4. Perform any additional studies that may be required; and
5. Prepare an analysis of the project for consideration by the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
Work on the General Plan Amendment Study would be completed concurrently with
processing the other entitlements that are requested by the Applicant. Once the
General Plan Amendment Study is complete, Staff would then bring the application to
the Planning Commission for their recommendation to City Council. The project would
then move forward to the City Council for consideration.
Staff has prepared draft Resolutions approving and denying the initiation of a General
Plan Amendment Study. The draft Resolutions are included as Attachments 4 and 5.
8.1
Packet Pg. 85
Page 6 of 6
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Although a public notice is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plan
Amendment Study, the City mailed in excess of 2,000 notices to surrounding residents
and businesses including the following neighboring communities: The Cottages, The
Villas, The Courtyards, Sorrento West, Sonata, a portion of Tassajara Meadows,
Grafton Station, and the Waterford residential and commercial developments. Also, as
is practice, notices were sent to the list of potentially interested parties. A public notice
was published in the East Bay Times and posted in the designated posting places. A
copy of this Staff Report was provided to the applicant and was made available on the
City’s website.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends that the initiation of the General Plan Amendment Study be found
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15306,
Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Information Collection).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Shea Properties GPA Request Letter
2. GPA Request Letter Exhibits
3. Project Vision and Highlights Provided by Shea Properties
4. Resolution Approving the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study
5. Resolution Denying the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study
8.1
Packet Pg. 86
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
h
e
a
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
G
P
A
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
S
h
e
a
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
G
P
A
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
AT Dublin
S-1SHEET
August 23, 2017
N
0200400450FEET
Vicinity Map / Aerial Photo
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
DU
B
L
I
N
B
L
V
D
.
I-
5
8
0
BRANNIGAN STREET
LOWE”S
FALLON
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
EMERALD
GLEN PARK
AQUATIC
CENTER
WATERFORD
TASSAJARA ROAD
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
C
R
E
E
K
GL
E
A
S
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
AV
I
A
N
O
W
A
Y
FIN
N
I
A
N
W
A
Y
DUBLIN
RANCH
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
G
P
A
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
S-2SHEET
AT Dublin
August 23, 2017
N
0150300450FEET
Existing Land Use Plan
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL
HIGH-
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
HIGH-
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
HIGH-
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM / HIGH-
DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM / HIGH-
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC /
SEMI-PUBLIC
MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
Appendix 4 Rev_9.20.16
APPENDIX 4
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#16 ALAMEDA COUNTY1
General Commercial 133.75 .21 - .3 1,369,874
Campus Office2 79.05 .85 / .40 2,416,273
Public/Semi-Public 88.5 .25 963,765
Industrial/Office 65.0 .37 1,047,618
High Density Residential 31.74 35 1,159
Medium High Density Residential 41.76 16 – 20 799
Medium Density Residential 60.2 10 602
Single Family Residential 89.2 4 – 5.43 399
City Park 56.3
Open Space/Creek 29.1
Elementary School 11.0
Total 685.64 5,797,530 2,959
#17 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
General Commercial 4.2 .35 64,033
Total 4.2 64,033
#18 DUBLIN LAND COMPANY
General Commercial 60.3 .35 / .25 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 .35 56,410
High Density Residential 3.2 35 112
Medium High Density Residential 5.3 20 106
Medium Density Residential 4.3 10 43
High School 3.3
Total 80.1 902,563 261
1 Source: Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
2 Includes 5.0 acres of Neighborhood Commercial
3 Density Ranges for Medium High and Single-Family reflect actual California Creekside densities
4 Acreage total does not correspond with adopted Specific Plan due to more accurate mapping
A4-4
Appendix 4 Rev_9.20.16
APPENDIX 4
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#16 ALAMEDA COUNTY1
General Commercial 133.75 .21 - .3 1,369,874
Campus Office2 79.05 .85 / .40 2,416,273
Public/Semi-Public 88.5 .25 963,765
Industrial/Office 65.0 .37 1,047,618
High Density Residential 31.74 35 1,159
Medium High Density Residential 41.76 16 – 20 799
Medium Density Residential 60.2 10 602
Single Family Residential 89.2 4 – 5.43 399
City Park 56.3
Open Space/Creek 29.1
Elementary School 11.0
Total 685.64 5,797,530 2,959
#17 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
General Commercial 4.2 .35 64,033
Total 4.2 64,033
#18 DUBLIN LAND COMPANY
General Commercial 60.3 .35 / .25 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 .35 56,410
High Density Residential 3.2 35 112
Medium High Density Residential 5.3 20 106
Medium Density Residential 4.3 10 43
High School 3.3
Total 80.1 902,563 261
1 Source: Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
2 Includes 5.0 acres of Neighborhood Commercial
3 Density Ranges for Medium High and Single-Family reflect actual California Creekside densities
4 Acreage total does not correspond with adopted Specific Plan due to more accurate mapping
A4-4
Public / Semi-Public
EAST DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
DU
B
L
I
N
B
L
V
D
.
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROAD
GL
E
A
S
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
G
P
A
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
S-3SHEET
AT Dublin
August 23, 2017
N
0150300450FEET
PA-2c
PA-1
PA-2a
PA-2b
PA-3PA-4
NOR
T
H
S
I
D
E
D
R
.
+
/
-
1
.
6
A
C
76.2AC
69.9AC
442,500SF
7,500SF
450,000SF
300Units
400Units
700Units
22.1AC
21.9AC
20.3AC
1.6AC
367,000SF
3,000SF
0.39
9.3AC
8.5AC
5.8AC
5.2AC
72,500SF
7,500SF
0.13
300Units
15.2AC
13.8AC
210Units
15.2DU/AC
20.7AC
18.3AC
173Units
9.5DU/AC
3.1AC
2.2AC
17Units
7.6DU/AC
LAND USE PLAN
August 23, 2017
Overall Project Totals
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
Apartment commercial building area
Total commercial building area
General commercial building area
Rental unit count
For sale unit count
PA-1: General Commercial
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
Parcel Area (Net)
Total unit count
PA-2a Area (Gross)
PA-2a Area (Net)
General commercial building area
Northside Drive Area (Net) - Road vacated
General commercial building area
Commercial F.A.R. (Net)
PA-2a & PA-2b: Mixed Use
PA-2b Area (Gross)
PA-2b Area (Net)
Public / Semi-Public building area
Apartment commercial building area
Commercial F.A.R. (Net)
PA- 3: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/ac)
Rental unit count
PA-2c: Medium/High Density Residential (14.1-25 du/ac)
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density (Net)
PA-4: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/ac)
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density (Net)
Net area = Gross area lessstreet dedications
76.2AC
69.9AC
442,500SF
7,500SF
450,000SF
300Units
400Units
700Units
22.1AC
21.9AC
20.3AC
1.6AC
367,000SF
3,000SF
0.39
9.3AC
8.5AC
5.8AC
5.2AC
72,500SF
7,500SF
0.13
300Units
15.2AC
13.8AC
210Units
15.2DU/AC
20.7AC
18.3AC
173Units
9.5DU/AC
3.1AC
2.2AC
17Units
7.6DU/AC
LAND USE PLAN
August 23, 2017
Overall Project Totals
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
Apartment commercial building area
Total commercial building area
General commercial building area
Rental unit count
For sale unit count
PA-1: General Commercial
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
Parcel Area (Net)
Total unit count
PA-2a Area (Gross)
PA-2a Area (Net)
General commercial building area
Northside Drive Area (Net) - Road vacated
General commercial building area
Commercial F.A.R. (Net)
PA-2a & PA-2b: Mixed Use
PA-2b Area (Gross)
PA-2b Area (Net)
Public / Semi-Public building area
Apartment commercial building area
Commercial F.A.R. (Net)
PA- 3: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/ac)
Rental unit count
PA-2c: Medium/High Density Residential (14.1-25 du/ac)
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density (Net)
PA-4: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/ac)
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density (Net)
Net area = Gross area lessstreet dedications
76.2AC
69.9AC
442,500SF
7,500SF
450,000SF
300Units
400Units
700Units
22.1AC
21.9AC
20.3AC
1.6AC
367,000SF
3,000SF
0.39
9.3AC
8.5AC
5.8AC
5.2AC
72,500SF
7,500SF
0.13
300Units
15.2AC
13.8AC
210Units
15.2DU/AC
20.7AC
18.3AC
173Units
9.5DU/AC
3.1AC
2.2AC
17Units
7.6DU/AC
LAND USE PLAN
August 23, 2017
Overall Project Totals
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
Apartment commercial building area
Total commercial building area
General commercial building area
Rental unit count
For sale unit count
PA-1: General Commercial
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
Parcel Area (Net)
Total unit count
PA-2a Area (Gross)
PA-2a Area (Net)
General commercial building area
Northside Drive Area (Net) - Road vacated
General commercial building area
Commercial F.A.R. (Net)
PA-2a & PA-2b: Mixed Use
PA-2b Area (Gross)
PA-2b Area (Net)
Public / Semi-Public building area
Apartment commercial building area
Commercial F.A.R. (Net)
PA- 3: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/ac)
Rental unit count
PA-2c: Medium/High Density Residential (14.1-25 du/ac)
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density (Net)
PA-4: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/ac)
Area (Gross)
Area (Net)
For sale unit count
Residential density (Net)
Net area = Gross area lessstreet dedications
Land Use Category Acres
(Net)Permitted Density Project
Density (Net)
Commercial
SF 1
Hotel
Rooms Units
General Commercial 2 .2 to.6 FAR 367,000
Public/Semi-Public .5 FAR, max 3,000
Mixed Use 13.7.3 to 1.0 FAR.74 FAR80,000 300
Medium High-Density Residential 13.814.1 to 25 du/ac16 du/ac 210
Medium Density Residential 20.56.1 to 14.0 du/ac10 du/ac 190
Total 69.9 450,000240700
1.“SF" Square Feet includes hotel square feet.
LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY
August 23, 2017
21.9
2.“Public/Semi-Public” uses are permitted within General Commercial, per requested General Plan and EDSP amendment.
240.39 FAR
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
MIXED USE
MIXED USE
MEDIUM / HIGH-
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
Proposed Land Use Plan
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
GL
E
A
S
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
DU
B
L
I
N
B
L
V
D
.
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROAD
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
.
G
P
A
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
AT Dublin
PROJECT VISION
At Dublin is envisioned as an amenity-rich, mixed-use destination that includes a vibrant retail and
entertainment gathering place. The centerpiece of the community will be a market plaza (the “Front
Porch”) and village green (the “Side Yard”) surrounded by culinary options that showcase the Tri-Valley’s
bounty of vineyards, orchards, ranches, farms and artisanal food producers. Complementing the food
scene will be up-scale entertainment, such as a cinema/theatre and modern/retro bowling alley, each
with distinctive beverage and dining experiences.
The Front Porch and Side Yard will serve as ideal venues for outdoor fairs, community table events and
performances. Landscaped paseos and pedestrian pathways will directly connect the market and open
space areas with the residential villages, surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park.
The apartment community would be integrated with the retail as a mixed-use village, having ground
floor retail and amenities to activate the town center 24/7. The for sale residential housing AT Dublin is
envisioned to provide a broad selection of new ownership housing opportunities within a pedestrian
oriented community. The housing products being considered is a combination of townhomes and small
lot single family detached, oriented to give an urban-town feel with front stoops, and a network of
pathways, gardens and courtyards. The prospective buyer pool is anticipated to be highly diverse with a
demographic predominately being young professionals, and residents whom are renting and want to
make Dublin their hometown.
The Shea Properties team has been actively in the commercial market over the past nine months,
meeting with prospective key tenants. The proposed plan reflects the input received, as tenants today
are looking for pedestrian scale, outdoor living opportunities with a balanced mix of uses that places
residents at their front door.
PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
A comprehensive plan balanced between experienced based commercial and diverse mix of
residential.
Fiscally positive development with added sales tax, transit occupancy tax and property tax
Job generation estimated to be over 500 annual jobs
Community room with outdoor plaza space anchored by a future hotel for private and public events.
Right-of-way improvements of 6 to 7 acres, approximately $14 million of improved roadways,
parkways and sidewalks.
Approximately 3 acres of connecting open space, pedestrian pathways and public plazas that are
adaptable public spaces for festivals, celebrations and community events.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
3
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
V
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
S
h
e
a
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO EVALUATE
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 76 ACRES PRIMARILY
BOUND BY TASSJARA ROAD, INTERSTATE 580, BRANNIGAN STREET AND GLEASON
DRIVE (APNS: 985-0051-004-00 THRU- 006-00; 985-0052-024-00 THRU 025-00);
(PLPA-2017-00052)
WHEREAS, On August 23, 2017, the City received a letter from Shea Properties
requesting that the City Council consider initiating another General Plan Amendment Study to
change the existing Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium High Density
Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations to
accommodate up to 450,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 700 residential units
within the project area; and
WHEREAS, the Study Area is comprised of five parcels totaling 76.17 acres; and
WHEREAS, the applicant anticipates that the proposed land uses would be General
Commercial, Mixed Use, Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential;
and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment Study initiation request has been reviewed in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was
found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the General
Plan Amendment Study initiation request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations,
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby
approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use
designation of the study area to accommodate development of up to 450,000 square feet of
commercial uses and up to 700 residential units.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Dublin City Council on this 3rd day of
October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
4
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
DENYING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO EVALUATE
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 76 ACRES PRIMARILY
BOUND BY TASSJARA ROAD, INTERSTATE 580, BRANNIGAN STREET AND GLEASON
DRIVE (APNS: 985-0051-004-00 THRU- 006-00; 985-0052-024-00 THRU 025-00);
(PLPA-2017-00052)
WHEREAS, On August 23, 2017, the City received a letter from Shea Properties
requesting that the City Council consider initiating another General Plan Amendment Study to
change the existing Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium High Density
Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations to
accommodate up to 450,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 700 residential units
within the project area; and
WHEREAS, the Study Area is comprised of five parcels totaling 76.17 acres; and
WHEREAS, the applicant anticipates that the proposed land uses would be General
Commercial, Mixed Use, Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential;
and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment Study initiation request has been reviewed in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was
found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the General
Plan Amendment Study initiation request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations,
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby deny
the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation
of the study area.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Dublin City Council on this 3rd day of
October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
5
.
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
(
A
T
D
u
b
l
i
n
G
P
A
)
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Dog Park Public Art Deaccession
Prepared by: Tegan McLane, Cultural Arts & Heritage Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council is being asked to approve the deaccession of Michele Alacantra's
Animal Series Sculptures at Dougherty Hills Dog Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the deaccession of Michele Alacantra's Animal Series Sculptures at Dougherty
Hills Dog Park. Provide Staff direction if the City Council wishes to consider
commissioning new artwork for the Dougherty Hills Dog Park.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Cost to deaccession the piece is dependent upon the price at which the artist or
someone else chooses to purchase the art, and if the buyer pays the cost of the de-
installation and transport. The worst case scenario is if there are no buyers, the City
would need to pay to de-install and dispose of the sculptures.
DESCRIPTION:
The public art piece at Dougherty Hills Dog Park, Animal Series by Michele Alacantra,
was installed in 2007, at a cost of $20,000. The City contributed $5,000 and $15,000
was privately funded by the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation. Shortly after the installation,
the City received two complaints about injuries to children and animals. The artist was
requested to and did make minor modifications, including clipping the wire whiskers on
the cats, rounding the pointy ends of dog tails, sanding sharp edges and repairing a
bent ear, which had been made from a fan blade.
In spring 2015, the City of Dublin engaged a public art conservator to evaluate the
public art collection, in preparation for making repairs and deferred maintenance to the
entire collection. Animal Series was identified as being in poor condition. The
conservator cited rust and broken pieces that could be a safety hazard. (Attachment 1)
8.2
Packet Pg. 97
Page 2 of 3
As prescribed by the artist contract, Staff approached the artist in July 2015 and gave
her first right of refusal to make the repairs. Ms. Alacantra declined to make the repairs
herself, so Staff included the repairs to the dog park art as one of the jobs in its Request
for Proposals (RFP) to art conservators.
SF Art Conservation, the City’s selected firm to provide repairs and maintenance on the
entire collection, said that because the work needed was so extensive the repairs
cannot be done on site. There would also be additional costs to de -install the artwork,
transport the artwork to their shop and then re-install the artwork. SF Art Conservation
also recommended landscape improvements would need to be made if the City plans to
keep the piece in its current location.
Staff believes that the total cost for repairs, de -installation and reinstallation and
landscape improvements would total $35,000-$40,000, which exceeds the value of the
piece. The piece would also require significant ongoing maintenance, due to the nature
of the materials, as "found metal" objects are susceptible to decay, and this piece is
regularly exposed to the high mineral content recycled water, used for irrigation in this
park, and to dog urine.
Staff is recommending the deaccessioning of the piece. This would be the City of
Dublin’s first deaccessioned public art.
The Public Art Master Plan requires that the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission
make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the deaccession of public art in
the collection, and specifies conditions under which deaccessioning can be considered.
Only City Council can approve the deaccession of an art piece.
A piece must meet at least one of the conditions for deaccession. This piece meets four
of the conditions. They are:
The condition or security of the artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed;
The artwork requires excessive maintenance or has faults of design or
workmanship and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible;
The artwork has been damaged and repair is impractical or unfeasible;
The artwork’s physical or structural condition poses a threat to public safety.
The Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission initially considered this matter at its August
10, 2017 meeting, but voted to table the decision until its September 14 meeting, in
order to hear remarks from fellow absent Commissioner Georgean VonHeeder-Leopold,
who was active with the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation at the time this piece was
commissioned.
At the September 14, 2017 Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission meeting, the
Commission voted (6-1, with Cm. VonHeeder-Leopold opposed) to recommend that the
City Council approve deaccession of Michele Alacantra’s Animal Series artwork,
8.2
Packet Pg. 98
Page 3 of 3
provided that the City replace it with a sustainable piece that is appropriate to the site in
terms of its placement and concept.
The Commissioners discussed their desire to have appropriate artwork at the dog park.
Commissioner VonHeeder-Leopold stated that she opposed because she believes the
City is responsible for maintenance to keep artwork in good repair, and therefore should
restore the originally installed artwork.
If City Council chooses to deaccession the piece, the Public Art Master Plan dictates
that the artist shall have first right of refusal to purchase the piece at its fair market
value.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public Notice was provided to Dougherty Hills Dog Park users via signage at the park,
and to neighbors via postcard to homes within 300 feet.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Dog Park Public Art Deaccession PowerPoint
8.2
Packet Pg. 99
Dog Park Public Ar t
Deaccession
October 3,2017
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Animal Series,by Michele Alacantra
•Installed 2007. Cost $20K (City paid $5K,
Dublin Fine Ar ts Foundation paid $15K)
•Shor tly after install, in response to two
complaints about injuries, the Ar tist made minor
modifications/repairs to: cat whiskers, dog tails,
sharp edg es, fan-blade ear In 2015, conser va tor
identified fur ther broken pieces, r ust and labeled
piece in poor condition and safety risk.
•Ar tist has declined to make fur ther repairs.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Considerations
•Cur rent estimate for de-install, repair, re-install
and landscape improve ments is $35-$40K.
•“Found metal” objects mean continued decay is
expected, and substantial annual maintenance
costs g oing forward.
•Exposure to recycled water and dog urine
accelerates decay.
•Even if repairs are successful, this ar twork will
never reg ain its original appearance.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Criteria for Deaccession
•One or more of the following:
ü Condition or security cannot be guaranteed
ü Re quires excessive maintenance or has faulty design or
wo rkmanship, or repair is impractical
ü Damaged and repair is impractical
ü Po ses a threat to public safety
Site changes have occur red
Adverse and unabated public reaction for 5+ years
Ar tist requested deaccession
Site is being privatized
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Missing ear
•Rust
•Concrete staining
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Missing ear
•Broken nose
•Decay at base
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Missing eye
•Rust
•Landscape issues
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Missing tail
•Rust
•Paint failure
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Paint failure
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Paint failure
•Decay at base
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Rust at welds
•Landscape
issues
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Broken ear
•Landscape
issues
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Close-up example of sharp
rusty edges
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
•Bolt covers easily broken off,
exposing bolts
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Staff Recommendation
•Approve the deaccession of Michele Alacantra's
Animal Series Sculptures at Dougher ty Hills
Dog Park.
•Provide Staff direction if the City Council
wishes to consider commissioning new ar twork
for the Dougher ty Hills Dog Park.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
.
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
(
D
o
g
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
r
t
D
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
)