HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attmt 1 Exhibit B Final Environmental Impact ReportArroyo Vista Project
General Plan Amendment
Rezoning
Site Design Review
Subdivision Maps
PA 07-028
Final
Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2007122066
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
April 2009
EXHIBIT B TO
ATTACHMENT 1
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................... 2
Project Description .........................................................................................2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR .............................................. 3
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ......................................................... 7
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses .............................................. 8
Attachment 1: Revised Traffic Tables ......................................................... 27
Attachment 2: Redevelopment Information Newsletters ........................ 28
Introduction
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated January 2009 was prepared for this
Project and distributed for public review January through March 2009. The Project area
contains approximately 23.8 acres of land (24.1 gross acres of land) located in the central
portion of the City of Dublin. More specifically, the Site is located at 6700 Dougherty
Road on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road
with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with
the Iron Horse Trail.
DEIR circulation
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with
and obtain comments front public agencies and organizz.tions having jurisdiction by
law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity
to comment on the DEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive
comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a public review period
between January 31, 2009 and March 23, 2009.
This Comments and Responses document augments the DEIR and, together with the
DEIR, comprise the Final EIR (FEIR) for this Project. This document contains all public
comments received during the 45-day public review period regarding the DEIR and
responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of
each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that
comment.
The FEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in
the DEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated
new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the DEIR. The City has
carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or
clarifications and modifications to the DEIR text, against the recirculation standards of
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information or
clarifications/ modifications in this document constitutes significant new information as
defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially in ore severe significant impacts
or different feasible alternatives or mitigations, therefore the City has determined that
no recirculation is required.
Project Description
Existing residents on the Site would be relocated from the site consistent with
applicable state and Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings
on the Site would be removed. The Project would then consist of constructing up to 378
new dwellings on the Site, its well as a community building, a day care center and
related improvements. The Project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the
Site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 2
City of Dublin April 2009
The proposed Arroyo Vista residential development would be a community of
approximately 378 units comprised of 198 for sale units with 141 of these being
attached and 57 detached dwellings. Up to 15 of the "for sale" units will be set-aside for
below market rate (moderate income level) purchase.
The remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income-
restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a
combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-
bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment
unit). Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential
wood-frame buildings. The senior apartments would be located in one three-story
building located near the center of the development, adjacent to the childcare center.
A small courtyard will be constructed between the senior building wings.
A community building would be constructed as part of the proposed Project.
The childcare facility is proposed to be located near the intersection of the public loop
road and public street A. This facility would include approximately 3,400 square feet
and would contain a preschool classroom, toddler classroom and offices. The facility
would be open to the public. The facility could accommodate up to 48 children and
would also include an outdoor play area. The anticipated hours of operation for the
facility are 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The total anticipated number
of employees for the facility is 8, which includes teachers, administration and
maintenance staff.
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DEIR are incorporated by
reference into the DEIR document.
1) Page 93 of the DEIR, Fire Services, first paragraph, i3 modified to note that Fire
Station 16 at 7494 Donohue is located a distance of 1.3 miles from the Project site.
2) Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 is hereby modified to read as follows:
"Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patterns, flooding and
drainage system capaci : Project Developer(s) sr.all prepare a drainage and
hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City
drainage criteria which shall indicate that adequate, on and off-site capacity
exists in local and regional drainage facilities to accommodate the direction, rate
and amount of increased stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(s) shall
upgrade undersized drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding
would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities; are not overburdened by
Project drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the
Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 and all recommendations for
drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans."
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 3
City of Dublin April 2009
3) Page 11, the second sentence in second to last paragraph is amended to read: "The
Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between
39% and at or below 607o of the AMI."
4) The second line of the second paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project
Description) be modified as follows "Existing residents on the Site would be
relocated to replacement housing sites consistent with applicable Iecal, state and
Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site
would be removed."
5) The first line of the third paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project
Description) is modified as follows: "The remainder of the Project would include
construction of up to 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a
mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and
townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-bedroom income-restricted
apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment: unit)."
6) The bottom of page 3 in Section 1.5 is modified as fellows: "Alternative 2: Reduced
Project. The second alternative assumes that existin;- buildings and related
improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per applicable
IeEg, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site would
be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per acre."
7) The fourth line of the second paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) is
modified as follows: "The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a
community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with
141 attached and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential
dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked
flats and townhouses) and 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 49 1-
bedroom apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit which would not be
income or age restricted)."
8) The third line of the fourth paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) is
modified as follows: "The affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy
by seniors with incomes at or below 5070 of the Area Median Income (AMI). The
Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between
39-?& 20 o and 607o of AMI."
9) The third paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics), page 13, is modified as
follows: "The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to
HUD on August 15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing
and Citation Homes Central developer team. With I-IUD approval of the
Disposition Application, the Project would be removed from the public housing
program and will no longer be subject to the Annual Contribution Contract.
Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex would be relocated from the Site
consistent with the relocation plan which has been sa,:h„re approved bX the
Dublin Housing Authority which is consistent with applicable Ieeal, State and
Federal relocation guidelines and regulations."
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 4
City of Dublin April 2009
10) Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 80, is modified as follows: "The
Project Site is occupied by 150 m^;v kr^^m^ public housing detached single-family
dwellings owned by the Dublin Housing Authority.
The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on
August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq. proposing
disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer
team. The Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan pursuant to
applicable leee4, state and federal guidelines. The p:'.an provides for relocation
benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of ap;:)licable law. These Benefits
include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for disabled and
senior residents if requested, security deposits, credit check fees, comparable
replacement housing in the form of a Section 8 voucher or, if ineligible, a
replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice to move (but only if HUD
approves the disposition application). The relocation plan demonstrates that there
are adequate available housing resources for the di,;placed households and that the
DHA will provide advisory assistance and relocaticn benefits necessary to ensure
that all households are adequately housed at the time of displacement."
11) The last paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 91, is modified
as follows: "Each of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with
extremely low incomes, would be provided with relocation assistance and would
have the right to return to the Project, provided their incomes at the time of
rehousing are not higher than the Project's maximum. affordability levels."
12) The first paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified
as follows:
"Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to
increase both the number and affordability level of the units on the property. The
current units, while operating as public housing units, are available to residents
with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The 49 senior units
will be available only to households with incomes at or below 507o of AMI. 44h,-
-1 ____1 ___ ----I --1 -------1 L --------- .- ------- I* 1 TTT TT\ - -i. - •11 .1 . 7
ef AN44). The family rental units will be restricted to varying income levels, none
of which will exceed 607o of AMI. Thus, all of the affordable rental units will be
income-restricted at levels lower than they are currently, including some for those
with extremely low income. The proposal is intended to create a mixed-income
community that more than replaces the number of low-income units being
removed, in compliance with several policies contained in Dublin's Housing
Element.
13) The fourth paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is
modified as follows:
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 5
City of Dublin April 2009
"In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households
being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and
would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the
general Dublin area and are or would be receiving.relocation payments assistance
as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for
sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional
housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would
not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase
the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale"
dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and
people from the Site would be less-than-significant."
14) The second paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is
modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing Authori _y has prepared a
comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents, as required by applicable
state and Federal Feg{ ens guidelines."
15) The third paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified
as follows:
"Relocation efforts, as documented in the Relocation Plan, include an outreach
program for residents and convening several resident meetings to describe the
proposed redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project
Site. Relocation specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and
would continue to provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for
comparable housing opportunities in the Dublin and Tri-Valley area and referrals
regarding governmental and social service agencies, as needed. Relocation
payments have been provided to residents and will continue to be provided in
accordance with California Guidelines and federal requirements."
16) The fourth paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population anc. Housing), page 92, is
modified as follows:
"In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households
being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and
would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the
general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation payments assistance
as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for
sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional
housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would
not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase
the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale"
dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and
people from the Site would be less-than-significant."
17) Page 100-101, Standards of Significance, first bullet point, the threshold for
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency facilities is based on the
ACCMA monitoring standards and is established at LOS E.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 6
City of Dublin April 2009
18) Revised Tables X and XI from the Traffic Study (seE, DEIR Appendix 8.7) are
included in this document as Attachment 1. Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10 contained in
the DEIR are also modified as reflected in Revised "ables X and XI.
19) Page 11 of the DEIR, the first line of the fourth paragraph under Section 3.5 (Project
Characteristics) is amended as follows: "Of the 198 for sale units, up to 15 44 units
would be sold to i :uy --s whes^ ineenaes are i.etwe^"' Qn ,ra 3-29% ^i the
kneefne rIbele-4x :A;;;44,at r- provided pursuant to the Ci , 's Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance."
Summary of DEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin du:?ng the public comment period
on the DEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties.
Commenter Date
State Agencies
1.1 Department of Transportation 3 /19 /09
Local Agencies
2.1 Alameda County Fire Department 2/ 24 /09
2.2 Dublin SanRamon Services District
(DSRSD) 3 /9/ 09
2.3 Alameda County Public Works
Agency 3/ 10 /09
2.4 Zone 7 3/ 23 /09
2.5 Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency 3/ 24 /09
Interested Persons/Organizations
3.1 Bob and Sofia Brander 2 10 09
3.2 Cheryl Weir 2T 1 8 09
3.3 Alameda County Housing Authority 2/ 13/ 09
3.4 Alameda County Housing Authority 2/ 25/ 09
3.5 Me Public Interest Law Project 3 23 09
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 7
City of Dublin April 2009
Annotated Comment Letters and
Responses
(Note: The following comment letters aie not paginated)
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 8
City of Dublin April 2009
Sent By; CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 288 5580; Mar-19 09 3:56PM; Pegs 1/1
.RTATS. OF CALLMC HffiA-BMINE 19. TRANRPAR=QX AND XA11.??T4 AMWCT KNOW SOHW
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
III GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23680
OAELAND, CA 64823-0660 Fkx yaw• p-rl
PHONE (510) 622.5491 at srursy grwi mtl
FAX (610) 2864566
TrY 711
Match 19.2009
Letter 1.1
ALA580843
AL.A-580-19.85
SCH#2007122066
Ms. Erica Fraser
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA M68
Dear Ms. Fraser.
Arrayv Vista Development Project - Draft Environmental Impact Report
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transpmation (Department)
in the environmental review process for the Arroyo Vista Development Project. The following
comments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
ForcC" ng
in Table 4.11-2 on page 101, what is the existing site traffic based on? M)w are the existing AM
and PM peak hour totals calculated?
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Yatman h wan of my staff at (510)
622-1670.
Sincerely,
LISA CARBON)
District Branch Chief
Local Development - Intergovernmcntal Review
c: State Clearinghouse
-cakrww Gnpr"" WIDWUy aera" Cagrbrn
1.1.1
..........w••• ... •....w..... ...n'A1'.+..:".i:tiwi:1Jr?V•?'•.. ??.t•?t4tY.iMw...n.
03/19/2008 THU 1-1:59 [TX/RX NO 78041 a001
DATE: 02/24/09
94568 Phone: 925-833-6606 Fax: 925-829-9248
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
TO:
FROM:
Alameda County Fire Department
Fire Prevention Bureau
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin,
Erica Frasier, Senior Planners
Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: PA-07-028 Arroyo Vista Draft EIR
Letter 2.1
Specific Comments:
1. Recommend clarification on Page 93 under Fire Services. In the first paragraph add Fire
Station 16 on 7494 Donahue with a distance.of 1.3 miles.
2.1.1
G:\A 2009 Plan Clieck\Dougherty Road\6700\pa-07.028 wcus draft EIR.doc
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
Phone: 925 828 0515
FAX: 925 829 1180
www.dsrsd.com
March 9, 2009 RECEIVED
Letter 2.2 ' MAR 12009
Ms. Erica Fraser, Project Planner
City of Dublin - Community Development Department DUBLIN PLANNING
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Arroyo Vista Project-PA 07-028
General Plan Amendment, Rezoning Site Design Review, Subdivision Maps
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and has the following commnents:
• As pointed out in the Draft Report, the project area is within DSRSD's potable water service area; however
Zone 7 is the current water provider. DSRSD intends to take over bein€; the water provider if approved by
Zone 7 and LAFCO.
• The project area is within the sanitary sewer service area of DSRSD. D,>RSD has provided sanitary sewer
service for this location in the past and will continue to do so after construction.
• The project area is within the recycled water service area of DSRSD and DSRSD will provide recycled
water to the project for both construction and landscaping.
• DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that the needed increase in potable water demand for the
project is reasonably likely to be available. In addition, the potable watt r facilities needed to serve the
project are already existing or planned for construction.
• DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that the needed increase in sanitary sewer treatment service for
the project Nvill be available with a less than significant impact.
• DSRSD agrees with the report"s conclusion that recycled water will be available for the project. Use of
recycled water within the project for landscaping will help a great deal in lessening the potable water
demand from the increased number of dwelling units with the project.
2.2.1
Planning and construction activities should be coordinated with DSRSD to ensurt that the proposed activities do not 2.2,2
interfere with existing DSRSD facilities, and the installation of new water and sewer lines are completed in
conformance with all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and DSRSD Standard Provedures, Specifications and
Drawings. Recycled water will be required for landscape irrigation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions
regarding these comments please contact Stan Kolodzie at (925) 875-2253.
Si 1
RHODORAN. BIAGTA
Principal Engineer
RB/ST
cc: Dave Requa
Stan Kolodzie
File: DP-07-028
Dublin San Ramon Senices District Is a Public Entity
HAENGDEP'nCEQAWrroyo Vista Project PA 07-028_DmR EIR Jan-09ADc
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
951 Turner Court, Room 100
PUBLIC Hayward, CA 94545-2698
WORKS (510) 670-6601
FAX (510) 670-5269
March 10, 2009
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
Community Development Department Letter 2.3
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms.Fraser:
RECEIVED
MAR 12 2009
DUBLIN- PLANNING
Subject: Draft Environmental ImpactReport, Arroyo Vista EIR (SCH# 2007122066)
Reference is made to your transmittal on January 30, 2009, of he above subject project
application, located west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road
with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron
Horse Trail in the City of Dubini.
Per our cursory review of the transmitted material, we hereby offer the following comments
regarding storm drainage that should be considered in the determination of project status:
1. Although the project site is located in Zone 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda
Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This flood control facility is
maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District, The District is concerned with
augmentation in runoff from the site that may impact flow capa:ity in the Federal Proj ect
and in the watercourses between the site and the Federal Project, as well as the potential
for runoff from the project -to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses
that could cause localized damage and result in deposition of .ilt in the Federal Project.
There should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that
will adversely impact downstream drainage facilities. '
2. The applicant should provide measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated materials
into public drainage facilities. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with
Federal, State, or local water quality standards and regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for this
project. Please provide a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for our file and
reference, If you have questions, please call me at (510) 670-5209.
Very truly yours,
R se e e Leon
A sis t gineer
Land Development Sc;rvices
2.3.1
2.3.2
TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY
R ON ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY UVERMORE, CA 94551 PHONE (975) 454-5000 FAX(925)454-5727
March 23, 2009
Ms. Erica Fraser, Project Planner Letter 2.4
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development.
(SCH #2007122066)
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zonl.- 7's mission to provide
drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture/irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and
stream management within the Liverraore-Amador Valley. We have the following comments for your
consideration.
On page 80, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patters, flooding and drainage
capacity), the Project Developer is to prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using RWQCB,
Zone 7, and City drainage criteria. The last sentence indicates that the drainage and hydrology
plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department; please change the language to
indicate that the drainage and hydrology plan shall also require approval/concurrence from Zone
7 Water Agency.
2. Under the City's Resolution No. 53-93 (1993 Eastern Dublin EIR), each project area is to provide
a Storm Drainage Master Platt. Please provide clarification as to wliether the drainage and
hydrology plan proposed as mitigation in the DEIR is the same as the Storm Drainage Master
Plan that was a requirement of the Easter Dublin EIR. If not, Zone 7 should have the opportunity
to review and comment on the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to the drainage and
hydrology plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to'comment on this document. If you have ar.y questions or comments,
please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036,)r via e-mail at
mlim(ii>zone7water.com.
Sincerely,
Mary im
Environment Services Program Manager
Cc: Joe Seto, Jeff Tang
RECEIVED
MAR 2 4 2009
2.4.1
2.4.2
DUBLIN PLANNING
MAR/24/2009/TUE 04;14 PITT
P. 001/002
ALMEDA CQUNTY
C'oNGESTION NA* AGEME:NT AGENCY
1333 BROADWAY, SUTE 220 . OAKLAND, CA 94612 • PHONE: (511n 826-2560 • FAX: (510} 836-2106
E-MAIL: m00600ma•Da.pov • WEB SITE., accma.oa•gov
AC Transit Letter 2.5
March 24, 2009
Alemeds dounly
&* && Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP
sVA ftM Senior Platmer
City of Alameda Community Development Department
M,FJW City of Dublin
Moraut 100 Civic Plaza
City Of AlbOny Dublin, CA 94568
R41 Jm-W
WBJECT- Comments on the Pratt Eziviroxtrnental Impact Repmt (DEM) for the Axroyo
Vista Development Project in the City of Dublin (PA 07-028)
»>? ftlock
City of Berkeley Dear Ms. Fraser:
Carrlmemtar
Ivttt Vbl*l nn
City of Dublin Thy. you for the Opportunity to comment on the Qtr. of Dublin's Axroyo Vista
n *„ Development Projeot in the City of Dublin, The 23.8 acre project area is located on the west
'City of Emeryville side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection with Amador Valley Boulevard and north
Na.l.byer of the intersection with the Iron Horse Trail. Ikte western bi?undary is Alamo Creek, The
F?hAc4A Project involves demolition of the existing 150 dwelling units on site and construction of up
eltvofC0XdffWr*Fremont to 378 new dwelling units, a community building and a day care center and related
PbbmWOato V improvements.
Cif Df NayWard
Qi*"Uaon The ,A.CCMA, respdt iffllly submits the following comments:
City of Livermore
me= LOS Standards o:f Siguiflcance -Page 100, :Gist paragraph and page 117, 2nd paraVaph: As
stated in our response to the NOP dated January 21, 2008, tf.e Alameda County Congestion
City of Newark Management Agency (ACCMA) does not have a standard for roadway level of set-vice
LVl Rot as it applies to the Land Use Analysis Program.. References to ACCMA level of
Oily of Oakland service or sigtu£tcarice, exiteria standards should be deloted, The ACCMA does not
aaa1` have a policy for determining a tluwhold of signif canco. Rather, it is expected that
City Piieedro nt- professional judgment will be applied to determine project level impacts. Also,
WC please note tliat evezi though a roadway is opexati?ng at LDS F, this does not preclude
city of Pleasanton the project ftom. identifying feasible mitigation for those routes.
Mrw '
JvY+*d Pad!e?t . .
City of San Leandro TDM Strategies- The DEIR does not include any demand-related strategies. As
cavldleeffb& JO)a R t recommended in the NOP response letter, meohanisms that encourage ridesharing,
transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other means of xeducittg peak hour traffic trips
city o Auni n city should be considered, Implementing these strategies could avoid exacerbating the ,
Macke existing congestion in several project shady area intersections and roadways where the
net impact after mitigation is deter.ut),ined as sigtllficaut and unavoidable.
gceaullva Dfrsator
Do* R Foy
03/24/2008 TU_ 18:00 FTX/RX Nit 7RR.54 1 rAnn1
2.5.1
2.5.2 `
MAR/24/2009/TUB 04;15 PM
P. 002/002
Ms. Erica Fraser
March 24, 2009
Page 2
• Tables 4.11-9 & 4.11»10- Short and long term Cumulative Conditions Freeway 2,5.3
Analysis, Pages 120 & 121- Capacity for the interstate routes of 1-580 and 1-680 was
assumed as 2000 veb/I r/lane for freeway impact analysis. However, the same capacity
was assumed for SR 84 as well. SR 84 being a state W way with d0exent
characteristics compared to the interstate roadways, lesser capacity than 2000
veb/hr/lane should be used for the impact analysis.
Thank you for the opportunity to cozwneat on this Draft.EM. ;?lease do not hesitate to contact
Diane Stark or me at 510/836-2560 if you require additional information,
Sincerely,
Saravana Suthantbira
Senior Transportation Planner
cc: file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Response:; - 2009
Diane Starl<, Senior Transportation Planner
f
03/24/2009 TU= 16:00 [TX/RX NO 7e331 1009
Bob 8,. Sofia Brander
7041 3tagecoach Dr.
Dublvz, CA 94568
February 8, 2009
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza.
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 3.1
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report - Arroyo Vista EIR SCH # 2007122066
We have not read the Draft EIR. However, we would like to make some geneW
comments about this project.
All or almost all?recent housing developments in Dublin have been high-density projects. 3.1.1
City traffic and congestion has increased significantly in the last five years. We are
concerned that this housing project will place additional strain on city streets and
resoulces at a time when budgets are tight.
In particular, we would like to point out that the only east-west stroets in the city, Amador 3.1.2
Valley Blvd and Dublin Blvd, cannot be widened. Additional high-density housing will
place additional strain on these streets. Dougherty Blvd., which rur s right in front of the
proposed housing project, has seen significant traffic level increases. This housing project
will further increase traffic congestion on Dougherty, especially during commute hours.
To put it simply - Dublin is a small city and cannot take any more high-density housing. 3.1.3
Please do not approve this project.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bob Brander -----
r ?
Sofia rander
RECEIVED
FEB 10 2009,
DUBLIN PLANNING
RECEIVED
'Cheryl Weir
6574 Conestoga Ln
Dublin, CA 94568
February 16, 2009
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Attn: Erica Fraser, Project Planner
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms, Fraser;
FEB 18 2009
DUBLIN PLANNING
Letter 3.2
I'm responding to a mailing I received regarding PA 07-028, Gmeral Plan Amendment,
Stage 1/Stage 2 Rezone and Development Plan.
First of all, thank you for soliciting community input. I live close to this parcel and have 3.2.1
some serious reservations about letting it go forward, as planned.
Does this really make sense? I know it's been in the works for a long time. But at this 3.2.2 ;
point, Dublin is overbuilt for new housing, real-estate prices are: low and the market will
not recover in the near future. Adding yet another high-density development now will
leave additional units built but empty for a long period of time. This doesn't seem to be in
Dublin's best interest and wilI only further depress the real estate market for longer than
necessary with the oversupply of empty units.
I appreciate that Eden Housing and Citation Homes are simply trying to find profit in this 3.2.3
economy. That's only good business for them. However, I don't believe this project is in
Dublin's best interest, and I think that's the most important factor.
Sincerely,
?I ; I • SI .I, f• i i'?:1? ilk: ?' .E. ''I?.,.?.
•!i. '?;i. ?i t!,'.? .tom + (; ii: %i: ;r?'.:;. I, E.•'' *5:
? i11 ?1'; p•
I
..
lE:
t.'
001 s EE1C
:
r
.
::!?:,.?,
??. ?. ,:ii r?: .'i
'.':Ii; •''r'i; ',•';.r.,'.. .-'i, ?t:.%.: 3• .Ili: •' •i
. . •
..
From: "Erica Fraser" <Erica.Fraser@ci.dublin.ca.us>
Subject: FW: EIR comment
Date: February 25, 2009 11:44:44 AM PST
To: "Jerry Haag" <jphaag 9 pacbell. net>
Jerry -
I just received this email. . Letter 3.3
Erica
From: Gouig, Chris rmailto:chrisg(a)haca.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Erica Fraser
Cc: Robert C. Mills
Subject: EIR comment
Erica: Bob Mills pointed out that on page -11, the second sentence in the second to the last paragra h should read:
The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes-be;een 389;-eF4 at or low 60% of
AMI. 3.3.1
The way it reads now, it sounds like a family earning less than 30% (and I knew I said it should
be able to live there. Thanks. Chris
Christine Gouig
Executive Director
Alameda County Housing Authority
22941 Atherton Street
Hayward, CA 94541-6633
phone 510-727-8513
20%) wouldn't
chrisg@haca.net
02/13/2009 14:50
N0.529 D01
Letter 3.4
To., Erica FrwSe ; Com)YINM ?Pit'L°?Opt'?Gryf 7 a?7`'
Fam mg
Fro" ?'J?iP Q7AiY?
rid,-r?gr f }3,
Gam
Re: ?r?f r ??le
Pages; O including this cover page
? Urgent ? For Revfew Plonse eommont ? Please Reply 1] Please Recycle
Comments;
02/1R1900A FPT 11.1•r? rTV/nV un I-, --.
02/13/2009 14:50 NO.529 902
1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed Project, a list of environmental
issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each environmental impact and
associated mitigation measure. '
A discussion of the applicability of [fie California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and implementing Guidelines to the proposed Project is outlined in Chapter 2. Chapter 3
contains a detailed discussion of the proposed Project. Chapter 4 includes a thorough
analysis of Project impacts and mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a range of
alternatives to the proposed Project as required by C1=QA and 2. discussion of each
alternative. Chapter 6 contains all other CEQA-mandated sections. Finally, Chapter 7
includes the names of the DEIR preparers, individuals and agencies contacted in the
preparation of this document and references. Appendices are ir.cluded as Chapter 8.
1.2 Summary of VrojecE Description
The Project Site is located in the central portion of the City of Dublin. More
specifically, the Site is located at 6700 Dougherty Load on the west side of Dougherty
Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard ,
and north of the intersection of 'Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, a regional
multi-use trail. Alamo Creek forms a portion of the western boundary of the Site,
which is a major creek in eastern Alameda County. The Site contains approximately
23.8 ages of land.
Existing resider t.ts c?the Site would be relocated to replacement housing sites 3.4.1
consistent with , state and Federal guidelines and reguiatio::ts and the existing 150
dwellings on the Site would be removed. The Project would thel consist of constructing
up to 378 new dwellings on the Site, as well as a community building, a day care center
and related improvements. The Project also includes upgrading of municipal services to
the Site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of DOlin.
The proposed Arroyo "Vista residential development would be a community of
approximately 378 units compriaed of 198 for sale units with 141 of these being attached
and 57 detached dwellings, Up to 14 of the "for sale" units will lie set-aside for below
market rate (moderate income level) purchase,
The remainder of the Project would include conslruc on of up to 130 income- 3.4.2
restricted family residential dwellings (witli a mix of , 3 and 4 bedroom units in a
combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-
bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment unit).
Proposed dwellings would include a mix of tyro- and three-story residential wood-
frame buildings. The senior apartments would be located in one three-story building
located near the center of the development, adjacent to the ehildcrare center. A small
courtyard will be constructed between the senior building wings,
A community building would be constructed near the public loon internal road. The
community building would be used in conjunction with the affordable housing
Project to serve the needs of those residents, The 3,200 square foc t building would
02/13/2009 RRI 13:58 [TX/RX NO 75821 IA002
02/13/2009 14:50 N0.529 P03
1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues
Based on the environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study for this Project (see
Appendix 8.1) and responses (see DEIR Appendices 8.2 and 83) to the Notice of
Preparation issued by the City of Dublin, the following topics are addressed in the DEM.
• Aesthetics and Light and Glare
+ Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazard and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Poppulation and Housing
+ PuElic Services
Transportation and Circulation
+ Utilities and Service Systems
1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigaflon Measurea
Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measu re (if required)
identified in this DEIR is summarized on Table I.I. The summary chart has been
organized to correspond with the more detailed impact and mitigation measure
discussion found in Chapter 4, Table 1.1 is arranged in three coIumns. The first column
identifies environmental impacts by topic area and level of impact(ioa. significant impact,
Iess-than-siMufi cant impact or no impact) prior to implementation of any mitigation
measures. The second column includes mitigation measures. The third and final column
identifies the level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures.
This chapter is a summary of the following DEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sec.
15123. For a complete description of the environmental setting, impa,.ts associated with
this proposed Project and mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DEIR.
1.8 Summary of Alternatives
The DEIR analyzes three alternatives, as follows.
Alternative 1:,,No Project," which assumes that existing public housing
dwellings on the Site would remain, but no additional dwellings would be
built, although maintenance, repair and upgrades would occur to ensure code
compliance.
Alternative 2: Redu d Project. The second alternative assumes that existing
buildings and rela d improvements would be demolished, exi.3t ing residents 3.4.3
relocated per state and federal relocation guidelines and regtiurements,
and the Site would be redeveloped with attached housing at a density-of 10
dwellings per acre. Dwellings under this Alternative would be,:lusiered in the
approximate center of the Site, leaving greater setbacks along Dougherty Road
and Alamo Creek. Existing Site driveways along Dougherty Road would
remain as they currently exist.
Arroyo Vista Project PA 07.028
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 3
City of Dublin January 20o9
02/13/2003 FBI 13:58 rTX/RX Nn 7r,.g91 MAA14
02/13/2009 14:50 N0.529 004
3.5 Project Characteristics
Overview. The proposed Project includes demolition of the exi sling 150 dwellings and
other structures on the Project Site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the
Site. The Project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the Site and approval
of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. Exhibit 3.4 shows the proposed Stage? &
Stage 2 Development Plan.
1
DeveI?pmn concepk The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a
community o pproximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141
attached and 5 - detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted fancily residential dwellings
(with a rnix of , 3,and 4 bedroom units in a combination of sta-:ked flat's and townhouses)
and 49 serdor income-restricted apartments (with 491-bedroom apartments and one 2-
bedroom manager unit which would not be income or age rest icted). Proposed
dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings.
This development would replace 150 units of public housing on Site. At the core of the
development;, the Village Center would include a Community Building with central
recreation space and a new Child Care Center. Additional sarehite recreational areas,
both passive and active, would be scattered throughout the proposed development.
Three types of housing are proposed: 49 Serdor apartments (includin 49 income-
restricted units and one manager unit), 130 income restricted family dwellings and 198
market rate dwellings, The unit breakdown is as follows:
Table 3.1. Proposed Dwelling Vnit Summary
I-lsns
TYPE Incarne-restricted
Famll Units Income-restricted
Senior Units Market Rate Total
Single Family
Unit Type 12 I-Urm Flats 491-133drm Flats
12Bdrm Flat
66 2-Bdrm Townhomes 141 Attached
36 3.8drm Townhomes 57 Detached
16 4-Bdrm Townhomes
Sub-tofal 130 Units 50 Units 198 Units 378 Units
Source: Project Applicants, 2007
Of the 198 for sale units, 14 units would be sold to buyers whose incomes are between 80
and 1207o of the area median income (below market rate), All of the other dwellings
proposed to be consLructed on the Site would be rental dwellings.
The affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at
or below 507o of the Area Median Income (AMMIL The Family units would be targeted to
occupancy by families with incomes betwee y_4 and 60% of A14.
A central loop roadway as shown on Exhibit 3. is proposed to l nk the various
community elements and create a unified devel ment. The affordable housing would
be located at the heart of the Site while the marke -rate units would be split into two
Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028
Craft gnvironmental Impact Report
City of Qul)lln
Page 11
January200
9
3.4.4
3.4.5
02/13/2009 FRI 13:58 rTX/RX NO 7r,g91 rAAAd
02/13/2009 14:50 N0.529 D05
Infrastructure. The existin Arroyo Vista development is presently served by water,
wastewater, drainage, solid waste, electrical, telecommunicab on and natural gas
facilities. Water service is presently provided from Zone 7 and, as part of the
proposed Project, potable and recycled water service would be provided by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). All other existing services would
continue to be provided to the Site, although portions of existng facilities may need
to be replaced or upgraded to service additional dwellings proposed for the Site.
Landscaping. Exhibit 3.5 depicts the proposed landscape plait for the Project.
Property disposition, The proposed Pro'ect includes disposition of the 23.8-acre Site
from the Dublin Housing Authority (DEC),
DI A) to the two Project Applicants (Eden
Housing and Citation Homes). This action would require approval by the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Dispositions Application to HUD on August
15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden .blousing, and Citation Homes
Central developer team. With HUD approval of the Disposition Application, the Project
would be removed from the public housing program and will no longer be subject to
the Annual Contribution Contract. Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex
would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocatior; plan which has been
e Dublin Housing Authority which is consistent withlpej
State and 3.4.6
lFederal relocation guidelines and regulations.
Requested enfitleme As described above, a number of lane use entitlements and
approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of
this Project. These are described in more detail below.
Qeneral Plan Amendment. The Dublin General Plan present? designates the Arroyo
Vista Site as Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development
between 6.1 and 14.0 dwellings per acre. The proposed Project includes a density of
approximately 16 dwellings per acre, which would not be consistent with the
current residential density range. Therefore, the Applicants have requested an
amendment to the General Plan to re-designate the Project!' 3ite as Medium/High
Density Residential. Thus designation allows residential development between the
ranges of 14.1 and 25 dwellings. per acre. If approved, the requested General flan
land use' designation would allow the density proposed as part of the Arroyo Vista
Project. The General Plan Arimendment also includes a request to designate 0.3 acres
of die. Site as Public/Semi-Public consistent with the City s Semi Public Facilities
Policy. A General Plan amendment is also requested to change the text of the hand
Use Element allow attached and detached units in the Medium /High Density
Residential land use designation. Currently, the Element does not allow detached
dwelling unit types.
The Amendment requires a public hearing by the Dublin Manning Commission to
review the application and forward a recommendation to the Dublin City Council.
The City Council must then hold a public hearing on the application prior to malting
a decision.
Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 13
Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009
City of Dublin
02/13/2009 FRI 13:58 rrxiRU tan 70;A7, M66r
02/13/2009 14:50 NO.529 006
The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by ensuring that appropriate construction methods and materials are
used to be consistent writh City and State interior noise levels.
MiitigaVon Measure 4.8-5 (interior not§e level Impacts); Final building plans shall
be accompanied by a report from a qualified acoustical consultant indicating that
the Project will include appropriate construction techniques Io reduce interior
noise levels to a maximum of 45 dBA Ldn. This shall include but is not limited to
proper wall construction techniques, installation of appropriate insulation, the
selections of pro?per windows and doors, and the incorporation of forced-air
mechanical ventilation systems, Residences located adjacent to Dougherty Road
shall also be equipped with a :full heating and air-conditionir.g system because it
is unlikely residents would open their windows for ventilation.
4,9 POPULATION AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This section addresses the displacement of existing dwelling units and residents on the
Project Site,
ENVIRONMENTAL SEMNG
The Project Site is occupied by 150 lauu*weme detached single-family dwellings owned 3.4.7
by the Dublin Housing Authority. I.
' eL' c
The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition ApplimtIon to Flld? on August
15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq, propot ng di osition of the
Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer to . The Dublin
Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan pursuant to h state and federal
guidelines. The plan provides for relocation benefits that meet or exceed the
requirements of applicable law, include counseling and advisory services, help
with packing for disabled and sf:nior dente if requested, security deposits, credit
check fees, comparable replacement housin of a Section 8 vouch
ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a 150-day no ce to move but only if
HUD approves the disposition application). The relocation ppIan demonstrates that there
are adequate available housing resources for the displaced households and that the
DHA will provide advisory assistance and relocation benefits necessary to ensure that
all households are adequately housed at the time of displacement.
Regulatory framework. Federal regulation Section 24 CPR 970.21 requires the Dublin
Housing Authority to offer each digplaced household comparable replacement housing,
to provide a minimum of 90 days advance notification of the displacement date, to pay
reasonable relocation expenses and offer of relocation advisory services.
The State of California has also adopted Guidelines for the payment of relocation
benefits to displaced households (25 Cal Code Regs, 6000 et, seq.),
Arroyo Vista Project PA 07.028 page 80
Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2008
City of Mblin
02/13/2009 FRI 13'52 rTX/nV Mn 7F401 Mnno
02/13/2009 14:50 N0.529 P07
Standards of significance, A population and housing impact would be considered
significant if a proposed project would displace a substantial number of dwelling units
or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3.4.8
ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACTS
The proposed Project would result in a t4w loss in th ? number of public housing
units by the demolition of the existing 150 wellings on the Site, resulting in the
displacement of an estimated 441 residents, based on an average dwelling unit (a-??F
occu ancy of 3.0 persons per dwelling (source: Arroyo'V'iste, Relocation Plan, January &dc-y
2008 The Project Site would be redeveloped with up to 37$ dwelling units, 180 of lJ
which would be income-restricted, affordable rental units. The Project would increase"
the number of affordable units on the Site as compared to the existing number of units
on the Site and would include a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom units.
The combination of income-restricted, affordable rental unit:; is as follows:
Table 4.9-1. Proposed Income-Restricted Rental Units
nit Type Na, urrent Percentage No, Proposed
Percentage Net Dif-
0Wts T r.,: .o
Senior uni
of Dublin Community C?evelopment Department, 2008
An additional 14 for-sale unit's would be reserved for moderate income households,
As shown in the above table, the number of four-bedroom un: is is projected to decrease
from the current 24 units to 1C - liowever, an analysis of the Dublin Housing Authority's
occupancy data indicated that as of April 2007, many of the households occupying four-
bedroom units did not have sufficiently sized households to warrant occupaf a
four-bedroom unit. In other words, they were "over housed." In fact, 16 of the famihe,?
occupying the 24 four-bedroom units were in the "over-house 3" category in April 2007.
The proposal calls for the development to include.16 four-bedroom units, which seems
to be ample for the households at Arroyo Vista that actually qualify for such urdts. The
number of two-bedroom units would decrease from 78 in the current Project to 66 in the
new development; the number of three-bedroom units would :,ncrease from 32 units to
36 tutus. Thus, the number of two, three and four-bedroom un is - units which are
appropriate for families with children -- would decrease only sightly, from 134 units to
118, while the total number of affordable rental units would in=rease from 150 to 180.
Bach of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with extremely. low
incomes, would be provided with relocation assistance and would have the right to
return to the Project, provided their income are not higher tha a the Project's maximum
affordability levels. r, -
ax 4-A- t4O?
Arroyo vista Project PA 07-028
Draft Environmental Impaot Report
City of Dublin
101?
Page 91
January 2009
3.4.9
02/13/2009 FR E 13:58 rTX/RX Nn 7RR9 1 ra, nn7
02/13/2009 14:50
N0.529 D08
Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to increase both 3.4.10
the number and affordability level of the units on the prope;-ty. The current units, while
operating as ppublic housing units, are available to residents with incomes at or below
¢(9-' 807o of Area Median Income (AIYII). The 49 senior units will be available only to
households with incomes at or below 50 of AMI. lkkErta-
restrict e o varying income eve s, none of wcTi IIlf ex ee 070 of Alvf, Thus, ail of
the affordable rental units will be income-restricted at levels, lower than they are
currently, including some for those with extremely low income. The proposal is
intended to create a mixed-income community that more than replaces the number of
low-income units being removed, in compliance With several policies contained in
Dublin's Housing Element.
The Dublin Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for
existing residents, as required by applicable?Feder I r ,
Xa.
Relocation efforts, as documented in the Reloc?atio l L
an include an outreach
program
for residents and convening several resident meetings o
,desc? be the proposed
redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project Site, Relocation
specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and would continue to
provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for comparable housing
opportunities in the Dublin area and referrals re arding
service agencies, as needed Relocation payments have been provided to residents and
will continue to be provide in accordance with California Guidelines and federal
requirements.
In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelin/be ??? being
displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project ha n snd ?vould
continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dubli and in the general
Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation as required by law.
Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for sale and for rent dwelling
units in the City will increase, providing additional housing opportunities for low
income households in the City. The Project would not permanently reduce the
inventory of affordable housing and would increase the net number of affordable
dwellings by up to 30 rental anti fourteen "for sale" dwellings; therefore any impacts
related to displacement of dwelling units and people from the Site would be less-than-
Higndficant.
ttoyo sta Project PA 07-028
Dmit 1;nvironmental Impact Report Page 82
' Ully of Dublin January 2009
3.4.11 •
3.4.12
3.4.13
02/13/2009 FRI 13;58 [TX/RX NO 7592) la 008
The Public ''Interest Law Proiect
The Public Interest Law Project and Phone (510) 891-9794
California Affordable Housin ) Law Project f=ax (510) 8919727
449 -16th Street, Suite 301 www.pllpca.org
Oakland, CA 94612
March 23, 2009
Michael Rawson
Co-Director Via Hand Delivery
Extension 145
mrawson@pllpca.org
City of Dublin
Stephen Ronfoldt Community Development Department
Co-Director
Extension 127
100 Civic Plaza
sronfeldl@pilpca.org Dublin, CA 94568 Letter 3.5
Deborah Collins
Managing Attorney
Attention: Erica Fraser, Project Planner
Extension 156
dcollins@plipca.org
Re: Comments on Draft EIR
Craig Caslellanet Arroyo Vista EIR SCH #2007122066
Staff Attorney
Extension 132
ccastellanet@pilpca.org
Dear Ms Fraser:
Angio Schwartz
StaffAttomey
Extension 125
aschwartz@pilpca.org
Bay Area Legal Aid and The Public Interest Law Project si:bmit these comments
on the Arroyo Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on behalf of
Jud
ith Gold
our clients
the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association
Rhenae Keyes
Andres Arro
o
Staff ey
Extens otno111
,
,
,
y
,
Darlene Brown and Elise: Veal pursuant to the City's Notico of Availability of
!gold@pllpca.org Draft EIR dated January 28, 2009.
Elizabeth Grabsr
LegafAssistant
The City's Preparation of the Draft EIR for the Arroyo Vista Project Is
Extension 110
egraber@pilpca.org Untimely.
Georgie Feltz The Draft EIR is too late in the development process to rea,.onably guide the City
Administrator
Extension 101 Council's decision with respect to the environmental impacts of the "proposed"
gfeliz(oa plipca.org project, In fact, the City Council improperly committed itself to the
redevelopment of Arroyo Vista long before evaluating the environmental effects
of the project.
3.5.1
As acknowledged in the Draft EIR, the purpose of an EIR h: to inform and guide
the lead agency's review of the potential environmental effects of a proposed
development project, so that the agency can fulfill its responsibility to avoid or
minimize the environmental impacts of a proposed project through appropriate
mitigation measures or alternatives. See, Draft EIR at 2.0, 2 3, The lead agency
cannot take any action that significantly furthers a project it a manner that
forecloses the very alternatives or mitigation measures suggested by CEQA
review. See Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.; 14 Cal, Code Regs.
15004(b)(2)(B); see also Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 45 Cal.4tt' 116,
130-31 (2008). RECEIVED
MAR 2 3 2009
DUBLIN PLANNING
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 2
March 23, 2009
Here, the Draft EIR acknowledges that at least 441 Arroyo Vista residents "would be"
displaced and 150 income-restricted units demolished pursuant to the proposed project. 3.5.2
See Draft EIR at §§1.2, 3.5, 4.9. The Draft EIR further sets forth three purported
alternatives to thie proposed project:
• Alternative 1 calls for no project such that the existing public housing units would
remain and there would be no displacement of the respective residents from the
Site. Id, at §§1.5, 5.1.
• Alternative 2 suggests a reduced project, calling for demolition of all existing
units, relocation of all residents, and redevelopment at a lower density resulting in
fewer units. Id. at § § 1. 5, 5.2.
• Alternative 3 calls for a mixed use project using a portion )f the site for
commercial development and the remainder of the site for 188 attached dwelling
units restricted for low and very low income households. .Id. at §§1.5, 5.3.
As a practical matter, the City Council cannot reasonably consider these alternatives, and
particularly not Alternative 1, because it has already taken a series of significant steps to
commit itself to the proposed project, including:
In July 2007, it entered into a disposition and development agreement (J--)DA)
with the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA), Alameda County Housing Authority
(HACA), Citation Homes, and Eden Housing to carry out the same project that
is proposed here [demolition of all public housing units, relocation of all existing
residents, and redevelopment of as a mixed income development of
approximately 378 dwelling units].
As part of its disposition and development agreement, the City Council agreed to
contribute $1.5 million for relocation costs and to disburs,; those funds
incrementally as costs are incurred. Without any environmental review, in
March 2007, a relocation consultant was hired; beginning in or about July 2007,
DHA and HACA began relocating residents; by August '4.007, at least 12
households had been relocated and by June 2008, approximately 60 households
had been relocated. See DDA; Contract with Overland PE cific & Cutler; and
DHA Relocation Plan. Thus, the City already committed and incurred
significant costs in support of the "proposed" project.
• As Arroyo Vista residents have been relocated, their vacant homes have been
boarded up, resulting in a "de facto" demolition of nearly half of the public
housing units at Arroyo Vista without any environmental :-eview of the
environmental impact.
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 3
March 23, 2009
In August 2007, DHA submitted an application for disposition of Arroyo Vista
to HUD which proposes the same project called for in the DDA. The
Application includes a letter of support of the proposed project from the City.
• As part of its disposition and development agreement, the City Council made a
$1.5 million "construction" loan commitment to Eden Housing.
• Although Eden Housing was to pay for predevelopment ?.osts of the project,
according to the DDA, in December 2007, the City Cour..cil approved a
"predevelopment" loan of $325,000 to Eden Housing.
Thus, the City's preparation and circulation of a Draft EIR at this late date offers little
more than a "post hoc [rationalization] to support action" the City has "already taken."
See Save Tina v. City of West fl'ollywood, 45 Cal,4`h 116,129-30,'2008) [citation
omitted]. It effectively approved the proposed project without any environmental review
in violation of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.
The City cannot shield itself from its failure to comply with CEQA procedures by 3.5.3
claiming that its DDA is "conditioned" on approval of DNA's application for disposition
to HUD and/or completion of the environmental review mandated under CEQA. The
court will look beyond the `terms' of the purported `conditional' DDA to examine the
record. Where the record reflects that the City or its staff committed significant resources
to shaping the proposed project and/or foreclosed any meaningful options to going
forward with the project, then for purposes of CEQA, the City will be deemed to have
approved the project. Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, supra. Relocating nearly
half of the families at Arroyo Vista in advance of any environmerr:al review and
expending City funds in support of the project effectively precludes any meaningful
consideration of the alternatives outlined in the Draft EIR.
Indeed, by carrying out the "proposed" project prematurely, the City has foreclosed not
only the alternatives outlined in the Draft EIR, but its ability to comply with any
conditions that may be imposed by HUD.
The Conclusion That There 'Would Be a Less Than Significant Impact With Respect 3.5.4
to Population and Housing Is Not Supported by Substantial E,idence.
The EIR must provide adequate; information to local officials, go vernment agencies and
members of the public in order to disclose the environmental impacts and propose the
mitigation measures and alternatives that will avoid or minimize those impacts. Here, the
Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would result in a "less than significant"
impact with respect to population and housing, See Draft EIR at §4.9. However, this
conclusion and the "facts" upon which it is based are not supported by substantial
evidence. See Public Resources Code §21168.5.
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 4
March 23, 2009
The Draft EIR acknowledges that there would be a significart impact if the proposed
project would displace a substantial number of dwelling units ar people necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Draft EIR §4.5,. It concludes, however,
that the impact of displacing approximately 441 persons and the demolition of 150 homes
that are predominately affordable to extremely low income, families is "less-than-
significant." Id. This conclusion is premised on the false notion that removal of the
public housing units is only temporary; residents "would be" relocated pursuant to local,
state and federal law; and any residents with incomes that are less than the maximum
affordability levels will have a "right to return."
"Temporary" Removal of Units. There is no evidence in the record that the units to be
demolished will, in fact, be rebuilt. In fact, the DDA calls for the non-profit developer
to apply for Section 202 Capital Grant, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and/or other
public funds in order to produce rental units that would be affordable to households with
incomes up to 60% of AMI. See DDA, Ex. B (Financing Plan/Development Budget).
Moreover, development of any rental units at these affordability levels is expressly
dependent on the availability of sufficient funding. See DDA §2.3, 2.4.
Further, neither DHA's Application nor the DDA even project a construction start date
for the purportedly affordable senior and family units. See Application §5; DDA, Ex. E.
Sufficient funding for the affordable rental units is not likely to be available in the near
future. As the recent stimulus package recognizes, the tax credi-: program suffers from a
lack of investors willing to purchase tax credits. Even projects that were already awarded
tax credits have stalled as a result. Second, the stimulus package targets HOME funds to
assist those stalled projects, not new ones. And, Section 202 funding has suffered from
inadequate funding for years, rendering receipt of such funds highly competitive.
Thus, there is no guarantee that demolition of 150 public housing units is only
"temporary" and no guarantee that any affordable rental units wi:l ever "replace" the ISO
public housing units to be demolished.
"Affordability" of Units. Second, the proposed project will not produce units that are
affordable to a majority of Arroyo Vista residents, rendering any purported "right of
return" misleading at best. Even assuming that the non-profit developer actually secures
sufficient funds to produce "affordable" rental units, the project,;d tax credit rent levels
would be out of reach for most Arroyo Vista families. The Draft EIR implies that current
residents have incomes up to 80% of the AMI. In fact, as of September 2007, DHA
reported that 65% of Arroyo Vista households have extremely low incomes (at or below
30% of AMI)1; 24% have very low incomes (at or below 50% of AMI); and 31% percent
In fact, 69% of the households have incomes below $25,000 which is belofv eAremely low income for a
household of four; the average annual income at Arroyo Vista is only $21,101. Resident Characteristics
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 7
March 23, 2009
years, See Resident Characteristics Report, September 2007. In short, Arroyo Vista has
long enjoyed a stable, law-abiding, ethnically and racially diverso community of families
with children, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Subjecting applicants for the
redeveloped units to arbitrary and subjective standards may well result in fair housing
violations. As long as its current and prior residents are or were tenants in good standing
during their Arroyo Vista tenancies (i.e., they were not terminated for cause pursuant to
the terms of their rental agreements) and "waiting list" applicants would be eligible for a
public housing unit but for disposition of Arroyo. Vista, they need only meet the
eligibility criteria applicable to any state and/or federal funding; source that is used in
developing the units for which they apply.
Relocation of Residents. The Draft E1R states that all residents to be displaced "would
be" relocated pursuant to local, state and federal law. In fact, at Icast 60 households were
relocated already, and most of them were relocated without any relocation plan or the
opportunity to comment on one before they were relocated. Thus, it is misleading for the
Draft EIR to imply that all residents "would" receive all relocation required by local,
state and federal law. That has already not occurred. Moreover, our clients have
challenged the validity of the relocation plan under state and fbderal law and DHA's
failure to comply with its own relocation plan or state or fede:-al law with respect to
relocation assistance and benefits. See Bay Legal/PILP Comment:3 to Relocation Plan.
For the above reasons, the EIR should be rejected and the DDA re.,cinded.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. and request that our
comments be included in the record. We would appreciate a written response and notice
of any public hearing on the Draft EIR.
Very truly yours,
The Public Interest Law Project
Bay Area Legal Aid
c
BY: ALM
Deborah Collins
Attorneys for Arroyo Vista. Tenants Association, et al.
J"
x
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 9
City of Dublin April 2009
Letter 1.1: Department of 'Transportation
• Comment 1.1: The commenter asks about the basis of existing site traffic as
documented in Table 4.11-2. Also, how are the AM and PM peak hour totals
calculated?
Response: The existing site traffic is based on actual driveway counts. The a.m.
and p.m. totals were calculated by adding the in and out traffic counts for the
four existing driveways that provide access to the project site. See the
spreadsheet contained in Appendix C of the Arro,, o Vista Traffic Report
prepared by TJKM, and included in Appendix 8.7 of the DEIR. The spreadsheet
shows detailed calculation for the trip generation analysis and the count data for
the four driveways.
Letter 2.1: Alameda County Fire Department
• Comment 2.1.1: The commenter requests that page 93 of the DEIR, Fire Services,
first paragraph, be modified to note that Fire Station 16 at 7494 Donohue is
located a distance of 1.3 miles from the Project site.
Response: Comment noted. The requested change is made by reference in the
Changes and Modification section of this FEIR.
Letter 2.2: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Comment 2.2.1: The commenter makes several points with respect to the DEIR,
including that the Project site is located within the DSRSD water service area and
DSRSD intends to provide future water service to the proposed Project if
approved by LAFCO, the site is within the sanitary sewer area of DSRSD, the site
is within the recycled water service area of DSRSD, that there would be an
increase in the amount of water needed to serve the proposed Project, there
would be an increase in the amount of sewer treatment service as a result of the
proposed Project and that recycled water would be available to serve the
proposed Project. Recycled water will help in lessening the amount of potable
water needed to serve the increased number of dwellings on the site.
Response: This comment is noted and no further discussion is required.
• Comment 2.2.2: The commenter notes that planning and construction should be
coordinated with DSRSD to ensure that such activities do not conflict with
existing DSRSD facilities and installation of new utilities are completed in
conformance with applicable DSRSD master plans and other standard
procedures.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 10
City of Dublin April 2009
Response: This comment is noted. Page 14 of the DEIR notes that follow-on
approvals will be required by DSRSD for water and wastewater connections. As
conditions of issuing such approvals, the District may require that Project
construction does not conflict with existing DSRSID facilities and that all future
utility improvements are installed in a manner consistent with DSRSD master
plans, procedures, specifications, drawings and all other applicable
requirements.
Letter 2.3: Alameda County Public Works Agency
Comment 2.3.1: The commenter notes that runoff from the Project site ultimately
drains into the Alameda Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This
facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The
commenter is concerned that increased runoff from the site could impact flow
capacity and increase the rate of erosion within lo=af watercourses. This could
result in localized damage and deposit silt in the Federal Project. The commenter
states that there should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from
the project site that would adversely impact downstream drainage facilities.
Response: The City of Dublin notes that the Arroyo Vista DEIR adequately
discloses construction and post construction drainage, hydrology, siltation and
related impacts to downstream drainage facilities. Specifically, Impact 4.7-1 notes
that soil erosion and siltation from the site could increase due to increases in the
amount of graded material and other material being eroded from the site, thus
impacting both City and Alameda County Flood Control facilities. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level
by requiring, first, that Project developer(s) prepare Erosion Control Plans to
reduce the amount of erosion leaving the site and` secondly, that Project
developer(s) prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans that conform to
Alameda County Clean Water Program and Regional Water Quality Control
Board requirements. Project developer(s) will be required to install Best
Management Practices into the proposed Project, including but not limited to
grassy swales/biofilters, covering of solid waste dumpsters and similar features.
Also, Impact 4.7-2 states that approval and constrt.ction of the proposed Project
would increase the rate, amount and direction of downstream drainage, possibly
resulting in localized flooding. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. This measure requires
the Project developer(s) to prepare a drainage and hydrology plan to show that
adequate on-site and downstream drainage facilities will accommodate any
increased stormwater runoff from the Project.
Therefore, based on the above and the discussion of the full impacts and
mitigation measures included in the DEIR, impacts related to drainage,
hydrology and erosion will be less-than-significant: after compliance with
identified mitigation measures.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 11
City of Dublin April 2009
Comment 2.3.2: The commenter states that the applicant should provide
measures to prevent discharge of contaminated materials into public drainage
facilities. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all water quality
standards and regulations.
Response: As identified in Response 2.3.1, Project developer(s) will be required to
prepare both Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans
for approval by the Dublin Public Works Department. Both plans are to be
prepared in accordance with the Alameda Count, Clean Water Program and
Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements to ensure that all applicable
federal, state and local water quality standards and regulations will be met.
Implementation of these plans will prevent flow of contaminated materials into
public drainage facilities, thereby reducing water quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Letter 2.4: Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and 'Water Conservation District
Comment 2.4.1: The commenter notes that Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 on page 80
of the DEIR requires preparation of a drainage and hydrology study using Zone
7, Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin drainage criteria.
The last sentence of the Mitigation Measure indicz.tes that the drainage and
hydrology plan is to be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department. The
commenter asks that the drainage and hydrology plan should be approved by
Zone 7.
Response: Based on the commenters request, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 is hereby
modified to read as follows:
and drainage system capacity): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a
drainage and hydrology plan using RegioniA Water Quality Control
Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria wldch shall indicate that
adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional drainage
facilities to accommodate the direction, rate and amount of increased
stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(:3) shall upgrade undersized
drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding would occur and
b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project
drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the
Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 and all recommendations
for drainage improvements shall be incorpcrated into Project
improvement plans."
Comment 2.4.2: The commenter notes that under Dublin City Council Resolution
NO. 53-93, each project area is required to provide a Storm Drainage Master
Plan. Please confirm if the drainage and hydrology plan included as a mitigation
measure in the DEIR is the same as the Storm Drain Master Plan that is required
by the Eastern Dublin EIR. If not, Zone 7 should hz.ve the opportunity to review
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 12
City of Dublin April 2009
and comment on the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to the drainage and
hydrology plan.
Response: Dublin City Council Resolution No. 53-93 approved the Eastern Dublin
project with mitigation measures; however, the Arroyo Vista site is not located
within the Eastern Dublin planning area. Therefore the requirement to prepare a
Storm Drainage Master Plan does not apply to this Project. Instead, the
developer(s) of the Arroyo Vista Project will be required to prepare the drainage
and hydrology plan as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. As identified in the
Response to Comment 2.5.1, Mitigation Measure 4_.7-2 has been modified in this
Final EIR to add Zone 7 as an approval authority :for the required drainage and
hydrology plan.
Letter 2.5: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)
Comment 2.5.1: The commenter states that the ACCMA does not have a standard
of significance for roadway levels of service as applied to the Land Use Analysis
Program. References to ACCMA level of service should be deleted The ACCMA
expects that professional judgment will be used tc determine project impacts.
Also, even if a roadway is operating at LOS F, feasible mitigation is not
precluded.
Response: Based on past practice in City of Dublin EIRs and the traffic
engineer's professional judgment, the DEIR and traffic analysis identified the
LOS E threshold based on ACCMA monitoring standards. Page 100 of the
DEIR, the second sentence of the first run-on paragraph of text and related
references in Appendix 8.7 are modified as follows:
The threshold for Alameda County Congestion. Management Agency
facilities is based on the ACCMA monitoring standards and is established
at LOS E.
The City agrees that feasible mitigation is not precluded for roadways
operating at LOS F. The DEIR considered mitigation possibilities for every
significant impact, including roadways projected to operate at LOS F or
otherwise unacceptably. Impacts 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, for example, identify the
improvements needed to reduce the impacts but aj so note why those
improvements would be infeasible for the project. [n this case, the
improvements are included in the City's CIP and FDTIF projects, so the
impact will ultimately be mitigated. In another example, Impact 4.11-5
identifies feasible mitigation but explains that the rnitigation will not
sufficiently reduce the impact and explains why no further mitigation is
feasible. Impact 4.11-6 also explains why no mitigation is feasible to reduce
the significant impact. Thus, the DEIR analysis already reflects the
commenter's suggeslion.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 13
City of Dublin April 2009
• Comment 2.5.2: The commenter notes that the DEIR does not include any
demand-related strategies. As identified in the response to the NOP such
mechanisms include encouragement of ridesharing, transit, bicycling and other
means of reducing peak hour trips. Use of these strategies could reduce existing
congestion where impacts have been deemed significant and unavoidable.
Response: The project design recognizes the infill nature of the site by increasing
density and taking advantage of bicycle, pedestrian and transit opportunities.
The DEIR includes the following demand-related items. As described in the
"Transit System Impacts" section of the traffic report, the proposed Project is
consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan and would preserve the existing
alignment of the Alamo Creek Trail (ACT), which would form the western
boundary of the project site. The ACT is connected to Amador Valley Boulevard.
Bicyclists can access BART and downtown areas via Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dougherty Road. A detailed description of "On site Bus Circulation
Options" is also presented under the "Transit Sys-:em Impacts" section of the
traffic report. With the recommended bus circulation option, residents would
have access to LAVTA-Wheels buses for commuting to work.
• Comment 2.5.3: The commenter states that a lesser roadway capacity than 2,000
vehicles per lane per hour should be used in the impact analysis for State Route
84 compared to I-580 and I-680 due to different characteristics of this roadway.
SR 84 has different characteristics than the two interstate facilities also analyzed.
Specifically, this analysis affects DEIR Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10.
Response: The segment of SR 84 south of I-580 was analyzed in the Draft EIR as a
multilane highway with two lanes in each direction and a maximum service flow
rate of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. Upon review of the comment and the
characteristics of SR 84, e.g., traffic signal spacing, driveway access spacing,
roadside development, parking conditions, etc., the City agrees that a more
appropriate analysis would be based on a lesser capacity. For the purpose of
preparing this response, therefore, the traffic consultant has re-analyzed the
roadway segment as an arterial with a capacity of 1,000 veh./hr./lane rather
than as a multilane highway. The results of that analysis are shown in attached
revised Tables X and XI (see attachment 1 of this document). These revisions also
apply to DEIR Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10, both of which contain the same
information as revised Tables X and IX.
Using the lesser roadway capacity, the future cumulative roadway levels of
service are LOS E and F. This would be a significant cumulative impact to the
extent of LOS F operations. However, the revised analysis for SR 84 shows that
Project vehicles would have no measurable contribution to the cumulative
conditions. As the revised tables show, the LOS and the v/c ratio would be the
same under cumulative conditions with and without the Project for both 2015
and 2030. This conclusion reflects the fact that the Project simply does not
generate many peak hour trips due to its residenti?d nature. The Project site is
also distant from SR 84, which is east of the site and must be accessed by using I-
580; there are other routes more direct and convent ent to key destinations than
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 14
City of Dublin April 2009
an SR 84 route. Based on the revised analysis, the Project's contribution to 2015
and 2030 cumulative conditions on the SR 84 segment is not cumulatively
considerable and there is would be significant cumulative impact of the Project.
Letter 3.1: Bob and Sofia Brander
• Comment 3.1.1: The commenter notes that all or almost all recent housing built in
Dublin have been high density projects. Traffic and congestion have increased
significantly in the past five years. The commenter is concerned that the
proposed Project will place additional strain on City streets when budgets are
tight.
Response: This comment is noted. Section 4.11 of the DEIR contains a
comprehensive analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed Project. Although
construction of the proposed Project would increase traffic on local roadways, in
most instances, traffic impacts can be mitigated (reduced) to a less-than-
significant level. Significant and unavoidable im acts would be created,
however, at the intersection of Dougherty Road filmador Valley Boulevard
which is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable level during the AM and PM
peak hours (see Impact 4.11-2). Also, the proposed Project would make traffic
worse at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and the I-580 westbound offramp
during the AM peak: hour (see Impact 4.11-3) and the DEIR identified a
significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impact in the PM peak hour at the
Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection (See Impact 4.11-6).
Comment 3.1.2: The commenters note that the only east-west streets in the City,
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, cannot be widened.
Additional high-density housing will place additional strain on these streets.
Also, Dougherty Road has seen significant traffic level increases. The housing
project will further increase traffic congestion on Dougherty, especially during
commute hours.
Response: Comments regarding the local street network and the project's
contribution to. future traffic congestion are noted. As stated in the response to
Comment 3.1.1, traffic impacts of the proposed Project have been fully analyzed
in Section 4.11 of the DEIR. Since the proposed Project is located along
Dougherty Road near both Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, the
traffic impact analysis in the DEIR focused particularly on these major roadways,
• Comment 3.1.3: The commenters state that Dublin is a small City and cannot take
any more high-density housing. The City is asked not to approve this project.
Response: This comment is noted and no response is required since it is not a
comment on an environmental topic. However, this opinion will be considered
by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on
this Project.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 15
City of Dublin April 2009
Letter 3.2: Cheryl Weir
• Comment 3.2.1: The commenter noted she lives near the Project site and has
some serious reservations about letting it go forward as planned.
Response: This comment is noted and no response is required since it is not a
comment on an environmental topic. However, tfds opinion will be considered
by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on
this Project.
• Comment 3.2.2: Dublin is overbuilt for new housing, real estate prices are low
and the market will not recover in the near future. Yet adding another high-
density development now will leave additional units empty for a long period of
time. This does not seem to be in the City's best interest and will further depress
the real estate market longer than necessary with an oversupply of empty units.
Response: Similar to the response to the above comment, this comment is not
related to a topic addressed in the DEIR pursuant to CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines; therefore no response is required. However, the commenter's
opinion will be considered by the Dublin Planning; Commission and City Council
during public hearings on this Project.
• Comment 3.2.3: The commenter notes that the applicants are seeking to find
profit in this economy, but the proposed Project may not be in Dublin's best
interest.
Response: Refer to the Response to Comment 3.2.2. The City does note, however,
that Eden Housing, one of the two Project applicants, is a non-profit housing
developer.
Letter 3.3: Chris Gouig, Alameda County Housing Authority
• Comment 3.3.1: The commenter notes that the second sentence in second to last
paragraph on page 11 should read: "The Family units would be targeted to
occupancy by families with incomes beiRve-e-r a0-oi aR4 at or below 6017o of the
AM."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Letter 3.4: Chris Gouig, Alameda County Housing Authority
• Comment 3.4.1: The commenter requests that the second line of the second
paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) be modified as
follows "Existing residents on the Site would be relocated to replacement
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 16
City of Dublin April 2009
housing sites consistent with applicable lee-4, state and Federal guidelines and
regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site would be removed."
Response: This comment is noted and included in he Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Comment 3.4.2: The commenter requests that the first line of the third paragraph
of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) be modified as follows: "The
remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income-
restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units
in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses; and 50 senior apartments
(with 491-bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager
apartment unit)."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Comment 3.4.3: The commenter requests that the discussion of Alternative 2 the
bottom of page 3 in Section 1.5 be modified as follows: "Alternative 2: Reduced
Project. The second alternative assumes that existing buildings and related
improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per applicable
, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site
would be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per
acre."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Comment 3.4.4: The commenter requests that the fourth line of the second
paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) be modified as follows: "The
Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a community of
approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141 attached
and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings
(with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and
townhouses) and 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491-bedroom
apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit which would not be income or age
restricted)."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Comment 3.4.5: The commenter requests that the third line of the fourth
paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) be modified as follows: "The
affordable Senior units would be targeted to occuF ancy by seniors with incomes
at or below 5070 of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Family units would be
targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between 20 o and 607o of
AM."
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 17
City of Dublin April 2009
Response: This comment is superceded by Comment 3.3.1, above and it's related
response.
Comment 3.4.6: The commenter requests that the third paragraph of Section 3.5
(Pro''ect Characteristics), page 13, be modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing
Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August 15, 2007,
proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes
Central developer team. With HUD approval of the Disposition Application, the
Project would be removed from the public housing program and will no longer
be subject to the Annual Contribution Contract. Existing residents of the Arroyo
Vista complex would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocation
plan which has bee?1 n„?.. r,;e-' ' improved by the Dublin Housing Authority
which is consistent with applicable , State and Federal relocation guidelines
and regulations."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.7: The commenter requests that the ;second and third paragraphs
of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 80, be modified as follows: "
"The Project Site is occupied by 150lew i„eem^ aablic housipZ detached single-
family dwellings owned by the Dublin Housing Authority.
The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on
August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq. proposing
disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central
developer team. ThE! Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan
pursuant to a licable leeg, state and federal guidelines. The plan provides for
relocation benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of applicable law. These
Benefits include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for
disabled and senior residents if requested, security deposits, credit check fees,
comparable replacement housing in the form of a ;section 8 voucher or, if
ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a'150-day notice to move (but
only if HUD approves the disposition application). The relocation plan
demonstrates that there are adequate available housing resources for the
displaced households and that the DHA will provide advisory assistance and
relocation benefits necessary to ensure that all households are adequately
housed at the time of displacement."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.8: The commenter notes that the proposed Project would not result
in a temporary loss of public housing units, as stated on page 91 of the EIR, in
the first line of the first paragraph of the Environmental Impacts section. The
commenter states that the applicant is not rebuilding any public housing units
on the site.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 18
City of Dublin April 2009
Response: This comment is noted. The intent of the sentence is that existing
residents of the Arroyo Vista Housing Project wilt. be relocated, after all
necessary Project approvals are obtained, to suitable alternative housing as
required by the Relocation Plan. Existing residents would not simply be
displaced onto the open real estate market. As further discussed in the DEIR,
removal of existing residents from the complex would not be a significant
displacement impact.
Comment 3.4.9: ThE? commenter requests that the last paragraph of Section 3.9
(Population and Housing), page 91, be modified as follows: "Each of the current
residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with extremely low incomes, would
be provided with relocation assistance and would have the right to return to the
Project, provided their incomes at the time of rehouses are not higher than the
Project's maximum affordability levels."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.10: The commenter requests that the first paragraph of Section 3.9
(Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows:
"Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to
increase both the number and affordability level of the units on the property.
The current units, while operating as public housi:ag units, are available to
residents with incomes at or below 807o of Area Median Income (AMI). The 49
senior units will be available only to households with incomes at or below 507o
of AMI. rc +t,,, s44„1 ur 1P PAL OV . ,;»
(.,,,lew e'19 of A N44). The family rental units will be restricted to
varying income levels, none of which will exceed 607o of AXE. Thus, all of the
affordable rental units will be income-restricted at levels lower than they are
currently, including some for those with extremely low income. The proposal is
intended to create a mixed-income community that more than replaces the
number of low-income units being removed, in compliance with several policies
contained in Dublin's Housing Element.
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.11: The commenter requests that the second paragraph of Section
3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows: "The Dublin
Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for existing
residents, as required by applicable state and Federal guidelines."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 19
City of Dublin April 2009
• Comment 3.4.12: The commenter requests that the third paragraph of Section
3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows:
"Relocation efforts, as documented in the Relocation Plan, include an outreach
program for residents and convening several res:?dent meetings to describe the
proposed redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project
Site. Relocation specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and
would continue to provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for
comparable housing opportunities in the Dublin and Tri-Valley area and
referrals regarding governmental and social service agencies, as needed.
Relocation payments have been provided to residents and will continue to be
provided in accordance with California Guidelines and federal requirements."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.13: The commenter requests that the fourth paragraph of Section
3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows:
"In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households
being displaced as a result of implementing the Proposed Project have been and
would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the
general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation payments
assistance as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of
affordable for sale and for rent dwelling units in -he City will increase,
providing additional housing opportunities for low income households in the
City. The Project would not permanently reduce he inventory of affordable
housing and would increase the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30
rental and fourteen "for sale" dwellings; therefore any impacts related to
displacement of dwelling units and people from the Site would be less-than-
significant."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Letter 3.5: The Public Interest Law Project
Comment 3.5.1: The commenter notes that the City's preparation of the Draft EIR
for the proposed Project is untimely. The City Council has improperly committed
itself to the redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista complex before evaluating the
environmental effects of the project. A lead agency cannot take any action that
significantly alters a project that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures
suggested by CEQA, However, the DEIR notes that at last 441 Arroyo Vista
residents would be displaced and 150 income-restricted dwellings demolished
pursuant to the proposed Project
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 20
City of Dublin April 2009
Response: The City disagrees that preparation of the Draft EIR is untimely or
forecloses alternatives to or mitigation measures for the project. The EIR
identifies and analyzes reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and the
City has full discretion to approve any of those al ternatives. Likewise, the EIR
identifies numerous mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant
environmental impacts to less than significant, all of which measures the City has
discretion to impose. In fact, the disposition and development agreement (DDA)
explicitly identifies where the City is expected to exercise its discretion with
respect to the project. For example, Section 6.4 recuires the project to obtain all
necessary permits, without limitation, and Section 6.7(a) authorizes imposition of
whatever mitigation measures are needed. Section 6.7(b) states unequivocally
that the City has "absolute discretion and right to approve or disapprove" the
project. The City has followed all required public. participation requirements
under the California Environmental Quality Act (,-EQA) and responded
accordingly throughout the environmental review process. There is no evidence
in the record otherwise.
Comment 3.5.2: The commenter notes that the DEER sets forth three Alternatives
to the proposed Project (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3). As a practical matter, the City
Council cannot reasonably consider all of there Alternatives, and particularly
Alternative 1 since it has already taken significant steps to commit to the
proposal Project. These steps include entering into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with the Dublin Housing, Authority in July 2007, a City
contribution for relocation costs, relocation of Arroyo Vista residents from the
site, approval of a $1.5 million construction loan to Eden Housing and approval
of a $325,000 predevelopment loan to Eden Housing. Therefore, the City's
preparation and circulation of the DEER is little more than a "post hoc"
rationalization to support the action. It has therefore effectively approved the
project in violation of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.
Response: The City is not foreclosed from considering any of the identified
alternatives or imposing identified mitigation measures. Furthermore, the
City's previous actions have not effectively approved the Project.
Alternatives. CEQA and its Guidelines require an EIR to describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain most of the
basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. (15126.6(a).) The EIR includes a No Project
alternative as required by CEQA. The other development alternatives were
carefully chosen to respond to environmental factors that affect the site and
development on it, primarily the potential for traffic noise from Dougherty
Road and the project: site location near Alamo Creek. All of the alternatives
' California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq; CEQA
Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15000 et ;3eq.. References to CEQA and
the Guidelines will generally be by section number only.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 21
City of Dublin April 2009
are reasonable under CEQA and the City present] y has full discretion to
approve any of them instead of the proposed project. 2
Under the No Project alternative, the existing units would remain in place
subject to ongoing maintenance, repair and infrastructure replacement to
meet applicable building, health and safety code requirements. (page 1563).
The commenter erroneously asserts de facto demolition of nearly half of the
units. To the contrary, all of the 150 existing unit; remain standing on the
project site and would be repaired or maintained as necessary to meet
applicable codes under the No Project alternative. There is nothing in the
DDA approval or other referenced actions that practically or legally
forecloses implementation of the No Project alternative.
Alternative 2 describes a reduced density and reduced footprint project.
Alternative 2 would reduce the number of residents subject to and
contributing to traffic and its related noise on Dougherty Road.
Furthermore, Alternative 2 would cluster development in the approximate
center of the site, moving the development footpr:.nt further away from the
creek and further away from Dougherty Road. Tlds is a reasonable
alternative for CEQA purposes and nothing in the DDA approval or other
actions referenced by the commenter would preclude the City from adopting
this alternative when a decision on the project is considered.
Alternative 3 describes a mixed-use project with development moved further
from the creek and with noise sensitive residential uses replaced by
commercial uses along more than half of the Dou€;herty Road frontage.
Again, this is a reasonable alternative for CEQA p-arposes and nothing in the
DDA or other actions referenced by the commenter would preclude the City
from adopting this alternative when a decision on the project is considered.
Furthermore, far from the post-hoc rationalization asserted by the commenter,
the EIR analyzes each of the alternatives for each of the environmental resources
categories. The analysis allows the public and decision makers to compare the
project and its alternatives and identifies whether the alternatives avoid the
project's significant traffic impacts. This is exactly what CEQA requires for an
adequate alternatives analysis.
Mitigation measures.. The Draft EIR contains a number of mitigation
measures across several potential impact categories. The mitigations are
reasonable responses to the impacts identified; there is nothing in the DDA or
other actions referenced by the commenter that would preclude the City from
adopting the mitigation measures as conditions for the project if it were
approved.
2 In fact, the City is no stranger to approval of CEQA alternatives where appropriate. In 1994, the City
approved a variation on the Reduced Density Alternative that reduced the Eastern Dublin planning
area from nearly 7,000 acres to approximately 4,200 acres.
9 All page number references are to the Arroyo Vista Draft EIR unless otherwise noted.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 22
City of Dublin April 2009
Previous actions. The commenter is incorrect tha-: other City actions related
to the project constitute approval of the project.
DDA. The Disposition and Development Agreement for the project
was approved by the City on July 17, 2007 and is :.ncorporated herein by
reference. As noted above, the DDA specifically and repeatedly states the
agreement is not an approval, that full and adequate environmental review is
required and that the City retains full discretion with respect to approval,
disapproval and the adoption of any mitigation measures for the project.
The City never treated the DDA as approval of the project and has continued
to follow appropriate land use and zoning procedures and CEQA review, as
for any other proposed project.
Relocations. Tenants have voluntarily moved from Arroyo Vista; no
tenant has been required to move or otherwise relocate as a result of the
proposed project. The Dublin Housing Authority has conducted extensive
tenant outreach efforts since October 2004, well before the Authority
determined to submit a disposition application to HUD for the
redevelopment project. Once the Authority determined to seek approval of a
redevelopment project, regular Redevelopment Updates and other
newsletters specifically and repeatedly advised tennants that they were not
required to move and that they would receive information about future
relocation assistance. Excerpts from newsletters for April, June and July of
2007 are attached as examples of the information provided to tenants.
Legally required notice of the need to vacate units has not been given and no
tenants are currently required to vacate their unite. For those tenants who
wished to move, the Authority provided assistance. Assistance to tenants
who wished to move voluntarily is not a substitute for legal relocation
requirements and the commenter' attempts to turn such assistance into a
project approval do not make it so. The voluntary relocations that have
occurred do not preclude the City from approving any of the EIR alternatives
or from complying with conditions that HUD may impose.
De facto demolition. All of the 150 units are existing on the site; there
has been no demolition, de facto or actual. No demolition may occur on the
site except in accordance with HUD approval, a cE rtified EIR and applicable
City and other permits and approvals.
Financial assistance and support. The City has approved financial
support for the project; however, none of the support expressly or implicitly
requires the City to approve the project. This is in sharp contrast to a key
element of the recent Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood case, i.e., a $4.2
million federal grant: to develop a senior housing project. (See Save Tara v.
City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4t`' 116.) In that case, the City of West
Hollywood advised interested parties that in light of the grant, the city "must
continue on a path that fulfills this obligation." Related draft agreements
vested the determination of adequate CEQA compliance in the city manager,
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 23
City of Dublin April 2009
and were described as committing the city "as long as the developer
delivers." None of these features is present for ffLe Arroyo Vista project.
There is no federal grant money for the project; and the City has never
indicated it was obligated or committed to approving the project. As the Save
Tara court noted, interest in or inclination to support a project, no matter how
well defined, does riot equal project approval. (4E, Cal.4t' at 136.)
The City's financial support for the project similarly does not constitute
project approval. In fact, as documented in the December 18, 2007 City
Council agenda report (incorporated herein by reference), the
predevelopment loan of $325,000 mentioned by tl-.e commenter was for the
purpose of covering environmental review costs. It is also not unusual for
Dublin projects to require approvals from other agencies, e.g., State
Department of Fish and Game, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (and related U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Department requirements that the Corps must comply with). Those
approvals may include conditions that the project must meet in addition to
any City approvals. The developer then has to determine how to satisfy all
the conditions imposed on its project, whether by the City or by state or
federal authorities. The DDA recognizes the CEQA process and the City's
absolute discretion to approve or deny the project Nothing in the record
precludes the City from imposing appropriate conditions or relieves the
project from other agencies' appropriate conditions.
The CEQA review process for the project is timely and appropriate. The City has
a comprehensive CEQA process and routinely processes EIRs and considers
projects in light of the EIR information. The circumstances surrounding the
project do not rise to an approval under applicable CEQA case law, including the
recent Save Tara casE!. The City will consider whether and in what form to
approve the project only after the related EIR has been certified and in light of
the environmental information provided in the EIR.
Comment 3.5.3: The commenter states that the City cannot shield itself from
failure to comply with CEQA procedures by claiming that the Disposition and
Development Agreement is "conditional" on approval of DHA's application for
disposition to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
relocation of nearly one-half of the families at Arroyo Vista in advance of any
environmental review and expenditure of City funds effectively precludes any
meaningful consideration of the alternatives outlined in the DEIR. By carrying
out the Project prematurely, the City has foreclosed not only on the Alternatives
outlined in the DEIR., but the ability to comply with any conditions that may be
imposed by HUD.
Response: Refer to Response to Comment 3.5.2.
• Comment 3.5.4: The commenter states that the DE] R concludes there would be a
less-than-significant impact with respect to population and housing. This
conclusion and the facts on which is based is not supported by substantial
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 24
City of Dublin April 2009
evidence. The DEIR acknowledges that there would be a significant impact if the
project were to displace a substantial number of dwellings units or people
necessitating construction of replacement housing, however, the document
concludes that the displacement of approximately 41 persons and 150 homes
primarily affordable to very low income families is less-than-significant. This
conclusion is premised on the notion that such relocation is only temporary,
residents would be relocated pursuant to local, state and federal laws and
residents with appropriate income limits would have the right to return. There is
no evidence on the record that units to be demolished will be rebuilt. The DDA
calls for the non-profit builder to apply for low-income tax credits and other
funding, so that fuhire construction is dependent on the availability of funding.
Further, no start date has been identified. Sufficient funding for affordable
rentals units are not likely to be available in the near future. Thus, there is no
guarantee that demolition of the 150 public housing units is only temporary and
no guarantee that any affordable replacement units will be constructed.
The commenter further asserts that the proposed affordable units may not be
affordable or accessible to current Arroyo Vista residents. The commenter
further notes that many households have been relocated without a relocation
plan.
Response: The comments are largely related to sod al and economic impacts
and are not potential environmental impacts requiring disclosure in the EIR.
A significant effect on the environment is a substantial adverse change in the
physical conditions affected by the project. (CEQ)1 Guidelines section 15382.)
Economic or social effects of a project by themselves are not treated as
significant effects on the environment. (See CEQA. Guidelines sections
15131(a), 15382.) For this reason, the standard of significance for population
and housing impacts asks not just whether housing or people would be
displaced, but whether that displacement would require construction of
replacement housing; elsewhere.
The DDA and the record generally describe the Housing Authority's long
history of outreach and information to the Arroyo Vista tenants. Once the
Authority determinE!d to seek approval of a redevelopment project, it was
clear that residents would be displaced at some point in time. Formal notice
and assistance requirements would be triggered by applicable state and
federal guidelines. The formal requirements do not prohibit the Authority
from providing information and assistance to the tenants in the meantime.
The fact is that the project proposes to build more affordable units than
currently exist. The 1.50 existing units would be replaced by 180 units, at least
178 of which will be income-restricted (the other 2 units are manager units for
the family and senior units and will not be income-restricted.) In addition,
the project will build up to 15 affordable for-sale units pursuant to the City's
inclusionary zoning ordinance. The result is a net increase of income-
restricted affordable units. The project proposes demolition of the existing
units in connection with building the proposed project and not as a separate
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 25
City of Dublin April 2009
stand-alone action, so the loss of units is reasonably expected to be
temporary.
The Draft EIR demonstrates that the bedroom count of the proposed units is
reasonable based on the Authority's occupancy data (page 91). The Draft EIR
also discloses a deeper affordability component to the extent that existing
units are available to residents with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median
Income (AMI), while proposed units will be affordable at or below 50% of
AMI for the senior units and at or below 607o of the AMI for family units
(page 92). The Draft EIR further describes relocat.on efforts for relocating
tenants to comparable housing in the area. Based on the number of units and
deeper affordability, and the required relocation assistance, the project would
not permanently reduce the City's inventory of of Fordable housing and
would in fact increase affordable housing opportL.nities, thus, replacement
affordable housing need not be constructed elsewhere. Furthermore, both of
the development alternatives in the Draft EIR pro 'Dose at least 150 affordable
units to ensure no net loss of affordable units in tr.e City. The Draft EIR
appropriately analyzes displacement in the CEQA. context and provides
adequate discussion and supporting evidence.
It is possible that at the time formal notice is giver. that the new project is
available for rent, some former tenants may not choose to or be able financially to
return to the new project; however, this is not a CI:QA issue. Similarly, the 150
units of public housing will be replaced by 178 units of income-restricted
affordable housing (and up to 15 for-sale inclusionary zoning units); the
difference in who qualifies to rent the units is not a CEQA issue. The City also
notes that the project will comply with all applicable ADA requirements for
disabled accessibility. The social and economic factors related to the project will
be an important consideration for the City, but arE not required to be analyzed
further in the EIR.
Attachments: Excerpts from April, June, July 2007 Redevelopment Updates
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 26
City of Dublin April 2009
Attachment 1-
Revised Traffic Tables
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 27
City of Dublin April 2009
TJKM
Transportation
Consultants
Table X: Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions Fireeway Analysis
Year 201S (No Project) Year 201S plus Project
Number of Lanes A.M.
Peak
Volume
V!C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volumc
VIC
LOS AM-
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
105
1-580, East of 1-680
Eastbound
-----
Westbound 4
----
5 8,000
----
10.000 5,089
----
11,169 0.64
---
1.12 C
---
F 8,230
----
5,879 1.03
---
0.59 F
---
C 5,089
----
11,185 0.64
---
1.12 C
---
F 8,230
-----
5.886 1.03
---
059 F
---
C
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound
Westbound 6 + aux.
4 + aux. [J3,000
000 ,365
9,457 0.49
1.05 B
F 10,854
5,974 0.83
0.66 D
^ C 6,373
9,457 r 0.49
^ LOS B
F 10,856
5,975 0.84
0.66 D
C
1-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassalara Road
Eastbound
W
estbound
[ 5
4 +aux
[ 10,000
9,000 4,253
1
8,391 y 0.43
0.93 B
E 10,988
4.293 1.10
0.48 F
B 4,261
1
8,391 0.43
0.93 B
E 10,989
4,295 1.10
0.48 F
8
1-580, Tassajam Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound
Westbound 4 + aux.
4 + aux 9,000
. 9,000 4,469
10,082 0.50
1.12 ^ B
F 10,025
4,594 1.11
0.51 F
B 4,476
10,082 0.50
1.12 B
F 10,026
4,597 1.11
0.51 F
B
1.580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound
Westbound 4+ aux.
4+ aux. 91000
9,000 4,181
11.891 0.46
1.32 B
F 10,135
4.320 ^ 1.13
0.48 F
B 4,186
11,891 0.47
1.32 B
F 10,136
4,323 1.13
0.48 F
B
1-680, Alcorn Boulevard to 1-580
Northbound
Southbound 4
4 81000
8,000 5,853
7,213 0.73
0.90 C
D 7,359
5,473 0.92
0.68 D
C 5,853
7,213 0.73
+
0.90 C
D 7,360
S,480 0.92
0.69 D
C
1-680, South of 1-580
Northbound
Southbound 3
3 + aux. 1 6,000
7,000 4,041
6,583 0.67
0.94 C
E 8,272
4,231 1.38
w
0.60 F
C 4,041
r
6,585 0.67
0.94 C
E 0,272
4,232 1.38
0.60 F
C
SR 84, South of 1-580 1 a s an arterial with a caoacig X of 1.000 v ehlhrna nel
Northbound
Southbound 2
R 2 42,000
42,000 2,524
2,260 1.26
LU GE
6E 1,762
2,345 OQ$
W BE
6E 2,524
2,260 JJfi
1_11 CF
6F 1,762
2.345 88
J,1Z 8F
6F
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-I, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehicle Jhr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr
Feeble `
Note: Bold values Indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
Page 45
Report - Traffic Study for the Arroyo Vista Housing Development April 1, 2009
TJKM
Transportation
Consultants
Table Xl: Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions Freeway Analysis
Year 1030 (No Project) Year 2030 plus Project
Number o f Lanes A.M
Peak
Volume
V!C
LOS P,M.
Peak
Volume
WC
LOS AA I
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
V!C
LOS
1-580, East of 1-680
Eastbound 4
^---- ----
Westbound 5 8,000
----
10,000 6,464
----
15,708 0.81
---
1.57 D
---
F 9,960
----
6,674 1.25
---
0.67 F
---
C 6,464
----
15,724 021
---
1.57 D
---
F 9,960
----
6,681 1.25
---
0.67 F
---
C
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound
-__-.-
Westbound 6 x.
--
4 4:u x. 13,000
----
9,000 8,016
----
13,864 0.62
---
1.54 C_
---
F 12,590
----
7,066 0.97
---
0.79 E
---
D 8,024
----
13,864 0.62
---
1.54 C
---
F 12,592
--?-
7,067 0.97
---
0.79 E
---
D
1-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound
-----
Westbound 5
----
4 + aux 10,000
----
9,000 6520
----
12,731 0.65
---
1.41 C
---
F 12.027
----
6,351 1.20
---
0.71 F_
---
C 6,528
----
12,731 0.65
---
1.41 C
---
F 12,028
----
6,353 1.20
---
0.71 F
---
C
1-580, Tassajam Road to Falior Road
Eastbound
Westbound 4 + aux.
4 + aux. 1 9,000
9,000 6,344
14,490 0.70
1.61 C
F 12,479
6,708 1.39
^0.75 F
C- 6,351
14,490 0.71
1.61 C
F 12,480
6,711 1.39
0.75 F
C
1-580, Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Eastbound
Westbound 4 + aux.
4+aux 9,000
9,000 6,632
15,720 0.74
1.75 C
F 11972
6,429 1.44
0.71 F
C 6,637
15,720 0.74
^1.75 C
F 12,973
6,432 1.44
0.71 F
C
1.680, Alcosta Boulevard to 1-580
Northbound
Southbound 4 8000
--
L_6,646 0.83
- -
1.20 D
F
-- 9,028
5,982
----- 1.13
0.75
-- F
---
C 6,646
----
9,591 0.83
---
1.20 D
--
F+ 9,029
----
5,989 1.13
---
0.75 F
---
C
1-680, South of 1-58D
Northbound
Southbound 3
3+ aux 6,000
7,000- 3,791
8,683 0.63
1.24 C
F 10,095
4,511. ^ 1.68
0.64 F
C 3,791
8,685 0.63
1.24 C
' F 10,095
4,512 1.68
0.64 F
C
SR 84, South of I-580 (Analyzed a s an arterial with a capaci ty of 1.009 v ehlhrA anel
Northbound
Southbound 2
2 42_000
43,000 3,753
^
3,549 LU
1.77 IsF
EF 3,198
^
2,965 A
"J GF
Of 3,753
3,549 1.88
1,7 FF
EF
^ 3,198
_
2,965 1.60
Lfl IDE
8F
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-I, Levels of Service for basic freeway aectlons
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=200D vehicle s/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment= (N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr
2,000 Yehie'eAAane
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
Page 46
Report - Traffic Study for the Arroyo Vista Housing Development April t, 2009
Attachment 2-
July 2007 Redevelopment Update
Newsletters
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 28
City of Dublin April 2009
Carol Alves . .
Administrative. Services
Maintenance :Staff
Lee Alejandro .:>..'
Manny Gutierrez
Charles Hughes
b :Office: Hours.
1V[onday - Friday
8:30am - 3:00pm
Saturday & Sunday
Closed
Closed Every Other Friday
?"` • .: Important Numbers
Office: (925) 828-3132
Fax 925) 828-5450
6700 Dougherty Rd.
Dublin, CA, 94568
Phony:: (925) 828=3132
wonwm
REDEVELOPMENT UPDATE
The Dublin Housing Authority Commission. held its
regular meeting on. Marc? 6 at the Dublin Civic Center.
The Commission approv(A Housing Authority staff's
recommendation to retair Overland, Pacific & Cutler as the
relocation consultant for the redevelopment •of Arroyo
Vista..
Overland, Pacific & Cutler (OPC).is based in Oakland. It has
provided relocation and property -acquisition services to local;
state and federal agencie, for over 25 years. In our immediate
geographic area.it has'dcne work for San Francisco, '
.Pleasanton, Union City, Oakland, Richmond, San: Jose,
Hayward and Fremont. (Dutside.the' Bay' Area, it
has done work for Sacramento, Mendocino, Fairfield; and
Redding among others. Yousing Authority staff checked
references, for OPC and they were excellent.
Overland,Pacific & Cutler will meet individually with each
household, conduct meetings and workshop with residents,
develop•a relocation plan,. help residents find replacement
housing, process claims fbr moving expenses-and work with
potential landlords. Arrcyo Vista residents should 'feel assured
that they will receive the assistance they need in finding
appropriate replacement housing.
We anticipate that we will have an informational meeting in
late April or early May tz) introduce the, people from OPC and.
have them describe their services. You will receive a separate
notice for this meeting.
Do.not move or feel you have to start looking for a new home.
The Housing Authority has not yet submitted the application
to HUD that will allow for the redevelopment. We anticipate
it will be 'submitted in A?ril. However, the environmental.
review document, which must also'be submitted to HUD,
will likely not be submit:ed until the end of the year. HUD
needs the environmental document before it can approve the
redevelopment applicatioA Therefore, HUD approval of the
redevelopment is not likely to occur until 2008.
Dublin Housing Authority
Arroyo Vista Staff
Margie Newman.
Dublin Area Manager
Cdrol Alves
Administrative. Services
Maintenance Staff
Lee Alejandro
Manny .Gutierrez.
Charles•Hughes
Office Hours
Monday. - Friday
8:3Oam - 3:00pin
Saturday & Sunday
Closed
Closed Every Other Friday
Important Numbers
Office: (925.) 828-3132
Fax: (925) 828-54 50
ooooooooooooooo,
•
5700 Dougherty Rd:
.Dublin, CA 94568 .
P aone: (925) 828-3132
WORM"
REDEVELOPMENT UPDATE .
In April all cf you received the General Information
Notice .about the redevelopment of Arroyo Vista and the
relocation that will be required. The Notice announced
two meetings for April 24 that would be held to discuss the
project. Some of you were able to attend those meetings.
Representatives of the developers, Eden Housing and
Citation Homes were present and described their plans for
the project. They presented a slide show and pictures of the
proposed layout of the new units and community building.
Representatives of the relocation consultant retained by
the Housing Authority, Overland Pacific & Cutler, also
were present. They described the relocation process and
answered a number of questions about timing and relocation
benefits. Staff from the Housing Authority were present.to
answer questions about Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
At the mee-:ing Housing Authority staff said. there
would be a meetin3 on May 23 to discuss' the Section 8
homeownership program. THIS MEETING HAS BEEN
CHANGED TO JULIE 6. The meeting is called: Introduction
to Family Stability and Section 8 Rental and Homeownership,
and will include information on the Section 8' program
(both rental and homeownership) and ways of improving
your credit to prepare for homeownership or renting in
the private marke±:. The meeting will take place 'at Dublin
City Hall in the Regional Meeting Room .from 6-8 PM.
Watch for the flyer in the mail that announces this meeting.
Do not feel you have to move or begin looking for a
new home now. Beginning nextyear, the relocation consultant
will meet with eacl family individually to ascertain their
relocation needs and explain the assistance that is available.
.In the meantime, if you have any questions about relocation,
please call Overland Pacific & Cutler at 877-972-8908 (toll
free) and ask for either Teresa Laverde or John Morris.
?F
6700 Dougherty Rd.
Y : Dublin, CA 94568
OF71 7
Phone: (925) 828-3132 Q
lWll? "
wR
~few"
Dublin Housing Authority R E D E L.O P M E N T UPDATE
' Arroyo Vista Staff We had a great turn out at the meeting held at Dublin City
Hall on June 6! Thank you to everyone who attended.
A lot of information was covered at the meeting:
Margie Newman
Dublin Area Manager • The application to HUD to sell the property will be submitted
'. in June. It will take about one year before it is approved.
Carol Alves • The property cannot b - demolished until AFTER the
Administrative Services application is approved.
• YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE NOW. We anticipate
" Maintenance Staff starting relocation act:.vities early next year.
Lee Alejandro • If you WANT to move before next year, you can.
• The Section 8 vouchers for all eligible households are available
t Manny Gutierrez after July 25 (let's say, August 1).
Charles Hughes • We have Section 8 vouchers for all eligible households-we
will not "run out" if you decide to move next year instead of
Office Hours now.
Monday - Friday • Housing Authority staff and the Housing Authority's relocation
8:30am - 3:00pm consultant will begin holding small group meetings (about
5 families at a time) at Arroyo Vista to more fully explain the
Saturday & Sunday Section 8 program anc. relocation benefits. We will contact you
Closed to schedule your meeting.
Closed Every Other Friday At the June 611 meeting a variety of benefits were described
including payment of moving assistance, Section 8 voucher
Important Numbers program rules, classes and counseling from the Tri Valley
Housing Opportunities Center and inclusionary home ownership
Office: (925) 828-3131 opportunities in the City of Dublin. You will hear more about all
Fax: (925) 828-5450 of these during the relocation process.
..: In the meantime, for questions please call the following:
r'.;• Homeownership/Credit Counseling: Jorge Ramirez
s?' `if t 925-373-3930
i Relocation: John Morris/Teresa Laverde
19 877-972-8908 (toll free)
Section 8 Voucher Rules: Mary Rizzo Shuman
510-727-8570
Section 8 Homeownership: Betsy Safine
510-727-8585