HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Arroyo Vista Legislatv Action Attch 1-4r
~,.
~ c~~~U~~~ .CITY CLERK
~~ ,`~ File # ^~~~-^Z ~
~- -~ sz ~-~` 2„(, - ~jD
, ~ /~ `~~"3°
~\IFOR~1~ l~~~_
AGENDA STATEIVIEIVT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 18, 2009
SUBJECT: PA 07-028 Arroyo Vista (Legislative Action) - Environmental Impact
Report, General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a
Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan and Resolution Waiving Certain
Provisions of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Report prepared by Erica Fi~aser, Senior~ Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) April 28, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
~-- Attachments).
2) Minutes from the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
3) July 28, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
Attachments).
~ 4) Draft Minutes from the July 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
5) Project Plans.
6) Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report and adopting
Findings Concerning Significant Impacts, Mitigations, and Alternatives
attached as Exhibit A, Statement of Overriding Consider.ations
(attached as Exhibit B) and the Mitigatiun Monitoring and Repc~i-ting
, Program (attached as Exhibit C) for the Arroyo Vista Project, with the
Draft Environmental Impact Report attached as Exhibit D and the Final
Environmental Impact Report attached as Exhibit E.
7) Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to change the
designation of the Arroyo Vista Project Site from Medium-Density
Residential to Medium/High-Density Residential and Public/Serni-
Public and allow for attached and detached housing units in the
Medium/High-Density Residential land use designation.
8) City Council Resolution 136-07.
9) rJrdinance approving a Planned Development (PD) rezone and a related
Stagel/Stage 2 Development Plan for Arroyo Vista.
10) Resolution approving a waiver to Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal
Code related to affordability, preference point, concurrent construction,
equivalent bedroom size and dispersal requirements for the Arroyo Vista
proj ect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO: Applicants
Page 1 of 10 ~, I Q~
G:Wrroyo Vista\CC PH\CCSR 8.18.09.doc ITEM NO. ~ ^(
V
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the public hearing;
3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Take the following actions:
a) Waive the first reading and introduce an Ordinance approving a
Planned Development (PD) rezone and a related Stagel/Stage 2
C~ Development Plan for Arroyo Vista; and
b) Continue the matter to the City Council Meeting on September 1,
2009.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Costs related to the financing of this Project are per the Disposition
and Development Agreement between the Dublin Housing
Authority, City of Dublin, the Housing Authority of the County of
Alameda, Eden Housing, Inc. and Citation Homes Central.
BACKGROUND:
Arroyo Vista is located at 6700 Dougherty Road on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the
intersection of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty
Road and the Iron Horse Trail, a regional multi-use trail (see location map on the left side of this page).
Alamo Creek forms a portion of the western boundary of the Site, which is a regionally significant creek
in eastern Alameda County. The Site contains approximately 24
acres of land. The Site is surrounded by residential developments to
the north, south and west and Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area to the east.
Arroyo Vista is a 150-unit detached Public Housing Project,
constructed over 25 years ago, which is owned by the Dublin
Housing Authority and managed by the Alameda County Housing
Authority under contract. The complex has design problems which
have created ongoing building maintenance problems, as well as
sewer and water main problems. In 2006, the Dublin Housing
Authority determined it was not feasible to renovate the complex.
VICINITY_MAP ~ July 2006, the Dublin Housing Authority identified the team of
Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central as the Real Estate Developers with whom to negotiate for the
redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista Site. In July 2007, the City, along with Dublin Housing Authority and
Alameda County Housing Authority, entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with Eden
Housing and Citation Homes Central regarding the disposition of the property and development of the
Site.
Four tenants and an unincorporated association called the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association filed a
lawsuit in October 2007 against the City, Dublin Housing Authority, Alameda County Housing Authority,
Eden Housing and Citation Homes in which they asked the court to order the parties to cease
implementing the Disposition and Development Agreement and to cease removing or relocating any of the
tenants. The case is still pending. The Court has not issued any order that would prevent the City from
certifying the EIR or approving the land use entitlements that are the subject of this hearing.
On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 137-08 authorizing the City Manager to act as the
certifying officer in order to certify the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) and authorized the Dublin Housing Authority to submit a
2of10
request to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval of property disposition to the
developers.
On January 2, 2009, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined that the City
had met its responsibilities with respect to the preparation of the Environmental Assessment (FONSI) and
NEPA. On May 22, 2009, HUD approved Dublin Housing Authority's application to dispose of the
property which allows the Dublin Housing Authority to sell the property to the developers.
On April 28, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the Arroyo Vista project during a public hearing
(Attachments 1 and 2). The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-12 recommending that the City
Council certify an Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista project, Resolution 09-13
recommending that the City Council adopt amendments to the General Plan and Resolution 09-14
recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning the property to Planned Development
with a Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution 09-15
approving a Tentative Map to divide the parcel into the separate projects and to allow the Citation Homes
dwelling units to be sold and Resolution 09-16 approving a Site Development Review approving the
design and layout of the project.
On July 28, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed minor modifications to the Planned Development
Zoning related to the provision of affordable housing on the site (Attachments 3 and 4). The Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 09-32 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning
the site to Planned Development (PD) with a related Stage 1/Stage2 Development Plan. Resolution 09-32
replaces Planning. Commission Resolution 09-14.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Arroyo Vista residential development would be a community of 378 residential units
comprised of 198 market rate and 180 affordable units. The affordable portion of the Project will be
located at the center of the Site with the market rate portion of the Project surrounding it. Other
improvements include a childcare facility, community building, parking, tot lots and passive recreation
areas (please refer to the Site Plan on Sheet PD 04 of Attachment 5).
The market rate component of the Project will include 198 for-sale dwelling units including 141 attached
and 57 detached dwellings. Up to 14 of the for-sale units will be affordable dwellings. This portion of the
Project will be constructed by Citation Homes Central (hereafter "Citation Homes").
The affordable component of the Project will include 130 rental affordable family apartment units with
129 income restricted units (one unit will be designated as a live-in manager unit), which will be
constructed by Eden Housing. The family apartments will be comprised of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in
a combination of stacked flats and multi-level apartments. The apartment units will be broken up into
several two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings.
The affordable component will also include 50 rental senior apartments (with 49 1-bedroom income-
restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit). The senior apartments will 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 wings of the senior building.
A community building will be constructed near the Public Loop road (as shown on Sheet PD04
Attachment 5). The community building will be used in conjunction with the entire development to serve
the needs of the residents. The 3,200 square-foot building includes a community room that can be used for
3of10
parties, meetings and other events; offices to support the affordable housing project and a computer room
with open computer times as well as educational programs.
The childcare facility will be located near the intersection of the Public Loop road and Public Street A.
This facility will be 3,400 square feet in size and will contain a preschool classroom, toddler classroom
and offices. The facility will be open to the general public, but preference will be given to the residents of
Arroyo Vista. The facility can accommodate up to 48 children and will also include an outdoor play area.
The anticipated hours of operation for the facility are 7:00 a. m. to 6:00 p. m., Monday through Friday.
The total anticipated number of employees for the facility is 8 which include teachers and administration
and maintenance staff.
The affordable portion of the Project (including the community building and childcare facility) will be
constructed by Eden Housing. Eden Housing is a nonprofit development group that constructs and
manages affordable housing projects throughout the area. Eden Housing is also responsible for the
construction and operation of the Wicklow Square Senior Housing Project located next to the Dublin
Senior Center in the City of Dublin (approved in 2003).
ANALYSIS:
Environmental Impact Report
.For the proposed Arroyo Vista Project, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in
accordance with CEQA laws and regulations. The Project assessed in the EIR includes the amendments
to the General Plan, Planned Development Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Site Development
Review and the development of the Site with 378 dwelling units, childcare facility, community building
and related site improvements.
In accordance with CEQA procedures, the City prepared- an Initial Study to review the Arroyo Vista
Project. The Initial Study concluded that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the
Project. A Notice of Preparation was circulated for the required 30-day period on December 20, 2007.
The Notice of Preparation was mailed to all interested parties and applicable state, local and regional
agencies. In addition to the tenants of Arroyo Vista (including tenants who moved out since the Spring of
2007) and property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the Project Site (which are required to be
noticed pursuant to State Law), the City also provided notices to an expanded area which included
surrounding residential developments and properties located between Dougherty Road and Alamo Creek
up to the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line (in all, over 1,783 notices were mailed). The Notice
of Preparation included a description of the Project, location of the Project, date of the scoping meeting
and identified the close of the comment period. Comments sent in during the review period were addressed
in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report.
A scoping meeting was held on January 16, 2008 in which all interested parties were invited to attend to
discuss the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and to express any comments or concerns they
had regarding the environmental impacts of the Project. The scoping meeting was attended by several
residents and their comments were noted by Staff and were addressed in the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report.
Following the close of the comment period on the Notice of Preparation the City as the Lead Agency
prepared the Arroyo Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (Attachment 6, Exhibit D). Issues
of potential significance related to development of the Arroyo Vista Site include: aesthetics, light and
glare, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and circulation,
and utilities and service systems. An explanation of the potential environmental impacts related to these
4of10
sections and all mitigation measures can be found in the DEIR. A summary of all impacts and mitigation
measures related to the proposed Project can be found in Table 1.0 located at the beginning of the DEIR.
The DEIR identified several impacts, related to traffic, that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant
level. These impacts are: Impact 4.11-2, Level of Service at the intersection of Dougherty Road /Amador
Valley Boulevard; Impact 4.11-3, Level of Service at the intersection of Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound
Off-Ramp; Impact 4.11-5, assumed relocation of the Camp Parks entrance on Dougherty Road; and Impact
4.11-6, Level of Service of the Dublin/Dougherty intersection. The DEIlZ identified impacts related to
these areas as significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce
these impacts to a less than significant level. The City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations related to these impacts in order to approve the Project.
Following completion of the DEIR, the City mailed a Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental
Impact Report to all persons that were provided with the Notice of Preparation and all persons who had
since requested notification of this Project. The Notice of Availability identified the Project location and
provided a description of the Project. The Notice also identified the required 45-day public comment
period on the DEIlZ. The DEIR was then circulated for review from January 31, 2009 to March 23, 2009.
Several written comments were received during the public comment period. These comments are included
in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which includes a copy of the original comment letter and
the City's responses to those comments (Attachment 6, Exhibit E). The DEIR and FEIR are available for
review at City Hall during normal business hours.
The draft Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista project is included
as Attachment 6 of this Staff Report.
General Plan Amendment
A General Plan Amendment is required for this Project in order to change the existing General Plan Land
Use Designation from Medium-Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/acre) to Medium/High-Density
Residential (14.1-25.0 du/acre) and Public/Semi-Public. The change to Medium/High-Density Residential
(23.79 acres) designation is required in order to allow the proposed number of dwelling units, 378, which
will result in a density of 15.9 dwelling units per acre.
The Public/Semi-Public land use meets the intent of the Public Facilities Policy by dedicating land for the
purpose of providing Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Arroyo Vista proposes to designate 0.34 acres as
Public/Semi-Public and the childcare building and related playground will be located within this land use
designation. The Public Facilities Policy requires the Applicant to set aside 0.5 acres for every 250
dwelling units of Medium Density or greater. The City Council can make the final determination
regarding whether or not the amount of land dedicated or benefits of the Project comply with the intent of
the Policy. In this case, although only 0.34 acres has been set aside, the affordable portion of the Project
provides a necessary service to the community by increasing the amount of affordable housing in the City.
Due to the provision of affordable housing, the proposed Project meets the intent of the Semi-Public
Facilities Policy.
The proposed Project also includes an amendment to the description of the Medium-High Density
Residential land use designation. This amendment would allow for attached and detached units within the
Medium-High Density Residential land use designation. The modification is necessary in order to approve
the proposed Project which includes both attached and detached units. The General Plan currently only
allows attached units to be constructed within this land use classification. The following sentence is
proposed to be inserted into the land use category, which can be found in Section 1.8.1 of the General
Plan:
Sof10
"The City Council may, at their discretion, allow for attached and detached units
when the mix of units is provided to allow for a unique development which benefits
the community."
The draft Resolution approving the proposed General Plan amendments related to the Arroyo Vista
project is included as Attachment 7 of this Staff Report.
Planned Development Rezone
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the
Planned Development District. The intent of the Planned Development District is to create a more
desirable use of the land, amore coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical
environment than would otherwise be achieved under a single zoning district or combination of zoning
districts. The Zoning Ordinance requires the adoption of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans,
which establishes regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the property
within the Planned Development Zoning District.
The Project Site is currently zoned Planned Development (PD) 1418 ZU. The Planned Development
Zoning District was adopted by the County of Alameda on January 10, 1980 and allowed for the
construction of a residential development with 150 dwelling units. In order to construct the proposed
Project with up to 378 dwelling units, the Site must be rezoned to allow the increase in the number of
dwelling units.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Stagel/Stage 2 Development Plan for the specific development
of the subject Site at this time. The Development Plan allows for the construction of affordable family
apartments, affordable senior apartments, attached and detached market-rate dwelling units, a community
building and childcare center.
The Development Plan includes information regarding the site area, number of units, landscaping and
architecture. The Development Plan also includes the development regulations including, but not limited
to density, maximum lot coverage, minimum lot size, setbacks and parking regulations. All information
required by Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning District, has been included in the Draft
Ordinance.
The development regulations, including setbacks and lot coverage, have been established based on the
proposed site plan. These regulations are provided on Page 5 of Attachment 9. The minimum setbacks
established for this project are 15 feet from Dougherty Road and the western property line. The maximum
lot coverage for the project is 60%.
The architectural standards in the Planned Development (page 6 of Attachment 9) require an attractive
development that is well designed. The architectural style of the family and senior apartments is the
farmhouse design. The market-rate portion of the project will have three different architectural designs:
Craftsman, Contemporary American West and Cape Cod to complement the farmhouse design of the
Eden Housing portion of the Project: All future improvements are required to be compatible with the
design of the Project as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The standards also require all HVAC,
conduits, piping and other similar equipment to be screened from view.
Parking
The Development Plan establishes the parking regulations for the development. The Eden Housing
portion of the Project will have a parking requirement that is less than what is required by our Zoning
Ordinance. The Planned Development can establish requirements which are different from what is
6of10
normally required under the Zoning Ordinance. The following tables illustrate the parking requirements
established by this Planned Development Rezone for the entire Project.
Table 1: Parkin Re uired for Eden Housing (For-Rent Project)
Eden Housin Affordable Project) Minimum
Parkin S aces Re uired
Affordable A artments 1.82 arking stalls er unit
Senior A artments 0.76 parkin stalls er unit
Childcare Facility 1 per employee plus 1 parking or loading space per
5 children
Community Buildin 10
Table 2: Parkin Re uired for Citation Homes Central (For-Sale Project)
Citation Homes Central Market Rate Units Minimum
Parkin S aces Re uired
Attached Houses 2 stalls located inside a garage with a minimum
unobstructed dimension of 20 feet x 20 feet plus
0.5 uest arking stall er unit
Detached Houses 2 stalls located inside a garage with a minimum
unobstructed dimension of 20 feet x 20 feet plus 1
guest arking stall er unit
The following table (Table 3) illustrates the difference between the standard Zoning Ordinance parking
requirements and what the Applicant proposes to provide for the for-rent portion of the project (Eden
Housing's affordable family and senior apartments). As part of the Planned Development Rezone, the City
can establish parking regulations which are different than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Table 3: Difference between Zoning Ordinance Requirement and Parking Proposed for Eden Housing
(For-Rent Project
Re uired Par-kin Parkin Provided Sur lus/Deficit
Affordable Famil A artments 130 units)
Covered 130 130 0
Guest 130 107 -23
Total 260 237 -23
Senior A artments (50 units)
Covered 50 38 -12
Guest 16.6 0 -16.6
Total 66.6 38 -28.6
Daycare 18 14 -4
Communit Building 0 10 +10
Total 345 344.6 299 -46
Overall, the affordable family apartment's portion of the project proposes 1.82 parking stalls per unit
which is close to the required ratio of 2 parking stalls per unit. The project site is well served by transit
and pedestrian opportunities which reduce the need for vehicles. The site is located in close proximity to
services, including the new Tralee development located on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty
Road. Additionally, a bus stop will be located inside or next to the development which will provide
connections to jobs and services in the City as well as the Tri-Valley area and the BART station.
Pedestrian paths and sidewalks will be located throughout the site and bicycle racks have been provided at
each of the apartment buildings to encourage residents to use alternative modes of transportation. Due to
7of10
the location of the bus stop, the nature of the site as an affordable project and services located in walking
distance, Staff recommends that the City Council allow the parking ratio for the affordable portion of the
project to be established as 1.82 parking spaces per unit as part of the Planned Development.
Eden Housing has constructed several affordable senior projects in the Bay Area (including Wicklow
Square) and has indicated that typically, they provide 0.76 parking stalls per unit, and this ratio has not
resulted in any parking problems at their projects. The proposed parking ratio of 0.76 per unit exceeds the
industry standard ratio of 0.5 spaces for senior apartments. The lower parking ratio reflects the industry
standard because senior apartment occupants typically have a lower rate of automobile ownership than
normal market-rate units. In comparison, the senior housing project located next to Target was approved
with a ratio of 0.56 parking stalls per unit. Staff has not observed any parking problems at this site, nor has
Staff received any complaints regarding the number of available parking spaces. Overflow parking can
also be accommodated at the childcare facility during non operating hours, and in the surplus parking
spaces provided at the community building. Due to the location of the bus stop, the nature of the site as an
affordable project, services located in walking distance and parking reductions allowed at other senior
residential projects Staff recommends that the City Council allow the parking ratio for the senior portion
of the project to be established as 0.76 parking spaces per unit as part of the Planned Development.
Inclusionary Zoning
The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations section of the Arroyo Vista Planned Development Zoning Ordinance
includes certain provisions that were included in Resolution 136-07 approved by the City Council when it
approved the Disposition and Development Agreement between the City and the developers of the Arroyo
Vista Project. The Council's Resolution (Attachment 8) preliminarily waived certain requirements of the
City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance including allowing the project to be treated as one project and the
affordability, dispersal (allocation), bedroom size and preference point requirements. It also preliminarily
conditionally waived the requirement of concurrent construction of the affordable and market rate units,
and directed that certain provisions be included when the zoning was revised. The purpose of the
provisions is to allow the market-rate portion of the project to be constructed prior to the affordable
portion of the project. If the market-rate project is constructed prior to the affordable project, the developer
of the market-rate project (Citation Homes Central) cannot construct more than 112 market rate units
unless it has constructed 14 for-sale affordable units, for a total of 126 units so that the construction of
affordable units keeps pace with the construction of market rate units.
The draft Ordinance rezoning the property to Planned Development (PD) with a related Stage 1/Stage 2
Development Plan is included as Attachment 9 of this Staff Report.
Request for Inclusionary Waiver
Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code requires all new residential development projects of 20
dwelling units or more to construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as
affordable units, except as otherwise provided by the Chapter. These units are required to be distributed
throughout the site, be dedicated to very-low, low and moderate income, include the full range of
bedrooms, be subject to certain preference point requirements and be constructed at the same time as the
market-rate units.
The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations under Section
8.68.040.E, which states "The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially waive the
requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this chapter if the
applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this
chapter." The Applicant is requesting a waiver of affordability, preference points, concurrent construction,
equivalent bedroom size and dispersal requirements for this project.
8of10
As discussed above, the City Council preliminarily allowed for a waiver of certain provisions of the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in its resolution approving the Disposition and Development Agreement
between the City and the developers (Attachment 8).
The Applicants have requested a waiver from some of the requirements of the Inclusionary Ordinance,
including permission to calculate the affordable units constructed in the Rental Component and the For-
Sale Component as a whole, rather than for each portion of the project. The project as a whole exceeds the
12.5% affordability requirement of the Inclusionary Ordinance by providing a total of 192 affordable units
(145 more affordable units than are required) and by providing deeper affordability than required by the
Ordinance. The Applicants are also requesting a waiver from the affordability requirements so that the
family apartments and senior apartments can be constructed without providing any moderate-income units
and the For-Sale Component can be constructed without providing any very low-income or low-income
units.
The Applicants are requesting a waiver from the preference point requirements included in the
Inclusionary Ordinance so that cone-time exception would be provided to enable existing and former
Arroyo Vista residents to receive express preference for renting the family and senior units in the Project
when they are first available for rent.
The Applicants are also requesting a waiver from the requirement of concurrent construction because
certain financing and regulatory constraints may impede Eden Housing's ability to initiate construction of
the affordable rental units prior to or concurrently with Citation Homes' construction of the market-rate
units. Citation Homes will be required to construct the affordable for-sale units concurrently with the
market-rate for-sale units.
The Applicant has requested a waiver from the equivalent bedroom requirement because Citation plans to
construct some 4-bedroom market-rate for-sale units but no 4-bedroom affordable, for-sale units. The
Applicants are also requesting a waiver from the dispersal requirement because the affordable rental units
will be clustered together in the center of the site and not dispersed as required by the Ordinance.
The draft Resolution approving a waiver of some of the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance for this project is included as Attachment 10 of this Staff Report.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State Law, a notice regarding tonight's hearing was published in the Valley Times and
was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the Project Site and all persons who
requested a copy of the notice. Additionally, Staff sent notices to all existing and former tenants of the
existing Arroyo Vista development (who have moved since the spring of 2007) and sent notices to all
property owners and tenants between Alamo Creek and Dougherty Road up to the Alameda/Contra Costa
County line which maybe impacted by the Project.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicants are requesting approval of a 378-unit residential development which includes affordable
family apartments, affordable senior apartments, market-rate attached and detached units, community
building and childcare facility. The proposed development includes a mixture of architectural styles which
all utilize common American architectural design themes. The redeveloped Arroyo Vista Project will
enhance the existing area and provide a unique development within the City.
9of10
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3)
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Take
the following actions: a) Waive the first reading and introduce an Ordinance approving a Planned
Development (PD) rezone and a related Stagel/Stage 2 Development Plan for Arroyo Vista; and b)
Continue the matter to the City Council Meeting on September 1, 2009.
10 of 10
1 ;~ ~:
.~ ~
G~~~ OF UUe~~
9~ ~ ~~ ~~ AGENDA STATEr-~ENT
`~~~~
C~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009
04LIFOR~~~
SUBJECT: PA 07-028 Arroyo Vista (Legislati~~e Action) -Environmental Impact
Reporl., General Plan Amendment, St~ige 1/Stage 2 Planned Development
Rezone, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending Cit`~ Council certification of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Project with the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Planning Commission packets
only) attached as Exhibit A and thy: Final Environmental Impact Report
attached as Exhibit B (Planning Commission packets only);
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the Arroyo Vista Project Site
from Medium-Density Residential :o Medium/High-Density Residential
an~i Public/Semi-Public and allow for attached and detached housing
units in the Medium/High-Density Zesidential land use designation with
they Draft City Council Resolution i~icluded as Exhibit A;
3) Resolution recommending that thy; City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving a PD Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 /Stage
2 Development Plan with the Draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A;
4) Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7943 for the
Arroyo Vista Project with Vesting "Centative Tract Map 7943 attached as
Exhibit A;
5) Resolution approving the Site Development Review for the Arroyo
Vista Project with the Project Plans attached as Exhibit A.
6) July 22, 2008 Planning Commissio~i Study Session Agenda Statement
(without attachments); and
7) Minutes from the July 22, 2008 Pla:ining Commission Study Session.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the public hearing;
1; ~1~~ 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
~-•' ~~~ 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt the following Resolutions:
a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council
certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo
Vista Project;
b) Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council
approve a General Plan Am~;ndment to change the designation of
the Arroyo Vista Project Sipe from Medium-Density Residential
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
G:lArroyo VistalPC PHIPCAgenda Statement 4-Z8.GOC
M'~p1ti 9.,- 1 ~ ~,~~>1~~~~
..~.. ~ -
Attachment 1
to Medium/High-Density Residential and Public/Semi-Public
and allow for attached and detached housing units in the
Medium/High-Density Residential land use designation;
c) Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance approving a PD Planned Development
Rezone and related Stagel/~~tage 2 Development Plan;
d) Resolution (Attachment 4) approving Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 7943 for the Arroyo Vista Project; and
e) Resolution (Attachment 5:~ approving the Site Development
Review for the Arroyo 'vista Project with 378 residential
dwellings, community building and a daycare located at 6700
Dougherty Road with the Project Plans.
BACKGROUND:
Arroyo Vista is located at 6700 Dougherty Road on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the
intersection of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty
Road and the Iron Horse Trail, a regional multi-use trail (see location map on the left side of this page).
Alamo Creek forms a portion of the western boundary of the Site, v~ hich is a regionally significant creek
in eastern Alameda County. The Site contains approximately 24
acres of land. The Site is surrounded by residential developments to
the north, south and west and (:'amp Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area to the east.
Arroyo Vista is a 150-unit detached Public Housing Project,
constructed over 25 years ago, which is owned by the Dublin
Housing Authority (DHA) and managed by the Alameda County
Housing Authority (HACA) under contract. The complex has design
problems which have created ongoing building maintenance
problems, as well as sewer an~i water main problems. The DHA
determined it was not feasible to renovate the complex.
vtctnrr~rrtnr In July 2006, the Dublin Housing Authority identified the team of
Eden Housing and Citation Homes ventral as the Real Estate Developers with whom to negotiate for the
redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista Site. In July 2007, the City, alon€; with DHA and HACA, entered into
a Disposition and Development Agreement with Eden Housing and (:itation Homes Central regarding the
disposition of the property and development of the Site.
Four tenants and an unincorporated association called the Arroyc Vista Tenants Association filed a
lawsuit in October 2007 against the City, DHA, HACA, Eden Housing and Citation Homes in which they
asked the court to order the parties to cease implementing the Disposition and Development Agreement
and to cease removing or relocating; any of the tenants. The case is still pending. The Court has not
issued any order that would prevent the City from certifying the EIR or approving the land use
entitlements that are the subject of this hearing.
On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 137-08 authorizing the City Manager to act as the
certifying officer in order to certify the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) and authorized the Dublin Housing Authority to submit a
request to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval of property disposition to the
developers.
~ `~~~ ~ ~°
~;a ~ " ~'' ~ ~ _~
The Planning Commission reviewed the Arroyo Vista Project during a Study Session on July 22, 2008.
During the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the parking, landscaping, architecture and layout
of the Project and did not recomrrcend any changes to the Projec': Plans (please refer to the Minutes
included as Attachment 7).
On January 2, 2009, the Department of Housing and Urban Development determined that the City had met
its responsibilities with respect to the preparation of the Environmer..tal Assessment (FONSI) and NEPA.
To date, HUD has not approved Df[A's application to dispose of the property to the developers. Unless
and until HUD approves DHA's application to dispose of the property, DHA will continue to operate
Arroyo Vista as a Public Housing Project. DHA cannot sell the property unless HUD approves the
application. Tenants are not required to move and have been informed numerous times over the last
several years that they do not have to relocate unless and until they are provided with a formal, legally-
required 90-day notice to relocate. However, a number of tenants 1-ave, on their own, decided to move,
and since the spring of 2007, DHA has provided such tenants with the relocation assistance and benefits
that it will provide to tenants who are required to move if and when I-[iJD approves the application and the
forma190-day notice is given.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Arroyo Vista residential development would be a community of approximately 378 units
comprised of 198 market rate and 180 affordable units. The affor~jable portion of the Project will be
located at the center of the Site with the market rate portion of the Project surrounding it. Other
improvements include a childcare facility, community building, parking, tot lots and passive recreation
areas (please refer to the Site Plan ort Sheet PD 04 of Exhibit A to Attachment 5).
The market rate component of the Project will include 198 for-sale c.welling units including 141 attached
and 57 detached dwellings. Up to 15 of the for-sale units will be affordable dwellings, pursuant to the City
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. 'This portion of the Project will be constructed by Citation Homes
Central (here after "Citation Homes'").
The affordable component of the Project will include 130 rental afi~ordable family apartment units with
129 income restricted units (one unit will be designated as a li~~e-in manager unit), which will be
constructed by Eden Housing. The family apartments will be compri red of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in
a combination of stacked flats and multi-level apartments. The apartment units will be broken up into
several two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings.
The affordable component will also include 50 rental senior apartments (with 49 1-bedroom income-
restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit). The senior apartments will 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 wings of the senior buildin;;.
A community building will be constructed near the Public Loop road (as shown on Sheet PD04 of Exhibit
A to Attachment 5). The community building will be used in conjunction with the entire development to
serve the needs of the residents. The 3,200 square-foot building includes a community room that can be
used for parties, meetings and other events; offices to support the affordable housing project and a
computer room with open computer times as well as educational programs.
t {"'
The childcare facility will be located near the intersection of the Public Loop road and Public Street A.
This facility will be 3,400 square ff;et in size and will contain a preschool classroom, toddler classroom
and offices. The facility will be open to the general public. The facility can accommodate up to 48
children and will also include an outdoor play area. The anticipated hours of operation for the facility are
7:00 a. m. to 6:00 p. m., Monday through Friday. The total anticipated number of employees for the
facility is 8 which include teachers and administration and maintenance staff.
The affordable portion of the Project (including the community building and childcare facility) will be
constructed by Eden Housing. Eden Housing is a nonprofit dev~;lopment group that constructs and
manages affordable housing proje<:ts throughout the area. Eden ]-lousing is also responsible for the
construction and operation of the Senior Housing Project located next to Target in the City of Dublin
(approved in 2003).
ANALYSIS:
Environmental Impact Report
For the proposed Arroyo Vista Project, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in
accordance with CEQA laws and regulations. The Project assessed in the EIR includes the amendments
to the General Plan, Planned Development Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Site Development
Review and the development of the Site with 378 dwelling units, childcare facility, community building
and related site improvements.
In accordance with CEQA procedures, the City prepared an Initial Study to review the Arroyo Vista
Project. The Initial Study concluded that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the
Project. A Notice of Preparation v~~as circulated for the required 3t)-day period on December 20, 2007.
The Notice of Preparation was mailed to all interested parties and applicable state, local and regional
agencies. In addition to the tenants of Arroyo Vista (including ten;ints who moved since the Spring of
2007) and property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the Project Site (which are required to be
noticed pursuant to State Law), the City also provided notices to an expanded area which included
surrounding residential developments and properties located adjacent to the Alamo Creek (in all, over
1,783 notices were mailed). The Notice of Preparation included a description of the Project, location of the
Project, date of the scoping meeting; and identified the close of the comment period. Comments sent in
during the review period were addressed in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report.
A scoping meeting was held on January 16, 2008 in which all interested parties were invited to attend to
discuss the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and to express any comments or concerns they
had regarding the environmental irr~pacts of the Project. The scoping meeting was attended by several
residents and their comments were noted by Staff and were addressed in the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report.
Following the close of the comment period on the Notice of Prep:~ration the City as the Lead Agency
prepared the Arroyo Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report (D1::IR). Issues of potential significance
related to development of the Arroyo Vista Site include: aesthetics, light and glare, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise,
population and housing, public services, transportation and circulati~~n, and utilities and service systems.
An explanation of the potential environmental impacts related t~~ these sections and all mitigation
measures can be found in the DEIR. A summary of all impacts an3 mitigation measures related to the
proposed Project can be found in a table located at the beginning of the DEIR.
5 ~ .;',
The DEIR identified several impacts, related to traffic, that cannot lie mitigated to a less than significant
level. These impacts are Impact 4.11-2, Level of Service at the intersection of Dougherty Road /Amador
Valley Boulevard, Impact 4.11-3, Level of Service at the intersectior. of Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound
Off-Ramp, Impact 4.11-5, assumed relocation of the Camp Parks entrance on Dougherty Road and Impact
4.11-6, Level of Service of the Dnblin/Dougherty intersection. Th•; DEIR identified impacts related to
these areas as significant and unavoidable. Although mitigation mea:;ures were included to reduce impacts
associated with these areas, the mitigation measures cannot reduce these impacts to a less than significant
level. The City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to these
impacts in order to approve the Project.
Following completion of the DEIR, the City mailed a Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental
Impact Report to all persons that were provided with the Notice of Preparation and all persons who had
since requested notification of this Project. The Notice of Availability identified the Project location and
provided a description of the Project. The Notice also identified the required 45-day public comment
period on the DEIR. The DEIR was then circulated for review from J rrruary 31, 2009 to March 23, 2009.
Several written comments were received during the public comment period. These comments are included
in the Final Environmental Impact lZeport (FSEIR) which includes ;r copy of the original comment letter
and the City's responses to those comments.
A Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Arroy~~ Vista Environmental Impact Report
is included as Attachment 1.
General Plan Amendment
A General Plan Amendment is required for this Project in order to change the existing General Plan Land
Use Designation from Medium-Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/acre) to Medium/High-Density
Residential (14.1-25.0 du/acre) and Public/Semi-Public. The change to Medium/High-Density Residential
(23.79 acres) designation is required. in order to allow the proposed number of dwelling units, 378, which
will result in a density of 15.9 dwelling units per acre.
The Public/Semi-Public land use meets the intent of the Public Facilities Policy by dedicating land for the
purpose of providing Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Arroyo Vista proposes to designate 0.34 acres as
Public/Semi-Public and the childcare building and related playground will be located within this land use
designation. The Policy requires the Applicant to set aside 0.5 acres for every 250 dwelling units of
Medium Density or greater. The City Council can make the final de~:ermination regarding whether or not
the amount of land dedicated or benefits of the Project comply with the intent of the Policy. In this case,
although only 0.34 acres has been set aside, the affordable portion of the Project provides a necessary
service to the conununity by increasing the amount of affordable housing in the City. Due to the provision
of affordable housing, the proposed Project meets the intent of the Se:ni-Public Facilities Policy.
The proposed Project also includes an amendment to the description of the Medium-High Density
Residential land use designation. This amendment would allow for a~:tached and detached units within the
Medium-High Density Residential land use designation. The modification is necessary in order to approve
the proposed Project which include:; both attached and detached units. The General Plan currently only
allows attached units to be constructed within this land use classification. The following sentence is
proposed to be inserted into the land use category, which can be found in Section 1.8.1 of the General
Plan:
"The City Council may, at their discretion, allow for attached and detached units
when the mix of units i s provided to allow for a unique development which benefits
the community."
A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment is included as
Attachment 2.
Planned Development Rezone
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning; Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the
Planned Development District. The intent of the Planned Development District is to create a more
desirable use of the land, amore coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical
environment than would otherwise be achieved under a single zoning district or combination of zoning
districts. The Zoning Ordinance requires the adoption of both Stag: 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans,
which establishes regulations for the use, development, improvem~;nt and maintenance of the property
within the Planned Development Zo-Wing District.
The Project Site is currently zoned Planned Development (PD) 1 X18 ZU. The Planned Development
Zoning District was adopted by the County of Alameda on Jan~.~ary 10, 1980 and allowed for the
construction of a residential development with 150 dwelling units. In order to construct the proposed
Project with up to 378 dwelling units, the Site must be rezoned to allow the increase in the number of
dwelling units.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Stagel/Stage 2 Developm~;nt Plan for the specific development
of the subject Site at this time. Thc; Development Plan allows for the construction of affordable family
apartments, affordable senior apartments, attached and detached market-rate dwelling units, a community
building and childcare center.
The Development Plan includes information regarding the site area, number of units, landscaping and
architecture. The Development Plan also includes the development regulations including, but not limited
to density, maximum lot coverage, minimum lot size, setbacks and parking regulations. All information
required by Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning District, has been included in the Draft
Ordinance.
The Development Plan establishes the parking regulations for the development. The Eden Housing
portion of the Project will have a parking requirement that is less ~:han what is required by our Zoning
Ordinance. The Planned Development can establish requirements which are different from what is
normally required under the Zoning, Ordinance. The following tables illustrate the parking requirements
established by this Planned Development Rezone for the Project.
F t~.
.:~
Eden Housing (A:ffordable Pra'ect Minimum
Parkin S aces Re uired
Affordable A artments 1.82 arkin ;;talls er unit
Senior A artments 0.76 arkin ;Malls er unit
Childcare Facility 1 per employc;e plusl parking or loading space per
5 children
Communit Buildin 10
Citation Homes Central arket Rate Units Minimum
Parkin S aces Re uired
Attached Houses 2 stalls located inside a garage with a minimum
unobstructed dimension of 20 feet x 20 feet plus
0.5 est azk:in stall er unit
Detached Houses 2 stalls located inside a garage with a minimum
unobstructed dimension of 20 feet x 20 feet plus 1
est arkin stall er unit
A minor change was made since the Study Session to the circulation of the Site near the daycare to
improve traffic flow and reduce impacts on the surrounding area. This resulted in the loss of four parking
spaces for the daycare and one guest stall for the Eden Family Apartments and the creation of four loading
spaces for the daycare. A revised parking chart for the Eden Housing portion of the project is provided
below (revised from what is provided in the Study Session Agenda Statement (Attachment 6)).
:required Parking Parking Provided Su lus/Deficit
Affordable Famil A artments 130 units
Covered 130 13C 0
Guest 130 10 i -23
Total 260 23 i' -23
Senior A artments 50 units)
Covered 50 38 -12
Guest 16.6 0 -16.6
Total 66.6 38 -28.6
Da care 18 14 -4
Communi Buildin 0 10 +10
Total 345 344.6 299 -46
The chart provided above shows the difference between what is re~~uired by the Zoning Ordinance and
what is provided on the Site. As pact of the Planned Development Rezone, the City can establish parking
regulations which aze different than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. Please refer to the attached
Study Session Agenda Statement (Attachment 6) for a discussion o F the overall parking on the Site and
why a reduced parking ratio is warranted for the Site. The Citation l3omes Central portion of the Project
will provide parking stalls as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Stagel/Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone
is included as Attachment 3. The Stage 1/Stage 2 Planned Developrr..ent District regulations, applicable to
this Project Site only, are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 3.
Vesting Tentative Map
The Applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject property into a parcel designated for the affordable
Project, a parcel for the childcare center, and numerous parcels for attached and detached homes, parking
and common areas. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7943 is bound~:d by Dougherty Road to the east,
residential developments to the north and south and the Alamo Creek. and a residential development to the
west.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map conforms to the City of Dublin General Plan and the
Municipal Code. Staff recommends the Planning Commission appro~~e Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7943
subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the a~:tached Resolution (Attachment 4).
Site Development Review
Only minor changes have been made to the Project Plans since the Study Session on July 22, 2008 (these
changes are related to the pazkin€; near the daycare and are discussed in detail under the Planned
Development section of this Staff Report). The Planning Commission reviewed the azchitecture, layout,
landscaping, parking requirements and overall design of the Project during the Study Session and did not
request any modifications to the Project. Please refer to the attach~;d Study Session Agenda Statement
(Attachment 6) for a discussion of the site layout, architecture, and landscaping. Minutes from the
Planning Commission Study Session are included as Attachment 7.
A Resolution approving the Site Development Review, subject to C~~nditions of Approval, is included as
Attachment 5.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State Law, a notice regarding tonight's hearing was published in the Valley Times and
was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the Project Site and all persons who
requested a copy of the notice. Additionally, Staff sent notices to all existing and former tenants of the
existing Arroyo Vista development (who have moved since the spring of 2007) and sent notices to all
property owners and tenants betwee~i Alamo Creek and Dougherty R oad up to the Alameda/Contra Costa
County line which maybe impacted by the Project.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicants are requesting approval of a 378-unit residential de~~elopment which includes affordable
family apartments, affordable senior apartments, mazket-rate attac led and detached units, community
building and childcare facility. The market-rate and affordable units have been mixed throughout the Site
and provide connections between each of the product types. The proposed development includes a mixture
of architectural styles which all utilize common American architectural design themes. The redeveloped
Arroyo Vista Project will enhance the existing area and provide a unique development within the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate;
and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachm~~nt 1) recommending City Council
certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vist;i Project; b) Resolution (Attachment
~i{ r ~.. r
1 ~~ ~' ` `,1 ~y
2) recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amf;ndment to change the designation of
the Arroyo Vista Project Site from Medium-Density Residential to IV[edium/High-Density Residential and
Public/Semi-Public and allow for attached and detached housing units in the 1Vledium/High-Density
Residential land use designation; c) Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council adopt
an Ordinance approving a PD Planned Development Rezone and :-elated Stagel/Stage 2 Development
Plan; d) Resolution (Attachment 4) approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7943 for the Arroyo Vista
Project; and e) Resolution (Attachrrient 5) approving the Site Development Review for the Arroyo Vista
Project with 378 residential dwellings, community building and a daycare located at 6700 Dougherty
Road with the Project Plans.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER.:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING USES:
Eden Housing, Inc.
409 Jackson Street
Hayward, CA 94544
Citation Homes Central
404 Saratoga Avenue Sl ite 100
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Dublin Housing Authority
6700 Dougherty Road
941-0007-001-07
Medium-Density Residential
None
Public Housing
Location Toning General Plan )Land Use Current Use of
Pro e
Site PD (Plamied Medium Densi y Public Housing
Development) Residential (existing)
Medium/High :density
Residential r~~ osed)
North PD (Planned Medium Densi :y Housing
Develo ment Residential
South PD (Plamied Medium/High )density Housing
Develo ment) Residential
East A 'culture Public Lands Cam Parks
West PD (Plamied Medium Densi :y Housing
Develo ment) Residential
11 0~
~~~ ~~
r~
Planning Commissian Minutes
`` /ll
r ~` Tuesday, April 28, x!009
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regulaz meeting of the City o.f Dublin Planning Commissian was held on Tuesday, Apri128,
2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the
meeting to order at 7:OOp.m.
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Brown, Schaub and Swalwell; Jeri
Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Erica Fraser,
Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; Kit Faubion,
City Attorney; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: NONE
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Crn. Swalwell and seconded by Cm.
Brown the minutes of the Apri114, 2009 meeting were approv~:d with revisions.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 07-028 Arroyo Vista (Legislative Action) -Environmental Impact Report,
General Plan Ame~ldment, Stage 1/Stage 2 Plaruied Development Rezone, Vesting
Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review.
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Fraser to point out where the bL~s stop will be located. Ms. Fraser
stated the location had not been finalized as yet but they will continue to work with WHEELS to
finalize the location. She stated it is anticipated to be located with close access to the center of
the site.
Cm. Schaub asked how many people will live in the project.
Ms. Fraser answered they did not know at this point.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Frs~ser to point out, on the site plan, where access to the trails will
be located.
4'fanning (,'ommission 73 ApriC28, 2009
~gular 9Keeting
ATTACHMENT 2
~-~ ~- t"'
Ms. Fraser pointed out the access points on the site plan. She continued that there are sidewalks,
walkways and connections between the housing types throughout the site and connections to
the community building which can be used by everyone.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if a fence is installed will there be a grate for access to the trail.
Ms. Fraser answered there will be a gate between the housing project and the trail.
Cm. Schaub asked if there will be covered parking and stated he found no examples of what the
covered parking will Look like.
Ms. Fraser stated there are drawings in the project package. Cm. Schaub agreed to continue to
look in the project package for the drawing of the covered par.icing area.
Cm. Schaub felt that Page 48 of the project plans did not gig a him the information he wanted
because it was a line drawing, He felt the buildings arE~ attractive and that it would be
unfortunate to have a metal shed type of carport and ruin the effect of the building design.
Ms. Fraser suggested the Commission talk to the architect.
Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that the materials for the covered parking are called out Page 48.
Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to review parking in the project:. He stated that in his notes from
the earlier Study Session, 74 on-street parking spaces were riot part of the parking count. He
asked how many parking spaces are available on the site.
Ms. Fraser answered that the on-street parking spaces are not counted towards the provision for
parking.
Cm. Schaub asked why on-street pazking was added in for a previous commercial project
(C1ubSport} but not this project.
Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager, answered that typically, with a residential project, the City
would only count off-street parking. He continued that ar~y on-street parking would be in
addition to the off-street parking.
Cm. Schaub felt the on-street parking was a significant amount which would make the project
parking count above the requirement.
Ms. Fraser added that Staff does not count the on-street parking because they are on a public
street and the spaces do not belong to the project.
Cm. Schaub was still concerned that the on-street parking was included in the Club6port project
and is not being included with this project.
Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that the C1ubSport project is not in a qualified residential area.
~t'lanning Commission 74 April28, 2009
~gular Meeting
r".
~ .a .
Cm. King felt that the on-street parking should be taken into consideration and asked if the
parking will be adequate and should include the on-street parking.
Ms. Fraser felt that on-street parking could be taken into consideration as provided on the site
as a total. She stated that there is overflow parking.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Fraser to explain the City's parking ratios and asked if they are in
line with other cities in the area.
Ms. Fraser answered that according to the Dublin Municipal (ode (DMC}, the required number
of stalls is less than what is provided for the affordable famil~~ and senior apartments but as far
as what Eden typically provides the parking total is higher. P-~Is. Fraser stated that for example,
Wicklow Square Apartments are senior, affordable units and the parking ratio is lower than
what is required by the DMC. She continued that Eden Housing has many affordable projects
in the Bay Area and the parking provided is usually less thin what is being provided in this
project and they have not had parking issues.
Cm. King asked for the definition of "acceptable level of service" and who determines it.
Ms. Fraser answered that Chris Kinsel of TJICM, Inc. is at the meeting and helped write the
traffic study therefore he should be able to answer the questio~l.
Cm. Swalwell asked how many affordable units are at the Groves.
Mr. Baker answered that there are approximately 300 units.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there wE~re any public safety concerns during scoping meeting for this
project.
Ms. Fraser stated that she had heard from some residents ~vho stated they did want a safer
community. A lot of the concerns had been about the existing; complex. She continued that she
had not heard any other concerns. She stated that traffic was one safety concern but there will
be a traffic light, and safe sidewalks.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there had been an opinion from the architect or police services regarding
whether a covered carport is safer than an enclosed garage as e=ar as being a victim of a crime.
Ms. Fraser answered that police had reviewed the project a1d made no reference other than
their standard conditions of approval. She stated that the carport is open, and the project must
meet a minimum lighting standard. She felt it depends ors one's own perception of safety
whether a carport is safer than an enclosed garage.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Police Iook for lighting where reviewing a project.
Planning commission 7$ ApriC28, 2009
~gular 9Keeting
~ ~=~ ~-~
Ms. Fraser added that the project must provide one foot candle of lighting for adequate lighting
throughout the project.
Mr. Baker added that both Police and Public Works reviewed the lighting and photometrics as
part of the Building plan check process to ensure that it meets ~:afety standards.
Cm. Brown asked what type of outside play areas will be included.
Ms. Fraser answered there will be several tot lots for the younger children and also passive,
open recreation areas.
Cm. King asked if the grassy areas are large enough to play ba.~eball.
Ms. Fraser felt they are not wide enough for baseball but are long. She continued that at the
community building there will also be activities and services for children and seniors.
Mr. Brown asked if there will be a basketball court.
Ms. Fraser answered there will be none on the site.
Cm. Swalwell stated that at The Groves there is a police substation with an officer assigned to
the azea. He asked if there would be a similar situation at this project.
Ms. Fraser answered that there would be no difference than a ny other residential project. She
continued that the Police Services reviewed the project and felt that a substation is not needed.
A substation was needed on the east due to the distance from the existing Police Station but not
at this project because of its close proximity to City Hall and the Police Station.
Cm. King asked Ms. Fraser to show where the intersection with Amador Valley Blvd. will be in
relation to the Camp Parks entrance.
Ms. Fraser stated that the City does not know, at this time, where the Camp Parks entrance will
be relocated.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Fraser to reconfirm that there are elevators in the senior housing.
Ms. Fraser answered yes, and mentioned that the Applicant can confirm the elevators, their
experience with parking and the different recreation programs they provide.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the day care and community building is open to everyone not just
the residents.
Ms. Fraser answered that the community building is for the residents of the development, but
the day care is open to everyone.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the residents will have preference for pI<<cement.
2'(anning Commission 76 ~1pril211, 2009
~gular 9lfeeting
Ms. Fraser stated there is a childcare center now and it woulcl be run by the same organization
and she would allow the Applicant to answer the question.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Linda Mandoline, Eden Housing representative, spoke in s=avor of the project. She spoke
regarding Eden Housing and their 40 years of experience, also their programs for their residents
including: resident services company with on-site programs :;uch as: after school programs for
children and technology program for teens, transportation classes for seniors, etc. She stated
that they also work with seniors on social and health issues. She stated that their parking ratio
of .6 to 1 is all that is needed for the senior community and thE~y find that works. She stated that
in the family areas the parking ratio is at 1.7 to 1 and that mast families can't afford more than
one car.
Cm. King asked how Eden Housing feels about how the numbers of cars per household
increases as the young families grow and the teens also have cars.
Ms. Mandoline stated that a lot of families cannot afford mire than one car. She stated the
parking ratio is based on bedrooms per unit. She stated they police the parking very seriously.
She felt their parking ratios are very successful. She stated they have not had a problem with
parking and also mentioned the close proximity to public transportation in this project. She also
addressed the security issue; she stated that there are 3 management units on-site with Eden
staff people living there. She stated Eden works with residents to form neighborhood watch
groups. She continued that they are very aggressive about rules and ensuring the quiet
enjoyment for all residents.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there is an eviction process for people/residents that commit crimes. He
stated that there are recent laws passed that allow eviction for domestic violence or dealing
drugs on the premises allowing public and affordable housing agencies to evict residents for
these offenses.
Ms. Mandolino stated Eden has a zero tolerance for drug:; and will evict with the proper
evidence. She stated that if someone is caught dealing drugs on-site they will move with in the
law to evict and work closely with the Police Dept.
Ms. Swalwell stated that his questions are not because he associates crime with affordable
housing. He felt there is a misperception that affordable housing brings problems and some of
the residents have concerns about crime. He felt that Eden was doing a Iot to address those
concerns.
Ms. Mandoline stated that they expect a lot of the Arroyo Vista residents to return to the
community and they are already upstanding members of the community so there should be no
problems.
Cm. Brown asked if the senior housing is independent living or assisted living.
Planning Commission 77 ApriC28, 2009
~guCar Meeting
Ms. Mandoline answered the senior housing is independent li~~ing with individual apartments.
Cm. Brown asked if there are one and two bedroom units.
Ms. Mandoliru answered only one bedroom apartments are allowed due to public financing
regulations. She continued that they provide common areas for the residents to enjoy a larger
space.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the residents have preference for the day care center.
Ms. Mandoline answered that they like for the residents to have preference and if all spots are
not taken by the affordable and market rate units within the :project then it is opened up to the
broader community. She stated that usually approximately half of the child care slots go to
residents. She stated that the new day care center will be substantially nicer than the existing
one. She continued that they have worked with Kidango in the past and feels it will be a good
center when completed.
Cm. Swalwell asked, since Eden is anon-profit organization, where will the profits from the
market rate units go.
Ms. Mandoline answered that Eden will not own the markc~ rate units. She stated that the
owner is Citation Homes and they will sell the units for profit. The developments that Eden
builds are 10(?°~ affordable to families that are at or belong ~0% of the median income. She
continued that the Citation Homes is acquiring the land acid that acquisition of the land is
providing the subsidy to help build the affordable housing units.
Cm. Swalwell asked if Citation would also be managing the wets as well as constructing them.
Ms. Mandoline answered that C:itation will hopefully sell thc~ units to homebuyers but would
not manage them.
Charles McKeag, Citation Homes, spoke in favor of the project. He gave a brief overview of
Citation Homes and their experience. He stated he is here to answer questions about the market
rate units of the project but wanted to stress that if there was any concern regarding the quality
of construction or management expertise and quality of services of Eden Housing. He felt that
the current residents of Arroyo Vista will be happy to return to a community owned and
managed by Eden.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if Citation has a timeline for starting the project.
Mr. McKeag answered that it will depend on where they are in the market place, and with the
market being severely depressed it will be difficult to say when the implementation would
begin. He continued that there are many steps that need to be completed before
implementation.
2'fanning Commission 7g .,april28, 2009
~gufar Meeting
~ .~ a4§,
Ms. Mandolini added that Eden is replacing existing affordable housing on the site and is
committed to that and under HUD rules; the affordable housing must be built first.
Mr. McKeag stated that in the design of the project the civil engineers and consultants were
asked to craft a phasing plan that will enable the affordable h~~using component to move ahead
and stand alone allowing the Citation project to catch up as thc~ market catches up.
Cm. Schaub asked how Citation will phase the project so that the affordable homes can be built,
the current project torn down and the infrastructure installed.. He asked what will trigger the
next phase of the project.
Mr. McKeag answered that when designing the site plan they focused on the combination of
practical implementation and income integration concerns with respect to the varying income
levels of the community. He stated that the affordable component that Eden will build, own
and manage is in the center of the site. He continued that tl~e market rate component will be
located on the southern end, and on the far north end is the second market rate component. He
stated that the infrastructure has been designed to enable tl,.e Eden portion to be built in it's
entirety without any of the market rate housing or any of the n tfrastructure that would serve the
market rate housing needing to lie built.
Cm. Schaub asked if that included the streets.
Mr. McKeag answered that it would include the portion of ttie street that is necessary to serve
the Eden component. He stated the project was designed to make sure it was phased in this
way.
Ms. Fraser stated that this is not a normal development where they get approvals from the City
and then start building. This project requires many steps bef~~re the project can be built. HUD
still has to approve disposition of the site for the City to sell the property to Eden and Citation.
She continued that until that happens the project cannot rno>>e forward. She stated that Eden
needs to secure their funding sources and for that they must ]lave approval from the City. She
stated that there are residents still living on-site and there is no relocation plan in effect.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the residents will be given 180 day noti~:e to vacate.
Ms. Fraser answered that any relocation will be done as a part of an approved relocation plan
by the Dublin Housing Authority.
Mr. McKeag mentioned that the Dublin Housing Authority is solely responsible for the
relocation plan for the residents.
Chair Wehrenberg asked the ti~affic consultant to come to the podium to answer questions
regarding the traffic study.
Chris Kinzel, TjKM Transportation Consultants, who was retained by the City to do the traffic
study for Arroyo Vista came to the podium to answer questions.
~Plannittg Commission 7g ApriC28, 2009
~jygular~Vfeeting
-.
Cm. King stated that Page 5 of the Staff Report indicates there are major intersections that will
be left with an unacceptable level of service and the mitigatio~i measures cannot reduce them to
a less than significant level.
Mr. Kinzel stated that at build-out conditions there are two intersections that were found to
have unacceptable levels of service. He stated that "unaccE~ptable' is defined by the City of
Dublin General Plan.
Cm. King asked if these would be temporary traffic impacts or permanent.
Mr. Kinzel stated that each intersection is different. The intersection of Amador Valley Blvd.
and Dougherty Road is unacceptable primarily because of future traffic. It is assumed that the
Camp Parks gate will be located at that position and that the City will be unable to require all
the mitigation that would be needed to achieve acceptable levE~ls of service.
Cm. King asked where the Camp Parks entrance will be located.
Mr. Kinzel answered he thought it would be at the fourth leg of Amador Valley Blvd and
Dougherty Road intersection to the east, but that was still to bc~ determined.
Cm. King asked if it is correct that the impacts indentified in the Staff Report will be permanent
not temporary.
Mr. Kinzel answered that the City cannot require the Federal government to install the
mitigation measures.
Cm. King asked if the traffic impacts at the intersections of Ihiblin Blvd and Dougherty Road
and Amador Valley Blvd and Lougherty Road will be permanent traffic impacts because the
Staff Report indicates that they cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of service.
Kit Faubion, City Attorney stated that the information in the Staff Report is taken from the Draft
EIR. The Draft EIR tells the City what is a significant imp<<ct or not and in order to do that
establishes a standard that would be applied to what is acceptable and what is not. She
continued that "acceptable" is what the City says it is in the Draft EIR. She stated that
acceptable performance is based on the general plan standard. In other instances there are no
identifiable standards and the City has to identify what is acceptable. She continued that the
City uses the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) standard that will be the measure of
what is acceptable or not. She mentioned the two intersections are temporary impacts because
the improvement to mitigate that impact will not be in place by 2015. The other two impacts are
considered permanent impacts and the EIR explains why they can't be mitigated further.
Cm. King asked if those intersections will be at an accepti~ble level of service by anyone s
definition.
~PCanning Commission $~ ApriC28, 2009
9~gular9bteeting
Ms. Fraser stated that Dublin and Dougherty has continuE~d to operate at LOS-F which is
unacceptable to the City and there has been significant and overriding considerations adopted
in many projects because of that intersection. She stated the intersection cannot be mitigated to
an acceptable level of service anti to mitigate it would cause safety problems.
Cm. King asked if the Planning Commission decides the overriding considerations.
Ms. Fraser stated that the City Council makes the final de~:ision; the Planning Commission
makes a recommendation only. She stated that if the City Council certifies the EIR they are also
adopting the significant and overriding considerations if feel that the project had merit and
reasons to continue.
Cm. King asked whose definition is the City using for acceptable levels of service.
Ms. Faubion stated that in the Draft EIR (on page 99 and 100) there are standards of significance
which establishes what is and is not acceptable, the stand~~rds of significance in the traffic
section will indicate what is the :acceptable level of service.
Cm. Schaub felt that the project doesri t have much effect on the Dublin and Dougherty
intersection and that most of the traffic is controlled by San R~unon. He stated that even though
the intersection is in the EIR the project down t affect it.
Cm. Fraser stated that it is significant but this assumes build out at Camp Parks and everything
else that's been planned for. Arroyo Vista represents a very small portion of the overall trips
that go through Dublin and Dougherty.
Cm. Schaub felt that this intersection will be the same in every project.
Cm. King asked if the traffic calculations anticipate additional traffic from San Ramon and areas
north.
Mr. Kinzel answered yes.
Ms. Faubion commented that this EIR did not use the new methodology.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed that any change to the analysis cou1~3 cause confusion.
Paula Krugmeier, B.A.R. Architects, spoke in favor of the pr~~ject. B.A.R. Architects served as
the master planners for the entire site. She stated they tried to integrate the market rate and
affordable housing in the project and placed the unique eements in the center of the site
creating a village center. They linked the elements together v~rith tree lined streets with mature
redwood trees. She stated that each of the family units have their own front door entrance with
no common stairs which minimizes security issues.
Ms. Krugmeier continued that the parking in the family affordable housing is on grade and the
market rate housing parking is in garages. She stated if the3~ create a simple horizontal plane
2'lanning Commission $1 f7priC28, 2009
9~ggular9l~teeting
for the carport with two posts this type of structure can be hidden with landscaping. She felt
that in the drawing it is not very attractive but when the landscaping grows up the line of the
carport is minimised.
Cm. Schaub asked if the roofs will be nicely articulated or flat ;asphalt.
Ms. Krugmeier answered they responded to the City's design comment with a 50 year shingle
roof.
Cm. Brown asked Ms. Krugmeier to point out which street` have on-street parking and also
asked if they can accommodate parking on both sides of the street.
Ms. Krugmeier pointed out the on-street parking spaces and stated that they tried to make it
look Iike a neighborhood with ttivo lanes of traffic in either c[irection with parallel parking on
either side.
Rhenea Keyes, resident of Arroyo Vista and president of the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association
and also one of the plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit involvin€; the disposition of Arroyo Vista,
urged the Planning Connmission to reject Staff's recommend~-tion and to postpone any further
action on the project in the absence of HUD approval of DHA: s application for disposition and
full compliance with CEQA recluirements. WRITTEN STATEMENT ATTACHED TO THE
MINUTES.
Cm. King felt that Ms. Keyes' concerns were mostly procedural issues and asked if she had any
substantive objections to the project.
Ms. Keyes answered that personally she felt there was "lon;~ tenancy' and design problems.
She mentioned that there was $368,000 of stimulus money offered to the Dublin Housing
Authority for modifications to Arroyo Vista which was turnE~d down due to the fact that they
said there were no "shovel ready' projects. She disagreed with this statement. She felt that the
DHA was premature in rejecting the stimulus funds. She felt chat if the DHA began working on
some capital projects it would be a good start in redeveIol~ing Arroyo Vista as opposed to
prematurely demolishing it.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that there were extensive studies do~ie on the Arroyo Vista project and
felt that spending money on a housing project with continual problems was addressed by the
City in these studies and that is the reason the City is moving i'orward with this project.
Ms. Faubion responded to Ms. Keyes comment that there w~is a reference in her statement to
agenda materials not being available on the City's website. '.ihe sta#ed that the public hearing
notice specifically mentions that materials may be available later but that they would be
available at City hall on Friday before the meeting. She stated that tonight's meeting was
properly posted, the agenda was posted and the materials were available at Dublin City hall on
Friday.
2'lanning CoMmission $2 April2lT, 2009
~gular Meeting
elf ~ r ~ P
l/` ~ ~ ~ ..
Ms. Faubion continued to respond to Ms. Keyes' comments re larding her recommendation that
the EIR not be certified; she stated that the City provided a Draft EIR that provides an analysis
of the project consistent with CEQA's intent that when a decision maker makes decisions they
know the environmental consequences of a project and that the public knows the same. She
continued that the City believes that the EIR has done that acid the responses to the comments
adequately identify what the CEQA issues were and respondE~d in an appropriate manner. The
speakef s comments addressed social issues and CEQ~~ is concerned with physical,
environmental issues. She continued that the project is more than replacing the affordable
housing that would be lost when the project is developed.
Ms. Faubion continued to respond to Ms. Keyes' comments regarding the other approvals not
being made until the HUD approval; it is very common for Lhtblin projects to require approvals
from other agencies and for changes to the initial project be made in order to satisfy those
agencies.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Schaub stated he likes the project and felt it was extremel~~ complex but a Iand use issue not
a social issue. He felt it is a good project and that a lot of people will want to live there. He
agreed that the parking will be adequate with the on-street parking. He felt that the circulation
issues are the same ones that the City has dealt with previously. He stated he is in support of
the project.
Cm. King felt the project by itself is a nicely designed neight~orhood; he likes the architecture,
the recreational facilities and senior housing. However, from a land use point of view he has
concerns regarding traffic flow. He reviewed the material in the EIR but was still not satisfied
that he understood what an acceptable level of service is. He felt he could overlook some
vagueness in the EIR but the actual traffic flow and impacts he was not satisfied with. He stated
he would like additional information regarding future development in San Ramon and how
will that affect the traffic in Dublin. He found the net affect .m the two key intersections to be
problematic.
Cm. Brown stated he also likes the project and the way the various lifestyles have been
incorporated with senior living, affordable and market rate housing. He was in support of the
project.
Crn. Swalweli stated that people expect, with affordable housing, the project will be livable and
safe and esthetically pleasing. He felt the project had all those things. He liked that the
developers worked together to create a good project that e~~eryone benefits from. He had a
technical concern with the resolutions; he asked that: the words "Applicant" and
"Applicant/Developer' be made plural to indicate there is more than one Applicant. He felt
that it could be a problem in the future.
Ms. Fraser agreed to change to the resolution to "Applicants/ Developers' in the resolution and
the Conditions of Approval.
2'Canning Commission $3 flpriC28, 2009
~pguCar Meeting
;:~~ .. c~
Ms. Fraser also stated that Staff would like to add a Condition of Approval that says the
effective date of the approval will not be until the City Council approves the GPA and PD
Rezoning and certifies the Environmental Impact Report.
Chair Wehrenberg was also in agreement that this is a gaud project and likes the parking
management plan, the design and the fact that it is part of the housing element as far as meeting
the future goals for the City. She liked the Eden program and their excellent life skills programs
for teens and the elderly. She also stated she is in support of the parking and likes that fewer
cars required as well as off-site improvements and access ~~oints. She is in support of the
project.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-1-0, Morgan King
opposed, with changes to the resolution and an addition to the Condition of Approval, the
Planning Commission approved
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C~~MMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ARROYO Vl[STA PROJECT
LOCATED AT 6700 DOUGHERTY ROAD
(APN 941-0007-001-07)
PA 07-028
RESOLUTION N0.09 -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING Ci~MMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE ~~RROYO VISTA PROJECT SITE
a;~'z :~ii:i3i 'i-I:^vSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM/IQGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
AND PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC AND ALLOW FOR ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOUSING
UNITS IN THE MEDIUM/H[GH-DENSIT'r' itL~II'-L-`~"s:z ~,:~ii i~E I'ESi%~ti~ii iiiiv
(APN 941-0007-001-07)
PA 07-028
~Plattning Commission g4 April28, 2009
~ggular 51(eeting
~~ .'
f A~; ~/ Y
RESOLUTION N0.09-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C~JMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ASV ORDINANCE APPROVING A
PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND A RELATED STAGE 1/STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ARROYO VISTA PROJECT
LOCATED AT 6700 DOUGHERTY ROAD
(APN 941-0007-001-07)
PA 07-028
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -15
A RESOLU'T'ION OF THE PLANNING C~JMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7943 FOR THE ARROYO VISTA
PROJECT LOCATED AT 6700 DOUGHERTY ROAD (APN 941-0007-001-07)
PA 07-028
RESOLUTION N0.09 -16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C~JMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE ARROYO VISTA PROJECT WITH
378 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, COMMUNITY BU[LDING AND DAYCARE
LOCATED AT 6700 DOUGHERTY ROAD
(APN 941-0007-001-07)
PA 07-028
8.2 PA 08-034`` Fallon Gateway Commercial rater -Amendment to the Planned
Development 'ct of the General Commerc' portion of Area C and a Site Development
Review for a re mmercial developm , orated at the southwest corner of Fallon Road
and Dublin Boulev
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
Cm. Schaub asked if the rea~/~ squ~
City expects so many doll r square
project as stated in the Staff Report.
is called out in the Staff Report is because the
now we coul d expect less revenue_
~E'lanning Commission g$ f7pril28, 2009
~gu(ar Meeting
~~ ~ ,~.
Arroyo Vista Project
Planning Commission Hearing
Apri1.28, 2009 7:00 p.m.
Item 8.1
PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM RHENAE KEYES
Good evening. My name is Rhenae Keyes. I submit these ~~omments as a resident of
Arroyo Vista, the chairperson of Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, and one of the
plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit involving disposition of Arroyo Vista.
I urge the Planning Commission to reject staff s recommend~itions this evening for the
following reasons:
• Contrary to the public notice regarding this hearing, the Agenda Report and
attachments were not made available on the City's website for public review until
Monday, April 27, 2009. This deprives the public of ~m adequate opportunity to
submit informed comrents. At a minimum, the Cor.;imission should postpone
any action on Agenda Item 8.1 to permit adequate opportunity for public
comment and to comply with the Brown Act.
The Commission should not recommend certification of the EIR for the reasons
set forth in our counsel's letter dated March 23, 2009, a copy of which is attached
to these comments. Staff's responses to those comments in the Final EIR are
incomplete, inadequate, and not supported by the evider:ce. In addition:
o Staff s proposed revisions to the Draft EIR ~.re inconsistent with the
Disposition and Development Agreement, DHA's Application to HUD for
.approval of disposition, and the Relocation Plan adopted by DHA.
Because these revisions may have a significant impact on housing and the
population, the proposed Final EIR should bc; re-circulated for public
comment. Making the Final EIR available for review one day before the
Commission's public hearing deprives the p~iblic of any meaningful
opportunity to review and comment on the propc sed Final EIR.
o Because HUD leas not approved DHA's application to dispose of Arroyo
Vista and may impose additional conditions on the project, the EIR should
not be certified without consideration of the en~~ironmental effects of any
conditions HUL> may impose on the project. Likewise, HUD may reject
the application for disposition which would likely affect the City
Council's consideration of the project alternatives set forth in the EIR.
• The Commission should not recommend approval of the General Plan .or PD
Planned Development Rezone and related Developmen: Plan. It is premature to
recommend approval oi~ a project that is fundamentally contingent on approval by
Agenda Item 8.1
Rhenae Keyes Comments
Page 1
~_
q //
~-~ , '~_~
HUD. As staff acknowledges in its Agenda Report, HUD has not approved
DHA's application to dispose of the property.
o The Commission should not adopt the resclutions approving the site
development review and vesting tentative tr;ict map for Arroyo Vista.
Again, HUD has not yet approved DHA's apI>lication for disposition. A
"piecemeal" approval of the project by the Planning Commission could
impede modifications to the tentative tract m<<p and site development as
may be required by HUD. Moreover, a "piecemeal" approval of the
project without certification of the EIR or a no-:ice of determination by the
lead agency conflicts with CEQA procedural requirements. • It also
undermines the City Council's discretion to consider alternatives set forth
in the EIR, including the alternative that the project not go forward at all.
• Finally, we wish to correct staff's statement in its A~;erida Report that residents
will receive a 90-day notice prior to any mand~itory relocation. DHA's
Relocation Plan and a notice issued to residents of f~rroyo Vista in July 2008,
pursuant to a stipulation filed in the pending litigatio~z, provides for a minimum
150-day notice to residents advising them of HUD's decision on the application
for disposition and airy mandatory requirement to relocate. Given the longer
notice requirement and the fact that HUD has yet to ;jct on the Application, the
Planning Commission should not rush to circumverit th° law.
We urge you to reject staff's recommendations and to postpone any further action on the
Arroyo Vista project in the absence of HUD approval of DHA's application for
disposition and full compliance with CEQA requirements.
Agenda Item 8.1
Rhenae Keyes Comments
Page 2
~ ~ _ „
T~e Public; Interest Law Proieet
The Public Interest Law P^olect and Phone (510) 891-9794
California Affordable Houaing Law Project Fax (510) 891-9727
449 - 15th Street, Suite 301 www.piipca.org
Oakland, CA 94612
March 23, 2009
Michael Rawson
ca-Director Via Hand Delivery
Extension 145
mrawson®pilpca.org
City of Dublin
Stephen Ronfeldt Community Development Department
Co-Director
Extension 127
100 Civic Plaza
smnreldt(~gipca.°rg Dublin, CA 94568
Deborah Collins
ManagingAtromey
Attention: Erica Fraser, Project Planner
Extension 156
dcollins®pilpca.org
Re: Comments on Draft EIR
Craig Castellanet Arroyo Vista EIR SCH #2007122066
Stal/Attomey
Extension 132
ccastellanet~pilpca.org
Dear Ms Fraser:
Angie Schwartz
StaHAftomey
Extensor 125
il
ca
or
h
t Ba Area Le al Aid and The Public Interest Law Pro act submit these comments
Y g ~
p
.
g
z~p
asc
war on the Arroyo Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on behalf of
Judith Gold our clients, the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, Rhen,3e Keyes, Andres Arroyo,
~~ ~ i;ey ursuant to the City's Nctice of Availability of
d Elise Veal
l
B
D
e p
rown an
ar
ene
jgdd(~pilpca.org Draft EIR dated January 28, 2009.
Eilzabeth Graben
LegafAssisrant
The City's Preparation of the Draft EIR for the Arroyo Vista Project Is
ensi®P~iP~ rg
rater I o UIItIIIlely.
ceorgie Ferri The Draft EIR is too late in the development process to reasonably guide the City
~s o~;o Council's decision with respect to the environmental im pacts of the "proposed"
~°'IZ'~F''~~°`g project. In fact, the City Council improperly committed itself to the
redevelopment of Arroyo Vista long before evaluating the environmental effects
of the project.
As acknowledged in the Draft EIR, the purpose of an EIR is 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 re:;ponsibility 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 proje~;t in 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 Holl rwood, 45 Cal.4~' 116,
130-31 (2008).
~~ ., _(
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.
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 respc;ctive residents from the
Site. Id. at § § 1.5, 5.1.
• Alternative 2 suggests a reduced project, calling for demolition of al! existing
units, relocation of all residents, and redevelopment at ~i lower density resulting in
fewer units. Id. at § § 1.5, 5.2.
• Alternative 3 calls for a mixed use project using a porti~~n of 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 no# 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 (DDA)
with the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA), Alameda County Housing Authority
(RAGA), Citation Homes, and Eden Housing to carry out the same project that
is proposed here [demolition of all public housing uni~s, 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 disturse those funds
incrementally as costs aze incurred. Without any environmental review, in
Mazch 2007, a relocation consultant was hired; beginr:ing in or about July 2007,
DHA and HACA began relocating residents; by August 2007, at least 12
households had been relocated and by June 2008, approximately 60 households
had been relocated. See DDA; Contract with Overlan~i Pacific & 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 newly half of the public
housing units at Arroyo Vista without any environmental review 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 costs of the project,
according to the DDA, in December 2007, the City Council 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 Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 45 Cai.4~' 116, 129-:30 (2008) [citation
omitted]. It effectively approved the proposed project withou~: any environmental review
in violation of CEQA and C;EQA Guidelines.
The City cannot shield itself from its failure to comply with CEQA procedures by
claiming that its DDA is "conditioned" on approval of DHA's application for disposition
to HUD and/or completion of the environmental review mand~.ted under CEQA. The
court will look beyond the `terms' of the purported `condition~.l' 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, s~ pra. Relocating nearly
half of the families at Arroyo Vista in advance of any environrental 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
to Population and Housing Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
The EIR must provide adequate information to local officials, government agencies and
members of the public in order to disclose the environmental impacts and propose the
mitigation measures and alternatives that will avoid or minimiae 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 Dra$ EIR acknowledges that there would be a significant impact if the proposed
project would displace a substantial number of dwelling units or people necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Draft EIR §~l•.9. 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 sire 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 i'or the non-profit developer
to apply for Section 202 Capital Grant, Low-Income Housin; Tax Credits, and/or other
public funds in order to produce rental units that would be afi~ordable to households with
incomes up to 60% of AMI. See DDA, Ex. B (Financing 1'lan/Development Budget).
Moreover, development of arty rental units at these affordability levels is expressly
dependent on the avaiIabiliry of sufficient funding. See DDA §2.3, 2.4.
Further, neither DHA's Application nor the DDA even proje:ct 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 credit program suffers from a
lack of investors willing to purchase tax credits. Even project: 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 20~ 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 arty affordable rental units will ever "replace" the 150
public housing units to be demolished.
"Affordability" of Units. Second, the proposed project wilt not produce units that aze
affordable to a majority of Arroyo Vista residents, rendervig any purported "right of
return" misleading at best. Even assuming that the non-profi~: developer actually secures
sufficient funds to produce "affordable" rental units, the projected tax credit rent levels
would be out of reach for most Arroyo Vista families. The Di•aft E1R implies that current
residents have incomes up to 80% of the AMI. In fact, as of September 2007, DHA
reported that 65% of Arro}~o Vista households have extremely low incomes (at or below
30% of AMI) ~; 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 bel nv extremely 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 5
March 23, 2009
of the households include persons with disabilities. Sse HACA/DHA Resident
Characteristics Report, September 30, 2007.2 Based on 2008 income limits for Alameda
County, the maximum "affordable" housing cost for an extremely low income family of
four is $646 per month; it is $1076 for very low income households of four. Smaller
households and households below extremely low income c:an afford even less. For
example, an extremely low income household of one with a~i income of $18,100 could
afford no more than $452 for rent; California households v~ith Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) as their sole source of income (typically seniors over 65 and persons with
disabilities) can afford no snore than $261 for rent.3 Finally, DHA reported in February
2008 that the average monthly rents at Arroyo Vista range fi•om $232 for one-bedroom
units and $553 for 4-bedroom units. See DHA Relocation Pla~i at page 14.
By comparison, monthly rents for the 49 one-bedroom, senior-only "redeveloped" units
are estimated at $471. Sege DDA, Ex. B-6. At best, this rent level would pose a rent
burden for Arroyo Vista's extremely low income senior households. For one-person
senior households with incomes considerably lower than 30% of the area median income,
including households with SSI as their sole income, rents of $171 would render the senior
ineligible for the unit. Arroyo Vista's "non-senior" families fare even worse. Although
65% of Arroyo Vista residents have extremely low (or lower) incomes and at least 63%
of its households include families with children that would lie ineligible for the senior-
only units, only 13 of the 129 "family" units are targeted to extremely low income
families. See Resident Characteristic Report September 2007; DDA, Ex. B-3. And, only
8 of those units (one and two-bedrooms) would rent for less than $646, the maximum rent
affordable to an extremely low income family of four. Id. I\Zoreover, only 3 of the 129
"family" units (all one-bedrooms) would rent below $5~.5, the maximum amount
affordable to Arroyo Vista's "average" extremely low income: households. See footnote
1; DDA, Ex. B-3. Even rents of $525 would far exceed the average rents currently
charged for one-bedroom units. Thus, the redevelopment plan will not result in 150
units that are affordable to a majority of Arroyo Vista's families, and the conclusion that
residents will have a "right of return" is not supported by the evidence.
Accessibility. .The proposed redevelopment of Arroyo Vista does not address
accessibility of units for persons with disabilities. Over 30% ~f Arroyo Vista households
include family members with disabilities. See Resident Char~.cteristic Report, September
2007. The City's Housing Element reflects that 18 Anoyo Vista units are fully
accessible to persons with mobility impairments. If the accessible units are not replaced,
residents with mobility impairments are obviously precluded from any "right of return".
Report, September 2007. Households even with the average income could afford rents of no more than
$525.
z Ivforeover, DHA's Relocation flan estimates that only five Arroyo Vista Households may be ineligible as
"over-income". for Section 8 assistance.
' See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out-of--Reach 2007-08 at vrww.nlihc.orQ.
,..
~~ ;
~, ~:
~ ~ .~'
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 6
Mazch 23, 2009
Inadequate Size Units. Arroyo Vista presently consists of 150 single family homes
with a mix of 16 one-bedroom, 78 two-bedroom, 32 three-bedroom and 24 four-bedroom
homes. See Application §4. DHA reported household sizes in September 2007 of: 46%
1 and 2 person households; 36% 3 and 4 person househ~~lds; 16% 5 and 6 person
households; and 4% 7 and 8 person households. Units of ~.n appropriate size for such
households would include approximately 68 1-bedroom, 58 2-bedroom, 23 3-bedroom
and 6 4-bedroom units. Moreover, as discussed above, 31% of Arroyo Vista households
include persons with disabilities, and as DHA acknowledges :n its Relocation Pian, some
of those households require an additional bedroom. See Relocation Plan at 12-13. By
comparison, the DDA provides for the replacement of 59 1-bedroom units (49 of them
restricted to seniors); 69 2-bedroom units; 34 3-bedroom units; and 15 4-bedroom units
which does not match the residents' needs by household si::e. In order to ensure that
Arroyo Vista families are not deprived of a "right of return' for the replacement units,
any approval of the Application should be conditioned on replacement with a sufficient
number of units that actually match the residents' needs by household size, including any
needs for an additional bedroom to reasonably accommodate households with disabilities.
Finally, by restricting a majority of the 1-bedroom units to se~liors, non-senior families in
need of a 1-bedroom unit would be deprived of a meaningful right of return.
Right of First Refusal
The Draft EIR states that residents will have a right of return. as long as they don't have
incomes higher than the Project's maximum affordability levels. That is not what the
Application and DDA provide. Rather, the Application and DDA provide that Arroyo
Vista households who are relocated as part of the disposition process would have a "first
priority" for the affordable replacement units, provided the:i meet eligibility standards
and procedures to be imposed by the developers. See Ap;~licatiori §5, Line 9; DDA
§4.2(c). The DDA further limits the pool of Arroyo Vista residents to "prior residents"
that "were eligible under the Relocation Plan." DDA §4.20)(1). In order to ensure a
"meaningful" "right of return" as opposed to a "first priority", redevelopment would
require that the redeveloped rental units are affordable, accessible, and of appropriate size
to accommodate the Arroyo Vista residents. In addition, lir.iiting the "first priority" to
families that were eligible under the Relocation Plan is inadequate because DHA
relocated many families long before it even adopted a Relocation Plan.
The Application further provides that relocated residents would be required to meet
"basic qualification criteria". Application §5, Line 9. However, the DDA would subject
prior residents to arbitrary and vague eligibility and screening standards including for
example: "a continuing cornmitment to be law-abiding and le;~se-compliant;" "behavioral
standards which would be expected in the private rental mark~:t;" and any other standards
and procedures the develc-per proposes if approved by DHA and HACA. See DDA
§4.2(c)(1), (c)(2). As of September 2007, 34% of Arroyo Vista residents had resided at
Arroyo Vista for over ten years, 19% for over 5 years, and 27% for between 2 and 5
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 diverse community of families
with children, seniors, anti 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 we:•e 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 fuming source that is used in
developing the units for which they apply.
Relocation of Residents. The Draft EIR states that all residents to be displaced "would
be" relocated pursuant to local, state and federal law. In fact, ~rt least 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. T.luS, it is misleading for the
Draft EIR to imply that all residents "would" receive all relocation required by local,
state and federal law. Tliat has already not occurred. N[oreover, our clients have
challenged the validity of the relocation plan under state ar.d federal law and DHA's
failure to comply with its own relocation plan or state or federal law with respect to
relocation assistance and benefits. See Bay Legal/PILP Comments to Relocation Plan.
For the above reasons, the I;IR should be rejected and the DDf~ rescinded.
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
BY:
Deborah Collins
Attorneys for Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, et al.
?~ o~- ~~ `~~="`'1
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 28, 2009
SUBJECT: PA 07-028 Arroyo Vista (Legislative Action) -Planned Development
Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving a PD Planned Development Rezone and related Stagel/Stage
2 Development Plan for the Arroyo Vista Project with the Draft
Ordinance attached as Exhibit A;
2) April 28, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments); and
3) Minutes from the Apri128, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
4) City Council Resolution No. 136-07, approving a Disposition and
Development Agreement for the Arroyo Vista Redevelopment Project
with the Housing Authority of the City of Dublin, the Housing Authority
of the County of Alameda, Eden Housing Inc., and Citation Homes
Central; Approving Financial Assistance to the Housing Authority of the
City of Dublin for Relocation Costs; and Preliminarily Granting
Waivers to the City's Inclusionary Ordinance Subject to Final Approval
of Zoning, Parcel Map and Tentative Map.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the public hearing;
(~., 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
`-w~' 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance approving a PD Planned Development Rezone and related
Stagel/Stage 2 Development Plan for the Arroyo Vista Project.
BACKGROUND:
The Arroyo Vista project would replace the existing 150 units of public housing on the Arroyo Vista site,
located at 6700 Dougherty Road, with 378 units of housing. On Apri128, 2009, the Planning Commission
reviewed the Arroyo Vista project during a public hearing (Attachments 2 and 3). At the hearing, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-12 recommending that the City Council certify an
Environmental Impact Report for the project, Resolution 09-13 recommending that the City Council
amend the General Plan, Resolution 09-14 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance
rezoning the property to PD, Planned Development, Resolution 09-15 approving a Tentative Map and
Resolution 09-1.6 approving a Site Development Review. The Council has not yet considered the
Planning Commission's April 28 recommendations and actions. The project is before the Commission
again with recommendations by Staff to revise the recommendation regarding the ordinance rezoning the
COPIES TO: Applicants
G: VArroyo VistalPC PFIIPC Agenda Statement 7-28.DOC
Attachment 3
,1''~,
property. The April 28 Planning Commission agenda statement is attached and incorporated for
background (Attachment 2).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Arroyo Vista residential development is a community of approximately 378 units comprised
of 198 market rate and 180 affordable units. The affordable portion of the Project will be located at the
center of the Site with the market rate portion of the Project surrounding it. Other improvements include a
childcare facility, community building, parking, tot lots and passive recreation areas.
The market rate component of the Project will include 198 for-sale dwelling units including 141 attached
and 57 detached dwellings.
The affordable component of the Project will include 130 rental affordable family apartment units with
129 income restricted units (one unit will be designated as a live-in manager unit), which will be
constructed by Eden Housing. The family apartments will be comprised of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in
a combination of stacked flats and multi-level apartments. The apartment units will be broken up into
several two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings.
The affordable component will also include 50 rental senior apartments (with 49 1-bedroom income-
restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit). The senior apartments will be located in one
three story building located near the center of the development. A community building and a daycare
facility will also be constructed as part of the project.
ANALYSIS:
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the
Planned Development District. The intent of the Planned Development District is to create a more
desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical
environment than would otherwise be achieved under a single zoning district or combination of zoning
districts. The Zoning Ordinance requires the adoption of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans,
which establishes regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the property
within the Planned Development Zoning District.
The Project Site is currently zoned Planned Development (PD) 1418 ZU. The Planned Development
Zoning District was adopted by the County of Alameda on January 10, 1980 and allowed for the
construction of a residential development with 150 dwelling units. In order to construct the proposed
Project with up to 378 dwelling units, the Site must be rezoned to allow the increase in the number of
dwelling units.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Stagel/Stage 2 Development Plan for the specific development
of the subject Site at this time. The Development Plan allows for the construction of affordable family
apartments, affordable senior apartments, attached and detached market-rate dwelling units, a community
building and childcare center.
On April 28, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan and
adopted Resolution 09-14 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning the property
to Planned Development. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney determined that
_~' ~ k ,. ~ Z ~ d
changes to the draft Ordinance are warranted to implement the Council's direction regarding the Project's
compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The revisions are included in Section 9 on page 8
of Exhibit A to Attachment I.
The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations section of the City Council Ordinance (Exhibit A to Attachment 1)
has been revised to include certain provisions included in the resolution approved by the City Council
when it approved the Disposition and Development Agreement between the City and the developers of the
Arroyo Vista Project (please refer to Attachment 4, City Council Resolution No. 136-07). The Council's
Resolution preliminarily waived certain requirements of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
including allowing the project to be treated as one project and the affordability, dispersal (allocation)
bedroom size and preference point requirements. It also preliminarily conditionally waived the
requirement of concurrent construction of the affordable and market rate units, and directed that certain
provisions be included when the zoning was revised. It is these provisions that are included in the revised
proposed Ordinance before the Commission tonight. The purpose of the provisions is to assure that if the
market-rate project is constructed prior to the affordable project, that the developer not construct more
than 112 market rate units unless they have constructed 14 for-sale affordable units, for a total of 126 units
so that the construction of affordable units keeps pace with the construction of market rate units, or the
non-profit developer (Eden Housing) has secured financing for the affordable units, the for-profit
developer (Citation Homes Central) has constructed more than 14 affordable units or has paid in lieu fees.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State Law, a notice regarding tonight's hearing was published in the Valley Times and
was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the Project Site and all persons who
requested a copy of the notice. Additionally, Staff sent notices to all existing and former tenants of the
existing Arroyo Vista development (who have moved since the spring of 2007} and sent notices to all
property owners and tenants between Alamo Creek and Dougherty Road up to the Alameda/Contra Costa
County line which maybe impacted by the Project.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicants are requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone fora 378 unit residential
development which includes affordable family apartments, affordable senior apartments, market-rate
attached and detached units, community building and childcare facility. The proposed revisions to the
Ordinance will ensure that the project will comply with the Disposition and Development Agreement
between the City and the developers of the Arroyo Vista project. The redeveloped Arroyo Vista Project
will enhance the existing area and provide a unique development within the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate;
and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD
Planned Development Rezone and related Stagel/Stage 2 Development Plan for the Arroyo Vista Project.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING USES:
Eden Housing, Inc.
409 Jackson Street
Hayward, CA 94544
Citation Homes Central
404 Saratoga Avenue Suite 100
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Dublin Housing Authority
6700 Dougherty Road
941-0007-001-07
Medium-Density Residential
None
Public Housing
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of
Pro er
Site PD (Planned Medium Density Public Housing
Development) Residential (existing)
Medium/High Density
Residential ro osed
North PD (Planned Medium Density Housing
Develo ment) Residential
South PD (Planned Medium/High Density Housing
Develo ment) Residential
East A 'culture Public Lands Cam Parks
West PD (Planned Medium Density Housing
Develo ment) Residential
,. ~~ ~ r
1 a.~
DRAFT -° DRAFT
1
~-'` Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesda ul 28 2009
y, I y ,
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 28,
2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Swalwell; Jeff
Baker, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS -
On a motion by Cm. Brown, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the May 26, 2009 meeting
were approved.
On a motion by Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Swalwell the minutes of the July 14, 2009
meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 07-028 Arroyo Vista (Legislative Action) -Planned Development Rezone with
a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan.
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and finding no one to speak on the project closed
the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission approved:
lufj;Wfs, "~d1=i
ATTACHMENT 4
b ~ Y~
DRAFT ~~' RAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 09- 32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND A RELATED STAGE 1/STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ARROYO VISTA PROJECT
LOCATED AT 6700 DOUGHERTY ROAD
(APN 941-0007-001-07)
PA 07-028
8.2 PA\09
Ame ~
Water
Erica Fraser, Senior
Waterford Place: (Quasi-Judicial) - Conditional Use Permit for a Minor
nt to the Planned Development Zonir~,~ District (PA 00-003) for
Place. ~`
r
r
0
~r presented the project as outlined fi the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub felt that the use being added are simple, re~lsonable uses and was surprised they
were not initially included in th Planned Development:
Ms. Fraser answered when the PD as
they wanted for their site. She Conti i
they would like to add some allowed u
that any modification must go to the
amendments will be this simple.
Cm. Schaub asked if there is a con
Zones that would include these uses.
allowed.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed.
established t~(e Applicants submitted the list of uses that
red it has ben nine years and things have changed and
;~s. She sjt'ated that the City's Zoning Ordinance requires
P nnir,~g Commission for approval and not all minor
~nsiv list of the allowable uses in the Commercial
felt that ome of the uses on the list should already be
Cm. King felt that uses should zoned in a category not a ecific list. He asked why Hooters,
which is zoned for a restaura use, was treated differently.
Ms. Fraser answered that ooters is in the typical C-2 zoning ' trict with a list of allowable
uses. She continued th this project is in nontraditional zoning here they can submit their
own list of uses. She s ated that Waterford established their list of u s allowed on the site, as
well as a different pa ing requirement. She stated that there are many 'ems that the Applicant
can create as part o the Planned Development. In this case, the items being added were not on
the original list of terns, and therefore not allowed on the site.
~, zi7r~s