HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Arroyo Vista Legis Action Attch 2 Cont (2)
Arroyo Vista Project
General Plan Amendment
` Rezoning
Site Design Review
Subdivision Maps
ra o~-o2s
Final
Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2007122066
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
Apri12009
~, .
EXHIBIT E TO ,~
ATTACHMENT 2
,.
-~~ i ~ q~~
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................... 2
Project Description .........................................................................................2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR .............................................. 3
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ......................................................... 7
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses .............................................. 8
Attachment 1: Revised Traffic Tables ......................................................... 27
Attachment 2: Redevelopment Information Newsletters ........................ 28
~`1a ~ qo1
Introduction
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated January 2009 was prepared for this
Project and distributed for public review January through March 2009. The Project area
contains approximately 23.8 acres of land (24.1 gross acres of land) located in the central
portion of the City of Dublin. More specifically, the Site is located at 6700 Dougherty
Road on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road
with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with
the Iron Horse Trail.
DEIR circulation
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
- Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with
and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by
law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity
to comment on the DEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive
comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a public review period
between January 31, 2009 and March 23, 2009.
This Comments and Responses document augments the DEIR and, together with the
DEIR, comprise the Final EIR (FEIR) for this Project. This document contains all public
comments received during the 45-day public review period regarding the DEIR and
responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of
each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that
comment.
The FEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in
the DEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated
new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the DEIR. The City has
carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or
clarifications and modifications to the DEIR text, against the recirculation standards of
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information or
clarifications/modifications in this document constitutes significant new information as
defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially more severe significant impacts
or different feasible alternatives or mitigations, therefore the City has determined that
~° no recirculation is required.
Project Description
Existing residents on the Site would be relocated from the site consistent with
applicable state and Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings
on the Site would be removed. The Project would then consist of constructing up to 378
new dwellings on the Site, as well as a community building, a day care center and
related improvements. The Project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the
Site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 2
City of Dublin April 2009
1 ~.
The proposed Arroyo Vista residential development would be a community of
approximately 378 units comprised of 198 for sale units with 141 of these being
attached and 57 detached dwellings. Up to 15 of the "for sale" units will be set-aside for
below market rate (moderate income level) purchase.
The remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income-
restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a
combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-
bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment
unit). Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential
wood-frame buildings. The senior apartments would be located in one three-story
building located near the center of the development, adjacent to the childcare center.
A small courtyard will be constructed between the senior building wings.
A community building would be constructed as part of the proposed Project.
The childcare facility is proposed to be located near the intersection of the public loop
road and public street A. This facility would include approximately 3,400 square feet
and would contain a preschool classroom, toddler classroom and offices. The facility
would be open to the public. The facility could accommodate up to 48 children and
would also include an outdoor play area. The anticipated hours of operation for the
facility are 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The total anticipated number
of employees for the facility is 8, which includes teachers, administration and
maintenance staff.
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DEIR are incorporated by
reference into the DEIR document.
1) Page 93 of the DEIR, Fire Services, first paragraph, is modified to note that Fire
Station 16 at 7494 Donohue is located a distance of 1.3 miles from the Project site.
2) Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 is hereby modified to read as follows:
"Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patterns, flooding and
drainage system ca acity): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage and
hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City
drainage criteria which shall indicate that adequate on and off-site capacity
exists in local and regional drainage facilities to accommodate the direction, rate
and amount of increased stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(s) shall
upgrade undersized drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding
would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by
Project drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the
Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 and all recommendations for
drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans."
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 3
City of Dublin April 2009
~l1
~L~L~ `~
3) Page 11, the second sentence in second to last paragraph is amended to read: "The
Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes be~ee~
3~ at or below 60% of the AMI."
4) The second line of the second paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project
Description) be modified as follows "Existing residents on the Site would be
relocated to replacement housing sites consistent with applicable , state and
Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site
would be removed."
5) The first line of the third paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project
Description) is modified as follows: "The remainder of the Project would include
construction of up to 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a
mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and
townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-bedroom income-restricted
apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment unit)."
6) The bottom of page 3 in Section 1.5 is modified as follows: "Alternative 2: Reduced
Project. The second alternative assumes that existing buildings and related
improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per applicable
lee~I, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site would
be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per acre."
7) The fourth line of the second paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) is
modified as follows: "The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a
community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with
141 attached and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential
dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked
flats and townhouses) and 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491-
bedroom apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit which would not be
income or age restricted)."
8) The third line of the fourth paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) is
modified as follows: "The affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy
by seniors with incomes at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The
Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between
20 o and 60% of AMI."
9) The third paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics), page 13, is modified as
follows: "The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to
HUD on August 15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing
and Citation Homes Central developer team. With HUD approval of the
Disposition Application, the Project would be removed from the public housing
program and will no longer be subject to the Annual Contribution Contract.
Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex would be relocated from the Site
consistent with the relocation plan which has been approved bX the
a Dublin Housing Authority which is consistent with applicable lec-eI, State and
Federal relocation guidelines and regulations."
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 4
City of Dublin April 2009
10) Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 80, is modified as follows: "The
Project Site is occupied by 1501^~•~ ~^^^-~~ public housing detached single-family
dwellings owned by the Dublin Housing Authority.
The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on
August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq. proposing
disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer
team. The Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan pursuant to
applicable ~~, state and federal guidelines. The plan provides for relocation
benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of applicable law. Benefits
include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for disabled and
_ senior residents if requested, security deposits, credit check fees, comparable
replacement housing in the form of a Section 8 voucher or, if ineligible, a
replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice to move (but only if HUD
approves the disposition application). The relocation plan demonstrates that there
are adequate available housing resources for the displaced households and that the
DHA will provide advisory assistance and relocation benefits necessary to ensure
that all households are adequately housed at the time of displacement."
11) The last paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 91, is modified
as follows: "Each of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with
extremely low incomes, would be provided with relocation assistance and would
have the right to return to the Project, provided their incomes at the time of
rehousing are not higher than the Project's maximum affordability levels."
12) The first paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified
as follows:
"Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to
increase both the number and affordability level of the units on the property. The
current units, while operating as public housing units, are available to residents
with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The 49 senior units
will be available only to households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI. T~
_.._ l~I~ZZ~I•-••~•~••~~ .~.1.~.-.r~n,l7 F:.....-..,ir~rr in n~~nnn,nnF..l LTTTTI .....1:.......:11 _.,.___.__ tl--L -i-1---i
ef~4~A,~-}: The family rental units will be restricted to varying income levels, none
µ of which will exceed 60% of AMI. Thus, all of the affordable rental units will be
income-restricted at levels lower than they are currently, including some for those
with extremely low income. The proposal is intended to create amixed-income
community that more than replaces the number oflow-income units being
removed, in compliance with several policies contained in Dublin's Housing
Element.
13) The fourth paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is
modified as follows:
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 5
City of Dublin April 2009
1, U~ , r ~-
~I ~ ~ ~.;1
"In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households
being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and
would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the
,< general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation p~a~~assistance
as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for
sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional
housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would
not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase
the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale"
dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and
people from the Site would be less-than-significant."
14) The second paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is
modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing Authority has prepared a
comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents, as required by applicable
state and Federal ~e;~s ug idelines."
15) The third paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified
as follows:
"Relocation efforts, as documented in the Relocation Plan, include an outreach
program for residents and convening several resident meetings to describe the
proposed redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project
Site. Relocation specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and
would continue to provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for
comparable housing opportunities in the Dublin and Tri-Vallev area and referrals
regarding governmental and social service agencies, as needed. Relocation
payments have been provided to residents and will continue to be provided in
accordance with California Guidelines and federal requirements."
16) The fourth paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is
modified as follows:
"In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households
being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and
would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the
general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation pis-assistance
as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for
sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional
housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would
not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase
the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale"
dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and
people from the Site would be less-than-significant."
17) Page 100-101, Standards of Significance, first bullet point, the threshold for
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency facilities is based on the
ACCMA monitoring standards and is established at LOS E.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 6
City of Dublin April 2009
18) Revised Tables X and XI from the Traffic Study (see DEIR Appendix 8.7) are
included in this document as Attachment 1. Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10 contained in
the DEIR are also modified as reflected in Revised Tables X and XI.
19) Page 11 of the DEIR, the first line of the fourth paragraph under Section 3.5 (Project
Characteristics) is amended as follows: "Of the 198 for sale units, up to 15 ~4 units
would be ^a~~ ~~ k,,,y~--~ ..,~~~^ ; ~. +~ Qn a ~ nor ~ +t,
""' -:' r^^"'^ i~.^'„r., ..,., ', + ~+ ~. provided pursuant to the Ci , 's Inclusionary
Housing C-rdinance."
Summary of DEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period
on the DEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties.
Commenter Date
State A encies
1.1 De artment of Trans ortation 3 19 09
Local A encies
2.1 Alameda Coun Fire De artment 2 24 09
2.2 Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) 3 9 09
2.3 Alameda County Public Works
A enc 3 10 09
2.4 Zone 7 3 23 09
2.5 Alameda County Congestion
Mana ement A enc 3 24 09
Interested Persons Or anizations
3.1 Bob and Sofia Brander 2 10 09
3.2 C er 1 Weir 2 18 09
3.3 Alameda Coun Housin Au on 2 13 09
3.4 Alameda Coun Housin Au on 2 25 09
3.5 T e Public Interest Law Project 3 23 09
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 7
City of Dublin April 2009
__. `_ ~.
~ f ~~ ~~
Annotated Comment Letters and
Responses
(Note: The following comment letters are not paginated)
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 8
City of Dublin April 2009
Sent By:' CALTRANS TRANSPORTATID PLANNING; 510 288 5560; Mar-19.09 3:56PM; Page 1/1 ~ ~~'~i D
f ~~~
STA'CIiOFCALiLK)itNEA-BU91NGa13,TRAN9PORTATiONANDHOj~1Nn~[71ENG'Y AT2W 60FSW
DEPA~TMENI' OF TIi.~1NSP4KTA'I')[ON
1114RAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 28684
OAXLAND, (.A 64628-0884 F/rx marl
PFit)NE (b10) 622.6491 Br rne~ dal
FAX (S10) 28B-5559
1'i`Y 711
March 19.2004
Letter 1.1
ALAS80843
ALA-580-19.8
SCH#2007122066
Ms. Erica Fraser
City of Dublin
Community Developmem Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94b68
Dear Ms. Fraser.
Arooyv VLcta Development Project -Draft Environ~u~ental Impact Report
Thank you for continuing to include the California Deparhnent of Transportation (Dcpartment)
in the cnvironmeatal review proccss for the Arroyo Vista Development Project. The following
comments are based on tha Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Forecasting
in Table 4.11-2 on page 101, what is the existing site traffic based on? How are the existing AM
and PM peak hour totals calculated?
Should you have any questions regarding this !titer, please call Yatman Kwan of my staff ati (510)
622-1670.
Sincerely,
~., ~~
L1SA CARBONI
District $raneh Chief
Local Development -Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
"'Cat:mno Gnprovw mobilEty xwoc ()alifnrnia'
1.1.1
03/19/2009 THU 14:59 [TX/RX NO 7904] [~j001
Alameda County Fire Department
Fire Prevention Bureau
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Phonc: 925-833-6606 Fax: 923-829-5
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
~~~
_~.
~~~/
DATE: 02/24/09
TO: Erica Frasier, Senior Planners Letter 2.1 -
FROM: Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: PA-07-028 Arroyo Vista Draft EIR
Specific Comments:
1. Recommend clarification on Page 93 under Fire Services. In the fast paragraph add Fire 2.1.1
Station 16 on 7494 Donahue with a distance ,of 1.3 miles.
G:1A 2009 Plan ChecklDougherty Road\6700\pa•07.028 wcus draft EIR.doc
~.~~~ `T
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
7051 Dublin Boutevard
Dublin, Cal(Cornia 94568
Phone; 925 828 0515
FAX; 925 829 1180
tvww.dsrsd.com
~~~
March 9, 2009 ~~~~~®
Letter 2.2 ' MAR Y ~U 2009
Ms. Erica Fraser, Project Planner
City ofDublin -Community Development Department pU~~~(~ `~~~~j~N(a
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject; Arroyo Vista Project-PA 0?-028
General Plan Amendment, Rezoning Site Design Review, Subdivision Maps
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Fraser;
Thank you for the oppommity to comment on this document. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and has the following comments:
• As pointed out in the Draft Report, the project area is within DSRSD's potable water service area; however 2.2.1
- Zone 7 is the current water provider. DSRSD intends to take over being the water provider if approved by
Zone 7 and LAFCO.
• The project area is within the sanitary sewer service area of DSRSD. DSRSD has provided sanitary sewer
service for this location in the past and will continue to do so after construction.
• .The project area is within the recycled water service area of DSRSD and DSRSD will provide recycled
water to the project for both construction and landscaping.
• DSRSD agrees tivith the report's conclusion that the needed increase in potable water demand for the
project is reasonably likely to be available. In addition, the potable water facilities needed to serve the
project are already existing or planned for constntction.
• DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that the needed increase in sanitary sewer treatment service for
the project will be available with a less than signif cant impact.
• DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that recycled water will be available for the project. Use of
,~ recycled water within the project for landscaping will help a great deal in lessening the potable water
demand from the increased number of dwelling units with the project.
PIanning and construction activities should be coordinated tivith DSRSD to ensure that the proposed activities do not 2.2.2
interfere with existing DSRSD facilities, and the installation of new water and sewer lines are completed in
conformance with aI1 applicable DSRSD Master Plans and DSRSD Standard Procedures, Specifications and
Drawings. Recycled water will be required for landscape irrigation.
"~ Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions
regarding these comments please contact Stan Kolodzie at (925} 875-2253.
Si 1 ,
RHODORAN. BIAGTA
Principal Engineer
RB/ST
cc: Dave Requa
Stan Kolodzie
File: DP-07-028
F)ublln San Rsmen Services District Is a F'ubiie f;nllty
H;~ENaDEP'11CEQA1Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft EIR_Jan-09.doc
°~a~~O" -°""'~ S COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
y PUBLIC WORI~S AGENCY
tit° DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
9,51 Turner Court, Room I00
y PUBLIC Hayward, CA 94545-2698
`~~ WORKS (510) 670-6601
~SO4rces FAX (5IO) 670-5269
March 10, 2009
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
loo Civic Plaza Letter 2.3
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms.Fraser;
~~~~~~~~
MAR 1 ~ 2009
®U~LIN~ PLANIVIN~
Subject; Draft Environmental ImpactReport ,Arroyo Vista EIR (SCH# 2007122066)
_ Reference is made to your transmittal on January 30, 2009, of the above subject project
application, located west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road
with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron
Horse Trail in the CityofDublin.
Per our cursory review of the transmitted material, we hereby offer the following comments
regarding storm drainage that should be considered in the determination of project status:
1. Although the project site is located in Zone, 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda 2.3.1
Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This flood control facility is
maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District, The District is concerned with
augmentation in runoff from the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project
and in the watercourses between the site and the Federal Project, as well as the potential
for runoff from the project to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses
that could cause localized damage and result in deposition of silt in the Federal Project.
There should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that
will adverselyimpact downsheam drainage facilities.
2. The applicant should provide measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated materials 2.3.2
into public drainage facilities. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with
Federal, State, or local water quality standards and regulations.
Thank you for the. opporhuiity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for this
project. Please provide a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for our file and
reference. If you have questions, please call me at (510) 670-5209.
Very truly yours,
~V
• R se 'e e Lean
A sis t gineer
Land Development Services
TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OIIR ('(~MMr rrvrTv
~~A~E.AMADOg6
~~
13 51~
.~^°; _`
~~GP'OlV • FL06~QQO~
March 23, 2009
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY LdVE+RMORE, CA 94551 PHONB {925} 454-5000 FAX (925) 4545727
Ms. Erica Fraser, Project Planner Letter 2.4
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Subject: ~ Draft Environmental impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development.
(SCIi #2007122066)
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide
drinking water, non-potable water for agricul.ture/irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and
stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. We have the following comments for your
consideration.
On page 80, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patters, flooding and drainage
capacity), the Project Developer is to prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using RWQCB,
Zone 7, and City drainage criteria. The last sentence indicates that the drainage and hydrology
plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department; please change the language to
indicate that the drainage and hydrology plan shall also require approval/concurrence from Zone
7 Water Agency.
2. Under the City's Resolution No. 53-93 (1993 Eastern Dublin E1R), each project area is to provide
a Storm Drainage Master Plan. Please provide clarification as to whether the drainage and
hydrology plan proposed as mitigation in the DEIR is the same as the Storm Drainage Master
Plan that was a. requirement of the Easter Dublin EIR. If not, Zone 7 should have the opportunity
to review and comment on the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to the drainage and
hydrology plan.
We appreciate th.e opportunity to~comment on this document. if you have any questions or comments,
please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via a-mail at
mlim(a>,zone7water.com.
Sincerely,
~~
Mary lm
Environment Services Program Manager
Cc: Joe Seto, Jeff Tang
~~~~I~~~
MAR 2 4 2009
2.4.1
2.4.2
DU~L[N Pt.ANN[N~
~s~l ~j ~o~
"° MAR/24/2009/TUE 04:14 P~,i
r-~l.}-11VIEDA COUNTY
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
1333 BROADWAY, SUTE 220.OA(Q1WD, CA 94612 • PHONE: (51~ 826-2560 • FAX: (51~ 838-21x6
t;-MAI(.: mAll9dfxma.Ca.pw • WE6 SRE: Rccma.r,~,q°V
AC Tranett
~'1a° FSZR
AId9iBdB Caanty
SU~>Niaq
n~x~ at!ry
s«u -;'~ann
t:1ty of Alameda
µrw
~~~
~ ~r
city of Albany
Oxrryr+urber
Fw'd Jarabd
BART
ar~
n»,w eta
March 24, 2009
Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP
Senior Platu~er
Community Developmen Depaztt><tent
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza.
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2,5
P, OOl/002
SUBJECT': Coztunezxts on the pray ];ztvlrozumental Ixzxpact Report (Dfi1R) for the Arroyo
Vista Development Project itt the City of Dublin (PA 07-028)
city °r B~rk°far Derr Ms. ~xasex: ,
IfA7a YfirdtWjbn
Crtyouf~nablln Thexdc. you fox the oppoxhu~ity to coxxu~aent ozx tine City , of Dublixt's Arroyo Vista
,~~,,, Development Project in the City o;f Dublin, Tlae 23.8 acre project azea is located on the west
side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection with Amador Valley Boulevard and north
'City of EmcryYCe
1+zdt~jcr of tlxe ilxtexsection with the ZTOn p3foxse Frail. Tlxe westerzx bouzxdaxy i5 A.ianl,o Creek. Tlxe
I~rh~c~, Projeot involves demolition of the existing 1S0 dwelling tuiits on site and construction of up
elty°fFre~mant to 378 ae~v dwelling unifs, a community building and a day care center and related
'~tw.ga irapz•ovennezlts.
Cit °tHaywatd
p~„ ~„ The ,A,CCivTA z`esp~l;'tfu~y subxuits the ~oliowiuxg coezAts:
Cify of Livermera
~~ LOS Stazadards o:f Siga3;Ftcance -page 100, iixst era a Ix az~d a 11~ 2nd
stated ~ our z•espouse to the lYO.P dated 3azxuaty 2Z, 0 8, the Alameda County C t~gest on
city °~ k Management Agency (ACCMA) does not have a standard fos roadway level of salvias
~"°~'°~' as it applies to the Land Use Analysis Program. References to ACCMr~, level of
OltyarCaktand sex-vice Ox Sagtxifzcatxce cxitexla staazdard5 Slxould be delefed. The ACCMA does la,ot
rn~`+~~` have a policy for detez~nining a threshold of sigzxifzcance. Rather, it is ez~peeted that
c~ ~f vl nf• professional judgment will be applied to determi~ze project level impaots. Also,
,~„~ ~ . please oats that ewezi thaugii a roadway. is operatixig at LOS F, this dons not preclude
City of Pleasanton the proj act fz'ozn identifying feasible zxa_itigation for those mates.
~~ •
Jvu1?G Nos!ennn . .
City of &an Leandro ~ ~~ Strategies- Tlae pEIR does not include a>:xy deznar~d-related strategies. A,s
r~ recommended in the NOP response letter, meohanisms that encourage ridesharing,
'10'~R~D~` t~•atxsit, bicycling, telecoznuxuting Qud otlxer xuea~s o£ reducing peak hour traffe trips
cityofAU~on city slxould be considered, Iznpleznenting tlxese strategies could avoid exacerbatiuig the .
-~~~ existinb congestion in several project shady area intersections and roadways where the
net impact after 1laltigati.pn, is detern~.izxed as sigvxfitcamt and unavoidable,
FxeoalJva ~I[actar
nth R Fay
2.5.1
2.5.2
-lS5 ~,i_ ~10~
MAR/24/2009/TUE 04:15 PPd
P, 002/002
Ms. Erica Fraser
March 24, 2009
Page 2
• Tables 4.11»9 & 4.11»10- Shoat and long texzzz Cumulative Cozzdxtzozzs Freeway 2,5.3
Analysis, Pages 120 cR: 127,» Capacity for the interstate routes o~ J-S80 and Z-680 was
assumed as 2000 velx/hr/lane for freeway iXnpact axzalysis. Howover, the same capacity
was assuzzzed fot; SR 84 as well. SlZ 84 beazzg a state highway witb; dz:~exezzt
characteristics compared to the interstate roadways, lesser capacity than 2000
veb/hx/lane sltould be used for the impact atzalysis.
Thazil~ you fox fire ol~portu~iry to aozz~eut on tll.is graft Eft.. Please do ~aot hesitate tp cozztac#
Diane Stark or nie at 510/836-2560 if you require additional infoiznation.
Siracei'eiy,
Sax~ava~a Sutbazztbaza
Senior Transportation Planner
cc: file; CMP - Envirartmental Review Opinions -Responses - 2009
Axaae Starl<, Sez~ioz Trauspoxtataozz }?latauex
03J2q/2009 TUE 16'00 PTxiRU un ~Q~~, ra.n~„
_r~ J ~.~'
Bob & Sofia Brander
7041 Stagecoach Dr.
Dublin, CA 94568
February 8, 2409
City of Dublitl
Community Development Department Letter 3.1 r-
144 Civic Plaza '
Dublin, C.A~ 94568
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report -Arroyo Vista EIR SCH # 2007122066
We have not read the Draft EIR. However, we wauld like to make some geneiral
comments about this project.
All or almost all~recent housing developments in Dublin have been high-density projecta.
City tra£fxc and congestion has increased significantly in the last five years. We are
concerned that this Sousing project will place additional strain on city streets and
resources at a time when budgets are tight.
3.1.1
In particular, we would like to point out that the only east-west streets in the city, Amador 3.1.2
Valley Blvd and Dublin Blvd, cannot be widened Additional high-density housing will
place additional strain on these streets. Dougherty Blvd., which runs right in front of the
proposed housing project, has seen significant traffic level increases. This housing project
will further increase traffic congestion on Dougherty, especially during commute hours.
To put it simply -Dublin is a small city and cannot take any more high-density housing. 3.1.3
Please do not approve this project.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
~ ,~~
Bob Brander ----_
~!'
Sofia rander
~~~~~~~~
FEB ~ 0 2009
~1~~~.IR! NL~iNf~li~(~
'Cheryl Weix
6574 Conestoga Ln
Dublin, CA 94568
February 16, 2009
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Attn: Erica Fraser, Project Planner
100 Civic Plaza.
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms, Fraser:
RECEIVED
FEB 18 2009
DUBLIN PLANNING
Letter 3.2
I'm responding to a mailing I received regarding PA 07-028, General Plan Amendment,
Stage 1/Stage 2 Rezone and Development Plan.
First of all, thank you for soliciting community input. I live close to this parcel and have 3.2.1
some serious reservations about letting it go forward, as planned.
Does this really make sense? I know it's been in the works for a long time. But at this 3.2.2 ;
point, Dublin is overbuilt for new housing, real-estate prices are Low and the market will
not recover in the near future. Adding yet another high-density development now will
Leave additional units built but empty for a long period of time. This doesn't seem to be in
Dublin's best interest and will only further depress the real estate market for longer than
necessary with the oversupply of empty units.
I appreciate that Eden Mousing and Citation Homes are simply trying to find profit in this 3.2.3
economy. That's oily good business for them. However, I don't believe this project is in
Dublin's best interest, and I think that's the most important factor.
Sincerely,
~~ i--
.i~til`tl. ~:..'! {=.~'..tl.:~:. 1.`.t~: (1~ t '. :,i i'~ .r:.. :' '. ~ a;''j;. .~?t:~ f ! ~'~::
j(i .t. .r(~~~'~!O~.(,~~ :t~tr; ~)S i'~i ::1!~'f i~. '~:~.' ii>(. ~.1 .~ rt t)I ~r"~Fw .. ~ <t' (,~'(:''ir ~ '!y~•... 'r> ~~'` 't;
1.11. .r... ..!: _ ._. t}1(' ..: G:: i...rl liJ.' \t';!(I!<<I .':~-+ `.'.~., ~.!: ~. ~i IZ:','.•!: `~:~il ;j.. .. :ji11;, fir. i! !: :•~e
.. :r ..
From: "Erica Fraser" <Erica.Fraser@ci.dublin.ca.us>
Subject: FW: EIR comment
Date: February 25, 2009 11:44:44 AM PST
To: "Jerry Haag" <jphaag@pacbell.neb
Jerry -
I just received this email.
Erica
Letter 3.3
From: Gouig, Chris [mailto:chrisaC~haca.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Erica Fraser
Cc: Robert C. Mills
Subject: EIR comment
Erica: Bob Mills pointed out that on page 11, the second sentence in the second to the last paragraph should read:
The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes at or below 60% of
AMI. 3.3.1
The way it reads now, it sounds like a family earning less than 30% (and I know I said it should read 20%) wouldn't
be able to live there. Thanks. Chris
Christine Gouig
Executive Director
Alameda County Housing Authority
22941 Atherton Street
Hnywnrd, CA 94541-6633
phone 510-727-8513
chrisg@haca.net
"~ ~ ~I ~- ~-~10~i
02i13i2009 14:50
N0.529 D01
Letter 3.4
i~
To:
Fa~c ~9.z,~) ~~-1~~.2P
o~ ~drr~q f3~ ~?0~
ate: ~rn~ ~Y/e
~gass c) incfudang thi9 aov~ pegs
^ Urgent ^ For Revfew O Pleass Commont ^ Please Rapty
~hca Frz>~se~; swim ~ir:+'
^ Please itecycte
Canvnents;
~P u ~ ~ ~~
02/13/2009 14:50 N0.529 D02
' 1.0 Prod ecl: Summary
1.~. Introducflon
This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed Project, a list of enwironmerttal
issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each envirorunental impact and
associated mitigation measure. '
A discussion of the applicability of tie California En~rixonmental Quality Act (CpQ,ti)
and implementing Guidelines to the proposed Project is oufilined in Chapter 2. Chapter 3
contains a detailed discussion of the proposed Project. Chapter 4 includes a thorough
analysis of Project impacts and mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a range of
alternatives to the proposed Project as required by C~QA and a discusslon of each
alternative. Chapter 6 contains all other CE~A-mandated sections.l~inally, Chapter 7
includes the names of t11e DETIZ preparers, individuals and agencies contacted in the
preparation of this document and references. Appendices are included as Chapter 8.
'1.2 Summary' of PrajecE Descript7on '
'T'he Project Site is Iocat~d in the central portion of the City of Dublin. Tulare
specifically, the Site is Iocaled at b700 Dougherty Road on the tivesl• side of Dougherty '
`~ Raad, south of the intersection of Dougherty 12oad with Amador 'Valley Boulevard .
and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, a regional
multi-use trail. Alamo Creek forms a portion of the western boundary of the Site,
,~ which is a major creek in easterx- Alamedl County. The Site contains approximately
23.8 ages of land.
y ~.~
Existing residents c~the Site would be relocated to replacement housin sites 3.4.1
`~" consistent with S
, state and Federal guidelines and regulations and e existing 150
d~reliings on the Site would be removed. The Project would then consist of constructing
up to 37& new dwellings on the Site, as well as a community building, a day Care center
and rnlated improvements. The Project also includes upgrading of munia.pal services to
the Site and appxovaI of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin.
~- 'T'he proposed arroyo "Vista residential de~relopment would be a community of
approximately 378 units comprised of 19S for sale units with 141 of these being attached
actd 57 detached dwellings, Up to 14 of the "for sale" units will be set-aside f or below
market rate (moderate income level) purchase. ~
The remainder of the 1'rojecf would include conslruc ort of up to 130 income-
restrictedfamily residential dwellings (with a mix of , 3 and 4 bedroom units in a 3.4.2
combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-
bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apart~nentunit).
Pt'aposed dwellings would include a mix of hero- and three-story residential wood-
. fr~une buildings. The senior apartments would be located in one throe-story building
located treat the center of the development, adjacent to the childcare center. A small
courtyard will be cons~zcted between the senior building wings.
~ community building 'would be constructed near the public loop internal road. The
cammuruty building would be used in conjunction with the affordable housing ,
Prcjject to serve the needs of chose residents. The 3,200 square foot building would
02l13I2003 FRi 1~~.r,R fTx/au an ~xoo, ~,~~~
~1 ~ 1 ~fi q o~1
0211.3/2009 14:50 N0.529 D03
1.3 Suuunary of Envirox~mentai Issues
Based on the environmental analysis contained in the Iiukal Study far this Project (see
Appendix 8.1) and responses. (see DEIR Appendices 8.2 and $.3) to L•lte Notice of
Preparagon issued by the City of Dublin, the following topics are addressed in fhe 17EYR.
• Aesthetics and Light and Glare
. • Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• CuIttzralliesources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazard and Hazardous Materials
• hydrology and Water Quality
+ Noise
• Po elation and Housing
• Public Services
• Transportation and Circulation
+ Utiiitie$ and Service Systems
I.4 Surnulary of Imipacts and Mitigation Measures
Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measure (if required)
identified in this DEIR is summarized on Table l,.I,. The summary chart has been
organized to correspond with the more detailed impact and mitigation measure
discussion found in Chapter 4, Table 1.1 is ax'ranged in three columns. The first column
identifies environmental impacts by topic area and level of impact(i.e. significant impact,
less-than-sig~uficant impact or no impact) prior to implementation of any mitigation
measures. The second colixmn includes mitigation measures, The third and final cote
~dentl~es thelevel of significance afterimplementation of mitigation measures. mn
This chapter is a summary of the following DEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sec.
15123. For a complete description of the environmental setting, impacts associated with
this proposed Project and mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DEIR.
I.5 &uuunary of Alternatives
The DEIR analyzes three alternatives, as follows,
Alternative 1,: "N'o project," which assumes that existing public housing
dwellings on the Site wauId remAir~ but no additional dwellings would be
bz~ilt, although maintenance, repair and upgrades w'quld occur to ensure code
compliance. ~ ,~~~,r
AIternat~ve 2: I~Edu d Project. The second alternative assumes that exishing
buildings and reIa d improvements would be demolished, existing residents 3.4.3
relocated per slate and federal relocation guidelines and regcurements,
and the Site would be rEde~veloped wish attached housing at a density~of 10
dwellings per acre. bwellings ender this A.Iternative would be clustered in the
approximate center of the Site, leaving greater setbacks Tong Dougherty Road
and Alamo Creek. existing Site driveways along pougherry Road would
remain as they currently exist.
Arroyo Vis;a ~'ralect PA 07•p28
~• Draft t=nviranmental impact Repor; Page 3
City of Dublfrt January 2409
02i13~2009 14:50
3.5 Pro~ect CTtaracteristlcs
N0.529 D04
Overview. The proposed Project includes demolition of tl~e exisLxng 1.50 dwellings and
'other structures on the f'rojeCt Site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the
Site. The Protect ~Isa incYudcs upgrading of munia.~al services to the SiEe and approval
of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. Exhibit 3.4 shows the proposed Stage? &
Stage 2 Development Plan.
r
Develt3prn concept, The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a
community o ~proxiinately 37$ units comprised of 19$ market rate units (with 141
attached and 5 ~ detached dwellings),130income-restricted family residential dwellings
(with a max of , 3,and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flat's and townhouses)
artd 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491-bedraom apartments and one Z-
bedroom manager unit which'would not be income or age restricted). Proposed
dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings,
This development would replace 150 units of ublic housing on Site. At the core of the
development, the Village Center wo~.tld include a Community $uiIding with central
recreation space and a new Child Care Center. Additional satellite recreational areas,
both passive and active, wauld be scattered throughout the proposed development.
Three types of housing are proposed: 49 Senior apartments (incIudirtg 49 income-
restricted units and one manager unit),134income restricted family dwellings and 198
market rats dwellings. The unit breakdown is as follows:
Table 3,I, PropasecT D'welTing tTni1: Summary
Hsrig Income-restricted Income-restricted
'1" a Famil Units Senior Units MariCet Rafe
Sin Ie Fantil Tota]
Unlt'I~pe 1$ I.13clrm Flats 491-Bdrm Flats
128drm Flat
6G ~-Bdrm Towrnhomes 141 Attached
36 3-Bdrm Towrnhomes 57 Detached
16 4-Bdrm Townhomes
Sub-total 130 Uttits 50 Units 198 Urtits 37B Un.tts
Source. Project Applicants, 2007 '
Of the 198 for sale units, l4 units would be sold to buyers whose incomes are between 80
` and 1,20% Of the area median income (below market rate}, All of the other dwellings
proposed t:o be constructed on d1e Site would be rental dwellings.
The affordable Senior' units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at
or below 50%'0 of the Area Median Income (AM_ The Family' units would be targeted to
occupancy by families with incomes bet~vee ~ and 60% of AMT.
. ~ A central Ioop roadway as shown an Exhibit 3. is proposed to link the various
community elements and create a unified devel ment. The affordable housing would
be located at the heart of the Site ~nrhile the marke -rate units would be splitinta two
Arroyo Vista Prajeci RA 07-029
l~ratt Environmental Impaot Repoli
City of Ru~lin
~~
Page 11
January 20Q9
3.4.4,
3.4.5
_I~3 ~ ~~~__~
~2i13i2009 14:50 N0.529 D05
InfrastracEure. The existin Arroyo Vista development is presen[Iy served by water,
wastewater, drainage, Solid wash, electrical, telecommunication and natural gas
facilities. Water service is presently pprovided from Zone 7 and, as part of the
proposed Project, pntablE and recycled water service would be provided by khe
Dublin San Ramon Services Districl• (DSRSD). All other existing services ~~'ould
continue to be provided to the Site, although portions o! existing facilities may need
to be replaced or upgraded to serjiice additional dwellings proposed for the Site.
ll,andscaping. Exhibit 3.5 depicts the proposed landscape plan for the Project.
' I'raperty disposition. The proposed Pro'act includ@s dispdsitton a! the 23.8-acre Site
from the Dublin 1 Touring Authority (DI~A) to the two Project Applicants (Eden
Tdousing and Citation domes), This acq.on would require.approv'al by the Federal
Department of I Tousiz~g and Urban 17evelopment (1~UD).
The Dublin housing Authority submitfe~d a Disposition Application to hIUU on August
15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden I-Iousing and Cita4on Homes
Central developer team. With I-IUD approval of the Disposition Application, the Project
would be removed fronn the public housing program and will no longer be subject to
the Annual Contribution Cozltract. Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex
would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocatiozt plan which has been _
' the Dublin hIousing Authority which is consistent with State and 3.4.6
Fede~r~e~~tl~'o~n guidelines and regulations. ~,~~~,~~~.
Ttegttested enfiElemb As described above, a number of land use entitlements and
approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of
this Project. These are described in snore detail below.
~eneraI Plan Amendment. The Dublin General Plan presentl designates the Arroyo
Vista Site as Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development
between 6.1 and 14.0 dwellings per acre. The proposed Project includes a density of
approximately 16 dwellings per acre, which would not be consistent with the
current residential density range, Therefore, the Applicants have requested an
amendment to the General Plan to re-designate the ProJ'ect Site as Medium/High
Density Residential. Tlus designation allows residential development between the
ranges of Ih.1 and 25 dwellings per acre. If approved, the requested General Plan
(and use designation would allow the densily proposed as part of the Arroyo Vista
Protect. The General Plan Amendment also includes a request to dcsi~nate 0.3 acres
of to Site ds Public/Semi-Public consistent with the City's Semi Public Facilities
Policy. A General PIan amendment is also requested to change the text of the Land
Use Element aIIo~v attached and detached units in the Medium/piighDensity
Residential land use designation. Currently, the Element does not allow detached
dwelling unit types.
The Amendment requires a public hearing by the Dublin PIanning Commission to
,, review the application and forward a recommendation to the Dublin City Council.
The City Council must then hold a public hearing on the application prior to malting
' a decision.
,~rroy0 Vista PralBCt PA 07.028 Page i3
Draft Environmarttal Impact f3eport January 2009
Clryof Dublin
_~ ~,n ~" ~ ~ -x-
02/13/2005 14:50 N~.529 D06
The fallowing measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant 12ve1 by ensuring that appropriate construction methods and materials are
used to be consistent with City artd State interior noise levels.
h!iitigatinll l+vieasuze 4.8-5 (interior noise levelimpacts); Final building plans shall
be accox»panied by a report from a qualified acoustical Consultant indicating Eliot
the Project will include appropriate eanstruetior techniques to reduce interior
noise levels to a maximum of ~5 dBA Ldn, Tf~is shall include but is eat limited to
proper wall construction feehniques, installation of appropriate insulation, the
selections of proper winda~vs ancT dears, and the incorporation of forced-air
mechaaicaY ventilation systems, Ttesidertces located adJ'acent to Dougherty Road
shall also be equipped with a full heating and air-conditioning system because it
is unlikely residents would open their windows for ventilation.
4,9 POP•CII~ATIUN A1VD HUU'SIN~
EN'VIItONMENTAUISSDES
This section addresses the displacement of existing dwelling units and residents on the
Project Site. d -
-~k~ ' .
EN'VJIZONMEIVTAL SETTTI~JG ~~-' ~
~~
The Project Site is occupied by 150 ka~~te detached single-family dwellings owned 3.4.7
by the Dublin Housing Authority. ~ _~~
The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to an August
15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFI 970 et seq. proposing di osition of the
Site to the Fden Housing artd Citation ]"Tames Central developer to .The Dublin
Housing Authority has adopted a Tlelocation Plan purst~ank to state and federal
guidelines. The plan provides for relocation benefits that meet or exceed the
regtu.remet'tts of applicable law, include counseling and advisory services, help
with packing for disabled aztd senior 'dente if requested, security deposits, credit
check fees, comparable replacement housin of a Section 8 vouch
ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice o move but only if ,~
HUD approves the disposition application}. The relocation plan demonstrates that there ~~~
are adequate available housing resources for the displaced households and that the
DH~4 vnll provide advisory assistance and relocation benefits necessary to ensure that
alI households are adequately housed at the time of displacement.
Aegatatoxy fraute'wark. Federal regulation Section 24 C1JTZ 970.21 requires the Dublin
~ousi>lg Authority to offer each displaced household comparable replacement hocxsing,
to provide a mirtirrtlzm of 90 days advance notification of the displacement date, to pay
reasonable reIocafiion expenses and offer of relocation advisory services.
The State of California has also adopted Guidelines for the payment of relocation
benefits to displaced households (25 Cal Code TZegs, 6000 et, seq.),
Arroyo Viste Protect PA 07-028 Page 9D
Draft ~nvlronmental Impact Report January 20A6
City of puhlin ,
02i13i2009 14:50
N0.529 D07
Standards of significance, A population and housing impact would be considered
significant if a proposed prefect would diepIace a substantial number of dwelling units
or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3.4.8
ENViRQNM>1NTAi~ IMPACTS ,,,~~~' ~~ !S ~--~-~yK~u~a.c~" C.4'1~
The proposed rroject would result in a Toss in the number of public housing
units by the demolition of the existing 15Q weIlings on the Site, resulting in the
displacement of an eetimated 441 residents, based on an average dwelling utut r ~.~~i•
occu ancy of 3.0 persons per dwelling (source: Arroyo 'Vista ZZelocalion PIan, January
20Q6~ The Project Site would be redeveloped with up to 37$ dwelling units, I80 of
which would be income-restricted, affordable rental units. ~'he Project would increase ~ ~° c'
the number of affordable units on the Site as compared to the existing number of units
on the Site and would include a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom units. ~~
The combination ofincome-restricted, affordable rental units is as follows:
Table 4.9-1. Y'rQpoaed Itlcome-Restricted Rental Units
An additional 14 for-sale units would be reserved for moderate-income households,
As shown in the above table, the number offour-bedroom units is projected to decrease
Y from the current 24 unite to I&.1-towever, an analysis of k~he Dublin Housing Authority's
occupancy data indicated that as of .Aprll 2Q07, marry of the households occu in fouz-
bedraom units did not have suf!"icientiy sized households to warrant occupati n of a
four-bedroom unit. In other words, they were "averrhoused." In fact, Z6 of the familfe~
occupying the 24 four-bedxoom units were in the "over-housed" category in April 2Qp7,
The proposal calls for the development to include.76foor-bedroom units, which seems
to ba ample for the households at Arroyo Vista that actc7.ally qualify for such coots, The
number of two-bedroom units would decrease from 78 in the ettrrent Project to b6 in the
new development; the number of three-bedroom units would increase from 32 units to
36 units. Thus, the number of two, three and faux-bedroom units -units which are
appropriate for families with children -would decrease only slightly, from 234 units to
'" 1T$, while the total number of affordable rental units would increase from 150 to 180.
$ach of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with, extremely, low
. incomes, 'would be provided'with relocation assistance and would have the right to
return to the Project, provided their income are not higher than the Project's maximum
affordability levels.
~~ ~ ~~
Arroyo Villa Project PA 07-028
draft environmental Impact Report i~,, ~, r h-c~c~.'~~ Page 9t
City of ou611n U January 2009
3.4.9
ft ~l lin tAAnn .-r. ~.
._.._....., __.-...r.,.~..~~...v~+aruunnrr coon
02i13i2009 14:50
~~~ ~ ~o~
N0.529 D08
Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to increas>a both 3.4.10
the nlJntber and affordability level of the units on the ro er The ~'~trrent units, while
o~erating as ppublic housing orals, aze available to res denps ~ th incomes at or below
¢' (~ 8 % of Area lvfedian Income (AMl). The 49 senior units will be available onl to
~ households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI, ~ ~ y
~ _ io. e~ - - --~. r ri ~*'~ •r-rrT~~..1.7.1 _,.... s • •t_... _ .. , -- E~ ~33E}~i-TGii4~~--= ~.
restYi,Cte o varying income eve s, none o w`hl-cTi wiIT~ex ee 0~°Jayof AMY, Thus, all of
the affordable rental units wvilI be income~restricted at levels•Io'wer than they axe
currently, including some for thos,s'with extremely low income, The proposal is
intended to create a mixed--income community that more than replaces the number of
low-income units being removed, in compliance 'with several policies contained in
Dublin's Housing $lerxtent.
T'he Aublin .Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for
existing residents, as required by aPPlicabl~Federal r ~~~~
Relocation efforts, as documented in the lZelaca on Plan, ~cl~xde an outreach ro
for residents and converting several resident meetings to describe the proposed gram
redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project Site, Relocaton
specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and would continue to
pra~de a minimum of three referrals to each household for comparable housing
APpo~ties in the bublin area and referrals re Arding
service agencies, as zteeded Relocation payments have b en provni~ded to residents and
will continue to be provide in accordance witft California Guidelines and federal
regt~frements.
Gt.N-tom ! -'V _Y~ ,
Irt compliance with State and Federal regulations and guideline, ouse b~C n . -
displaced as a result of implementing the prQpQBed Pro))'eofi ha . been and wro~tldng
continue to be relocated to comparable Housing within bubIi •and in the general.
Dublin area and axe or would be receiving relocatior- as required bylaw.
Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for sale and for rent dwelling
units in the City will increase, providing additional housing opportunities for low
income households in the City. The Project would not pezmanently reduce the
i.ttventory of affordable housing and would increase the net number of affordable
dwellings by up t~ 30 rental and fourteen "for sale" dWellin s;
related to displacement of dwelling units artd people from the Ssterwould be lessthan~
yigni$cant.
•. ~
r,.
~:.
.~~'
~N.r
~. .
iC
~.
Arroyo lflsla ProJeet PA 07028
@i~gtt>"nvironmental impact Report
i}!ly of Dubllrt
Page 82
January zoos
3.4.11 •
3.4.12
3.4.13
rI'~.a.e Pubic ~la.tereSt Law Protect
The Public Interest Law Project and
Cal(fornla Affordable Housing Law Protect
449 -16th Street, Suite 301
Oakland, CA 84812
Mlcnael Rawson
Co-Director March 23, 2009
Ilia Hand Delivery
,, Extension 145
mrawson@pllpca.org
City of Dublin
Stephen Ronfoldt Community Development Department
CaDlrector
Extension 127
100 Civic Plaza
sronfeldl(~pilpca.org Dublin, CA 94568
Deborah Collins
ManagingAltomeY
Attention: Erica Fraser, Project Planner
Extension 158
dcolNns@plipca.org
Phone (510) 881.9794
Fax (510) 801.8727
www.plipca.org
Letter 3.5
Re: Comments on Draft EIR
cralg casteilanet A1~oyo Vista EIR SCH #2007122066
Stall Attorney
Extension 132
ccasteganet@plipca.org ~
Dear Ms Fraser;
Angio Schwartz
StallAttomey
Extension 125
aschwartz@pilprz.org Ba Area Le al Aid and The Public Interest Law Pro act submit these comments
y g j
on the Arroyo Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report (Dxaft EIR) on behalf of
dudltn cord our clients
the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association
Rhenae Ke
es
Andres A
Extensiotno111 ,
,
y
,
rroyo,
Darlene Brown and Elise Veal pursuant to the City's Notice of Availability of
jgold@pilpca,org Draft EIR dated January 28, 2009.
Elizabeth Grabor
'~ LegalAssrstant The City's Preparation of the Draft EIR for the Arroyo Vista Project Is
Extension 110
egraber@pilpca.org
Untimely.
Georgia Feitz The Draft EIR is too late in the development process to reasonably guide the Ciry
Admintslrator
,~ Extension 101 Council's decision with respect to the environmental impacts of the "proposed"
gfeltzQpUpca.org project. In fact, the City Council improperly committed itself to the
redevelopment of Arroyo Vista long before evaluating the environmental effects
of the project,
3.5.1
As acknowledged in the Draft EIR, the purpose of an EIR 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 responsibility to avoid or
minimize the environmental impacts of a proposed project through appropriate
mitigation measures or alternatives, See, Draft EIR at 2.0, 2.3, The lead agency
cannot take any action that significantly furthers a project 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 Holly)~~ood, 45 Cal.4t1i 116,
130-31 (2008), ~~~~~~~~
MAR 2 3 2009
~l.P~3LIN R~ ®A~~~rnir~
~; f nn
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 2
March 23, 2009
Here, the Draft EIR acknowledges that at least 441 Arroyo Vista residents "would be"
displaced and 150 income-restricted units demolished pursuant to the proposed project. 3.5.2
See Draft EIR at §§1.2, 3.5, 4.9. The Draft EIR further sets forth three purported
alternatives to thie proposed project:
• Alternative 1 calls for no project such that the existing public housing units would
remain and there would be no displacement of the respective residents from the
Site. Id, at §§1.5, 5.1.
• Alternative 2 suggests a reduced project, calling for demolition of all existing
units, relocation of all residents, and redevelopment at a lower density resulting in
fewer units. Id. at § § 1.5, 5.2.
• Alternative 3 calls for a mixed use project using a portion of the site for
commercial development and the remainder of the site for 188 attached dwelling
units reshicted for low and very low income households. Id. at §§ 1.5, 5.3.
As a practical matter, the City Council cannot reasonably consider these alternatives, and
particularly not Alternative I, 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
(HACA), Citation Homes, and Eden Housing to carry out the same project that
is proposed-here [demolition of all public housing units, relocation of all existing
residents, and redevelopment of as a mixed income development of
approximately 378 dwelling units].
As part of its disposition and development agreement, the City Council agreed to
conhibute $1.5 million for relocation costs and to disburse those funds
incrementally as costs are incuixed. Without any environmental review, in
March 2007, a relocation consultant was hired; beginning in or about July 2007,
DHA and HACA began relocating residents; by August 2007, at least 12
households had been relocated and by June 2008, approximately 60 households
had been relocated. See DDA; Contract with Overland 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 nearly half of the public
- housing units at Arroyo Vista without any environmental review of the
environmental impact.
_.1 ~ ~' ~.~- c10
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 3
March 23, 2009
In August 2007, DHA submitted an application for disposition of Ai~oyo 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 far predevelopment costs of the project,
according to the DDA, in December 2007, the City Council approved a
"predevelopment" loan of $325,000 to Eden Housing.
Thus, the City's preparation and circulation of a DL•a$ EIR at this late date offers little
more than a "post hoc [rationalization] to support action" the City has "already taken,"
See Save Taja v. City of West Hollytivood, 45 Cal.4th 116, 129-30 (2008) [citation
omitted]. It effectively approved the proposed project without any environmental review
in violation of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.
The City cannot shield itself from its failure to comply with CEQA procedures by 3.5.3
claiming that its DDA is "conditioned" on approval of DHA's application for disposition
to HUD and/or completion of the environmental review mandated under CEQA. The
court will look beyond the `teams' of the purported `conditional' DDA to examine the
record. Where the record reflects that the City or its staff committed significant resources
to shaping the proposed project and/or foreclosed any meaningful options to going
forward with the project, then for purposes of CEQA, the City will be deemed to have
approved the project. Save Ta~•a v. City of West Hollywood, sacpra. Relocating nearly
half of the families at Arroyo Vista in advance of any environmental review and
expending City funds in support of the project effectively precludes any meaningful
consideration of the alteratives outlined in the Draft EIR.
Indeed, ~by carrying out the "proposed" project premahuely, the City has foreclosed not
only the alternatives outlined in the Draft EIR, but its ability to comply with any
conditions that maybe imposed by HUD.
The Conclusion That There Would Be a Less Than Significant Impact With Respect 3.5.4
to Population and Housing Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
The E1R 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 minimize those impacts. Here, the
Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would result in a "less than significant"
impact with respect to population and housing, See Draft EIR at §4.9. However, this
conclusion and the "facts" upon which it is based are not supported by substantial
evidence. See Public Resources Code §21168.5.
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
Page 4
March 23, 2009
The Draft EIR acknowledges that there would be a 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 §4.9. It concludes, however,
that the impact of displacing approximately 441 persons and the demolition of 1S0 homes
that are predominately affordable to extremely low income families is "less-than-
significant." Id. This conclusion is premised on the false notion that removal of the
public housing units is only temporary; residents "would be"relocated pursuant to local,
state and federal law; and any residents with incomes that are less than the maximum
affordability levels will have a "right to return."
"Temporary" Removal of Units. There is no evidence in the record that the units to be
demolished will, in fact, be rebuilt. In fact, the DDA calls for the non-profit developer
to apply for Section 202 Capital Grant, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and/or other
public funds in order to produce rental units that would be affordable to households with
incomes up to 60% of AMI. See DDA, Ex. B (Financing Plan/Development Budget).
Moreover, development of any rental units at these affordability levels is expressly
dependent on the availability of sufficient funding. See DDA §2.3, 2.4.
Further, neither DHA's Application nor the DDA even project a construction start date
for the purportedly affordable senior and family units. See Application §5; DDA, Ex. E.
Sufficient funding for the affordable rental units is not likely to be available in the near
fixture. As the recent stimulus package recognizes, the tax credit program suffers from a
lack of investors willing to purchase tax credits. Even projects that were already awarded
tax credits have stalled as a result. Second, the stimulus package targets HOME funds to
assist those stalled projects, not new ones. And, Section 202 funding has suffered from
inadequate funding for years, rendering receipt of such funds highly competitive.
Thus, there is ~ZO guarantee that demolition of 150 public housing units is only
"temporary" and no guarantee that any affordable rental units will ever "replace" the 150
public housing units to be demolished.
"Affordability" of Units. Second, the proposed project will not produce units that are
affordable to a majority of Arroyo Vista residents, rendering any purported "right of
return" misleading at best. Even assuming that the non-profit developer actually secures
sufficient funds to produce "affordable" rental units, the projected tax credit rent levels
would be out of reach for most Arroyo Vista families. The Draft EIR implies that curxent
residents have incomes up to 80% of the AMI. Tn fact, as of September 2007, DHA
reported That 65% of Arroyo Vista households have extremely low incomes (at or below
30% of AMI) ~; 24% have very low incomes (at or below 50% of AMI); and 3I% percent
~ In fact, 69% of the households Dave incomes below $25,000 which is below exhemely Io~v income for a
household of four; the average annual income at Arroyo Vista is only $21,101. Resident Characteristics
_~~~ ~ ~f ~~~~
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, and persons with disabilities. Subjecting applicants for the
redeveloped units to arbi#rary and subjective standards may well result in fair housing
violations. As long as its current and prior residents are or were tenants in good standing
during their Arroyo Vista tenancies (i.e., they were not terminated for cause pursuant to
the terms of their rental agreements) and "waiting list" applicants would be eligible for a
public housing unit but for disposition of Arroyo ,Vista, they need only meet the
eligibility criteria applicable to any state and/or federal funding source that is used in
developing the units for which they apply.
Relocation of Residents. The Draft EIR states that all residents to be displaced "would
be" relocated pursuant to Local, state and federal law. In fact, at least 60 households were
relocated already, and most of them were relocated without arty relocation plan or the
opportunity to comment on one before they were relocated. Thus, it is misleading for the
Draft E1R to imply that all residents "would" receive all relocation required by local,
state and federal law. That has already not occurred. Moreover, our clients have
challenged the validity of the relocation plan under state and 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 EIR should be rejected and the DDA 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
•~ c
BY: ~ ~~
Deborah Collins
Attorneys for Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, et al.
--i -w a ~f - ~ 0~1
N~
J
x
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 9
City of Dublin April 2009
Letter 1.1: Department of Transportation
• Comment 1.1: The commenter asks about the basis of existing site traffic as
documented in Table 4.11-2. Also, how are the AM and PM peak hour totals
calculated?
Response: The existing site traffic is based on actual driveway counts. The a.m.
and p.m. totals were calculated by adding the in and out traffic counts for the
four existing driveways that provide access to the project site. See the
spreadsheet contained in Appendix C of the Arroyo Vista Traffic Report
prepared by TjKM, and included in Appendix 8.7 of the DEIR. The spreadsheet
shows detailed calculation for the trip generation analysis and the count data for
the four driveways.
Letter 2.1: Alameda County Fire Department
• Comment 2.1.1: The commenter requests that page 93 of the DEIR, Fire Services,
first paragraph, be modified to note that Fire Station 16 at 7494 Donohue is
located a distance of 1.3 miles from the Project site.
Response: Comment noted. The requested change is made by reference in the
Changes and Modification section of this FEIR.
Letter 2.2: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Comment 2.2.1: The commenter makes several points with respect to the DEIR,
including that the Project site is located within the DSRSD water service area and
DSRSD intends to provide future water service to the proposed Project if
approved by LAFCO, the site is within the sanitary sewer area of DSRSD, the site
is within the recycled water service area of DSRSD, that. there would be an
increase in the amount of water needed to serve the proposed Project, there
would be an increase in the amount of sewer treatment service as a result of the
proposed Project and that recycled water would be available to serve the
proposed Project. Recycled water will help in lessening the amount of potable
water needed to serve the increased number of dwellings on the site.
Response: This comment is noted and no further discussion is required.
• Comment 2.2.2: The commenter notes that planning and construction should be
coordinated with DSRSD to ensure that such activities do not conflict with
existing DSRSD facilities and installation of new utilities are completed in
conformance with applicable DSRSD master plans and other standard
procedures.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 10
City of Dublin April 2009
Response: This comment is noted. Page 14 of the DEIR notes that follow-on
approvals will be required by DSRSD for water and wastewater connections. As
conditions of issuing such approvals, the District may require that Project
construction does not conflict with existing DSRSD facilities and that all future
utility improvements are installed in a manner consistent with DSRSD master
plans, procedures, specifications, drawings and all other applicable
requirements.
Letter 2.3: Alameda County Public Works Agency
Comment 2.3.1: The commenter notes that runoff from the Project site ultimately
drains into the Alameda Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This
facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The
commenter is concerned that increased runoff from the site could impact flow
capacity and increase the rate of erosion within local watercourses. This could
result in localized damage and deposit silt in the Federal Project. The commenter
states that there should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from
the project site that would adversely impact downstream drainage facilities.
Response: The City of Dublin notes that the Arroyo Vista DEIR adequately
discloses construction and post construction drainage,- hydrology, siltation and
related impacts to downstream drainage facilities. Specifically, Impact 4.7-1 notes
that soil erosion and siltation from the site could increase due to increases in the
amount of graded material and other material being eroded from the site, thus
impacting both City and Alameda County Flood Control facilities. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level
by requiring, first, that Project developer(s) prepare Erosion Control Plans to
reduce the amount of erosion leaving the site and, secondly, that Project
developer(s) prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans that conform to
Alameda County Clean Water Program and Regional Water Quality Control
Board requirements. Project developer(s) will be required to install Best
Management Practices into the proposed Project, including but not limited to
grassy swales/biofilters, covering of solid waste dumpsters and similar features.
Also, Impact 4.7-2 states that approval and construction of the proposed Project
would increase the rate, amount and direction of downstream drainage, possibly
resulting in localized flooding. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. This measure requires
the Project developer(s) to prepare a drainage and hydrology plan to show that
adequate on-site and downstream drainage facilities will accommodate any
increased stormwater runoff from the Project.
Therefore, based on the above and the discussion of the full impacts and
mitigation measures included in the DEIR, impacts related to drainage,
hydrology and erosion will be less-than-significant after compliance with
identified mitigation measures.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 11
City of Dublin April 2009
Comment 2.3.2: The commenter states that the applicant should provide
measures to prevent discharge of contaminated materials into public drainage
facilities. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all water quality
standards and regulations.
Response: As identified in Response 2.3.1, Project developer(s) will be required to
prepare both Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans
for approval by the Dublin Public Works Department. Both plans are to be
prepared in accordance with the Alameda County Clean Water Program and
Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements to ensure that all applicable
federal, state and local water quality standards and regulations will be met.
Implementation of these plans will prevent flow of contaminated materials into
public drainage facilities, thereby reducing water quality impacts to a less-than-
significantlevel.
Letter 2.4: Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Comment 2.4.1: The commenter notes that Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 on page 80
of the DEIR requires preparation of a drainage and hydrology study using Zone
7, Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin drainage criteria.
The last sentence of the Mitigation Measure indicates that the drainage and
hydrology plan is to be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department. The
commenter asks that the drainage and hydrology plan should be approved by
Zone 7.
Response: Based on the commenters request, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 is hereby
modified to read as follows:
"Mitigation Measure 4.7~
and drains a system capacity): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a
drainage and hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shall indicate that
adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional drainage
facilities to accommodate the direction, rate and amount of increased
stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(s) shall upgrade undersized
drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding would occur and
b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project
drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the
Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 and all recommendations
for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project
improvement plans."
Comment 2.4.2: The commenter notes that under Dublin City Council Resolution
N0.53-93, each project area is required to provide a Storm Drainage Master
Plan. Please confirm if the drainage and hydrology plan included as a mitigation
measure in the DEIR is the same as the Storm Drain Master Plan that is required
by the Eastern Dublin EIR. If not, Zone 7 should have the opportunity to review
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 12
City of Dublin April 2009
and comment on the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to the drainage and
hydrology plan.
Response: Dublin City Council Resolution No. 53-93 approved the Eastern Dublin
project with mitigation measures; however, the Arroyo Vista site is not located
within the Eastern Dublin planning area. Therefore the requirement to prepare a
Storm Drainage Master Plan does not apply to this Project. Instead, the
developer(s) of the Arroyo Vista Project will be required to prepare the drainage
and hydrology plan as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. As identified in the
Response to Comment 2.5.1, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 has been modified in this
Final EIR to add Zone 7 as an approval authority for the required drainage and
hydrology plan.
Letter 2.5: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)
Comment 2.5.1: The commenter states that the ACCMA does not have a standard
of significance for roadway levels of service as applied to the Land Use Analysis
Program. References to ACCMA level of service should be deleted The ACCMA
expects that professional judgment will be used to determine project impacts.
Also, even if a roadway is operating at LOS F, feasible mitigation is not
precluded.
Response: Based on past practice in City of Dublin EIRs and the traffic
engineer's professional judgment, the DEIR and traffic analysis identified the
LOS E threshold based on ACCMA monitoring standards. Page 100 of the
DEIR, the second sentence of the first run-on paragraph of text and related
references in Appendix 8.7 are modified as follows:
The threshold for Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
facilities is based on the ACCMA monitoring standards and is established
at LOS E.
The City agrees that feasible mitigation is not precluded for roadways
operating at LOS F. The DEIR considered mitigation possibilities for every
significant impact, including roadways projected to operate at LOS F or
otherwise unacceptably. Impacts 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, for example, identify the
improvements needed to reduce the impacts but also note why those
improvements would be infeasible for the project. In this case, the
improvements are included in the City's CIP and EDTIF projects, so the
impact will ultimately be mitigated. In another example, Impact 4.11-5
identifies feasible mitigation but explains that the mitigation will not
sufficiently reduce the impact and explains why no further mitigation is
feasible. Impact 4.11-6 also explains why no mitigation is feasible to reduce
the significant impact. Thus, the DEIR analysis already reflects the
commenter's suggestion.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 13
City of Dublin April 2009
_l -~ ~ -,~- ,,.
~~
• Comment 2.5.2: The commenter notes that the DEIR does not include any
demand-related strategies. As identified in the response to the NOP such
mechanisms include encouragement of ridesharing, transit, bicycling and other
means of reducing peak hour trips. Use of these strategies could reduce existing
congestion where impacts have been deemed significant and unavoidable.
Response: The project design recognizes the infill nature of the site by increasing
density and taking advantage of bicycle, pedestrian and transit opportunities.
The DEIR includes the following demand-related items. As described in the
"Transit System Impacts" section of the traffic report, the proposed Project is
consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan and would preserve the existing
alignment of the Alamo Creek Trail (ACT), which would form the western
boundary of the project site. The ACT is connected to Amador Valley Boulevard.
Bicyclists can access BART and downtown areas via Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dougherty Road. A detailed description of "On site Bus Circulation
Options" is also presented under the "Transit System Impacts" section of the
traffic report. With the recommended bus circulation option, residents would
have access to LAVTA-Wheels buses for commuting to work.
• Comment 2.5.3: The commenter states that a lesser roadway capacity than 2,000
vehicles per lane per hour should be used in the impact analysis for State Route
84 compared to I-580 and I-680 due to different characteristics of this roadway.
SR 84 has different characteristics than the two interstate facilities also analyzed.
Specifically, this analysis affects DEIR Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10.
Response: The segment of SR 84 south of I-580 was analyzed in the Draft EIR as a
multilane highway with two lanes in each direction and a maximum service flow
rate of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. Upon review of the comment and the
characteristics of SR 84, e.g., traffic signal spacing, driveway access spacing,
roadside development, parking conditions, etc., the City agrees that a more
appropriate analysis would be based on a lesser capacity. For the purpose of
preparing this response, therefore, the traffic consultant has re-analyzed the
roadway segment as an arterial with a capacity of 1,000 veh./hr./lane rather
than as a multilane highway. The results of that analysis are shown in attached
revised Tables X and XI (see attachment 1 of this document). These revisions also
apply to DEIR Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10, both of which contain the same
information as revised Tables X and IX.
Using the lesser roadway capacity, the future cumulative roadway levels of
service are LOS E and F. This would be a significant cumulative impact to the
extent of LOS F operations. However, the revised analysis for SR 84 shows that
Project vehicles would have no measurable contribution to the cumulative
conditions. As the revised tables show, the LOS and the v/ c ratio would be the
same under cumulative conditions with and without the Project for both 2015
and 2030. This conclusion reflects the fact that the Project simply does not
generate many peak hour trips due to its residential nature. The Project site is
also distant from SR 84, which is east of the site and must be accessed by using I-
580; there are other routes more direct and convenient to key destinations than
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 14
City of Dublin April 2009
t7 ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~1
~. t
an SR 84 route. Based on the revised analysis, the Project's contribution to 2015
and 2030 cumulative conditions on the SR 84 segment is not cumulatively
considerable and there is would be significant cumulative impact of the Project.
Letter 3.1: Bob and Sofia Brander
• Comment 3.1.1: The commenter notes that all or almost all recent housing built in
Dublin have been high density projects. Traffic and congestion have increased
significantly in the past five years. The commenter is concerned that the
proposed Project will place additional strain on City streets when budgets are
tight.
Response: This comment is noted. Section 4.11 of the DEIR contains a
comprehensive analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed Project. Although
construction of the proposed Project would increase traffic on local roadways, in
most instances, traffic impacts can be mitigated (reduced) to a less-than-
significantlevel. Significant and unavoidable im acts would be created,
however, at the intersection of Dougherty Road~Amador Valley Boulevard
which is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable level during the AM and PM
peak hours (see Impact 4.11-2). Also, the proposed Project would make traffic
worse at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and the I-580 westbound offramp
during the AM peak hour (see Impact 4.11-3) and the DEIR identified a
significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impact in the PM peak hour at the
Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersection (see Impact 4.11-6).
Comment 3.1.2: The commenters note that the only east-west streets in the City,
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, cannot be widened.
Additional high-density housing will place additional strain on these streets.
Also, Dougherty Road has seen significant traffic level increases. The housing
project will further increase traffic congestion on Dougherty, especially during
commute hours.
Response: Comments regarding the local street network and the project's
contribution to. future traffic congestion are noted. As stated in the response to
Comment 3.1.1, traffic impacts of the proposed Project have been fully analyzed
in Section 4.11 of the DEIR. Since the proposed Project is located along
Dougherty Road near both Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, the
traffic impact analysis in the DEIR focused particularly on these major roadways,
• Comment 3.1.3: The commenters state that Dublin is a small City and cannot take
any more high-density housing. The City is asked not to approve this project.
_. Response: This comment is noted and no response is required since it is not a
comment on an environmental topic. However, this opinion will be considered
by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on
this Project.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 15
City of Dublin April 2009
Letter 3.2: Cheryl Weir
• Comment 3.2.1: The commenter noted she lives near the Project site and has
some serious reservations about letting it go forward as planned.
Response: This comment is noted and no response is required since it is not a
comment on an environmental topic. However, this opinion will be considered
by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on
this Project.
• Comment 3.2.2: Dublin is overbuilt for new housing, real estate prices are low
and the market will not recover in the near future. Yet adding another high-
density development now will leave additional units empty for a long period of
time. This does not seem to be in the City's best interest and will further depress
the real estate market longer than necessary with an oversupply of empty units.
Response: Similar to the response to the above comment, this comment is not
related to a topic addressed in the DEIR pursuant to CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines; therefore no response is required. However, the commenter's
opinion will be considered by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
during public hearings on this Project.
• Comment 3.2.3: The commenter notes that the applicants are seeking to find
profit in this economy, but the proposed Project may not be in Dublin's best
interest.
Response: Refer to the Response to Comment 3.2.2. The City does note, however,
that Eden Housing, one of the two Project applicants, is anon-profit housing
developer.
Letter 3.3: Chris Gouig, Alameda County Housing Authority
• Comment 3.3.1; The commenter notes that the second sentence in second to last
paragraph on page 11 should read: "The Family units would be targeted to
occupancy by families with incomes ~^'~•~^^^ '~~07 ~ra at or below 60% of the
AMI."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Letter 3.4: Chris Gouig, Alameda County Housing Authority
• Comment 3.4.1: The commenter requests that the second line of the second
paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) be modified as
follows "Existing residents on the Site would be relocated to replacement
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 16
City of Dublin April 2009
~~~ ~~- ~:- f~
housing sites consistent with applicable 1~1, state and Federal guidelines and
regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site would be removed."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Comment 3.4.2: The commenter requests that the first line of the third paragraph
of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) be modified as follows: "The
remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income-
restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units
in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments
(with 491-bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager
apartment unit)."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.3: The commenter requests that the discussion of Alternative 2 the
bottom of page 3 in Section 1.5 be modified as follows: "Alternative 2: Reduced
Project. The second alternative assumes that existing buildings and related
improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per ~plicable
l~l, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site
would be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per
acre."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.4: The commenter requests that the fourth line of the second
paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) be modified as follows: "The
Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a community of
~~ approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141 attached
and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings
(with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and
townhouses) and 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491-bedroom
apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit which would not be income or age
restricted)."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.5: The commenter requests that the third line of the fourth
paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) be modified as follows: "The
.~ affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes
at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Family units would be
targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between 20 o and 60% of
AMI."
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 17
City of Dublin April 2009
~ g 1 ~~~-~ <~t~~~~
Response: This comment is superceded by Comment 3.3.1, above and it's related
response.
Comment 3.4.6: The commenter requests that the third paragraph of Section 3.5
(Pro)'ect Characteristics), page 13, be modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing
Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August 15, 2007,
proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes
Central developer team. With HUD approval of the Disposition Application, the
Project would be removed from the public housing program and will no longer
be subject to the Annual Contribution Contract. Existing residents of the Arroyo
Vista complex would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocation
plan which has been °..~,w,:++^a }^ approved bX the Dublin Housing Authority
which is consistent with applicable , State and Federal relocation guidelines
and regulations."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.7: The commenter requests that the second and third paragraphs
of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 80, be modified as follows: "
"The Project Site is occupied by 150 ~^~~~ ~^^^m^ public housing detached single-
family dwellings owned by the Dublin Housing Authority.
The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on
August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq. proposing
disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central
developer team. The Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan
pursuant to applicable , state and federal guidelines. The plan provides for
relocation benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of applicable law.
Benefits include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for
disabled and senior residents if requested, security deposits, credit check fees,
comparable replacement housing in the form of a Section 8 voucher or, if
ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice to move (but
only if HUD approves the disposition application). The relocation plan
demonstrates that there are adequate available housing resources for the
displaced households and that the DHA will provide advisory assistance and
relocation benefits necessary to ensure that all households are adequately
housed at the time of displacement."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.8: The commenter notes that the proposed Project would not result
in a temporary loss of public housing units, as stated on page 91 of the EIR, in
the first line of the first paragraph of the Environmental Impacts section. The
commenter states that the applicant is not rebuilding any public housing units
on the site.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 18
City of Dublin April 2009
Response: This comment is noted. The intent of the sentence is that existing
residents of the Arroyo Vista Housing Project will be relocated, after all
necessary Project approvals are obtained, to suitable alternative housing as
required by the Relocation Plan. Existing residents would not simply be
displaced onto the open real estate market. As further discussed in the DEIR,
removal of existing residents from the complex would not be a significant
displacement impact.
• Comment 3.4.9: The commenter requests that the last paragraph of Section 3.9
(Population and Housing), page 91, be modified as follows: "Each of the current
residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with extremely low incomes, would
be provided with relocation assistance and would have the right to return to the
Project, provided their incomes at the time of rehousing are not higher than the
Project's maximum affordability levels."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.10: The commenter requests that the first paragraph of Section 3.9
(Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows:
"Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to
increase both the number and affordability level of the units on the property.
The current units, while operating as public housing units, are available to
residents with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The 49
senior units will be available only to households with incomes at or below 50%
of AMI. '
~,.,,-,~„~,,.~a~ i~.~~„~., ano> „~ nr~rr~. The family rental units will be restricted to
varying income levels, none of which will exceed 60% of AMI. Thus, all of the
affordable rental units will be income-restricted at levels lower than they are
currently, including some for those with extremely low income. The proposal is
intended to create amixed-income community that more than replaces the
number of low-income units being removed, in compliance with several polices
contained in Dublin's Housing Element.
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Comment 3.4.11: The commenter requests that the second paragraph of Section
3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows: "The Dublin
Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for existing
residents, as required by applicable state and Federal ~e;;e~s guidelines."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 19
City of Dublin April 2009
• Comment 3.4.12: The commenter requests that the third paragraph of Section
3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows:
"Relocation efforts, as documented in the .Relocation Plan, include an outreach
program for residents and convening several resident meetings to describe the
proposed redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project
Site. Relocation specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and
would continue to provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for
comparable housing opportunities in the Dublin and Tri-Vallev area and
referrals regarding governmental and social service agencies, as needed.
Relocation payments have been provided to residents and will continue to be
provided in accordance with California Guidelines and federal requirements."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
• Comment 3.4.13: The commenter requests that the fourth paragraph of Section
3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows:
"In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households
being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and
would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the
general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation p~-
assistance as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of
affordable for sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase,
providing additional housing opportunities for low income households in the
City. The Project would not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable
housing and would increase the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30
rental and fourteen "for sale" dwellings; therefore any impacts related to
displacement of dwelling units and people from the Site would be less-than-
significant."
Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and
Modifications section of the Final EIR.
Letter 3.5: The Public Interest Law Project
• Comment 3.5.1: The commenter notes that the City's preparation of the Draft EIR
for the proposed Project is untimely. The City Council has improperly committed
itself to the redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista complex before evaluating the
environmental effects of the project. A lead agency cannot take any action that
significantly alters a project that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures
suggested by CEQA. However, the DEIR notes that at last 441 Arroyo Vista
residents would be displaced and 150 income-restricted dwellings demolished
pursuant to the proposed Project
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 20
City of Dublin April 2009
~~~1 of ~o~
Response: The City disagrees that preparation of the Draft EIR is untimely or
forecloses alternatives to or mitigation measures for the project. The EIR
identifies and analyzes reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and the
City has full discretion to approve any of those alternatives. Likewise, the EIR
identifies numerous mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant
environmental impacts to less than significant, all of which measures the City has
discretion to impose. In fact, the disposition and development agreement (DDA)
explicitly identifies where the City is expected to exercise its discretion with
respect to the project. For example, Section 6.4 requires the project to obtain all
necessary permits, without limitation, and Section 6.7(a) authorizes imposition of
whatever mitigation measures are needed. Section 6.7(b) states unequivocally
that the City has "absolute discretion and right to approve or disapprove" the
project. The City has followed all required public participation requirements
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and responded
accordingly throughout the environmental review process. There is no evidence
in the record otherwise.
Comment 3.5.2: The commenter notes that the DEIR sets forth three Alternatives
to the proposed Project (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3). As a practical matter, the City
Council cannot reasonably consider all of there Alternatives, and particularly
Alternative 1 since it has already taken significant steps to commit to the
proposal Project. These steps include entering into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with the Dublin Housing Authority in July 2007, a City
contribution for relocation costs, relocation of Arroyo Vista residents from the
site, approval of a $1.5 million construction loan to Eden Housing and approval
of a $325,000 predevelopment loan to Eden Housing. Therefore, the City's
preparation and circulation of the DEIR is little more than a "post hoc"
rationalization to support the action. It has therefore effectively approved the
project in violation of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.
Response: The City is not foreclosed from considering any of the identified
alternatives or imposing identified mitigation measures. Furthermore, the
City's previous actions have not effectively approved the Project.
Alternatives. CEQA and its Guidelines require an EIR to describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain most of the
basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. (15126.6(a).) The EIR includes a No Project
alternative as required by CEQA. The other development alternatives were
carefully chosen to respond to environmental factors that affect the site and
development on it, primarily the potential for traffic noise from Dougherty
Road and the project site location near Alamo Creek. All of the alternatives
' California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq; CEQA
Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq.. References to CEQA and
the Guidelines will generally be by section number only.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 21
City of Dublin April 2009
~~~> ~~f ~o~.
are reasonable under CEQA and the City presently has full discretion to
approve any of them instead of the proposed project.2
Under the No Project alternative, the existing units would remain in place
subject to ongoing maintenance, repair and infrastructure replacement to
meet applicable building, health and safety code requirements. (page 1563).
The commenter erroneously asserts de facto demolition of nearly half of the
units. To the contrary, all of the 150 existing units remain standing on the
project site and would be repaired or maintained as necessary to meet
applicable codes under the No Project alternative. There is nothing in the
DDA approval or other referenced actions that practically or legally
forecloses implementation of the No Project alternative.
Alternative 2 describes a reduced density and reduced footprint project.
Alternative 2 would reduce the number of residents subject to and
contributing to traffic and its related noise on Dougherty Road.
Furthermore, Alternative 2 would cluster development in the approximate
center of the site, moving the development footprint further away from the
creek and further away from Dougherty Road. This is a reasonable
alternative for CEQA purposes and nothing in the DDA approval or other
actions referenced by the commenter would preclude the City from adopting
this alternative when a decision on the project is considered.
Alternative 3 describes a mixed-use project with development moved further
from the creek and with noise sensitive residential uses replaced by
commercial uses along more than half of the Dougherty Road frontage.
Again, this is a reasonable alternative for CEQA purposes and nothing in the
DDA or other actions referenced by the commenter would preclude the City
from adopting this alternative when a deasion on the project is considered.
Furthermore, far from the post-hoc rationalization asserted by the commenter,
the EIR analyzes each of the alternatives for each of the environmental resources
categories. The analysis allows the public and decision makers to compare the
project and its alternatives and identifies whether the alternatives avoid the
project's significant traffic impacts. This is exactly what CEQA requires for an
adequate alternatives analysis.
Mitigation measures. The Draft EIR contains a number of mitigation
measures across several potential impact categories. The mitigations are
reasonable responses to the impacts identified; there is nothing in the DDA or
'° other actions referenced by the commenter that would preclude the City from
adopting the mitigation measures as conditions for the project if it were
approved.
2 In fact, the City is no stranger to approval of CEQA alternatives where appropriate. In 1994, the City
approved a variation on the Reduced Density Alternative that reduced the Eastern Dublin planning
area from nearly 7,000 acres to approximately 4,200 acres.
s All page number references are to the Arroyo Vista Draft EIR unless otherwise noted.
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 22
City of Dublin April 2009
..:.~
~,!- ~ ~-~
Previous actions. The commenter is incorrect that other City actions related
to the project constitute approval of the project.
DDA. The Disposition and Development Agreement for the project
was approved by the City on July 17, 2007 and is incorporated herein by
reference. As noted above, the DDA specifically and repeatedly states the
agreement is not an approval, that full and adequate environmental review is
required and that the City retains full discretion with respect to approval,
disapproval and the adoption of any mitigation measures for the project.
The City never treated the DDA as approval of the project and has continued
to follow appropriate land use and zoning procedures and CEQA review, as
for any other proposed project.
Relocations. Tenants have voluntarily moved from Arroyo Vista; no
tenant has been required to move or otherwise relocate as a result of the
proposed project. The Dublin Housing Authority has conducted extensive
tenant outreach efforts since October 2004, well before the Authority
determined to submit a disposition application to HUD for the
redevelopment project. Once the Authority determined to seek approval of a
redevelopment project, regular Redevelopment Updates and other
newsletters specifically and repeatedly advised tenants that they were not
required to move and that they would receive information about future
relocation assistance. Excerpts from newsletters for April, June and July of
2007 are attached as examples of the information provided to tenants.
Legally required notice of the need to vacate units has not been given and no
tenants are currently required to vacate their units. For those tenants who
wished to move, the Authority provided assistance. Assistance to tenants
who wished to move voluntarily is not a substitute for legal relocation
requirements and the commenter' attempts to turn such assistance into a
project approval do not make it so. The voluntary relocations that have
occurred do not preclude the City from approving any of the EIR alternatives
or from complying with conditions that HUD may impose.
De facto demolition. All of the 150 units are existing on the site; there
has been no demolition, de facto or actual. No demolition may occur on the
site except in accordance with HUD approval, a certified EIR and applicable
City and other permits and approvals.
Financial assistance and support. The City has approved financial
support for the project; however, none of the support expressly or implicitly
requires the City to approve the project. This is in sharp contrast to a key
element of the recent Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood case, i.e., a $4.2
million federal grant to develop a senior housing project. (See Save Tara v.
City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Ca1.4~' 116.) In that case, the City of West
Hollywood advised interested parties that in light of the grant, the city "must
continue on a path that fulfills this obligation." Related draft agreements
vested the determination of adequate CEQA compliance in the city manager,
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 23
City of Dublin April 2009
and were described as committing the city "as long as the developer
delivers." None of these features is present for the Arroyo Vista project.
There is no federal grant money for the project; and the City has never
indicated it was obligated or committed to approving the project. As the Save
Tara court noted, interest in or inclination to support a project, no matter how
well defined, does not equal project approval. (45 Cal.4~' at 136.)
The City's financial support for the project similarly does not constitute
project approval. In fact, as documented in the December 18, 2007 City
Council agenda report (incorporated herein by reference), the
predevelopment loan of $325,000 mentioned by the commenter was for the
purpose of covering environmental review costs. It is also not unusual for
Dublin projects to require approvals from other agencies, e.g., State
Department of Fish and Game, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (and related U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Department requirements that the Corps must comply with). Those
approvals may include conditions that the project must meet in addition to
any City approvals. The developer then has to determine how to satisfy all
the conditions imposed on its project, whether by the City or by state or
federal authorities. The DDA recognizes the CEQA process and the City's
absolute discretion to approve or deny the project. Nothing in the record
precludes the City from imposing appropriate conditions or relieves the
project from other agencies' appropriate conditions.
The CEQA review process for the project is timely and appropriate. The City has
a comprehensive CEQA process and routinely processes EIRs and considers
projects in light of the EIR information. The circumstances surrounding the
project do not rise to an approval under applicable CEQA case law, including the
recent Save Tara case. The City will consider whether and in what form to
approve the project only after the related EIR has been certified and in light of
the environmental information provided in the EIR.
Comment 3.5.3: The commenter states that the City cannot shield itself from
failure to comply with CEQA procedures by claiming that the Disposition and
Development Agreement is "conditional" on approval of DHA's application for
disposition to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
relocation of nearly one-half of the families at Arroyo Vista in advance of any
environmental review and expenditure of City funds effectively precludes any
meaningful consideration of the alternatives outlined in the DEIR. By carrying
out the Project prematurely, the City has foreclosed not only on the Alternatives
outlined in the DEIR, but the ability to comply with any conditions that may be
imposed by HUD.
Response: Refer to Response to Comment 3.5.2.
• Comment 3.5.4: The commenter states that the DEIR concludes there would be a
less-than-significant impact with respect to population and housing. This
conclusion and the facts on which is based is not supported by substantial
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 24
City of Dublin April 2009
evidence. The DEIR acknowledges that there would be a significant impact if the
project were to displace a substantial number of dwellings units or people
necessitating construction of replacement housing, however, the document
concludes that the displacement of approximately 41 persons and 150 homes
primarily affordable to very low income families is less-than-significant. This
conclusion is premised on the notion that such relocation is only temporary,
residents would be relocated pursuant to local, state and federal laws and
residents with appropriate income limits would have the right to return. There is
no evidence on the record that units to be demolished will be rebuilt. The DDA
calls for the non-profit builder to apply for low-income tax credits and other
funding, so that future construction is dependent on the availability of funding.
Further, no start date has been identified. Sufficient funding for affordable
rentals units are not likely to be available in the near future. Thus, there is no
guarantee that demolition of the 150 public housing units is only temporary and
no guarantee that any affordable replacement units will be constructed.
The commenter further asserts that the proposed affordable units may not be
affordable or accessible to current Arroyo Vista residents. The commenter
further notes that many households have been relocated without a relocation
plan.
Response: The comments are largely related to social and economic impacts
and are not potential environmental impacts requiring disclosure in the EIR.
A significant effect on the environment is a substantial adverse change in the
physical conditions affected by the project. (CEQA Guidelines section 15382.)
Economic or social effects of a project by themselves are not treated as
significant effects on the environment. (See CEQA Guidelines sections
15131(a), 15382.) For this reason, the standard of significance for population
and housing impacts asks not just whether housing or people would be
displaced, but whether that displacement would require construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
The DDA and the record generally describe the Housing Authority's long
history of outreach and information to the Arroyo Vista tenants. Once the
Authority determined to seek approval of a redevelopment project, it was
clear that residents would be displaced at some point in time. Formal notice
and assistance requirements would be triggered by applicable state and
federal guidelines. The formal requirements do not prohibit the Authority
from providing information and assistance to the tenants in the meantime.
The fact is that the project proposes to build more affordable units than
currently exist. The 150 existing units would be replaced by 180 units, at least
178 of which will be income-restricted (the other 2 units are manager units for
the family and senior units and will not be income-restricted.) In addition,
the project will build up to 15 affordable for-sale units pursuant to the City's
inclusionary zoning ordinance. The result is a net increase of income-
:.. restricted affordable units. The project proposes demolition of the existing
units in connection with building the proposed project and not as a separate
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 25
City of Dublin April 2009
stand-alone action, so the loss of units is reasonably expected to be
temporary.
The Draft EIR demonstrates that the bedroom count of the proposed units is
reasonable based on the Authority's occupancy data (page 91). The Draft EIR
also discloses a deeper affordabil component to the extent that existing
units are available to residents wi~ incomes at or below 80% of Area Median
Income (AMI), while proposed units will be affordable at or below 50% of
AMI for the senior units and at or below 60% of the AMI for family units
(page 92). The Draft EIR further describes relocation efforts for relocating
tenants to comparable housing in the area. Based on the number of units and
deeper affordability, and the required relocation assistance, the project would
not permanently reduce the City's inventory of affordable housing and
would in fact increase affordable housing opportunities, thus, replacement
affordable housing need not be constructed elsewhere. Furthermore, both of
the development alternatives in the Draft EIR propose at least 150 affordable
units to ensure no net loss of affordable units in the City. The Draft EIR
appropriately analyzes displacement in the CEQA context and provides
adequate discussion and supporting evidence.
It is possible that at the time formal notice is given that the new project is
available for rent, some former tenants may not choose to or be able financially to
return to the new project; however, this is not a CEQA issue. Similarly, the 150
units of public housing will be replaced by 178 units of income-restricted
affordable housing (and up to 15 for-sale inclusionary zoning units); the
difference in who qualifies to rent the units is not a CEQA issue. The City also
notes that the project will comply with all applicable ADA requirements for
disabled accessibility. The social and economic factors related to the project will
be an important consideration for the City, but are not required to be analyzed
further in the EIR.
Attachments: Excerpts from April, June, July 2007 Redevelopment Updates
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 26
City of Dublin April 2009
Attachment 1-
Revised Traffic Tables
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 27
City of Dublin April 2009
r ,,.
_e ri ~ ,_ ~_ ~ ., _~
~, ..~:
TJKM
Ti~nsportation
Consultants
Table X: Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions Freeway Analysis
~ Yeor 2013 (No Pro/ed) Yeor IO1 S plus Pro/ect
Humber o f Lanea A.M.
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
YIC
LOS A.M.
Peak
Volume
Y!C
f.05 P.M.
Peak
Vofume
V/C
LOS
1-580, East of 1-680
Eastbound
Westbound 4
5 8,000
10,000 5,089
11,169 0.64
1.12 C
F 8,230
5,879 1.03
0.59 F
C 5,089
11,185 0.64
1.12 C
F 8,230
5,886 1.03
0.59 F
C
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hadenda Drive
Eastbound
Westbound b + aux.
4 + aux. 13,000
.. 9,000 6,365
9,457 0.49
1.05 B
F 10,854
5,974 0.83
0.66 D
C 6,373
9,457 r 0.49
..1.05 B
F (0,856
5,975 0.84
0.66 D
C
1.580, Hacienda Drive to Tazsalara Road
Eastbound
Westbound 5
4 + aux. 10,000
9,000 4,253
8,391 0.43
0.93 B
E 10,988
4,293 1.10
0.48 F
B 4,261
8,391 0.43
0.93 8
E 10,989
4,295 1.10
0.48 F
B
1-580, Tsssajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound
Westbound 4 + aux.
4 + aux. 9,000
9,000 4,469
10,082 0.50
1.12 B
F 10,025
4,594 I.1 I
0.51 F
B 4,476
10,082 0.50
1.12 B
F 10,026
4,597 I .l I
0.51 F
B
1-580, Fallon Road rA Airway Boulevard
Eastbound
Westbound 4 + aux.
4 + aux. 9,000
9,000 4,181
11,891 0.46
1.32 B
F 10, 135
4,320 1.13
0.48 F
B 4,186
11,891 0.47
1.32 B
F 10, 136
4,323 I.13
0.48 F
B
1-b80, Aicosta Boulevard to 1-580
Northbound
Southbound 4
4 8,000
8,000 5,853
7,213 X 0.73
0.90 ' C
D 7,359
5,473 0.92
0.68 D
C 5,853
7,213 0.73
0.90 C
D 7,360
5,480 0.92
0.69 D
C
1-6B0, South of I-580
Northbound
Southbound 3
3 + aux. 6,000
7,000 4,041
6,583 0.67
0.94 C
E 8,272
4,231 1.38
0.60 F
C 4,041
6.585 0.67
0.44 C
E 8,272
4,232 1.38
0.60 F
C
SR 84, South of I-580 ( Analyzed a s an ,yserial with a raoacit y of 1.000 v ehlhrlla nel
Northbound
Southbound 2
_ 2 421,000
42,000 2,524
2,260 ,1~2
J,j~ GF
CF 1,762
2,345 ~
J,JI 13J<
CF 2,524
2,2b0 ~¢
I I CF
&p 1,762
2,345 ~
I,,LZ 8f
CF
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-I, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow race for freeway segments=2000 vehicleslhr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment- (N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr
Note: Bold values Indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
Page 45
Report - Tragic Study for the Arroyo >rsto Housing Development Ap,;r r, 2009
~1 ~l ~ ~.~
TJ KM
Transportation
Consulrartts
Table Xi: Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions Freeway Analysis
Year 2030 (No Protect) Year 2030 plus Profect
Number o f Lones ~ A.M,
Peak
Volume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
V1C
LOS A.M.
Peak
Yofume
V/C
LOS P.M.
Peak
Volume
Y/C
LOS
1.580, East of 1-680
Eastbound
Westbound 4
5 8,000
10,000 6,464
15,708 0.81
1.57 D
F 9,960
6.674 1.25
0.67 F
C 6,464
15,724 0.81
1.57 D
F 9,960
6,681 1.25
0.67 F
C
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound
Westbound b + aux.
4 + aux. 13,000
9,000 8,016
13,864 0.62
1.54 C
F 12,590
7,066 0.97
0.79 E
D 8,024
13,864 0.62
1.54 C
F 12,592
7,067 0.97
0.79 E
D
I-580, Hacenda Drive to Tassa(ara Road
Eastbound
Westbound 5
4 + aux. 10,000
9,000 6,520
12,731 0.65
1.41 C
F 12,027
6,351 1.20
0.71 F
C 6,528
12,731 0.65
1.41 C
F 12,028
6,353 1.20
0.71 F
C
[-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound
_.. ....~
Westbound 4 + aux.
----
4 + aux. 9,000
----
9,000 6,344
----~
14,490 0.70
---
1.61 C
--
F 12,479
__~-
6,708 1.39
---
0.75 F
---
C 6,351
----
14,490 0,71
--w
1.61 C
---
F 12,480
----
6,71 I 1.39
---
0.75 F
---
C
I-580, Fallon Road to Alrway Boulevard
Eastbound
Westbound 4 + aux.
4+aux. 9,000
9,000 6,632
15,720 0.74
1.75 C
F 12,972
6,429 1.44
0.71 F
C 6,637
15,720 0.74
^1.75 C
F' 12,973
6,432 1.44
0.71 F
Cr
I-680, Alcosa Boulevard to I-580
Northbound
Southbound 4
4 8,000
8,000 6,646
9,59[ 0.83
1.20 D
F 9,028
5,982 1.13
0.75 F
C 6,646
9,591 0.83
1.20 D
F 9,029
5,989 1.13
0.75 F
C
1.680, South of 1-580
Northbound
Southbound 3
3 + aux. 6,000
7,000 3,791
8,683 0.63
1.24 C
F 10,095
4,51 I 1.68
0.64 F
C 3,791
8,685 O.b3
1.24 C
F 10,095
4,512 1.68
0.64 F
C
SR 84, South of 1-580 ( nalyzed a s an arterial with a caoaci of 1.009 v eh/hrA anel
Northbound
Southbound 2
2 42 000
43,000 3,753
3,549 ^ ,(,,$$
,~ iF
FE 3,198
2,965 ^ i,¢Q
l 4$ GF
8F 3,753
3,549 L66
J,,~ ' FF
EF 3,198
2,965 ^ J,,¢Q
~ JOE
8F
source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-I, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections
Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehlcles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane
If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux„ capacity of segment= {N*2000+1000) vehicleslhr
Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions
Poge 46
Report - Tmf frc Study for the Arroyo Vista Housing Development Agri! 1, 2009
_~~~3 ~ ~~~1~
Attachment 2-
July 2007 Redevelopment Update
Newsletters
Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 28
City of Dublin April 2009
`:' ' `'
~~ .~. ~~ .
~y..,
`~~~
--
w...
.::r.:,
,:;,:
;..h,
~:~:k;
F ur4,~4tJ ~ .
;;;:~ " sti~~• ~ ~ .,, .6700 Dougherty Rd.
'~~F ''~ ~, 4 J ~ ,~ Dublin, CA 94568
~:~ ~if~~'"' ~> Phone: {92S) 828=3132
JF ¢u•
wronwm
{ ~.''S,`.e., . ~'`w^'%X~ iii:
4,_~.
Dublin Housing Authority ~:
Arroyo Vista Staff " ' ;
„" ~ MargieNewman
~' Dublin Area Manager .' ;:;.',`.'
Ca"rol Alves ...
~, . Adminis,frative.Services
,.,,.
Lee Alejandro.:;.'
`;~ ~~ Manny Gutierrez
.. Charles Hughes '
~~'~O:ffice:Hours . ~.
`' lYtonday -Friday .
8:30.arn - 3:OOpm
Saturday & Sunday
Closed
Closed Every Other Friday
"~~k'~~"'~ ;; Important Numbers
,
~•-.r~ '_.~
. ; ; w;.;; •... Office: (925) 828-3132
~a'~s~=~`~}~=~'~'` Fax: (925) 828-5450
.. ~r~:::~~.Y~t:~iJ:4!
REDEVELC)PMEfVT UPDATE
The Dublin Housing Authority Commission. held its
regular meeting on, March 6 at the Dublin Civic Center.
The Commission approved Housing Authority staff's • ,
recommendation to retain Overland, Pacific & Cutler as the.
relocation consultant for the redevelopment •of Arroyo
Vista..
Overland, Pacific 8c Cutler (OPC).is. based in Oakland. It has
provided relocation and property •acquisition services to local;
state and federal agencies for over 25 years. In our immediate
geographic area.~it has'done • work for 'San Francisco, '
.Pleasanton, Union City, Oakland, Richmond, San: Jose,
. Hayward .and Fremont. Outside .the' Bay' Area,' it
,has done .work for Sacramento, Mendocino, Fairfield; and '
Redding among others. Housing Authority staff checked
references for OPC anti they were excellent. .
Overland,Pacific & Cutler will meet individually with each
. household, conduct meetings and workshop with residents,
• deyeiop~a relocation plan,. help residents find replacement '
housing, process claims for moving expenses' and work with
potential landlords. Arroyo Vista residents should 'feel assured
that they will receive the assistance they need in finding
appropriate replacement housing.
We anticipate that we will have an informational meeting in
late April or early May to introduce the. people from OPC and.
have them describe their services. You will receive a separate
notice for this meeting.
Do.not move or feel you have to start looking for a new home.
The Housing Authority has not yet submitted the application •~~
to HUD i~at will allow for the redevelopment. We anticipate
it will be submitted in April. However, the •environmental.
review document, which must also'be submitted to HUD,
will likely not be submitted until the end of the year. HUD
needs the environmental document before it can approve the
redevelopment application Therefore, HUD approval of the '
redevelopment is not likely Yo occur until 2008.
..,
V ` J c> I rM1~ ~ --~
Dublin Housing Authority
. Arroyo Vista Staff
•Margie Newman
Dublin Area Manager
Carol Alves
Administrative. Services
Maintenance Staff
Lee.tle~andro .
Manny .Gutierrez
Charles~Hughes
Office Hours
~' Monday, -Friday
8:3Oam - 3:OOpm
Saturday & Sunday
•' Closed
closed Every Other Friday
Important Numbers
Office: (925) 828-3132
Fax: (925) $28-5450
1~C Cc~~C1i
6700 Dougherty Rd:
.Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 828-3132
~~,
REDEVELOPMENT UPDATE .
In April all of you received the General Information
Notice .about the redevelopment of Arroyo V;sta •and the
relocation that will be required. The Notice announced
two meetings for April 24 that would be held to discuss the
project. Sorne of you were able to attend those meetings.
Representatives of the developers, Eden Housing and
Citation Homes were present and described their plans for
the project. They presented a slide show and pictures of the
proposed layout of the new units and cornmunity building.
Representatives of the relocation consultant retained by
the Housing Authority, Overland• Pacific & Culler, also
were present. They described the relocation process and
answered a number of questions about timing and relocation
benefts. Staff from the Housing Authority were present.to
answer questions about Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
At the meeting Housing Authority staff said. there
would be a meeting on May 23 to discuss the Section 8
homeownership program. THIS MEETING HAS BEEN
CHANGED TO JUNE 6. The meeting is called: Introduction
to Family Stability and Section 8 Rental and Homeownership,
and will include information on the Section 8' program
(both rental and homeownership) and ways of improving
your credit to prepare for homeownership or renting in
the private market. The meeting will take place 'at Dublin
City ,Hall. in the Regional Meeting Room • from 6-8 PM:
Watch for the flyer in the mail that announces this meeting.
Do not feel you have to move or begin looking for a
new home now. Beginning nextyear, the relocation consultant
will meet with each family individually to ascertain their
relocation needs and explain the assistance that is available.
In the meantime, if you have any. questions about relocation,
please call Overland Pacific & Cutler at 877-972-8908 (toll
free) and ask for either Teresa Laverde or John Morris.
• ~
s 4.
~e ;`,.... ..
~'d
6700 Dougherty Rd.
:;; :... i
~;;. :,s.
.
''6~av' ~ Dublin Housing Authority
:~~~•,~~~ Arroyo Vista Staff
Margie Newman
Dublin Area Manager
Carol Alves
Y
Administrative Services
.~ ~~i
~~~~~~'<t~;.' Maintenance Staff
y,~,.p
?fir,. Lee Alejandro
Manny Gutierrez
Charles Hughes
~, Office Hours
Monday -Friday
== 8:30am - 3:OOpm
f.,,
~~ Saturday & Sunday
"'`
~'~~ Closed
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925} 828-313 Z
!•IW R•IIK
ONOIII•Nf1Y
REDEVELOPMENT UPDATE
We had a great turn out at the meeting held at Dublin City
Hall on June 61 Thank you to everyone who attended.
A lot of information was covered at the meeting:
• The application to HUD to sell the property will be submitted
in June. It will take about one year before it is approved.
• The property cannot be demolished until AFTER the
application is approved.
• YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE NOW. We anticipate
starting relocation activities early next year.
• If you WANT to move before next year, you can.
• The Section 8 vouchers for all eligible households are available
after July 25 (let's say, August 1}.
• We have Section 8 vouchers for aI] eligible households-we
will not "run out" if you decide to move next year instead of
now:
• Housing Authority staff and the Housing Authority's relocation
consultant will begin holding small group meetings (about
5 families at a time) at Arroyo Vista to more fully explain the
Section 8 program and relocation benefits. We will contact you
to schedule your meeting.
I
"" Closed Every Other Friday At the June 6'hmeeting a variety ofbenefits were described
including payment of moving assistance, Section 8 voucher
Important Numbers program rules, classes and counseling from the Tri Valley
Housing Opportunities Canter and inclusionary home ownership
~: Offtce: (925) 828-3132 opportunities in the City of Dublin. You will hear more about all
Fax: (925) 828-5450 of these during the relocation process.
In the meantime, for questions please call the following:
~~
~° ^~; .
~ +i:
>~ ~ ::~
. x,
~' ; k
}r
Homeownership/Credit Counseling: Jorge Ramirez
925-373-3930
Relocation: John MomslTeresa Laverde
877-972-8908 (toll free)
Section 8 Voucher Rules: Mary Rizzo Shuman
510-727-8570
Section 8 Homeownership: Betsy Safine
510-727-8585
>~'