HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Arroyo Vista FONSI Attch 3-8
3 I ~ OD t-{tt't
CITY CLERK
File # D~[Q]~-[~[Q)
AGENDA STATEMENT Jf()O- ~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 3, 2008
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 07-028 Arroyo Vista - Environmental
AssessmentlFinding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Arroyo Vista
Project.
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Mailed Notice of Continuation of June 3, 2008 public hearing
2) Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Intent to
Request Approval of Property Disposition, dated May 28, 2008.
3) Environmental Assessment.
RECOMMENDATQJkION: 1)
2)
sg ~ ~~
Z:J 5)
Receive Staff Presentation;
Open public hearing;
Take testimony from the public;
Close public hearing; and
Continue item to July 15,2008.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Arroyo Vista is a 150 unit detached affordable housing project which is owned by the Dublin Housing
Authority (DHA) and managed by the Alameda County Housing Authority under contract. The housing
complex was constructed over 20 years ago. The complex has design problems which have created
ongoing building maintenance problems, as well as sewer and water main problems. The City has begun
the process of reviewing the redevelopment of the existing site with a new residential development which
will contain 378 dwelling units, community building, childcare facility and related improvements.
Before the new development can be constructed, the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) must approve the disposition (sale) of the property to the private parties (Eden
Housing and Citation Homes) the DHA has selected to develop the project. The City is required to
analyze the environmental impacts of the disposition of the property and the proposed project under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) and to submit its determination to HUD before HUD can
approve the disposition.
Background
The process of environmental review for the Arroyo Vista Project will be two-fold. Since a part of the
project requires a Disposition Application to be submitted to the HUD, a review under NEP A is required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
File
(0.5
Page 1 of3
ITEM NO.
G:\Arroyo Vista\FONSI\FONSI CCSR for 6.3.08.DOC
(\
Attachment 3
?~'(s un 4 4~
Additionally, if the project proceeds forward, a review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) will be required for any development proposal. Each of these two reviews has special notification
requirements. At this point in the process, the City is the responsible entity for preparation of the
environmental review under NEP A. The City has prepared an Environmental Assessment (Attachment 3)
and intends to adopt a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Noticinf!:
On May 4, 2008, Staff published a notice in the newspaper indicating that a public hearing would be held
on June 3, 2008 to discuss the FONSI under NEPA for the proposed Arroyo Vista project. Although this
type of Notice is not required by law under NEP A, the City followed a practice similar to what is done
when the City evaluates environmental issues on projects under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). In addition, having a hearing early in the process provides additional opportunities for public
comment.
The Notice was mailed to all residents of Arroyo Vista, property owners and occupants within 300 feet of
Arroyo Vista and other interested parties. The Notice stated that written comments must be submitted by
5pm on June 2, 2008. However, because federal regulations require that the 30-day comment period
commence upon publication of the FONSI, the deadline for submission of written comments needed to be
extended.
Therefore, on May 23, 2008, Staff mailed a Notice (and published a Notice on May 25th) continuing the
June 3, 2008 discussion to July IS, 2008 (Attachment 1). This extension will allow the public the
opportunity to submit written comments on the FONSI for 30 days after its publication, as required under
NEP A. As with any continued public hearing, the public still has the opportunity to comment at both
hearings. The purpose of the continuation is that any Council action would take place at the July 15th
hearing and not on June 3rd.
The "Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Intent to Request Approval of Property
Disposition," (Attachment 2) was published and mailed on May 28, 2008, and starts the 30-day comment
period required under NEP A. All comments related to the FONSI prepared for the Arroyo Vista project
must be received within that 30-dav period, which ends on June 27, 2008. The City will only consider
comments on the FONSI received on or before that date.
In addition to identifYing the 30 day comment period, Attachment 2 serves a second purpose in that it is
required by HUD regulations to provide notice that the City will authorize DHA to submit a request to
HUD to dispose of the Arroyo Vista property. DHA has requested the City include the notice regarding
disposition as part of the Notice of the FONSL
All comments related to the FONSI must be submitted in writing to the City of Dublin Community
Development Department by June 27, 2008. All comments related to the Request for Approval of the
Disposition (sale) of the Property must be submitted to HUD as specified in the notice.
Members of the public may address the Council on the FONSI at tonight's meeting and those comments
will be included as part of the Environmental Review Record under NEP A.
Page 20f3
37 f..p UO LfCt~
The July 15,2008 meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to provide general comments on the
proposed proiect prior to the City taking action on the FONSI. The Council will not take testimony
regarding the FONSI or the request for approval of the disposition on July 15, 2008.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open public hearing; 3) Take
testimony from the public; 4) Close public hearing; and 5) Continue item to July 15, 2008.
Page 3 of3
3110b ~q<6
I?_c:>u.g la s Brig h t
7063 Dublin Meadows St., Unit G
Dublin, CA 94568
... 5] 0-499-6000
homes. douglas@gmai/.com
June 9, 2008
RECEIVED
JUN 1 1 Z008
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
'dJ1JB!..!N ?LANNING
To Whom It May Concern
Subiect: Comments on the Environmental Review Record and Finding of No Significant Impact
for the Arroyo Vista proiect
Upon review of the Environmental Review Record and the FONSI for the Arroyo Vista Project, I
have the following comments to make in disputation of the FONSI:
1. According the MitigationMeasure BIO-l, any destruction of wetlands can be mitigated by the
replacement of the destroyed wetlands off-site. Replacing destroyed wetlands off-site is not
an acceptable mitigation measure, unless the damage has already been done, and undoing the
damage would be unfeasible. According to the WRA Biological Resources Assessment (page
10, section 4.1.2) there are wetland plants in an area slated for development, along the "West
Field". To plan for the destruction of the wetland area with the intention of replacing the lost
wetlands off.site is wrong for two reasons:
1. It is not the intent of an off-site replacement mitigation measure to justify a planned for
destruction. It is only intended to help mitigate damage that has already been done due to
negligence.
2. Replacing wetlands off-site will do nothing to mitigate the damage to the human
environment in the area the wetlands are destroyed. This is not an appropriate mitigation
measure to allow a FONSI in the effected location.
2. According the WRA Biological Resources Assessment (page 18-19, section 5.3), Pallid Bat (a
Special Status Species) Roosts should be searched for before demolition takes place ifthat
demolition takes place at any time except from September through October. However, there
is not mitigation contingency for this action. The mitigation measures for protecting wildlife
only concern bird nests in the trees to be removed. The WRA report also states that the
development has a potential to impact a Special Status Bird Species. The potential impact to
the Pallid Bats by acting in contradiction to this advisory constitutes a significant impact.
3. According to the Vegetation and Wildlife section of the ERR (page 30) and the WRA
Attachment 4
?~ TB Db '--(q'l
Q 0 u~g_.~~s B_~iJL0t
Page 2/3
Biological Resources Assessment (page 22), it is stated that a number of mature trees,
including at least one Heritage Tree would be removed. This presents two issues:
1. It is against the intent of the Heritage Tree Ordinance to remove this tree, unless this is
absolutely no alternative. This may not be the case
2. The proposed development site is home to scores of mature trees, mostly native coast live
oak. There is also a stand of very tall trees fronting Dougherty Rd. If I am to understand
the development proposal correctly, all but a handful of redwood trees in the center of the
development would be removed. Simply replacing these mature trees with saplings is not
an adequate substitution. This is also true for the loss of the noise barrier offered by the
stand of trees fronting Dougherty Rd. The removal of these trees constitute a serious
impact on the human environment and would most certainly invalidate any FONSI.
3. There is no mitigation conditions placed on the developers to protect the remaining
Heritage Trees, which are not to be removed, during construction of the project.
Unless the aforementioned issues that I have stated are mitigated, then an Environmental
Impact Report should be generated to devise ways of lessening those impacts to the environment.
The following is a list of alterations to the existing development plans which I hope will
be adopted in order to improve the quality of life of the residents of Dublin and the wildlife we
share it with:
1. According to pages 25-26 of the ERR, the two vacant fields would be converted to housing
and parking. Additionally, it spells out the future setbacks for development from the creek.
The current plans call for development to occur right up against the trail in most areas.
Although it is understandable that a higher density development would normally require a
larger building footprint than the current building complex, I would like to see more open
space reserved along the eastern side of the Alamo Creek Trail. This would provide a buffer
from the high density development to the east so that pedestrian and bicyclists can enjoy a
more bucolic setting while on the trail. I suggest the imposition of a lO-foot buffer of native
vegetation between the trail and any development to the east, except for walkways connecting
the development with with trail so that the residents will have easy access.
2. Either as a city project conducted concurrently with construction of the new development, or
as part of the requirements imposed on the developer(s), I would like to see the unattractive
tlb~
~()uglas Bright
Page 3/3
chain link fence bordering the eastern bank of the Alamo Creek replaced with more attractive
iron fencing, or some comparable alternative. Not only would this benefit the residents of
Dublin who use this trail, but it would even more directly benefit the new residents of this
development who would be in more frequent visual contact with the fencing.
3. According to the Energy Consumption section on page 19 of the ERR, the development
project must comply with the California Building Code. However, why not have them comply
with Chapter 5.61 of the Dublin Municipal Code? This chapter deals with LEED standards
for building and only legally applies to city projects. However, these standards should apply
to all developments within the city of Dublin. Especially this project, considering the fact that
the City of Dublin currently owns the land and is thus more deeply involved in this project
than they would otherwise be.
4. According to the WRA Biological Resources Assessment (page 22), replacement native trees
should be planted and monitored for survivability. This is good advice, but unfortunately, it is
currently not included in the development plans. I would suggest that any landscaping foliage
that is planted be native to this area. This would not only ensure that drought-resistant flora
be planted, but would also contribute to the overall improvement of the natural environment-
providing food and shelter to the local wildlife. It would be even better if the vegetation
planted were threatened or endangered species. This way, an even greater positive impact
. would be achieved to the local environment by helping.to reintroduce species which have
been severely degraded over the years. I also wish to reiterate that there are scores of healthy,
mature coast live oaks currently around the property. It would be both ecologically and
aesthetically sound to preserve as much of this native foliage as possible.
All other aspects of Alternative #2 of the planned development are supported by me.
Sincerely,
a~;!/~~ ?I~~
Douglas Bright
Michael Rawson
Co-Director
Extension 145
mrawson@pilpca.org
Stephen Ronfeldt
Co-Director
Extension 127
sronfeldt@pilpca.org
Deborah Collins
Managing Attorney
Extension 156
dcollins@pilpca.org
Craig Castella net
Staff Attorney
Extension 132
ccastellanet@pilpca.org
Angie Schwartz
Staff Attorney
Extension 125
aschwartz@pilpca.org
Elizabeth Graber
Legal Assistant
Extension 110
egraber@pilpca.org
Georgie Feltz
Administrator
Extension 101
gfeltz@pilpca.org
~. \
I
3~f) Ub ~<:/
The Public Interest Law Pro. ect
The Public Interest Law Project and
California Affordable Housing Law Project
449 -15th Street, Suite 301
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510)891-9794
Fax (510) 891-9727
www.pilpca.org
-~ . "'-..
,
June 27, 2008
HAND DELIVERED
RECEIVED
JUN 2 '7 2008
DUBLIN PLANNiNG
City of Dublin
Community Development Departm~nt
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
..
. .
RE: Comments on Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact
Re Project Known as Arroyo Vista Redevelopment
Public Hearing: June 3,2008 and July 15,2008
.
Bay Area Legal Aid and The Public Interest Law Project submit these
comments on behalf of the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association and Arroyo Vista
residents Rhenae Keyes, Andres Arroyo, Darlene Brown and Elise Veal pursuant
to the City of Dublin's Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for proposed Arroyo Vista Redevelopment. The comments are
submitted pursuant to the City's Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact and
Notice ofIntent to Request Approval of Property Disposition dated May 28,2008.
t
.
-..
~
Introduction
The proposed Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact falls far short of
the requirements imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEP A"),
contravening the mandate to "insure that environmental information is available to
public officials and citizens before actions are taken" and "to help public officials
make decisions that are based on environmental consequences." 40 C.F.R. ~
1500.1(a), (b).
Under Federal law, an Environmental Assessment must analyze a variety
of categories to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement is
required. These categories range from resource factors, such as water availability,
air quality, and endangered species to effects on the building environment, such as
traffic, noise pollution, and land use conflicts, to effects on the nonphysical
environment, including economic and social factors. 28 C.F.R ~ 58.40 (c).
A significant category of the Environmental Assessment that is relevant to the
proposed displacement of 150 lower income minorities and families with children
.
.
.
A HO]Il'hnu~nt ~
c9.~
;>.c9
~.3
cJ.l-\
I
City of Dublin
Page 2
June 27, 2008
~/~ 4~(6
from Arroyo Vista is socioeconomic effects. 28 C.F.R ~ 58.40 (c). Specifically, a
project must be analyzed to determine if there is a substantial likelihood of significant
negative socioeconomic effects. If there is a substantial likelihood of negative impacts,
then a full Environmental Impact Statement must be compiled. The category of
socioeconomic effects is further broken down into three subcategories: (1) demographic
character of the existing location; (2) displacement of existing residents; and (3)
significant changes in employment and income patterns in the affected area. 28 C.F.R ~
58.40 (c). The Environmental Assessment performed by the City of Dublin and/or the
Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) dismisses the possible negative socioeconomic effects
of the project. (Environmental Assessment for Arroyo Vista Residential Development,
May 2008, p. 21). Only by ignoring these impacts can the Environmental Assessment
reach the conclusion of a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Accordingly, we urge the City Council to not making a finding of no significant
impact for failure to make decisions and findings as required by BUD regulations
governing environmental assessments. Specifically, the City has failed to "identify,
evaluate, and analyze all impacts to determine the significance of their effects on the
human environment." 28 C.F.R ~ 58.40 (c) [emhasis added]. The City has done this by
failing to identify and analyze several of the significant socioeconomic impacts on the
residents who will be displaced from Arroyo Vista, unable to return. The City has also
failed to make a finding of significant impact based on these effects, which requires the
City to proceed with more extensive environmental review. 28 C.F.R ~ 58.40 (g) (2).
In addition, the City, DHA, and Alameda County Housing Authority (HACA)
have undertaken several activities that were not authorized by HUD in violation of 42
U.S.C. ~1437p, 24 C.F.R. Part 970, and 24 CFR 58. The City, DHA, and HACA have
begun displacing residents of Arroyo Vista, despite the fact that the displacement began
before the Environmental Assessment, before any authorization by HUD for disposition
of Arroyo Vista, and without any relocation plan. Under HUD guidelines, a project
includes a group of integrally related activities designed to accomplish a specific
objective. 28 C.F.R ~ 58.2 (a) (4). Displacement of residents is an integral part of the
project of disposing of Arroyo Vista. By beginning to displace the residents of Arroyo
Vista prior to completion of the proper environmental review, the City, DHA, and HACA
have put the cart before the horse by beginning a project before receiving proper
authorization. No activities or projects that limit the choice of reasonable alternatives
may occur prior to authorization. 28 C.F.R ~ 58.22 (a). If the displacement of residents
were to occur unabated, alternative 1 (Arroyo Vista remaining as it currently exists) could
not occur because there would be no residents left living there. See Environmental
Assessment for Arroyo Vista Residential Development, May 2008, p. 5.
. . . :...
Background
Arroyo Vista is a complex of 150 public housing units located in Dublin. It
consists of94 one and two-bedroom homes (16 one-bedrooms and 78 two-bedrooms) and
56 three and four-bedroom homes (32 3-bedrooms and 24 4-bedrooms). See DHA
City of Dublin
Page 4
June 27, 2008
3~ t. Db Lf:qi
project itself. Under the heading Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative), the project is
described as increasing the number of income restricted units. Environmental
Assessment for Arroyo Vista Residential Development, May 2008, p. 5-6. This is a
misleading statement, both in terms of the number of purportedly affordable units as well
as well as the actual level of affordability. It also results in an inaccurate assessment that
the redevelopment of Arroyo Vista would have no significant socioeconomic impact.
It is true that the development will increase the number of "market rate dwellings"
on the site, and that, if necessary funding is available, the proposal would increase the
total number of "income restricted" units. See DDA at pp. 7-9 (~~2.4, 2.5). However,
even assuming that funds are available to actually produce "income restricted" units,
there is a net decrease in the affordability levels of the proposed "restricted" units with
respect to certain segments of the population, including current residents of Arroyo Vista.
There are currently 150 public housing units at Arroyo Vista. At best, the
proposed development will replace these perpetually restricted units with 179 "income-
restricted" units for 55 years, depending on the availability of necessary funds.
Moreover, 49 ofthe "restricted units" will be restricted to seniors only. At full capacity,
Arroyo Vista was composed ofless than 10% seniors, and only 3.6% ofDHA's waiting
list consists of seniors. See Exhibit A at p. 3; see also Exhibit C - DHA's Five-Year PHA
Plan at 7. Restricting 49 of 179 "income-restricted" units for seniors will result in a net
loss of units available to families with children. Thus, if all Arroyo Vista households
were to attempt to move into the new "income-restricted" units, at best, there would only
be enough units to accommodate 131 families with children, assuming the units were
even of adequate size or affordability levels for which those families would be "eligible".
Furthermore, the reduced size of the "restricted units" will not accommodate
those households with children and/or persons with disabilities that reside in Arroyo
Vista's 24 4-bedroom units, 32 3-bedroom units, and 78 2-bedroom units. As discussed
above, Arroyo Vista currently has 24 4-bedroom units; 32 3-bedroom units; 78 2-
bedroom units; and 16-1-bedroom units. DBA Application for Disposition at ~4. Yet,
the proposed redevelopment will significantly increase the number of I-bedroom units -
from 16 to 62 and restrict 49 of them for seniors. By contrast, the proposed
redevelopment will include only 15 4-bedroom "family" units (with rents ranging from
$720 to $1215), 34 3-bedroom "family" units (with rents ranging from $653 to $1307),
and 69 2-bedroom units (with rents ranging from $585 to $1130). See DDA at p. B-3.
Even without considering the "affordability" levels of the "family units," the proposed
redevelopment results in a net loss of at least 16 units of adequate size to accommodate
Arroyo Vista's families with children and persons with disabilities. Moreover, only
seven of the "larger" family units (three 3-bedrooms and four 4-bedrooms) are projected
to be "affordable" to extremely low income families, and even that depends on the
availability of funding. Id. at B-3; see also DDA at pp. 7-9 (~~2.4, 2.5).
Although Alternative 2 also is billed as providing "income restricted" affordable
housing, the income levels to whom the units would be "affordable" are drastically
. .
.. -J
. "...
i
...
. '1'
~ "
,-. ...- ., .
t
d'l...\
~.O\
~.Y -r-
~.~
City of Dublin
Page 3
June 27, 2008
~C6 3 4t l..(Cl''6
Application for Disposition submitted to HUD, August 2007, at S4. As of August 2007,
there were 437 individuals residing in 148 units at Arroyo Vista who are affected by
disposition of the property. Id. at S7. Arroyo Vista is the only public housing in all of
Dublin, with average rents of less than $500 per month, and some as low as $25 or $50
due to the federal subsidy received by DHA to maintain these homes as affordable to
extremely low income families. See DHA Five-Year PHA Plan at p. 20.1 By
comparison, average market rents in Dublin range from $1350 (I-bedroom apartment) to
$2495 (4-bedroom home). See City of Dublin Housing Element (1999-2006) at p. A-29?
Thus, Arroyo Vista provides and has provided for decades an otherwise unattainable
home to many of Dublin's poorest residents.
Arroyo Vista constitutes a racially-diverse enclave within a far more homogenous
City. According to the Housing Authority of Alameda County's (HACA) September 30,
2007 resident characteristics report to HUD, Arroyo Vista households are 52% White,
28% African American, 21% Latino/Hispanic, 15% Asian, 4% Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander and 1 % American Indian or Alaska Native. See Exhibit A -Arroyo Vista
Resident Characteristic Report, Sept 30, 2007. When compared to the population of
Dublin, the effect of disposition of Arroyo Vista on African Americans and Latinos is
vastly disproportionate. According to 2000 Census data, African Americans are only
10% and Latino/Hispanics are only 13.5% of the population of Dublin. See Exhibit B -
2000 Census Data, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, p. 1-2.
As of September 30, 2007, 62% of Arroyo Vista households were families with
minor children, compared to Dublin as a whole, where only 35.4% of households
included minor children. Compare Exhibit A (resident characteristic report at p. 3 with
Exhibit B at p. 2. In addition, 89.1 % of families on DHA's housing waiting list have
children. See Exhibit C - DHA Five-Year PHA Plan at p.7
The City of Dublin and the DHA are planning to demolish the existing public
housing units at Arroyo Vista and "replace" them with a mixed "income" development of
market rate ownership and purportedly "affordable" rental units. The Development
Agreement provides for "redevelopment" of 405 residential units - 226 "for-sale"
dwellings, and 179 rental units, 49 of which are to be reserved for seniors with rents
ranging from $471 for 62 I-bedroom units (49 senior-restricted) to over $1300 for five 3-
bedroom units. See Disposition and Development Agreement between City, DHA, HACA,
Eden and Citation, July 2007 ("DDA"), at Article 2, pp. 7-9 (SS2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5);
Article 4, p. 21-23 (S4.4); DDA at p. B-3 [Family Housing Preliminary Financing Plan]
DDA at p. B-6 [Senior Housing Preliminary Financing Plan]. Even those rent levels are
dependent on available funding. Id. at pp. 7-9 (Ss2.4, 2.5).
Demographic Character Changes
The Environmental Assessment is deficient and inaccurate in its description of the
1 http://www.haca.net/haca/pdfi.2005-2009_5-YearPlanVersion2007 _ dublin.pdf
2 http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/pdfIHousing_ Element_ 6- 3-03 Jmal.pdf#search=%22housing%20element%22
;)" J .....
~.~
~.q
~. \0
1
City of Dublin
Page 5
June 27, 2008
3 ~ '1 fJb'tqg
higher than the income levels of Arroyo Vista residents. The average rents at Arroyo
Vista are less than $500.00 a month. Furthermore, many of these rents are substantially
lower due to federal subsidies that enable families to pay rents of no more than 30% of
their adjusted monthly income for rent and utilities; some households have minimum
rents as low as $50.00 a month. See Exhibit C - DHA Five-Year PHA Plan at 21. The
new units, in contrast, are estimated to range from $471.00 a month for 62 "extremely
low income" one-bedroom units to $1371.00 for five "low income" three-bedroom units.
See DDA at p. B-3 and B-6. The extremely low income units are further limited by the
restriction of 49 of these units to senior housing. This leaves only 13 one-bedroom units
with rent levels below $500 to serve the "extremely low income" population of Arroyo
Vista. This number is wholly inadequate to serve existing residents, much less the many
other families who are on the waiting list for non-senior affordable housing. There are
276 families on DHA's waiting list. 197 of these families qualify as "extremely low
income," while 63 qualify as "very low income." Furthermore, the families are
disproportionately from minority categories -- 129 families are black, 34 are Asian, and
18 are Hispanic. See Exhibit C DHA Five-Year PHA Plan at p. 7. The effect of rent
levels demonstrates a significant socioeconomic impact on extremely low income Arroyo
Vista residents, particularly when 44% of Arroyo Vista residents have yearly incomes
below $15,000. See Exhibit A -Arroyo Vista Resident Characteristic Report, Sept 30,
2007. For families with income levels at or below poverty, spending more than $375.00
a month on rent places them in a "rent-burdened" category. Families that are rent-
burdened are unable to make ends meet for other basic necessities - food, education,
clothing, medical expenses, and the like.
The proposed redevelopment plainly does not mirror the existing demographic character
of Arroyo Vista. Alternative 2 will provide a mixture of market rate housing and income
restricted units that are considerably less affordable than the existing Arroyo Vista units.
The net result of the project will substantially change the demographic character of the
community at Arroyo Vista. Indeed, it is planned to change the demographics by
displacing all 150 households of Arroyo Vista. Racial and Hispanic families and families
with children are significantly over-represented in Arroyo Vista and on DHA's public
housing waiting list. These same protected categories are significantly under-represented
in Dublin a~ a whole. The new development, if allowed to go forward, will have an
obvious disparate impact on the minority population of Dublin and families with
children, and will force minorities and families with children that are very low and
extremely low income out of the City. The relocation plan calls for as much by
purportedly identifying available resources - in Oakland -- to accommodate these
minorities and families with children. Thefive units purportedly identified in the Tri-
Valley Area that accept Section 8 also only accept seniors. See Relocation Plan adopted
by DHA, June 3, 2008 at p. 52.
Displacement
In addition to the demographic changes that Alternative 2 will cause, there are
severe shortfalls in the relocation plan that DHA adopted. Relocation of the residents of
.
City of Dublin
Page 6
June 27, 2008
3~ '5 t11J ~l~
dJ~IO
Arroyo Vista will not mitigate the effect of the displacement of residents that razing
Arroyo Vista and building a mixed "income" development will cause. Indeed, by finding
no significant impact resulting from the displacement of over 400 lower income Arroyo
Vista residents, including 191 children (see DHA Relocation Plan adopted June 3, 2008
at 52i, the City apparently concludes that no mitigation of such displacement is required.
. "
"... ..
.. l' .'
, .
Under the category of displacement, the Environmental Assessment makes the
claim that if Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) is selected, the demolition of Arroyo
Vista will not occur until all existing residents are relocated according to the Relocation
Plan approved by DHA, which Plan is purportedly consistent with local, state and federal
laws. This assessment is premised on false information.
Displacement of residents began long before any relocation plan was even drafted
by DHA, and 60 households were displaced before a draft plan was even adopted by
DHA on June 3,2008. See DHA June 3, 2008 Agenda Packet at p. 9 [Staff Report]; see
also DHA Application to HUD acknowledging 12 households displaced even before
application was submitted. In addition, no relocation plan has been approved by the City
of Dublin or Alameda County Housing Authority (HACA), both of whom are public
entities subject to a DDA that will displace 150 Arroyo Vista households and has already
displaced 60 households. As such, both public entities must comply with public
participation and hearing requirements of state law. Those laws require any public entity
whose project will result in displacement to permit public participation in preparing a
relocation plan and to have the plan approved by that public entity's legislative body.
Cal. Govt. C. 997260, 7261; 25 C.C.R. 996010,6012,6014,6038. The City and HACA
have not complied with state law, and thus a valid relocation plan does not exist.
Moreover, the relocation plan adopted by DHA suffers from severe deficiencies
that render it out of compliance with local, state, and federal law . There has not been a
detailed analysis of the individual needs of the residents, a vital prerequisite to drafting an
effective relocation plan. 25 C.C.R. 996038, 6048. Without an accurate survey of the
housing needs of residents, it is impossible to conduct an adequate survey of housing
resources available to meet those needs. See 25 C.C.R. SS6038, 6052. Among other
deficiencies, the relocation plan fails to identify or analyze the locational needs and
preferences of all Arroyo Vista residents, the needs of households with special needs,
including seniors and persons with disabilities, location of residents' employment, and
other required factors. See 25 C.C.R. SS6008. Thus, by definition, the purported survey
of housing resources available to meet the residents' housing needs is deficient for failure
to first adequately identify and analyze housing needs.
The assessment of housing alternatives claims that there is adequate replacement
housing in the area, but the relocation plan fails to realistically assess properties that will
even accept section 8 in Dublin, the Tri- Valley area, or within the Bay Area. See
Relocation Plan at 52. The redevelopment proposal calls for residents to be provided
Section 8 vouchers to ensure "comparable housing", but a majority of the purportedly
3 http://www.haca.netlhaca/ docslDublinRelocationPlan. pdf
d.10
I
.J.'t
:J.G +
c::;J. 'D
City of Dublin
Page 8
June 27, 2008
3tt;.lo at L1 ~ q'
of displacement, provide uniform, fair and equitable assistance to all displaced persons,
and to provide comparable housing, necessary counseling, and pay the actual and
reasonable relocation expenses of all persons displaced - not pass those costs on to the
lower income residents whom the City, DHA, and HACA are forcing out of the
community.
The City also claims that any displacement of the residents would be short-term
because all residents are guaranteed a right of return to the new development once it is
completed. In addition to the physical impossibility of this guarantee, due to the fact that
there will not be enough "affordable" units or units of suitable size to house existing
residents, it is not true as a matter of law. The DDA only gives "eligible" residents an
opportunity to apply for one of the new units. It gives Eden Housing wide latitude in
screening any resident who applies for a unit at the redeveloped mixed income
development. Thus, Eden may reject tenants for a variety of reasons, including that
families do not have sufficient income to pay rents up to $1300 (incomes that at least
44% of Arroyo Vista residents do not have); the family size must be suitable for unit size
(and there are insufficient 4-bedroom units proposed to accommodate the families
residing in 24 4-bedroom units); and factors related to the behavior and credit ratings of
returning tenants - many of whom have successfully rented at Arroyo Vista for decades
despite poor credit ratings that have surfaced during their search for replacement housing.
Finally, even if there were enough "affordable" units of adequate size to accommodate
Arroyo Vista's families with children and persons with disabilities, Eden Housing is
under no obligation to accept any of these tenants pursuant to the express terms of the
DDA. The City's assessment that displacement will be temporary is belied by the DDA,
its own relocation plan, and its application to HUD - all of which provide for all residents
to be permanently displaced.
Accordingly, the City's assessment that the displacement of residents of Arroyo
Vista will be limited or short-term is false. To the contrary, it is evident from the DDA,
the Application to HUD, and DHA's relocation plan that residents will be permanently
displaced from Arroyo Vista. Moreover, there is a substantial risk that many current
residents of Arroyo Vista will be homeless if this project is allowed to go forward. This
creates a significant impact which must be fully analyzed in an Environmental Impact
Statement and mitigated. A finding of no significant impact is not supported and must be
rejected.
Conclusion
It is extremely short-sighted of the city to issue a finding of no significant impact,
where the project will create such obvious significant negative impacts on the
demographic character of the community. The cursory nature of the city's analysis of the
likely socioeconomic effects of the project is a fatal defect in the Environmental
Assessment. The likely changes to the demographic character of the community and the
displacement of existing residents are substantial dangers of this project for which no
appropriate mitigation measures have been provided. The finding of no significant
City of Dublin
Page 7
June 27, 2008
3~ 7 tJQ fCic()
d.\ 0
'available' Section 8 units are in Oakland - not Dublin or the Tri-Valley area, the
preferred areas of relocation (if they must relocate) as attested to by numerous residents.
Moreover, federal law requires that residents actually be relocated to Section 8 units that
accept Section 8 vouchers, not simply given a voucher and a referral to unidentified units
in Oakland that purportedly accept Section 8. 42 V.S.C. S1437p(a)(4)(A). It is well
documented in court records that residents that have attempted to relocate have had
extreme difficulty locating landlords that will participate in the Section 8 program, and
have had little to no assistance from DHA's relocation consultant, Overland Pacific &
Cutler, in securing a Section 8 unit that meets their household needs and preferences.
There also has been inadequate provision for "actual and reasonable relocation
expenses" that will and have been incurred by displaced residents in the moving process.
See 42 V.S.C. S 1437p(a)(4)(B)-(E). The DHA relocation plan provides a maximum of
only $75.00 per household for credit check fees. (see DHA Relocation Plan adopted June
3, 2008 at 22) This amount falls short of the amount residents need to find a new unit,
particularly when some landlords run several credit checks per tenant. At least one
displaced person, Darlyn Anderson, was forced to pay several hundred dollars in credit
check fees for units for which HACA refused to approve a Section 8 voucher. When a
tenant is not approved at their first or second try, they use their entire allowance and must
pay the rest out of pocket, an expense that lower income households simply cannot
afford. The same is true for the amount allocated for deposits - one times the amount of
the rent for a unit capped at $2400 regardless of the actual size of the unit, amount o~ the
rent, or amount of the actual deposit. Id. at 22. Moreover, DHA's application for
disposition to HVD acknowledges that two times the amount of the rent is the standard
security deposit required in the Bay Area; DHA therefore budgeted $2500 per household
in estimating the cost of security deposits to relocate 150 households. The allotted
amount therefore does not and has not covered the actual security deposit. Finally, the
relocation plan limits its reimbursement of moving expenses to moves within fifty miles,
despite the fact that residents have repeatedly been informed that they may use their
Section 8 vouchers anywhere in the country that participates in the Section 8 program and
that their moving expenses will be paid by DHA. Id. at 23.
Further, although state law requires that relocation expenses be advanced for
lower income households to minimize the hardship associated with displacement, DHA
has withheld up to one-half of the moving expense for some families - forcing them to
"advance" hundreds of dollars they do not have. Former Arroyo Vista resident, Gretta
Evans, was deprived of any relocation assistance other than $825 (one-half of her moving
expense). She was not "eligible" for Section 8; yet, she was not notified of or offered
rental assistance payments required under state law though her rent increased by $300 per
month; she was forced to pay 100% of her security deposit of $2500; and she paid her
own credit check fees. She also was never given any notice of the availability of a
relocation plan for review or provided with a claim form or any information of her right
to grieve OPC' s denial of relocation assistance to her. All of these factors exacerbate the
hardship of displacement and jeopardize the ability of residents to relocate. They also
violate both state and federal law which require public entities to minimize the hardship
City of Dublin
Page 9
June 27, 2008
3&t Ob ~
impact is not supported by the facts or evidence as presented and should be rejected. The
City should conduct a full environmental impact statement to realistically assess the
socioeconomic changes that will occur due to the adoption of alterative 2. Only when
this has been completed can a true assessment of the viability of the project be performed.
Very truly yours,
BAY AREA LEGAL AID
Lisa S. Greif
Naomi Young
CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW PROJECT
OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
Deborah Collins
Michael Rawson
Craig Castellanet
David Hall
BY:
~
~ YQ '-fer <f,
EXHIBIT A
RESIDENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORT, 2007
:ADUO Lf.~~
Resident Characteristics Report
Page 1 of6
Resident Ch.racteristics Report
As of September 30, 2007
II II fll1
Program type : PDbllt Hou.ing
Level of Information: HOlllblg AtellC:Y within State and County (CA aJld 001)
Effective Dates Included: JUlie 01, 2006 through SepteiDber 30, 2007
lRwI1clIcI ia ilI<cl """PIp lad"o It......
NOTE.. PucefllQgs ill eDch'DI'H Il1'O' /lot IQW 100 puMll ti- to l'QU1U/i1Ig.
IUnlts InfonnaUon
l
HA ACe Units 50058 Requlred 50058 Received
tAC01 3.812 104S 56~
CA142 - DUBUN 150 12 124
0360
https://pic.hud.gov/servlet/Mtcsrcr?category==rcryrint&download=false&count=O
10/1012007
?t1 t 7JQ 4t:1<t;. 0'0
Resident Characteristics Report
Page 2 of 6
fncome Informaticn
Dislrlblltio" tJf A""'1I1l1l .4 ""IUII',,,:o.. tU /I " t!.f $DfJSI lleteiw4
Exlremely l.Qw Inceme, Very Low Income. Low Income. 80% .Above Low Income. 81% Geo-CoOelllnccme Data NO!
HA Below 30".4 of Median . 50% of Median of Median + of th& Median Available In PIC Dala Systems
COUl'lt I. P8reenr Count Pen:ent Count Pen:ent Counl Percent Count Perc:en!
:;.4001 JS.2I ~ 115 2( 51 -.Ii 12 2 j: (
CA142 . / ~) 6! 30 2' 1C ~ ~ 3 C C
DUBL/N
'- L'
~ ~llTq.. 14".,,11/ lJ u*.IIJ
HA A-.raQe Annual Income
CAOOl 20.653
A142-0UBLlN 21.0:l1
$10.001 . $15 000
2
1
$20001 .525.
IDlJmbllM of s,,/U'~ 0/ 111~_e q /I " iI/SODS'R"ulHIII .. S~ftunllUs ~elIe ""ltIpk $0_ 0/
'lfU~..
HA Wilh any W11h any With any Wilh any other WlthNo
wages Welfare SSJISSI?e115lon Income Income
CAOOl 4E 111 55 2 2
p142 - 51 15 41 2' 4
DUBLIN
https:Jlpic.hud.gov/servletlMtcsrcr?category=rcr..print&doWnload=false&count=O
10/10/2007
0361
3~~ ObtfCr<1
Resident Characteristics Report
Page 3 of6
trTP/Family Type Information
$501 and Above
J
3ll
TIP
487
491
1D"bibudPII Dr FUIIlv TIlfNI till. "Drsoos, bal.,,"
Elderly. No Elderly, wllll NOn-elderly, NOIH!Ic1el\y, Non-elc!erly , FIl1131e Headed
Wltll Elderly, No Elderly. wlt/l Non-eldetly,
Ch~dren, Children. No Children. Children, Clllldren, Ctllldren . No C/lildren, wi!ll Household will1
HA Non-- Non- Non- Children,
Disabled DiS8ble<l Disabled Non- Dise1Jlecl Olsabled Disabled DIsabled' Children
Dlsabled
Counl Perce" COOn lPercen l"".mmllPercen COIln lPercen COlIn Per<:en Cnunl /Perce" OUr'll PAn::en Icolln lPerce" Counl Pl!l'c:enl
!...AOO1 12:1 . 2 ~ 581 tl 221 3S 6C 11 1 51 I ~ 201: 35
~A142 - 4 , 1 1 1~ 1l 6 51: ~ ~ ~ ~ l' H 12 1( 60 48
DUBLIN
kl"mr~' TIP 611 '.1111'" TVUI J I
Elderly. No EldB1ly, wilh Non-6lcierly, Non-elderly, Non-eklerty,
Children, Chlldl'Bn, No Children. with Elderly, No Elderly. with Non-elderly, wllh Female Headed
HA Non- Non. Non- Chlldren, Children, Children, No Childrrn. . Children. Household with
DIsabled Dlrabled Disabled Non- Disabled Disabled Dlsabled Oi3abfed Children
Oisabled
AOO1 Me 6~ .8.~ 5891 335 741 35 43f 531
CA142- 402 1.541 51E 52~ 358 1,094 290 42~ 511
DUBLIN
https:/Ipic.hud.gov/serv letlMtcsrcr?category=rcr"'print&download=false&co1.U1t=O
1 011 0/20<ttJ 3 6 2
3?1 '3 ~ ~.<Z
Resident Characteristics Report
Page 4 of6
IFamlly RacwEthnl4ily Informalion
Dlsl1il1llliorl 6\1 Hud OrHDlUMoIl'sllllc. lIS /I " oI51J1S1 RtaiP<<
American Native While. American WhIle. Whits,
lNIlile BlaelrlAfrlcan Indian Or Alliin HawaiifllOt.her Any Ollie!
HA . Only American Only Alaska NaUve Only PaCIfic Islander Indian/Alaska Bfac)(JAfrican Asian Combination
Only amy Nalille01l1j/ American Only Only
CAOOI 46 24 1 25 C II 0 C
CA142 - 52 2~ 1 15 4 (l (] 0 0
DUaUN
https:/fpic.hud.govfservletIMtcsrcr?categcry=rCI-print&download=false&count=O
10/1 012007
0363
3C1 +00 tftii
Resident Characteristics Report
Page 5 of6
a-tousehold Infonnatlan
J
lDistrfbud,,, b HDWtJiltJiJI .f{_bm AIU. lit . " lIf'TrMl NuMw o(H{llIItiI<<1i Mur/J_
H!\ 0-5 6.17 18 - 50 51.61 62 -82 83+
Countl Percent Count I Percellt Count I Percent Count 1 Percent Countl Percent Count I Percent
ICAOO1 12m 1 5021 31 59111 37 1251 215f 1~ 48) 1
1CA142 . DUB UN ~ 1( 1341 ai! 1551 .. 271 71 181 ~ if r
T,*' HDUH/loU M_kn Mil A.Nrqe HOtfUhD14
coire
Tolal Average TOlar
Number 01
HA Household Household Number of
MembetS Size Households
CAOO1 160 2.8 56
fCA 142 . 371 ~ 1204
DUBLIN
3 Bedrooms
https://pic.hud.gov/servletlMtcsrcr?category=rcr"print&download'=false&count=O
1 011 0/20970364
-3f15J~ 4t1 <6
Resident Characteristics Report
Page 6 of6
~ll/'Igtll 01 Stay ,,,,orm.llon-:":
~
=:
~
J
lDir17/btiDII ,,, LtIlP't.S D St., lIS /I "D(S/HJj8 R,u./vd (clU7lllllY tusi$ictl '-'fin)
HA Lel$ than 1 year 110 2: YIl8r8 :2 10 5 yeilfS 51010yeal$ 1010 20 YR($ Over 20 ye;,FS
Count I P91\:1!nt CoUllt I Pel(:e'lt Counll Percent Coonll Percent Count I Petcent Count I .Percenl
CAOO1 41' 511 9 1411 2~ 1521 . 2 1311 2~ 471 E
F.A142 - OUBUN 81 16/ 1:3 341 2 241 1S 2m 2 141 11
https:llpic.hud.gov/servletIMtcsrcr?catego:ry=rcr....Print&download;false&count=O
10/1012007
0365-
=3 ~l.o i1() e-tct1
EXHIBIT B
PROFILE OF GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, CITY OF
DUBLIN, 2000
Dublin city, California - DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
3t11lJf) Lf Cft6
Pagelol'2
--- - - ---- -- -------- -==----~
DP-1. Profile of General Cemoqraphlc Charactel1stics: 2000
- Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data
Geographic Area: Dublin city I California
NOTE: For Information on conftdentlallty prolecllon, nor.sampllng error, derlOitions. and count correcllons see
httn'/lfactftnde, census ""vlhomw.."/d,,lanorelllexD9f1u him
Suhlect Number PlIrc.nt
Total ""DuratIon Z9 973 100.0
SEX AND AGE
Male 15782 52.7
Female 14 191 47.3
Under!l years 1758 5.9
5 to 9 years 1844 6.2
10 to 14 vears 1780 5.9
15 to 19 vears 1673 5.6
20 10 24 llears 2024 8.8
25 10 3<4 vllars 8410 21.4
351044 vears S 823 22.8
<45 to 54 llears 4287 14.2
55 to 59 "ears 1238 4.1
80 to 64 ..mars TIS 2.8
65 to 74 ""CUll 923 3.1
75 to 84 -ears 3881 1.2
85 VllIIrs and over 90 0.3
Median """ (lIear.;l 34.3 1X1
18 lIears and over 23.691 79.0
Male 12538 41.8
Female 11 155 31.2
21 vears and over 22 531 75.21
62 lIears and over 1812 8.0
65 velll1l and over 1381 4.8
Male 818 2.1
F&maIe 763 2.5
RACE
One lace 28 809 98.1
White 20 793 69.4
Black or Afrtcan Amef1can 3024 10.1
American Indian and Alaska NallYe 220 0.7
Asian 3101 10.3
Asian Indian 872 2.2
Chinese 823 2.7
AUDino TlO 2.8
Jaoa"ese 194 0.8
Korean 148 0.6
Vielnames.. 170 0.6
Other Asian I 326 1.1
Native Hawaiian and Othar PacIllc Islander 95 0.3
NatMt Hawaiian 33 0.1
Guamanian or Chamorro 25 0.1
Samoan IS 0.0
Other Padllc Islander 2 31 0.1
Some other race 1576 5.3
Two or man! races 1184 3.9
Race alone OT In combination with one or more other taC~ '
lM1ile 21 800 72.7
Black or African American 3181 10.5
American Indian and Alaska Native 43' 1.4
Asian 3.628 12.1
0367
http://factflnder.census.gov/servletlQTTable?_bm=y&-qr_ nanlFDEC _2000_ SF1_ U _DP 1... 6/1012008
Dublin city, California - DP-I. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
~~~ fa L-{qq
Page 2 of2
!
SUbJlICt Number pereentl
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacillc Islander 222 0.7
Some other race 2.007 8.7
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total ""lIIulatlon 29 973 100.0
HIsDanlc or Latino (of anv race} 4059 13.5
Mexican 1878 6.3
Puerto RIcan 89 0.3
Cuban 47 0.2
Other Hilmanlc or latlna 2.045 8.8
Not Hlsoanle or LaUno 25914 86.5
lM1ite elone 18669 52.3
RELATIONSHIP
TctalllOOlJlatlon 29 973 100.0
In households 24 681 82.3
Householder 9325 31.1
S""""" 5.310 17.7
ChIld 7454 24.9
Own child under 18 vears 5875 19.8
Other relatives 1086 3.6
Under 18 vears 306 1.0
Noorelat1v8s 1508 5.0
Unmarried ""rtrler 625 2.1
In oroUrl nuartel's 5292 17.7
Inslllutlonallzed DOculaHon 5282 17.6
Nonlnslftutionalized DODulatlon 30 0.1
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
Total households 9.325 100.0
FamilY households rfamlJlesl 8505 69.8
With awn cMdren under 18 vears 3301 35.4
Manled-coul>l8 familY 5310 56.9
WIth awn children under 18 vears 2,824 28.1
Female householder no ltusband '''''sent 852 9.1
Wth own children under 18 vears 50S 5.4
NoI1!amilY households 2820 30.2
Householder livina atone - 1 Q87 21.3
Householder 65 vears and over 262 2.8
HDusehDlds with Individuals under 18 vears 3519 :r7.7
Households with Indllllduals 85 years and over 1041 11.2
Averalle household sIze 2.65 DC
Ave""'e familY SiZe 3.13 {X:
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Totalll1lusln!l units 9872 100.0
Occunled hcUsI"" unilll 9325 94.5
Vacant houslntl units 547 5.5
For seasonal recreatlonal or cccaslonal use 3ll 0.4
Homeowner \r.Icancv raIB loercentl 0.7 D(}
Rental vacanCY rate (cercenll 8.1 {X}
HOUSING lI!NURE
OccuDled hOUllna units 9325 100.0
Owner-OCX:UDled houslna units 6040 64.9
Renter~d houslna units 3,278 35.1
Avel'3lle tKlusehold size of owner-OC:CUllled unit 2.80 (X)
Averaca household size of I1ln\er-<lCCUDied unit 2.37 00
(X) Not applicable
1 Other AsIan alone. or two or more AsIan categortea.
z Other Pac:lftc lsl~r alone. or two or more Native Hawaiian and Other PaciOc Islander categories.
3 In combination wlth one or more other races IIs\ed. The six numbers may add to mOil! than the Iotal population and the sllc
percenlages may add to mOl1llhan 100 percent because IndMduals may report more than one race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Censl.ls2000$ummary FUe 1, Malrloes Pi. P3. P4. P8, PO, P12, P13, P.17, P18, P19, no,
P23, P27, P28. P33. peTS. PCT8, PCT11. PCT1S. H1. H3, H4. H5. H11, and H12.
0368
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QITable? _ bm=y&-qr_ name=DEC _2000_ SFl_ U _ DPI... 6/1012008
~ q Cf D;O l.f~t<l
EXHIBIT C
DHA'S STREAMLINED 5-YEAR PHA PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2005-2009
+00 vb L{ IJrCb
PHA Plans
u.s. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Office of Public and IndIan Housing
OMB No. 2517-0226
(exp 08/3112009)
Streamlined S-Year/Annual
Version
This infonnation collection is authorized by Seclion 511 of lite Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which added a new section 5A to
lhll U,S. Housing Act of1937 that introduecd S-year and annual PHA Plans. The full PHA plan provides a ready source for interCSled parties to
loeate basic PHA policies, niles, and requitements concerning Ihe PHA's operations, programs, and services, and informs HUD. families served
. by thll PHA, and member.! oCthe public oCthe PHA's mission and strategies Cor serving the needs oC low-income and very low-income Camilies.
This form allows eligible PHAs 10 make a streamlined annual Plan submission to HUD consistent with HtJD's efforts to provide regulatory relief
10 certain PHAs. Public reponing burden for this information collection is estimated to average 11.7 bows per response, including the lime for
revieWing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection
of information. HUn may Dot collect this information and respondents are not requimlto complete this COI'Tll, Wlless it displays a currently valid
OMB Control Number.
Privacy Act Notice. The United StaleS Department of Housing 8IId Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration, is alllhorized to solicit
the inCormation requested in this Conn by vinue of Tille 12, U.S. Code, Section 1701 el seq.. iIIld regulations promulgated th!:reunder at Tille 12.
Code of F~craI Regulations. Information in PHA plans is publicly available.
Streaollined 5- Year Plan for Fiscal Years
2005 - 2009
Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year
2007
NOTE: This PHA PIaD template (HUD-50075-SA) is to be completed in accordance with iDStnlctlons
contained in previous Notices PIB 99-33 (HA), 99-51 (HA),200o..Z2 (HA), 2000-36 (HA), 2000-43 (HA),2001-
, 4 (HA), 2001-26 (HA), 2003-7 (HA), aDd any related notices BUD may subsequently issue. Full reporting f~r
each component listed in the streamlined Annual Plan submitted witb the 5-year plan is required.
(ann HUD-50D7S-5F (0413012003)
0370
y.o \ tib ~8'
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI42
s. Year Plan for Fisc:a.l Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
Streamlined Five-Year PHA Plan
Agency Identification
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
FHA Number: CA142
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: (mm/yyyy) 07/2007
PHA Programs Administered:
DPublic Housing and Section 8 DSection 8 Only
Number of public housing units: Number or88 units:
Number orS8 units:
IZIPublic Housing Only
Number of public housing units:
DPHA Consortia: (check box if submitting a joint PHA Plan and comDlete table)
Participating PHAs FHA Program(s) Included in Programs Not in i# of Units
Code the Consortium the Consortium Each PrograM
Participating PHA I:
Participating PHA 2:
Participating FHA 3:
Public Access to Information
Information regarding any activities outlined in this plan can be obtained by contacting:
(select all that apply)
o Main 8.dministrative office of the PHA
IZI PHA development management offices
D PHA local offices
Display Locations For PHA Plans and Supporting Documents
The PHA Plans and attachments (if any) are available for public inspection at: (select all that
:!EP ly)
U Main administrative office of the PHA
I:8l PHA development management offices
o PHA local offices
o Main administrative office of the local government
o Main administrative office of the County government
D Main administrative office of the State government
D Public library
D PHA website
D Other (list below)
PHA Plan Supporting Documents are available for inspection at: (select all that apply)
D Main business office of the PHA
IZI PHA development management offices
Page 2 of41
tonn HUD-SD07S-5F (0413012003)
0371
tftoZ.Vbi.1Cf!
PHA NlIII1c: Dublin HousinS Authority
HA Codc: CA 142
S.Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005..2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
o Other (list below)
Streamlined Five-Year PHA Plan
PHA FISCAL YEARS 2005 - 2009
[24 CFR Part 903.12]
A. Mission
State the .PHA' s mission for serving the needs .of low-i.heome, very low incqrne, and eXlr~mely 19Y1-incOme 'families
inthePHA'sjurisc:ijcti9n.(select"oneoftliechoicesbelow) .'.: > .:....... '.:--;..;. -..'..
.0 The mission of the PHA is the same as that ofthe Department of Housing and Urban
Development: To promote adequate and affordable housing, economic opportunity and a
suitable living environment free from discrimination.
IZI The PHA's mission is: (state mission here)
The mission of the Dublin Housing Authority is to provide an affordable housing resource, free
from discrimination, for extremely low income, very low income, and low income families in the
Dublin community. This housing, in combination with other resources, should create economic
. opportunity and encourage self~sufficiency.
B. Goals
The goals and objectives li~ed be{oW- are deriyed frOm HUo-'s strategic Goals .and Objectives .and thoSe e~phasized
in fe~nt legislation. PHAs ~ay s~~i~ ~y of these goal~ and objectives.as their 0}Yl.l, or identi"!)' other .goals. and/or
objectives.. Whether sel~$ig the HUD-suggested objectives or their own, P~s ARE STRONGLY.. .
ENCOURAG~D TO IDI!;NTIFY QUANTIFIABLE,MEASURES C?F: SU:<;:CESS IN REACHING THEIR
OBJECTIVES OVER THE COURSE OF THE 5 YEARS. (Quai1titi~bf~ measures, would include targets .such
as: numbers offamilieS. served or PHAS scores .achieved.) PRAll sho1:lid ~dentify these messurC51n the ~p.aCes to the
right of or below the stated objectives.. '. ,.. . ., ... .
HUD Strategic Goal: Increase the availability of decent, safe, and affordable housing.
~ PHA Goal: Expand the supply of assisted housing
Objectives:
o Apply for additional rental vouchers:
o Reduce public housing vacancies:
k8J Leverage private or other public funds to create additional housing opportunities:
IZI Acquire or build units or developments
o Other (list below)
~
PHA Goal: Improve the quality of assisted housing
Objectives:
~ Improve public housing management: (pHAS score) Achieve a score of90 or
higher.
o
o
o
o
Improve voucher management: (SEMAP score)
Increase customer satisfaction:
Concentrate on efforts to improve specific management functions:
(list; e.g., public housing finance; voucher unit inspections)
Renovate or modernize public housing units:
Page 3 of41
form HUD.SO07S-SF (0413012003)
03'12
~o .~;;6 iMf(;
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI 42
S- Year Plan for Fi5Cll1 Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
i:8l Demolish or dispose of obsolete public housing:
o Provide replacement public housing:
o Provide replacement vouchers:
o Other: (list below)
o PHA Goal: Increase assisted housing choices
Objectives:
o Provide voucher mobility counseling:
o Conduct outreach efforts to potential voucher landlords
o Increase voucher payment standards
.0 Implement voucher homeownership program:
o Implement public housing or other homeownership programs:
o Implement public housing site-based waiting lists:
o Convert public housing to vouchers:
o Other: (list below)
HUn Strategic Goal: Improve community quality of life and economic vitality
~ PHA Goal: Provide an improved living environment
Objectives:
o Implement measures to deconcentrate poverty by bringing higher income public
housing households into lower income developments: Continue use of rent ranges
in tenant selection.
[8J Implement measures to promote income mixing in public housing by assuring
access for lower income families into higher income developments:
[8J Implement public housing security improvements: Continue working with Dublin
Police Department and tenants on crime reduction activities.
o Designate developments or buildings for particular resident groups (elderly,
persons with disabilities)
o Other: (list below)
HOD Strategic Goal: Promote self-sufficiency and asset development offamilies and
individuals
IZl PHA Goal: Promote self-sufficiency and asset development of assisted households
Objectives:
i:8l Increase the number and percentage of employed persons in assisted families:
Continue admission preference for working families.
t8J Provide or attract supportive services to improve assistance recipients'
employability: Encourage tenant use of on-site child care resource.
o Provide or attract supportive services to increase independence for the elderly or
families with disabilities.
o Other: (list below)
Page 4 of41
form HUD-5007S-5F (04130/2003)
0373
L.\~ y. vt> Li4~
PHA Name: Dublin HOllSing Aulhoril)'
HACode: CAl42
5-Year Plan for Fisc;al Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
BUD Strategic Goal: Ensure Equal Opportunity in Housing for all Americans
[8J PHA Goal: Ensure equal opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing
Objectives:
[8J Undertake affirmative measures to ensure access to assisted housing regardless of
race, color, religion national origin, sex, familial status, and disability: Review
wait list procedures and outreach.
[8J Undertake affIrmative measures to provide a suitable living environment for
families living. in assisted housing, regardless ofrace, color, religion national
origin, sex, familial status, and disability: Analyze wait list statistics and tenant
demographics to identify any targeted marketing needs.
D Undertake affirmative measures to ensure accessible housing to perSons with all
varieties of disabilities regardless of unit size required:
D Other: (list below)
Other PHA Goals and Objectives: (list below)
DHA has incorporated the applicable provisions of the Violence Against Women and
Department of Justic~ Reauthorization Act of 2005 (pub. 1. 109-162) (VA WA) into its
Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP). DHA's goals, objectives and policies to
enable DHA to serve the needs of child and adult victims of domestic violence, dating violence
and stalking, as defmed in VA W A, are stated in the applicable sections of its ACOP
Page 5of41
tonn HUD-SODTS-SF (0413012003)
0374
408 iJ:Q '-left
-.- - - _H_ -- . --PHA Name:Dublin Housing Authority
HACQde: CAI42
5-YearPlan forFiSca\Years: 2005- 2009 -
Annual Plan for FY 2006
Streamlined Annual PHA Plan
PHA Fiscal Year 2007
[24 CFR Part 903.12(b)]
Table of Contents
Provide the following table of contents for the streamlined Annual Plan submitted with the Five. Y ear Plan,
including all streamlined plan components, and additional requirements, together with the list of supporting
documents available for public inspection.
A.
ANNUAL STREAMLINED PHA PLAN CO:MPONENTS
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
[gJ
[gJ
1. Housing Needs
2. Financial Resources
3. Policies on Eligibility, Selection and Admissions
4. Rent Detennination Policies
5. Capital Improvements Needs
6. Demolition and Disposition
7. Homeownership
8. Civil Rights Certifications (included with PHA Certificat;.ons of Compliance)
9. Additional Infonnation
a. PHA Progress on Meeting 5-Year Mission and Goals
b. Criteria for Substantial Deviations and Significant Amendments
c. Other Information Requested by HUD
i. Resident Advisory Board Membership and Consultation Process
ii. Resident Membership on the PHA Governing Board
Hi. PHA Statement of Consistency with Consolidated Plan
iv. (Reserved)
10. Project-Based Voucher Program
11. Supporting Documents Available for Review
12. FY 20_ Capital Fund Program and Capital Fund Program Replacement Housing
Factor, Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report
13. Capital Fund Program 5-Year Action Plan
14. O~er (List below, providing name for each item)
D
~
1ZI
1ZI
o
B.
SEPARATE HARD COPY SUBMISSIONS TO LOCAL HUn FIELD OFFICE
Form BUD-S0077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related
Re~lations: Board Resolution to AccomDanv the Standard Annual. Standard Five-Year. and
Streamlined Five-Year/Annual Plans:
Certification bv State or Local Official of PHA Plan Consistency with Consolidated Plan.
For PHAs APPLYING FOR CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM (CFP) GRANTS:
Form BUD-S0070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace;
Form BUD-S0071, Certification of Payments to Influence Federal Transactions:
Form SF-LLL & SF-LLLa, Disclosure ofLobbving Activities. .
Page 6 of41
form HUD-50075-8F (04130/2003)
0375
t.fO~ ~ l.f<1~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authoricy
HACode: CAl42
S-YcarPlan for Fiscal Years: 2005 . 2009
AMual Plan for FY 2006
Executive Summary (optional)
[903.7(r)]. If desired, provide a brief overview of the contents of the streamlined 5-Year/Annual Plan.
1. Statement of HODSin!! Needs [24 CPR Part 903.12 (b), 903.7(a)]
A. Housing Needs of Famiiies on the Public Housing and Section 8 Teoant- Based
Assistance Waiting Lists
State the hq~ing rie~qs of the families on the PHA's waiting list/so Complete one table for ea~ type ofp.~-
wide waiting list administered by the ~HA. . PHAs may provide separate ~bles f<if site-based or sub-jurisdictional
publichotisingwaitinglistsattheiropticin. ' . .. . '.. ... .. '.',
Housine: Needs of Families on the PHA's Waitin~ Lists
Waiting list type: (select one)
o Section 8 tenant-based assistance
~ Public Housing
o Combined Section 8 and Public Housing
o Public Housing Site-Based or sub-jurisdictional waiting list (optional)
lfused identify which develoDment/subiurisdiction:
# of families % oftotal families
267 .. - ,_.. .
. .
197
Annual Turnover
Waiting list total
Extremely low income
<=30% AMI
Very low income
(>30% but <=50% AMI)
Low income
(>50% but <80% AMn
Families with children
Elderly families
Families with Disabilities
Racelethnicity - White
Race/ethnicity - Black
Race/ethnicity - Native
American
Race/ethnicity - Asian
Race/ethnicity - Hispanic
73.8
#- ,: "~.'.~: . ....: ..' .~ ,
..' ~<. :.,~::,~:.;,::.:~;:.. .'J::<:.::?:
63 23.6
7 2.6
238 89.1
10 3.7
42 15.7
82 30.7
129 48.3
4 1.5
34 12.7
18 6.8
". ~.:::...\:.-:; '~::.~..{,.{, '..;., ,. . -
-. ,'. ".:.,
... .... .
., :. ....
.... . .' ~ ~
.;'. ~'. . .' .\:..',' ...
,.
:.', -"
4. : . : :.~ I
" :
.. ........... ~. ".
Characteristics by Bedroom
Size (Public Housine: Only)
tBR
2BR
3BR
4BR
5BR
5+BR
25
119
25
98
N/A
N/A
9.4
44.6
9.4
36.6
Page 7 of 41
form HUD-5007S-SF (0413012003)
0376
LfoltJQ ~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
Annual Plan for FY 2006
5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Housinl! Needs of Families on the fHA's WaitiDlZ Lists
Is the waiting list closed (select one)? 0 No 181 Yes
If yes:
How long has it been closed (# of months)? 11
Does the PHA expect to reopen the list in the PHA Plan year? I8l No 0 Yes
Does the PHA permit specific categories of families onto the waiting list, even if generally
closed? n No I8l Yes
~. St~ategy for Add~e~sing Needs
Provide a bri.cf description oftlie PHA!s ~lrategy for addressing the housing needs offamilies on the PHA's public .
housmg.ail.d Sectionilwaiting lists IN TilE UPCOMING YEAR, and the Agency's reasons for choosing this
Strategy.... : . . .
(1) Strate~des
Need: Shortage of affordable housing for all eligib~e populations
Strategy 1. Maximize the number of affordable units available to the PHA within its
current resources by:
Seiect all that apply . .
~
~
~
o
o
o
D
o
o
~
D
Employ effective maintenance and management policies to minimize the number of
public housing units off-line
Reduce turnover time for vacated public housing units
Reduce time to renovate public housing units
Seek replacement of public housing units lost to the inventory through mixed fmance
development
Seek replacement of public housing units lost to the inventory through section 8
replacement housing resources
Maintain or increase section 8 lease-up rates by establishing payment standards that will
enable families to rent throughout the jurisdiction
Undertake measures to ensure access to affordable housing among families assisted by
the PHA, regardless of unit size required
Maintain or increase section 8 lease-up rates by marketing the program to owners,
particularly those outside of areas of minority and poverty concentration
Maintain or increase section 8 lease-up rates by effectively screening Section 8
applicants to increase owner acceptance of program
Participate in the Consolidated Plan development process to ensure coordination with
broader community strategies
Other (list below)
Strategy~: ~cre~e !~e ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~'~_~~u.s~ng...~~its._~y:
Selecta11thaf~ply. . ,.:.. ...::.:.......:.,.,.:...:.. : ., . ..,.... " ;.:.
D Apply for additional section 8 units should they become available
D Leverage affordable housing resources in the community through the creation of mixed -
finance housing
IZI Pursue housing resources other than public housing or Section 8 tenant-based
assistance.
Page 8of41
fonn HUO.5007S-SF (0413012003)
0377
LfD ~ rJf:> yttct
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
5- Year Plan for Fiscal Ye31"3: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
IZl Other: (list below)
Begin the process to replace 150 public housing units with 26 ownership units and 179
affordable tax-credit rental units, 50 of which are to be designated for the elderly. The developer
will apply to HUD for Section 202 funding in order to target the 50 elderly units to extremely
low-income seniors. Fifteen of the 26 ownership units are to be affordable. This is an increase
of 44 affordable units.
. Need: .Specific Family Types: Families at or below 30% of median
o
o
.0
IZl
o
Strategy 1: Target available assistaoce to families at or below 30 % of AMI
Select all th~t apply . 0.. . .., . ... .,. .. .. .. .. ..
Exceed HUD federal targeting requirements for families at or below 30% of AMI in
public housing
Exceed HUD federal targeting requirements for families at or below 30% of AMI in
tenant-based section 8 assistance
Employ admissions preferences aimed at families with economic hardships
Adopt rent policies to support and encourage work
Other: (list below)
Need: Specific Family Types: Families at or below 50% of median
Strategy 1: Target availoab~e a~sistaoce to .fa~ilies ~t or b~lo~ 500(0 of ~
Select all th!rt apply . .. . '.' ... .
IZl Employ admissions preferences aimed at families who are working
IZl Adopt rent policies to support and encourage work
o Other: (list below)
Need: Specific Family Types: The Elderly
Strategy 1: Target available assjsta~ce to the elderly:
Select all that apply ... . .. 0
o Seek designation of pub lie housing for the elderly
D Apply for special-purpose vouchers targeted to the elderly, should they become available
o Other: (list below)
Need: Specific Family Types: Families with Disabilities
St~ategy 1: Targe~ av~na~le ~~i~ta~ce t~ Families ,w~th pisal?ilitie~:.
Select all that apply . .' .-. ... ' 0'. ... - .
D
D
o
Seek designation of public housing for families with disabilities
Carry out the modifications needed in public housing based on the section 504 Needs
Assessment for Public Housing
Apply for special-purpose vouchers targeted to families with disabilities, should they
Page 9 of 41
form HUD-S0015.sF (04/3012003)
0378
lfD?i Db t-f q <t
S- Y ear Plan for Fiscal Years: 200j - 2009
. PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI42
Annual Plan for FY 2006
become available
o Affmnatively market to local non-profit agencies that assist families with disabilities
o Other: (list below)
Need: Specific Family Types: Races or ethnicities.with disproportionate housing needs
Strategy 1: Increase awareness ofPHA resources among families of races and ethnicities
with disproportionate needs:
Select if applicable
o Affirmatively market to races/ethnicities shown to have disproportionate housing needs
o Other: (list below)
Strategy 2: Conduct activities to affirmatively further fair housing
Selcct.aU.that..apply. . . . .. . . :. ... ... .
o
o
o
Counsel section 8 tenants as to location of units outside of areas of poverty or minority
concentration and assist them to locate those units
Market the section 8 program to owners outside of areas of poverty Iminority
concentrations
Other: (list below)
Other Housing Needs & Strategies: (list needs and strategies below)
(2) Reasons for Seledine Strate2ies
Of the factors listed below> select all that influenced the PIINs selection of the strategies it will
pursue:
IZl
~
IZl
IZl
IZl
I8J
o
o
~
o
o
Funding constraints
Staffing constraints
Limited availability of sites for assisted housing
. Extent to which particular housing needs are met by other organizations in the
community
Evidence of housing needs as demonstrated in the Consolidated Plan and other
information available to the PHA
Influence of the housing market on PHA programs
Community priorities regarding housing assistance
Results of consultation with local or state government
Results of consultation with residents and the Resident Advisory Board
Results of consultation with advocacy groups
Other: (list below)
b.. Statement of Financial Resources
[24 CFR Part 903.12 (b), 903.7 (c)]
.~i~t on th~ foiIow~i tiLbl~~e .fullmcial r~ources tha(~ .antlclpiied to. bC ~v8iiabre to tlie pHA for the support of
federal p~blic housing and tenant-based Section 8 assistaIl,ce progr;uIlS admirtistered by. the PHA during the Plan .
year. . 'Note: the.tabie asSurttes tHat Federal PlIbliC! hous.ing or tenant based Section 8 assistance grali.t funds are
Page 100f41
form HUD-SO07S-SF (04/3012003)
0379
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA 142
S-YearPlan for Fi3Cal Years: 200S - 2009
l.f I D Cf() t..l'1tt
AMUal Plan for FY 2006
expended on eligible p~rposes; therefo.re, uSl;S of.these :funds .need n!)t ~e s~ted, f~r other funds:.indi~atc: the u~e
for those funds as one of the followmg categories: public housmg operations;' public housing capital improvements,
public l;1ou~ing safety/security, public housing supportive serviCes, Section 8 teriant-based assistance. Section 8 . ;
. supportiyeservicesorother, ...... ~., .:. ... . _ .... .' .-. ..' -. -." ... -:..
Financial R;esources:
Planned Sources and Uses
Sources Planned S Planned Uses
I. Federal Grants (FY 2007 ~rants)
a Public Housing Operating Fund 212244 PHA. Operations -
,
b Public Housing Capital Fund 255,000 PHA Capital Improvements
c HOPE VI Revitalization . ,
d) HOPE VI Demolition :
e) Annual Contributions for Section 8 Tenant-
Based Assistance
f) Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency
Grants
2) Community Development Block Grant
h) HOME
Other Federal Grants (list below)
2. Prior Year Federal Grants (unobligated
funds only) (list below)
3. Public Housin!!: Dwellinl!: Rental Income 693,792 PHA Operations
4. Other income (list below)
Investment: 45,525 PHA Operations
Miscellaneous: 20,000 PHA Operations
4. Non-federal sources (list below)
Total resources 1.226.561
. 3. FHA Policies Governine: Elie:ibilitv. Selection. and Admissions
[24 CFR Part 903.12 (b), 903.7 (b)]
A. Public Housing
Exemptions: PHAs that do iiot administer public housi,ng.are not required ~ complete subcomponent 3A.
(1) Elieibilitv
. a. When does the PHA verify eligibility for adm~ssion to public housing? (select all that apply)
[8J When families are within a certain number of being offered a unit: (5)
Page 11 of41
form HUD-S007S-5F (04/3012003)
0380
411 00 if4ct
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
Ht\ Code: CAI~2
S-YearPlan for Fiscal YCar.i: 2005 - 2009
AMual Plan for FY 2006
[gI When families are within a certain time of being offered a unit: (1 month)
D Other: (describe)
b. Which non.income (screening) factors does the PHA use to establish eligibility for admission
to public housing (select all that apply)?
[gI Criminal or Drug-related activity
~ Rental history
~ Housekeeping
D Other (describe)
c. ~ Yes.D No: Does the PHA request criminal records from loca1law enforcement agencies
. for screening purposes?
d. ~ Yes 0 No: Does the PHA request criminal records from State law enforcement agencies
for screening purposes?
e.D Yes ~ No: Does the PHA access FBI criminal records from the FBI for screening
purposes? (either directly or through an NCIC-authorized source)
(2)Waitinl! List Orl!anization
a. Which methods does the PHA plan to use to organize its public housing waiting list (select aU
that apply)
[g] Community-wide list
o Sub-jurisdictional lists
o Site-based waiting lists
o Other ( describe)
b. Where may interested persons apply for admission to public housing?
o PHA main administrative office
~ PHA development site management office
[g] Other (list below)
May also be mailed to a post-office box.
c. Site-Based Waiting Lists-Previous Year
1. Has the PHA operated one or more site-based waiting lists in the previous year? If yes,
complete the following table; if not skip to d.
Site-Based Waitiug Lists
Page 12of41
form HUD.50075-SF (04/3012003)
0381
4 12 Ub t./eqct
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI42
S-Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
Development Date Initiated Initial mix of Racial, Current mix of Percent change
Information: Ethnic or Disability Racial, Ethnic or between initial
(Name, number, Demographics Disability and current .mix
location) Demographics since of Racial, Ethnic,
Initiation of SBWL or Disability
demol!:rapldcs
2. What is the number of site based waiting list developments to which families may apply
at one time?
3. How many unit offers may an applicant turn down before being removed from the site~
based waiting list? _
4. D Yes 0 No: Is the PHA the subject of any pending fair housing complaint by HUD
or any court order or settlement agreement? If yes. describe the order, agreement or
complaint and describe how use of a site-based waiting list will not violate or be inconsistent
with the order, agreement or complaint below:
d. Site~Based Waiting Lists - Coming Year
If the PHA plans to operate one or more site-based waiting lists in the coming year, answer each
of the folLowing questions; if not. skip to subsection (3) Assignment
1. How many site-based waiting lists will the PHA operate in the coming year?
2. 0 Yes D No: Are any or all of the PIlA's site-based waiting lists new for the .
upcoming year (that is, they are not part of a previously~HUD-approved
site based waiting list plan)?
If yes, how many lists?
3. DYes 0 No: May families be on more than one list simultaneously
If yes, how many lists?'
4. Where can interested persons obtain more information about and sign up to be on the site~
based waiting lists (select all that apply)?
o PHA main administrative office
o All PHA development management offices
D Management offices at developments with site.based waiting lists
o At the development to which they would like to apply
D' Other (list below)
(3) Assimment
Page 13 of 41
fonn HUD.50075-SF (04/30/2003)
0382
L((~ r7b ~q'
PHA Na.'J\e.: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan {or FY 2006
a. How many vacant unit choices are applicants ordinarily. given before they fall to the bottom of
or are removed from the waiting list? (select one)
DOne
~ Two
o Three or More
b. ~ Yes 0 No: Is this policy consistent across all waiting list types?
c. If answer to b is no, list variations for any other than the primary public housing waiting Ust/s
for the PHA: .
(4) Admissions Preferences
a. Income targeting:
DYes r8J No: Does the PHA plan to exceed the federal targeting requirements by targeting
more than 40% of all new admissions to public housing to families at or
below 30% of median area income?
b. Transfer policies:
In what circumstances will transfers take precedence over new admissions? (list below)
l8J Emergencies
IZI Over-housed
~ Under-housed
IZI Medical justification
~ Administrative reasons detennined by the PHA (e.g., to pennit modernization work)
o Resident choice: (state circumstances l;lelow)
o Other: (list below)
c. Preferences
1. [8] Yes 0 No:
Has the PHA established preferences for admission to public housing
(other than date and time of application)? (If e'no" is selected, skip to
subsection (5) Occupancy)
2. Which of the following admission preferences does the PHA plan to employ in the coming
year? (select all that apply from either former Federal preferences or other preferences)
Fonner Federal preferences:
[8] Involuntary Displacement (Disaster, Government Action, Action of Housing
Owner, Inaccessibility, Property Disposition)
o Victims of domestic violence
o Substandard housing
o Homelessness
o High rent burden (rent is > 50 percent of income)
Other preferences: (select below)
IZI Working families and those unable to work because of age or disability
PaglJ 14 of41
form HUD-50075-5F (0413012003)
038~
tf I 4- Db ~?t <6
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
'.Year Plan rorFisc;aJ Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for F'Y 2006
l:8J Veterans and veterans' families
[g) Residents who live and/or work in the jurisdiction
. ~ Those enrolled currently in educational, training, or upward mobility programs
o Households that contribute to meeting income goals (broad range of incomes)
o Households that contribute to meeting income requirements (targeting)
o Those previously enrolled in educational, training, or upward mobility programs
o Victims of reprisals or hate crimes
[8J Other preference(s) (list below)
I. Section 8 voucher holders displaced from federally-declared disaster areas and not currently living in
standard, penn anent replacement housing. or public housing residents displaced from federally-declared
disaster areas and not currently living in standard, pennanent replacement housing;
2. Other Displaced Families;
3. Families.
3. If the PHA will employ admissions preferences, please prioritize by placing a "1" in the space
that represents your first priority, a "2" in the box representing your second priority, and so on.
If you give equal weight to one or more of these choices (either through an absolute hierarchy or
through a point system), place the same number next to each. That means you can use "l" more
than once, "2" m.ore than once, etc.
o Date and Time
Fonner Federal preferences:
o Involuntary Displacement (Disaster, Government Action, Action of Housing
Owner, Inaccessibility, Property Disposition)
o Victims of domestic violence
o Substandard housing
, D Homelessness
D High rent burden
Other preferences (select all that apply)
D Working families and those unable to work because of age or disability
D Veterans and veterans' families
o Residents who live and/or work in the jurisdiction
D Those enrolled currently in educational. training, or upward mobility programs
D Households that contribute to meeting income goals (broad range of incomes)
. 0 Households that contribute to meeting income requirements (targeting)
o Those previously enrolled in educational, training, or upward mobility programs
D Victims of reprisals or hate crimes
[gJ Other preference(s) (list below)
1. Applicants are assigned preference points as follows:
a. Section 8 voucher holders displaced from federally-declared disaster areas and not currently living
in standard, permanent replacement housing, or public housing residents displaced from federally-
declared disaster areas and not currently living in standard, pennanent replacement housing = 60
points
b. Other Displaced Families ::: 40 points;
Page 15of41
fonn HUD-5007S-8F (0413012003)
0384
.'1 15 "b tfLr~.
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
5- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 . 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
c. Family, Elderly and/or Disabled Preference = 8 points (applied once only);
d. Residency Preference = 4 points;
e. Veteran's Preference = 2.points; and
f. Worlclng or Educational Preference = 1 point;
2. Applicants are ranked from those with the highest number of preference points to those with the lowest
number of preference points (0 min.).
3. Applicants with a higher number of preference points are offered assistance before those with fewer
preference points.
4. Ties among applicants who have the same number of preference points are broken using their "tiebreaker"
lottery number.
s. An applicant with the same number of preference points and a lower lottery "tiebreaker" number will be
offered assistance before an applicant with a higher tiebreaker number.
4. Relationship of preferences to income targeting requirements:
o The PHA applies preferences within income tiers
[8] Not applicable: the pool of applicant families ensures that the PHA will meet income
targeting requirements
(5) Occupancy
a. What reference materials can applicants and residents use to obtain information about the rules
of occupancy of public housing (select all that apply)
[8J The PHA-resident lease
[8J The PHA's Admissions and (Continued) Occupancy Policy
o PHA briefing seminars or written materials
o Other source (list)
b. How often must residents notify the PHA of changes in family composition? (select all
that apply)
D At an annual reexamination and lease renewal
[8J Any time family composition changes
o At family request for revision
D Other (list)
(6) DeconcentratioD and Income Mixine
a.D Yes IZl No: Does the PHA have any general occupancy (family) public housing
developments covered by the de concentration rule? If no, this section is
complete. If yes, continue to the next question.
b. DYes D No: Do any of these covered developments have average incomes above or
below 85% to 115% of the average incomes of all such developments? If
no, this section is complete. If yes, list these developments on the
following table: .
DecoDcentratioD Polic for Covered Develo ments
Page 16 af 41
form HUD-S007S-SF (04/30/2003)
0385
'+ \ It! ttt) 4~ ~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA 142
S- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 . 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
Development Na.me Number of Explanation (if any) [see step 4 at Deconcentration policy (if no
Units ~903.2( c)(l )(iv) I explanation) [see step 5 at
~903.2(c)(1)(v)1
B. Section 8
" Exempti~ns: PHAs that do riot adminis~r seCtion S' are not. required to campiete. sub-~niponent 3B;. : . ...
.Un]~ otherwise specified, all questio.ns ~n. t~is se~tioD apply O~ly to "tlie tenl!iit-biis~d se~tio~ 8. assIStance.
program (vouchers, a.nd uutil ~ompJetely merge!! into the v~.ucher pI:ogram, eerlmcat~).. .. .
(1) Elh!ibilitv
a. What is the extent of screening conducted by the PHA? (select all that apply)
o Criminal or drug-related activity only to the extent required by law or regulation
o Criminal and drug-related activity, more extensively than required by law or regulation
o More general screening than criminal and ,drug-related activity (list factors):
o Other (list below)
b.D Yes 0 No: Does the PHA request criminal records from local law enforcement agencies
for screening purposes?
c.D Yes 0 No: Does the PHA request criminal records from State law enforcement agencies
for screening purposes?
d.D Yes 0 No: Does the PHA access FBI criminal records from the FBI for screening
purposes? (either directly or through an NCIC-authorized source)
e. Indicate what kinds of information you share with prospective landlords? (select all that
apply)
o Criminal or drug-related activity
o Other (describe below)
(2) Waitine List Oreanization
a. With which of the following program waiting lists is the section 8 tenant-based assistance
waiting list merged? (select all that apply)
o None
o Federal public housing
o Federal moderate rehabilitation
o Federal project-based certificate program
o Other federal or local program (list below)
b. Where may interested persons apply for admission to section 8 tenant-based assistance?
(select all that apply)
o PHA main administrative office
Page 17 of41
form HUD-50015-SF (0413012003)
0386
4l1~ .y.~~
PHA NIUlle: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
5. Year Plan Cor Fiscal Years: 2005 . 2009
AMUal Plan for FY 2006
o Other (list below)
(3) Search Time
a. 0 Yes 0 No: Does the PHA give extensions on standard 60-day period to search for a
unit?
If yes, state circumstances below:
(4) Admissions Preferences
a. Income targeting
o Yes 0 No:
Do~s the PHA plan to exceed the federal targeting requirements by targeting
more than 75% of all new admissions to the section 8 program to families at
or below 30% of median area income?
b. Preferences
1.0 Yes 0 No:
Has the PHA established preferences for admission to section 8 tenant-
based assistance? (other than date and time of application) (if no, skip to
subcomponent (S) Special purpose sectio~ 8 assistance programs)
2. Which ofthe following admission preferences does the PHA plan to employ in the coming
year? (select all that apply from either former Federal preferences or other preferences)
Former Federal preferences
o Involuntary Displacement (Disaster, Government Action, Action of Housing Owner,
Inaccessibility, Property Disposition)
o Victims of domestic violence
o Substandard housing .
o Homelessness
D High rent burden (rent is > 50 percent of income)
Other preferences (select all that apply)
o Working families and those unable to work because of age or disability
o Veterans and veterans' families.
o Residents who live and/or work in your jurisdiction
D Those enrolled currently in educational, training, or upward mobility programs
o Households that contribute to meeting in90me goals (broad range of incomes)
o Households that contribute to meeting income requirements (targeting)
o Those previously enrolled in educational, training, or upward mobility programs
o V ictims of reprisals or hate crimes
o Ot?er preference(s) (list below)
3. If the PHA will employ admissions preferences. please prioritize by placing a "1" in the space
that represents your first priority, a "2" in the box representing your second priority, and so on.
If you give equal weight to one or more of these choices (either through an absolute hierarchy or
through a point system). place the same number next to each. That means you can use "1" more
Page 18 of41
form HUD-50075.sF (04130/2003)
0387
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Autl10rily
HA Code: CA142
5.Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
than once, "2" more than once, etc.
o Date and Time
Fonner Federal preferences:
o Involuntary Displacement (Disaster, Government Action, Action of Housing Owner,
Inaccessibility, Property Disposition)
D Victims of domestic violence
o Substandard housing
o Homelessness
o High rent burden
Other preferences (select aU that apply)
o Working families and those unable to work because of age or disability
D Veterans and veterans' families
o Residents who live and/or work in your jurisdiction
o Those enrolled currently in educational, training, or upward mobility programs
o Households that contribute to meeting income goals (broad range of incomes)
D. Households that contribute to meeting income requirements (targeting)
o Those previously enrolled in educational, training, or upward mobility programs
. D Victims of reprisals or hate crimes .
o Other preference(s) (list below)
4. Among applicants on the waiting list with equal preference status, how are applicants
selected? (select one)
o Date and time of application
o Drawing (lottery) or other random choice technique
5. If the PHA plans to employ preferences for "residents who live and/or work in the
jurisdiction" (select one) .
o This preference has previously been reviewed and approved by HUD
o The PHA requests approval for this preference through this PHA Plan
6. Relationship of preferences to income targeting requirements: (s~lect one)
o The PHA applies preferences within income tiers
o Not applicable: the pool of applicant families ensures that the PHA will meet income
targeting requirements
(5) SDecial Puroose Section 8 Assistance Pro2rams
a. In which documents or other reference materials are the policies governing eligibility,
selection, and admissions to any special-purpose section 8 program administered by the PHA
contained? (select all that apply)
o The Section 8 Administrative Plan
o Briefing sessions and written materials
o Other (list below)
Page 19 of41
form HUD.50075-SF (0413012003)
y-(<?; l5b 4tt~;
0388
LtlQoo 4q~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI42
S- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
AMual Plan for FY 2006
b. How does the PHA announce the availability of any special-purpose section 8 programs to
the public?
D Through published notices
D Other (list below)
4. PHA Rent Determination Policies
[24 CFR Part 903. 12(b), 903.7(d)]
A. .~u.bl~c Ho~s.~g . ." .. .... ..
Exemptions: PHAs tha~ do Q.ot a~nister p~blic housing ~e not req1,lired to complete sub-component 4A.
(1) Income Based Rent Policies
Describe the PHA;s in~me based rent setting pollcylies for public ~oUiing usiIig, including discretionary (that"is,
not required by ~ta~t.~ or regu!ation) i1J~,me disregard~ .and. exclu~ions, in, the appropriate spaces below.
a. Use of discretionary policies: (select one of the following two)
IZl The PHA will not employ any discretionary rent-setting policies for income-based rent in
public housing. Income-based rents are set at the higher of 30% of adjusted monthly
income, 10% of unadjusted monthly income, the welfare rent, or minimum rent (less
HUD mandatory deductions and 'exclusions). (If selected, skip to sub-component (2))
D The PHA employs discretionary policies for detennining income-based rent (If selected,
continue to question b.)
b. Minimum Rent
1. What amount best reflects the PHA's minimum rent? (select one)
D $0
D $1-$25
IZI $26-$50
2.0 Yes ~ No: Has the PHA adopted any discretionary minimum rent hardship exemption
policies?
3. If yes to question 2, list these policies below:
c. Rents set at less than 30% of adjusted income
1. DYes IZl No: Does the PHA plan to charge rents at a fixed amount or
percentage less than 30% of adjusted income?
2. If yes to above, list the amounts or percentages charged and the circumstances under which
these will be used below:
Page 20 of41
form HUD-50075-SF (04/3012003)
0389
4:7D Vb '-f4 ~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
s- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 200S - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
d. Which of the discretionary (optiona!) deductions and/or exclusions policies does the PHA
plan to employ (select all that apply)
o For the earned income of a previously unemployed household member
o For increases in earned income
o Fixed amount (other than general rent-setting policy)
If yes, state amountls and circumstances below:
. D Fixed percentage (other than general rent-setting policy)
If yes, state percentage/s and circumstances below:
D For household heads
o For other family members
o For transportation expenses
o For the non-reimbursed medical expenses of non~disabled or non-elderly families
o Other (describe below) .
e. Ceiling rents
1. Do you have ceiling rents? (rents set at a level lower than 30% of adjusted income) (select
one)
DYes fOf all developments
DYes but only for some developments
.~ No
2. For which kinds of developments are ceiling rents in place? (select all that apply)
o For all developments
o For all general occupancy developments (not elderly or disabled or elderly only)
o For specified general occupancy developments
o For certain parts of developments; e.g., the high-rise portion
o For certain size units; e.g., Jarger bedroom sizes
o Other (list below)
3. Select the space or spaces that best describe how you arrive at ceiling rents (select all that
apply)
D Market comparability study
o Fair market rents (FMR)
o 9S1h percentile rents
o 75 percent of operating costs
D 100 percent of operating costs for general occupancy (family) developments
o Operating costs plus debt service
o The "rental value" of the unit
Page 21 of 41
form HUD.50075-SF (04130/2003)
0390
'-t? I at ifc1. <t
PHA Name; Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI42
S-Year Plan for Fj~1 Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
D Other (list below)
f. Rent re-determinations:
1. Between income reexaminations, how often must tenants report changes.in income or family
composition to the PHA such that the changes result in an adjustment to rent? (select all that
apply)
Never
At family option
Any time the family experiences an income increase
Any time a family experiences an income increase above a threshold amount or
percentage: (if selected, specify threshold)_
Other (list below)
Any time that there is a change in family composition or an increase in income following
an interim reexamination that has decreased rent.
D
D
o
D
[gJ
g. ~ Yes D No: Does the PHA plan to implement individual savings accounts for residents
(ISAs) as an alternative to the required 12 month disallowance of earned income and phasing in
of rent increases in the next year?
(2) Flat Rents
a. In setting the market-based flat rents, what sources of infonnation did the PHA use to
establish comparability? (select all that apply.)
[gJ The section 8 rent reasonableness study of comparable housing
IZI Survey of rents listed in local newspaper
~ Survey of similar unassisted units in the neighborhood
o Other (list/describe below)
B. Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance
Ex~ptions: PHAs that.do not admini~~r Section 8 t~nant-based assistan~e ai~ not required to complete sub-
component4B. Unl~s.ot~erwis~ sp~~ifi~d, aU questions in this section apply only to the ten~nt-based section ~
!lssistance p~ogr~J# (yof.lc:li\!J's;..aiid until ~lJmpletely mergedJJ;l..to tbe.vo.u.c:~.,r pi:ogram, .c~rtifj.cat!=S)... ..
(l) Pa~e~t St~ndards _ . .
De~rib'~ the'v~iicher-paYri1erit ~taOdards and policies.
. . .
a. What is the PHA's payment standard? (select the category that best describes your standard)
D At or above 90% but below 100% ofFMR .
D 100%ofFMR
D Above 100% but at or below 1.10% of FMR
o Above 110% ofFMR (ifHUD approved; describe circumstaqces below)
b. If the payment standard is lower than FMRJ why has the PHA selected this standard? (select
all that apply)
Page 22 0141
form HUD-50075..sF (04/30/2003)
0391.
Ltt. 2~ lftitt
PHA Name: Dublin Housing AUlhorily
HA Code: CA142
5- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: :ZOOS . 2009
AMual Plan for FY 2006
D
D
D
D
FMRs are adequate to ensure success among assisted families in the PHA's segment of
the FMR area
The PHA has chosen to serve additional families by lowering the payment standard
Reflects market or submarket
Other (list below)
c. Ifthe payment standard is higher than F.MR, why has the PHA chosen this level? (select all
that apply) ,
D FMRs are not adequate to ensure success among assisted families in the PHA's segment
ofthe FMR area .
D Reflects market or submarket
D To increase housing options for families
. D Other (list below)
d. How often are payment standards reevaluated for adequacy? (select one)
o Annually
D Other (list below)
e. What factors will the PHA consider in its assessment ofthe adequacy of its payment
standard? (select all that apply)
D Success rates of assisted families
, D Rent burdens of assisted families
D Other (list below)
(2) Minim urn Rent
a. What amount best reflects the PHA's minimum rent? (select one)
D $0
D $1-$25
'0 $26-$50
b. 0 Yes D No: Has the PHA adopted any discretionary minimum rent hardship exemption
policies? (if yes, list below)
5. Canital Imnrovement Needs
[24 CFR Part 903.12(b). 903.7 (g)]
. Exemptions from Component .5; Section 8 aniy PHAs are not .required io..completb #tis Component and may skip tel
. .' .. ~', .'. '. . ."
Component"6... .. . '.. . ~.. ..'.. ..,. ,.. '
A. Capital Fund Activities.
Exemptions ftOm su~oompO~ent 5^: PHAs that will.not participate in the CapttaI ~und ProgTam may skip to
cOmponent 5B. AlJ.Qt!ler.PlL'\s.il:tust ~mp]ete 5A.as.i!lstru~~<!. . ..
(1) Capital Fund Program
Page 23 of41
fonn HUC-5007S..sF (0413012003)
0392
LfZ,3 on ~ ct ~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HACode: CAl42
5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
AMual Plan for FY 2006
a. r8] Yes 0 No Does the PHA plan to participate in the Capital Fund Program in the
upcoming year? If yes, complete items 12 and 13 of this template (Capital
Fund Program tables). If no, skip to B.
b. 0 Yes ~ No: Does the PHA propose to use any portion of its CFP funds to repay debt
incurred to finance capital improvements? If so, the PHA must identify in
its annual and 5-year capital plans the development(s) where such
improvements will be made and show both how the proceeds of the
fmancing will be used and the amount of the annual payments required to
service the debt. (Note that separate HUD approval is required for such
financing activities.).
B. HOPE VI and Public Housing Development and Replacement Activities
. (Non-Capital Fund)
Applicability of sub-component SB: All PHAs administering public housing. Identify any approved HOPE VI
and/or public housing development or replacement activities not described in the Capital Fund Program Annual
Statement.
(1) Hope VI Revitalization
a. DYes cgJ No: Has the PHA received a HOPE VI revitalization grant? (if no, skip to next
component; if yes, provide responses to questions on chart below for each
grant, copying and completing as many times as necessary)
b. Status of HOPE VI revitalization grant (complete one set of questiOI~s for
each grant)
Development name:
Development (project) number:
Status of grant: (select the statement that best describes the current status)
o Revitalization Plan under development
o Revitalization Plan submitted, pending approval
D Revitalization Plan approved
D Activities pursuant to an approved Revitalization Plan underway
c. D Yes ~ No: Does the PHA plan to apply for a HOPE VI Revitalization grant in the
Plan year? If yes, list development name/s below:
d. DYes cgJ No: Will the PHA be engaging in any mixedwfinance development activities for
public housing in the Plan year? If yes, list developments or activities
below:
e.1ZI Yes D No: Will thePHA be conducting any other public housing development or
replacement activities not discussed in the Capital Fund Program Annual
Statement? If yes, list developments or activities below:
Page 24 of41
fonn HUD-5D07S-SF (04I3DI2003)
0393
42 '-+ on '-f~<t
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
5-YearPlan for Fiscal YeaI3: 2005 .2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
6. Demolition and Disnosition
[24 CFR Part ~03.12(b), 903.7 (h)]
Applicability of component .6: Section 8 only PHAs are not required to complete this section.
a.1:8l Yes D No: Does the PHA plan to conduct any demolition or disposition activities
(pursuant to section 18 or 24 (Hope VI)ofthe U.S. Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437p) or Section 202/Section 33 (Mandatory Conversion) in
the plan Fiscal Year? (If "No", skip to component 7; if''yes'', complete
one activity description for each development on the following chart.)
DemolitionlDis osition Activi
1a. Development name; Arroyo Vista
lb. Develo ment ro'ect number: CA39-P142-001
2. Activity type: Demolition 0
Dis osition
3. Application status (select one)
Approved 0
Submitted, pending approval D
Planned a lication
4. Date a Heation a roved, submitted, or
5. Number of units affected: 150
6. Coverage of action (select one)
D Part of the development
[8] Total develo ment
7. Timeline for activity:
a. Actual or projected start date of activity: (04/01/07)
b. Pro'ected end date ofactivi : 11/30/08
7. Section B Tenant Based Assistance--Section Bev) Homeownership Proeram
[24 CFR Part 903.12(b), 903.7(k)(1)(i)]
(1) DYes D No: Does the PHA plan to administer a Section 8 Homeownership program
pursuant to Section 8(y) of the U.S.H.A. of1937, as implemented by 24
CFR part 982 ? (If "No", skip to the next component; if''yes'', complete
each program description below (copy and complete questions for each
program identified.)
(2) Program Description
a. Size of Program
D YesD No:
Will the PHA limit the number of families participating in the Section 8
horneownership option?
If the answer to the question above was yes, what is the maximum number
Page 25 of 41
form HUD-50D75-SF (04/30/2003)
0391
tt?1J() ~&t1
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
S- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 200S . 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
of participants this fiscal year?_
b. PHA-established eligibility criteria .
DYes D No: Will the PRA's program have eligibility criteria for participation in its
Section 8 Homeownership Option program in addition to HUD criteria?
If yes, list criteria below:
c. What actions will the PHA undertake to implement the program this year (list)?
(3) Capacity of the PHA to Administer a Section 8 Homeownership Program
The PHA has demonstrated its capacity to administer the program by (select all that apply):
a. 0 Establishing a minimum homeowner down payment requirement of at least 3 percent of
purchase price and requiring that at least I percent of the purchase price comes from the famili s
resources.
b. D Requiring that financing for purchase of a home under its Section 8 homeownership will
be provided, insured or guaranteed by the state or Federal government; comply with secondary
mortgage market underwriting requirements; or comply with generally accepted private sector
underwriting standards. .
c. D Partnering with a qualified ag~ncy or agencies to administer the program (list name(s) and
years of experience below).
d. D Demonstrating that it has other relevant experience (list experience below).
8. Civil Rie:hts Certifications
[24 CPR Part 903.12 (b), 903.7 (o)J
Civil rights certifications are included in the PHA Plan Certifications of Compliance with the
P HA Plans and Related Regulations: Board Resolution to Accompany the Standard Annual,
Standard Five-Year, and Streamlined Five-Year/Annual Plans, which is submitted to the Field
Office in hard copy-see Table of Contents.
9. Additional Information
[24 CFR Part 903.12 (b), 903.7 (r))
A. PHA Proeress in Meetine: the Mission and Goals Described in the 5-
Year Plan
(provide a statement of the PHA's progress against the goals and objectives established in the previous
.5-Year Planfor the period FY 2000 - 2004
HUD Strategic Goal: Increase the availability of decent, safe and affordable housing.
PHA Goal: Expand the supply of assisted housing.
Obiective: Levera~e private or other DubHe funds to create additional housin~.
Because of a new fmaneing authority created by California State Association of Counties,
Page 26 of 41
tonn HUD-5007S-SF (0413012003)
0395
c.r 2i1 Db 41 ct
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI42
S. Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 . 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
developers have generally turned to this financing authority rather than cities or other public
entities. Therefore, there were no opportunities to issue tax exempt bonds during this time
period.
PHA Goal: Improve the quali1y of assisted housing.
Obiective: Improve public housing: management by maintaining a total PHAS score above 90.
The Housing Authority's PHAS scores duri~g the time period are shown below.
2000-83.1%
2001-88%
2002-88%
2003-85%
2004-85%
The primary point loss in the PHAS scoring resulted from vacant unit turnover and problems
resulting from the third party inspections. While the goal was not met, the scores meet a level of
standard.
Obiective: Increase customer satisfaction bv conductinf! a biannual random customer survey.
During this time period, HUD implemented a resident satisfaction component as a part of the
PHAS system and conducted random mailings to the Housing Authority's public housing tenants
. which provided feedback on customer satisfaction.
Obiective: Renovate or modernize uubHe housing: units by efforts to reulace 20 roofs and
renovate bathrooms in 50 units. During the time period, the Housing Authority completed the
re-roofing, nine bathroom remodels and individual unit renovations and miscellaneous additional
repairs.
HUD Strategic Goal: Improve community quality of life and economic vitality.
PHA Goal: Provide an improved living environment.
Obiective: ImDlement measures to deconcentrate oovertv bv bringing higher income oubHe
housing households into lower income develouments;
The Housing Authority used rent ranges as one of the criteria in selecting tenants for occupancy.
Obiective: Imulement DubHc housing security imurovements. The Housing Authority completed
replacement of the exterior project lighting with higher intensity and lower energy lighting._
Obiective: Desif!t1ate develooments or building:s for oarticular resident lZTOUUS (elderlv. persons
with disabilities): After reviewing the regulatory requirements to designate units as elderly or
for persons with disabilities, staff detennined that it was not feasible to meet the threshold
requirement that there be a showing of sufficient housing for disabled families in the community .
Practically speaking, the units are generally occupied by elderly and disabled persons.
PHA Goal: Promote self-sufficiency and asset development of families and individuals.
Page 27 of 41
form HUD-50075..sF (04/3012003)
0396
421 on t.1'1 ~.
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CA142
S.Ycar Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
Obiective: Provide or attract services to improve assistance redDient's emDlovabilitv. The
Housing Authority worked with Kidango to encourage the use of the child care center by Arroyo
Vista residents through marketing and recruitment.
PHA Goal: Ensure Equal Opportunity in Housing for all Americans
Obiective: Undertake affinnative measures to ensure access to assisted housing regardless of
race. color. reli ~ion. national origin. sex. familial status and disability bv reviewing all marketing
materials and wait list procedures to ensure no adverse impact on any Darticular grOUps. The
Housing Authority routinely reviews the demographics of applicants and program participants to
determine if they are represented in the numbers expected based on the demographics of the City
of Dublin's population and the program eligibility requirements. Wait list openings, in
particular, were carefully planned to ensure that all groups were informed of the opening and
community based organizations were solicited to provide services to groups least likely to apply.
In addition, the Housing Authority expanded its non-English language services both in the.
languages clients were most likely to use and through the use of outside resources for the less
common non-English languages.
. Obiective: Undertake affirmative measures to provide a suitable living environment for families
living in assisted housing. rel!ardless of race. color. religion. national origin. sex. familial status
and disabilttY by developing plans to address anv t'roblerns/issues uncovered in the review of
marketing materials assist clients in addressinl! discrimination complaints through referrals to
fair housing organizations.
Housing Authority staff ensures that all clients are aware of their fair housing rights by posting
materials in the lobby and including fair housing infonnation in Housing Authority documents
and in the Housing Authority calendar. The Housing Authority also works closely with fair
housing organizations to investigate and address any discrimination complaints.
Obiective: Undertake affirmative measures to ensure accessible housing to persons with all
varieties of disabilities rel!'ardless of unit size required by cOffiDletinl! accessible renovations of at
least 5% of the public housinl! units.
The Housing Authority completed accessible renovations of 5% of the public housing units as
planned and modified policies to ensure that all program clients were aware of their right to
request a reasonable accommodation to access the Authority's programs.
B. Criteria for Substantial Deviations and Sitmificant Amendments
(1) Amendment and Deviation Definitions
21.q~.l~,~.?~3:~(r~.... .......,."....r.........,.......,.........;. . ... ...
PHAS are requ~ed to d~fine' and aC:Io~ theu own standards of SUb~!ll~l deVIation from the 5-year PJan' .
and Significant .#endIiie~t ~ tlie ~i1ElI Pl~::' The'definition of signi~cant amendment. i~ iinPo~t ..
beCause it defineS when th~.Pl:iA..Wil1.su~ject ~ change' to. the poI1cies. or ac~ivities described in the Annual
}llan'tp full publi<; hearing.anr{trr)D.r~ieW beforejmpJ~D;1e.n"u\tion. . . . ,
a. Substantial Deviation from the 5-Year Plan:
. Changes to eligibility for admission policies;
Page 28 of41
form HUD.50075-SF (04/3012003)
0397
Lt2-e "bQ LfCtct
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Auth<lrity
HA Code: CA142
5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 . 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
. Any change with regard to demolition or disposition, designation, homeownership
programs, or conversion activities.
b. Significant Amendment or Modification to the AIUlual Plan:
. Changes to eligibility for admission policies;
. Any change with regard to demolition or disposition, designation, homeownership
programs, or conversion activities.
c. Other Information
[24 CFR Part 903.13,903.15]
(1) Resident Advisory Board Recommendations
a. i:8J Yes 0 No: Did the PHA receive any comments on the PHA Plan from the
Resident Advisory Board/5?
If yes, provide the comments below:
Dublin Housing Authority
Resident Advisory Board Meeting
March 26,2007, 1:00 P.M.
Summary
Resident Advisorv Board Members Present: Staff Present:
Suzanne Robinson Ron Dion. Deputy Director for Prol!rams
Loy Costello Mary Rizzo-Shuman, Leasing & Property Services
M2nr
Margie Newman Arrovo Vista Manal/:er
Resident Advisorv Board Members Absent:
Shawn Costello
Carolvn Evans
Mr. Dion began the meeting by stating that the DHA PHA Plan describes the basic policies, and roles and
. requirements concerning DHA operations, programs, and services.. The 5- Yr. and Annual Plans must be updated
and submitted to HUD each year. Mr. Dien stated that the purpose oftoday's meeting was to seek the Resident
Advisory Board's (RAB's) input.
Copies of the updated Plans had been distributed to the'RAB last week along with a summary of changes from last
year's amended Plans entitled "PHA Plan Substantive Changes". Mr. Dion highlighted the main changes to the
Plans set forth in the PHA Plan Substantive Changes document. These include:
. Adding that DHA has incorporated the applicable provision of the Violence Against Women Act into
its Admission and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP);
. Adding "Changes to eligibility for admission policies"; and "Any change with regard to demolition or
disposition, designation, homeownership programs, or conversion activities" as substantial deviations
from the 5.Yr. Plan; and
. Adding that the PHA will be conducting other public housing development or replacement activities
not discussed in the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement, namely, submission of a Disposition
Application to dispose of the site to a developer team that will demolish the public housing and rebuild
affordable and market-rate housing.
The RAB had various questions concerning the timing of, and process for, the disposition and redevelopment of
Page 29 of 41
fonn HUD.o001S-5F (04130/2003)
0398
Y-ztt O()~r~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HACode: CA142
5- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
Arroyo Vista, and when Section 8 Vouchers would be made available to them. Staff provided the requested
information to the RAE's satisfaction. The RAB provided no input regarding the 5- Yr. and Annual Plans.
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 P.M..
b. In what manner did the PHA address those comments? (select all that apply)
181 Considered comments, and detennined that no changes to the PHA Plan were
necessary .
D The PHA changed portions of the PHA P Ian in response to comments
List changes below:
D Other: (list below)
(2) Resident Membership on PHA Governing Board
Ttib goveniing board oteach PHA. i~ required to jj~ve at least one member who is directly. assisted by the
PHA, Unless the PHA meets certain exemption criteria... Regulations governing the resident board member
arefound~t74CFRPart964,SubpartE. . ..'.. '. .... ., .
a. Does the PHA governing board include at least one member who is directly assisted by
the PHA this year? .
181 Yes D No: .
If yes, complete the following:
Name of Resident Member of the PHA Governing Board:
· Laurianne Behrens, Tenant Commissioner
. Ramona Frydendal, Sr. Tenant Commissioner
Method of Selection:
i:8J Appointment
The term of appointment is (include the date term expires): Two-year
term expiring 5/31/08
D Election by Residents (if checked, complete next section--Description of Resident
Election Process)
Description of Resident Election Process
Nomination of candidates for place on the ballot: (select all that apply)
D Candidates were nominated by resident and assisted family organizations
D Candidates could be nominated by any adult recipient ofPHA assistance
D Self-nomination: Candidates registered with the PHA and requested a place on
ballot
o Other: (describe)
Eligible candidates: (select one)
D Any recipient ofPHA assistance
Page 30 of 41
form HUD.SQ07S-SF (0413012003)
0399
tf 30 ~ t.fcfi
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
. HA Code: CA142
.s- Year Plan for Fiscal Ye~: 2005 - 2009
AIU1\l81 Plan for FY 2006
o Any head of household receiving PHA assistance
o Any adult recipient ofPHA assistance
o Any adult member of a resident or assisted family organization
D Other (list)
Eligible voters: (select all that apply)
D All adult recipients ofPHA assistance (public housing and section 8 tenant-based
assistance)
o Representatives of all PHA resident and assisted family organizations
o Other (list)
b. If the PHA governing board does not have at least one member who is directly assisted
by the PHA, why not?
o
D
The PHA is located in a State that requires the members of a governing board to
be salaried and serve on a full time basis
The PHA has less than 300 public housing units, has provided reasonable notice
to the resident advisory board of the opportunity to serve on the governing board,
and has not been notified by any resident of their interest to participate in the
Board.
Other (explain):
D
Date of next term expiration of a governing board member:
Name and title of appointing official(s) for governing board (indicate appointing official
for the next available position): City Council of the City of Dublin
(3) PHA Statement of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan
[24CFRP~903.15]. ._.... .. . . .
For each applicalile CO~S9lidl!ted Plan, make th~ following. sta.tement (copy questions as many. tiines as
necessary). ..
CODsolidated Plan jurisdiction: (Alameda County HOME Consortium)
a. The PHA has taken the following steps to ensure consistency of this PHA Plan with the
Consolidated Plan for the jurisdiction: (select all that apply):
~
lZl
lZl
lZl
lZl
The PHA has based its statement of needs of families on its waiting list on the
needs expressed in the Consolidated Plan/so
The PHA has participated in any consultation process organized and offered by
the Consolidated Plan agency in the development of the Consolidated Plan.
The PHA has consulted with the Consolidated Plan agency during the
development ofthis PHA Plan.
Activities to be undertaken by the PHA in the coming year are consistent with the
initiatives contained in the Consolidated Plan. (list below)
Other: (list below)
Page 31 of41
fom1 HUD-5DD75-SF (04/3012003)
0400
t.f'31 6() /..fCt ~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code; CAJ42
S-Yw Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
Other: The PHA plans to submit an application to HUD, by Aprill, 2007, to dispose of
the entire 150 unit Arroyo Vista Project, Development Number CA39-P142-001,
pursuant to Section 18 of the U.S. Housing Act of] 937.
At its July 24, 2006 meeting, the Dublin Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
selected Eden Housing and Citation Homes, non-profit and for-profit developers,
respectively, to redevelop Arroyo Vista as 216 ownership units (since increased to 226)
and 179 affordable tax-credit rental units. Fifteen of the 26 ownership units are to be
affordable; 50 of the 179 affordable tax-credit rental units are to be designated for the
elderly. Eden Housing will apply to HUD for Section 202 funding in order to be able to
target the 50 elderly units to extremely low-income seniors. The development is to
include a computer learning center, a child-care center, tot lots, and a playground.
b. The Consolidated Plan of the jurisdiction supports the PHA Plan with the
following actions and commitments: (describe below)
Part I, Priority Housing Needs, of the Alameda County HOME Consortium
Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan for FY 2005 - FY 2009, lists the following priorities:
Priority: Increase the availability of affordable rental housing for extremely low income,
low income, and moderate income households. The objectives and goals to be pursued
under the priority include the following:
Five-Year Objectives: Promote the production of affordabJe rental housing by
supporting the acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction of units by non-
profit developers. A combination of funds will be used, including federal, state, and
local housing program funds.
Priority: Assist low and moderate income first-time homebuyers. The objectives and
goals to be pursued under tlJ.e priority include the following:
Five-Year Objectives: Provide homeownership assistance through new construction of
housing and down payment assistance programs.
(4) (Reserved)
Use this section to provide any additional information requested by HOD.
10. Proiect~Based Voucher Proe:ram
a. 0 Yes D No: Does the PHA plan to "project-base" ~y tenant-based Section 8 vouchers
in the coming year? If yes, answer the foHowing questions.
b. 0 Yes D No: Are there circumstances indicating that the project basing of the units,
rather than tenant-basing of the same amount of assistance is an appropriate option?
Page 32 of41
form HUD.SOOTS..sF (0413012003)
0401
'-\~ 2Jf) ~q~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing AUlhorily
HA Code: CA 142
5- Year Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
If yes, check which circumstances apply:
- 0 Low utilization rate for vouchers due to lack of suitable rental units
o Access to neighborhoods outside of high poverty areas
o Other (describe below:)
c. Indicate the number of units and general location of units (e.g. eligible census tracts or
smaller areas within eligible census tracts):
11. List of Supporting Documents Available for Review for Streamlined
Five-Year! Annual PHA Plans
PHAs are to indicate which documents ace available for public review by placing a mark in the "Applicable & On
Display" column in the appropriate rows. All listed documents must be on display ifapplicable to the program
b th
activities conducted lV' ePHA.
List of SUDDortinl!: Documents Available for Review
Applicable Supporting Document Related Plan Component
&
On
DisDlav
X PHA. Certifications afCompliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulatio1ll Standard 5 Y till' and
and Board Resolution to A.ccompal1)' the Standard Annual, Standard Five-Year, and Annual Plans; streamlined
Streamlined Five-Year/Annual Plans. S Year Plans
X StatelLocal Government Certification ofConsistencv with the Consolidated Plan. S Year Plans
X Fair Housing Documentation Supporting Fair Housing Certifications: Records S Year and Annual Plans
reflecting that the PHA has examined its programs or proposed programs, identified
any impediments 10 fair housing choice in those programs, addressed or is
addressing those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources
available, and worked or is working with local jurisdictions to implement any of the
jurisdictions' initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing that require the PHA's
involvement.
X Housing Needs Statement of the Consolidated Plan for the jurisdiction(s) in which Annual Plan:
the PHA is located and any additional backup data to support statement of housing Housing Needs
needs for families on the PHA's public housing and Section 8 tenant-based waiting
lists.
X Most recent board-approved operating budget for the public housing program Annual Plan:
Financial Resources
X Public Housing Admissions and (Continued) Occupancy Policy (A&O/ACOP), Annual Plan: Eligibility,
which includes the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan [TSAP] and the Site- Selection, and Admissions
Based Waitiml List Procedure. Policies
Page 33 of41
fonn HUD-50075-SF (0413012003)
0402
t+~~.~ 4'1~
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
HA Code: CAI42
5. Vear PIDn for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
AMual Plan for FY 2006
List of SUDDOrtiu2 Docnments Available for Review
Applicable Supporting Document Related Piau Component
&
On
Display
Any policy governing occupancy ofPolice Officers and Over-Income Tenants in Annual Plan: Eligibility,
Public Housing. 0 Check here if included in the public housing A&O Policy. Selection, and Admissions
Policies
Section 8 AdminiSlrative Plan Annual Plan: Eligibility,
Selection, and Admissions
Policies
X Public housing rent detennination policies, including the method for setting public Annual Plan: Rent
housine: flat rents. n Check here if included in the public housing A & 0 Policy. Determination
Schedule of flat rents offered at each public housing development. Annual Plan: Rent
o Check here if included in the Dublic housing A & 0 Policy. Determination
Section 8 rent determination (payment stlUldard) policies (if included in plan, not Annual Plan: Rent
necessary as a supporting document) and written analysis of Section 8 payment Determination
standard policies.
o Check here if included in Section 8 Administrative Plan.
X Public housing management and maintenance policy documents, including policies Annual Plan: Operations
for the prevention or eradication of pest infestation (including cockroach and Maintenance
infestation) .
X Results oflatest Public Housing Assessment System (pHAS) Assessment (or other Annual Plan: Management
applicable assessment). and Ooerations
Follow-up Plan to Results of the PHAS Resident Satisfaction Survey (if necessary) Annual Plan: Operations
and Maintenance and
Community Service &
Self-Sufficiency
Results oflatest Section 8 Management Assessment System (SEMAP) Annual Plan: Management
and Operations
Any policies governing any Section 8 special housing types Annual Plan: Operations
o check here ifincluded in Section 8 Administrative Plan and Maintenance
Consortium agreement(s). Annual Plan: Agency
IdentificatioD and
Operations! Management
X Public housing grievance procedures Annual Plan: Grievance
n Check here if included in the Dublic housine: A & 0 Policy. Procedures
Section 8 infonnal review and hearing procedures. Annual Plan: Grievance
o Check here if included in Section 8 Administrative Plan. Procedures
The Capital Fund/Comprehensive Grant Program Annual Statement JPerfonnance Annual Plan: Capital
and Evaluation ReDort for any active erant year. Needs
Most recent ClAP BudgetlProgress Report (HUD 52825) for any active ClAP Annual Plan: Capital
arants. Needs
Approved HOPE VI applications or, if more recen~ approved or submitted HOPE Annual Plan: Capital
VI Revitalization Plans, or any other approved proposal for development of public Needs
housinl!:.
Se1f-evaluiltion, Needs Assessment and Transition Plan required by regulations Annual Plan: Capital
implementing Section 504 otthe Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Needs
Disabilities Act. See Pili Notice 99-52 (HA.).
X Approved or submitted applications for demolition and/or disposition of public Annual Plan: Demolition
housinl!:. and DispOsition
Approved or submitted applications for designation of public housing (Designated Annual Plan: Desi8IIation
Housinl!: Plans). ofPuhlic Housinl!
Approved or submitted assessments of reasonable revitalization of public housing Annual Plan: Conversion
and approved or submitted conversion plans prepared pursuant to section 202 of the of Public Housing
1996 HUD Appropriations Act. Section 22 of the US Housing Act of 1937, or
Section 33 of the US Housine: Act of1937.
Documentation for required Initial Assessment and any additional infonnation Annual Plan: Voluntary
required by HUD for Voluntary Conversion. Conversion of Public
Page 34 of41
form HUD.S007S..sF (0413012003)
04C
4'34- "b '-to/I
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authori~
. HA Code: CA 142
5. Y ear Plan for Fiscal Years: 2005 - 2009
Annual Plan for FY 2006
List of Suouortinl! Documents Available for Review
Applicable Supporting Document Related Plan Component
&
00
Duplav
Housini
Approved or submitted public housing homeownership programs/plans. Annual Pllm:
Homeownershio
Policies governing any Section 8 Homeownersmp program Annual Plan:
(Seclion of the Section 8 Administrative Plan). HomeownershiD
X Public Housing Community Service PolicylPrograms Annual Plan: Community
t'f Check here if included in Public Housinl[ A & 0 Policy Service & Self-Sufficiency
Cooperative agreement between the PHA and the TANF agency and between the Annual Plan: Community
PHA and local emnlovment and traininl[ service al[encies. Service & Self-Sufficiency
FSS Action Plan(s) for public housing andlor Section 8. Annual Plan: Community
Service & Self-Sufficiency
Section 3 docwnentation required by 24 CFR Part 135, Subpart E for public Annual Plan: Community
housinl[. Service & Self-Sufficiency
Most recent self-sufficiency (EDISS, TOP or ROSS or other resident services grant) Annual Plan: Community
EmUlt DroRram reDOrts for Dublic housinl[. Service & Self-Sufficiency
X Policy on Ownership of Pets in Public Housing Family Developments (as required Pet Policy
by regulation at 24 CFR Part 960, Subpart G).
o Cheek here if included in the public housinR A & Q Policv.
X The results of the most recent fiscal year audit 0 f the PHA conducted under the Annual Plan: Annual
Single Audit Act as implemented by OMB Circular A-133. the results of that audit Audit
and the PHA's resoonse to any findil12S.
Consortium agreement(s), ifa consortium administers PHA programs. Joint PHA Plan for
Consortia
Consortia Joint PHA Plans QNL Y: Certification that consortium agreement is in Joint PHA Plan for
compliance with 24 CFR Part 943 pursuant to an opinion of counsel on file and Consortia
available for insDection
Other SUDDOrtinl! documents (otltional). List individually. (Soccifv as needed)
Page 35 of41
fonn HUD.50075-SF (0413012003)
0404
12. Cauital Fund Pro2ram ~nd Canital Fund Proeram Renlacement Housin2 Factor Annual
Statement/Performance and Evaluation Renort
Annual StatementIPerformance and Evaluation Report
Canital Fund Pro2ram and Canital Fund Proe:ram Renlaeement Housine: Factor (CFP/CFPRHF) Part I: Summary
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority Grant Type and Number Federal
Capilal Fund Program Grant No: CA39P 142006 FYof
, Grant:
Replacement Housing Factor Granl No: 2006
DOriginal Annual Statement DReserve for Disasters! Emergencies [8IRevised Annual Statement (revision no: 1 )
DPerformance and Evaluation ReDort for Period Endinl!: DFinal Performance and Evaluation Report
Line Summarv bv Develonment Account Total Estimated Cost Total Actual Cost
Orif;!inal Revised Oblil!ated Expended
1 Total non-CFP Funds
2 1406 Operations $273 978 $273.978
3 1408 Management Improvements
4 1410 Administration
5 1411 Audit
6 1415 Liauidated Damaees
7 1430 Fees and Costs
8 1440 Site Acauisition
9 1450 Site Improvement
10 1460 Dwellim! Structures
11 1465.1 Dwelline: Eauioment-Nonexpendable
12 1470 Nondwelline: Structures
13 1475 Nondwelline: EauiDment
14 1485 Demolition
15 1490 ReDlacement Reserve
16 1492 Mavin!! to Work Demonstration
17 1495.1 Relocation Costs
18 1499 Development Activities
19 1501 Collaterization or Debt Service
20 1502 Contine:encv
21 Amount of Annual Grant: (sum oflines 2 - 20) $273.978 $273,978
22 Amount of line 21 Related to LBP Activities
23 Amount of line 21 Related to Section 504 comDliance
24 Amount of line 21 Related to Security - Soft Costs
25 Amount of Line 21 Related to Security-Hard Costs I
26 Amount ofline 21 Related 10 EnerllV Conservation MCilSurcs I I
o
~
o
CJl
Page 36 of 41
form HUD-60076..sF (0413012003)
-+..
\J'o
~
~
+-
~
~
12. Cavital Fund Proeram and Cauital Fund Proeram Replacement Housine Factor Annual
StatementlPerformance and Evaluation Report
Annual StatementJPerformance and Evaluation Report
Capital Fund Program and Capital Fund Program Replacement Housing Factor (CFP/CFPRHF)
Part II: Supportinl! Pal!es
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority Grant Type and Number Federal FY of Grant: 2006
Capital Fund Program Grant No;
CA39P142006
Re1l1acement Housin~ Factor Grant No:
Development Number General Description of Major Work Dev. Acct Quantit Total Estimated Total Actual Cost Status of
NameIHA-Wide Categories No. y Cost Work
Activities
Original Revised Funds Funds
Obli2ated Expended
HA- Wide Operations 14 06 $273 978 $273.978
o
~
o
0)
Page 37 of 41
fonn HUD.5007S-5F (04/30/2003)
~
~
~
~
,.t..
.S)
"
o
tf,::lr..
o
~
13. Capital Fund Proe:ram Five-Year Action Plan
Annual StatementlPerformance and Evaluation Report
Capital Fund Program and Capital Fund Program Replacement Housing Factor (CFP/CFPRHF)
Part In: Implementation Schedule
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authorily Grant Type and Number Federal FY of Grant: 2006
Capital Fund Program No: CA39P142006
ReplllcementHousing Factor No:
Development Number All Fund Obligated All Funds Expended Reasons for Revised Target Dates
Name/HA- Wide (Quarter Ending Date) (Quarter Ending Date)
Activities
Oristinal Revised Actual Original Revised Actual
HA-Wide 9/07 9/09
-t
vJ
.~
.)::.
c5t
-\:.
~
~
Pag9 38 of41
form HUD-5007S.SF (04/3012003)
o
~
o
00
13. Canital Fund Proe:ram Five-Year Action Plan
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan
Part I: Summa
PHA Name: Dublin Housing Authority
Development NumberlNameIHA-
Wide
HA-Wide
Factor Funds
Year 1 Work Statementfar
2005 Year 2
FFY Grant:
PHA FY: 2006
$273,978
Work Statement for
Year 3
FFY Grant:
PHA FY: 2007
$255 000
DOrigiDa15-Year Piau
DRevisioD No:
Work Statement for
Year 4
FFY Grant:
PHA FY: 2008
$237000
Wark Statement for
Year 5
FFY Grant:
PHA FY: 2009
$221 000
~
U'
-.\
01
~
~
~
Page 39 of41
form HUD-50075-SF (04/30/2003)
13. CaDital Fund Proe;ram Five-Year Action Plan
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan
Part II: Su ortin Pa es--Work Activities
Activities Activities for Year:2
for FFY Grant: 2006
Year 1 PHA FY: 06-07
2005 Development Major Work
NamelNumber Cate ories
HA- Wide Operationsl Admin
Total CFP Estimated Cost
Estimated
Cost
$213,978 .
$273,978
Development
NameINumber
HA-Wide
Activities for Year: 3
FFY Grant: 2007
PHA FY: 07-08.
Major Work
Cate ories
Operations! Admin
:;:~:.-,~:,-;.~~~,.,'.. :-..~',,,, ~1:-'~ ....;J
Estimated
Cost
$255,000
$255,000
J;..
\J'l
\f::>
~
1
Q
..ra.
Q
c.o
Page 40 of41
form HU0-50075-SF (0413012003)
c
~
....
o
13. Capital Fund Proe:ram Five-Year Action Plan
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan
Part ll: Su ortin Pa es-Work Activities
Activities for Year :4
FFY Grant: 2008
PHA FY:08-09
Major Work
Cate ories
o erationsl Admin
Activities for Year: 5
FFY Grant: 2009
PHA FY; 09-10
Major Work
Cate ories
o erationsl Admin
Estimated
Cost
$221,000
Development
NameINumber
HA- Wide
Development
NamelNumber
HA-Wide
Estimated
Cost
$237,000
[~ ~.n~ ~j~ I~' ~ '.t~~~' "~~_"~"'''~~J~ ~r:~. ~ j~:I~~~I:-=-_~'~-~~' ~ -'1 ~
$221,000
Total CFP Estimated Cost
$237,000
+
~
~
~
~
~
page 41 of41
fann HUD-S0075-SF (04/3012003)
y 41) 11b 4. 't ~
Response to Comments on the Arroyo Vista Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by City of Dublin
July 9, 2008
Letter 1: Douglas Bright (received June 11,2008)
Comment 1.1: Replacing of wetlands as required by Mitigation Measure BIO I is not an
acceptable mitigation measure unless the damage has been done and undoing damage
would be unfeasible. Replacing wetlands on the Project site is wrong for two reasons: It
is not the intent of an off-site replacement mitigation measure to justify a plan for
destruction, and replacing wetlands will do nothing to mitigate the damage to the human
environment in the area the wetlands would be destroyed. Therefore Mitigation Measure
BIO-l is not an appropriate mitigation measure.
Response: The City's biological consultant (WRA Environmental Consultants
["WRA"]) has conducted a follow up study to determine whether the potential
wetlands identified in the initial biological reconnaissance document meet the
qualifications for wetlands as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Based on this follow up study, WRA has determined that there are no wetlands on
the site. These findings are documented in a letter prepared by WRA which is
included as Attachment 10 to the Environmental Assessment.
Comment 1.2: According to the WRA Biological Assessment (page 18-19),
preconstruction surveys should be undertaken for Pallid Bat roosts prior to demolition if
demolition takes place at any time except September through October. The recommended
mitigation does not include a contingency for this action. The mitigation only concerns
wildlife in the trees to be removed. The WRA report also states that the development has
a potential to impact special-status bird species. The potential impact to Pallid Bat is in
contradiction to this finding and constitutes a significant impact.
Response: This comment is well taken. Mitigation Measure BIO-l (formerly Bio-
2) has been amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure BIO-l: To minimize impacts to nesting birds, including
loggerhead shrike, to Pallid bats, and to sensitive fish species such as
steelhead, prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicants shall:
a) Limit clearing of vegetation and the initiation of construction to the non-
breeding season for loggerhead shrike and other nesting birds which is
between September and January. If these activities cannot be done in the
non-breeding season, a qualified biologist shall perform pre-construction
bird surveys within 30 days prior to construction or clearing of vegetation.
If nesting birds, such as loggerhead shrike, are discovered in the vicinity
of planned development, buffer areas shall be established around the nest
until the nest is vacated. The size and duration of the buffer will depend on
A tt'.lll'lnn.an+ ~
4 'f I "b c.-t "t~
the particular species of nesting bird present and shall be established by a
qualified biologist.
b) Prepare and implement an Erosion Control Plan to minimize pollutants
into Alamo Creek which will avoid impacting sensitive fish habitat.
The Erosion Control Plan shall be reviewed by a qualified aquatic
biologist to ensure that the Plan will adequately reduce pollutants to
avoid impacts to sensitive fish species, such as steelhead.
c) Limit the initiation of construction, tree removal, and building
demolition to the inactive Pallid Bat season in September and October
to avoid impacting bats. If all such work cannot be confined to this
time period, pre-construction bat surveys shall be performed by a
qualified biologist. If bats are discovered in the vicinity of planned
development, buffer areas shall be established around the bat roost
until August 31. The size and duration of the buffer will depend on the
type of roost structure and construction activity, and shall be
established by a qualified biologist.
Comment 1.3: The WRA report notes that a number of mature trees, including at least
one heritage tree, would be removed. This is against the intent of the Heritage Tree
Ordinance to remove this tree, unless there are no alternatives. The proposed
development site is home to scores of mature trees, mostly coast live oak and also
including tall trees along the Dougherty Road frontage. It appears that all but a handful of
redwood trees in the center of the site would be removed. Replacing these trees with
saplings is not adequate mitigation. This is also true for the loss of the noise barrier
offered by the trees along Dougherty Road.
Response: Based on an arborist report completed for the site by Arbor Resources
dated October 10, 2007, only one tree exists on the site that qualifies as a heritage
tree pursuant to Chapter 5.60, Heritage Trees, of the Dublin Municipal Code. The
heritage tree is a redwood tree, with a height of approximately 40 feet, located in
the approximate center of the site. This tree would be removed to accommodate
construction of the new residential development.
Chapter 5.60, Heritage Trees, of the Dublin Municipal Code does allow heritage
trees to be removed from a project site when proposed as part of an application
for development of a site. The loss of a heritage tree is not considered a
significant impact pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The loss of
the tree is considered to be an impact pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Impact Report for Arroyo Vista will include a
discussion of the loss of the tree and may also include a mitigation measure
related to the heritage tree.
The arborist report prepared for the proposed Arroyo Vista project did not identify
coast live oak trees growing on the site. Such trees appear to be within the Alamo
Ll4'2.~ vtq'1/
Creek right-of-way, but not on the site. These trees would not be affected by the
proposed Project.
As noted by the commenter, the existing stand of redwood trees located near the
center of the development at the playground will be preserved as part of the
current development plan. The conceptual landscape plan also shows that new
trees will be planted throughout the site to increase the number of trees and other
plant materials on the site from what currently exists today.
Existing trees along Dougherty Road will be removed to allow for the
construction of the Project including a modified sound wall along Dougherty
Road. Based on the acoustic report prepared for the Project, the existing
Eucalyptus trees provide minimal acoustic buffering for existing residences on the
site. New trees will be planted on Dougherty Road in accordance with the City's
adopted Streetscape Master Plan which identifies appropriate street trees within
the City.
Comment 1.4: Based on pages 25 and 26 of the EA, existing setbacks along Alamo Creek
would be reduced to allow for higher density development. The commenter would like to
see more open space along the east side of Alamo Creek to provide a buffer so that
pedestrians and bicyclists can enjoy the trail. The commenter suggests a IO-foot wide
buffer of native vegetation between the trail and development, except for walkways.
Response: This comment is noted.
Comment 1.5: The commenter would like to see the unattractive chain link fence
bordering the eastern bank of Alamo Creek replaced with more attractive iron fencing or
a comparable alternative.
Response: The existing fence located adjacent to the Alamo Creek is owned and
maintained by Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. Because this fence is not owned by the City and is not a part of the
Arroyo Vista Project, neither the City nor the applicants can replace the fence.
Comment 1.6: In addition to meeting the California Building Code, new construction
should also be required to comply with Chapter 5.61 of the Dublin Municipal Code
which deals with LEED standards and only legally applies to City projects. This would
be true for this Project, since the City owns the land and is more deeply involved with
this Project.
Response: Chapter 5.61, Green Building Practices for City Projects, applies to
City projects which are primarily funded by the City, undertaken on City owned
property or managed by City personnel from design through construction. In this
case, the property is currently owned by the Dublin Housing Authority, not the
City, and it will be sold to the development team of Eden Housing and Citation
Homes Central prior to construction of the Project. Additionally, the primary
Lf l.f"3 ~ LfOl~
funding sources will be secured by the development team from non-City sources;
the City's loan to Eden Housing does not constitute the majority of funds for the
Proj ect.
As a standard condition of approval for all projects within the City, the City will
require the developer to include a greenbuilding checklist with the Building
Permit application. The City also encourages developers to use greenbuilding
measures wherever possible.
Comment 1.7: According to the WRA biological resources assessment, replacement
native trees should be monitored for survivability. The commenter recommends that any
landscaping planted be native to the Dublin area. It would be even better if landscape
plantings would include threatened or endangered species.
Response: Comment is noted. Conceptual landscape plans have been submitted to
the City and will be reviewed for compatibility with the design of the site and the
surrounding area.
Letter 2: The Public Interest Law Project, Comments on the Finding of No
Significant Impact (received June 27, 2008)
Comment 2.1: The proposed Finding of No Significant Impact falls short of NEP A
requirements. A significant category of the EA is the proposed displacement of ISO lower
income minority and families with children from the site.
Response: The EA describes that the current 150 households residing in the
Arroyo Vista project will need to be relocated in order for a greater number of
income-restricted dwellings that are more modem, functional and energy efficient
can be constructed on the site. Existing Arroyo Vista residents will be given
priority for occupancy of the new development once complete. Section 8 vouchers
can be used by existing Arroyo Vista residents upon their return so that the
residents can continue to pay no more than 30% of their income on rent. The City
of Dublin believes that the final EA, with mitigation measures, accurately
concludes that the Project would not have a significant impact on the
environment.
Comment 2.2: The City is urged not to make a finding of no significant impact. The City
has failed to identify, evaluate and analyze all impacts to determine significance of their
effect on the human environment. This includes socio-economic impacts on residents
who will be displaced from the Project.
Response: The EA discloses that the current residents will be required to relocate
from the site. The EA notes that a Relocation Plan will be prepared and approved
in accord with applicable guidelines and requirements to ensure that assistance in
44Y Db qct'6
finding suitable replacement housing is provided. Such a plan was subsequently
approved by the Dublin Housing Authority. Although relocation could prove to be
a hardship on some individual families, it does not rise to a significant impact.
As discussed under Comment 2.1 above, existing residents will have priority to
return to the new development. Additionally, existing residents will be given
Section 8 vouchers which can be used at the new affordable units so their rent will
not exceed their current rent share.
Comment 2.3: The City, the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) and the Alameda County
Housing Authority (HACA) have undertaken several activities that were not authorized
by HUD and are in violation of several federal statutes. Displacement of current residents
has occurred prior to action on the Environmental Assessment.
Response: Part 24, Section 58.34(a)(l) and (8) of the Code of Federal Regulations
specifically permits funds to be spent on environmental studies and engineering
and design work of a project without being in violation of NEP A or otherwise
needing approval from HUD With regard to relocation of current Arroyo Vista
residents, all such relocation activities have been voluntary. All residents who
preferred to remain at Arroyo Vista are still residents there. Thus, no
displacement has occurred to date. Separately, the execution of the Exclusive
Negotiating Rights Agreement and the Disposition and Development Agreement
by the various parties does not constitute activities that violate federal law, as both
documents were expressly conditioned upon compliance with NEP A and approval
by HUD.
Comment 2.4: The City of Dublin and DHA are planning to demolish existing public
housing units at Arroyo Vista and replace them with a mixed income project with a
combination of income restricted and affordable dwellings. The redevelopment calls for
405 dwellings, with 226 being for sale dwellings and 178 rentals, of which 49 would be
restricted to seniors. The statement in the EA that the project will increase the number of
affordable units on the site is misleading both in terms of the number of units as well as
the actual level of affordability.
Response: The EA Project Description notes that the current 150 dwellings are
proposed to be removed to be replaced by up to 378 dwellings, with 193 of these
to be income restricted dwellings (including up to 14 for-sale units as part of the
Citation Homes Central portion of the project). Forty-nine (49) dwellings of this
total would be restricted for low-income senior occupancy.
The proposed project would include 193 income restricted dwelling units which
would result in 43 more affordable units on the site than currently exist today.
Additionally, the new development would provide more affordable housing
opportunities in the City by increasing the number of affordable senior housing
units, the fastest growing population segment in Alameda County, as well as
providing for-sale units which will provide additional opportunities for home
ownership in the City. The project will result in a mixed-income project to
t.f l}6 "b t.-t (1~'
encourage diversity of the population on the site and avoid segmentation of a
population. The new affordable project will significantly upgrade the housing on
the site and will result in a more attractive, pedestrian friendly and safe
environment for families than what is currently present today.
Comment 2.5: Alternative 2 of the EA is described as increasing the number of income-
restricted dwellings. This results in an inaccurate assessment that the project would have
no significant socio-economic impact. Construction of income restricted dwellings will
be dependent on necessary funding for these units. Even if funding is available, there
would be a net decrease in the affordability levels of proposed restricted dwellings with
respect to certain segments of the population.
Response: The EA for Arroyo Vista identifies that the proposed project is a
mixed-income project which includes 179 affordable for-rent dwelling units and
up to 14 for-sale affordable units. The Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) selected
Eden Housing and Citati~n Homes Central as the developers for the proposed
Arroyo Vista project. The City of Dublin, together with the DHA and the
Alameda County Housing Authority (ACHA) has entered into a Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA). Citation Homes Central will construct the for-
sale market-rate portion of the project which will include up to 14 affordable for-
sale dwelling units (based on the total number of market-rate units constructed on
the site).
Eden Housing is a non-profit agency that builds affordable housing projects. The
DDA requires Eden Housing to construct a minimum of 150 affordable dwelling
units to replace the existing units that will be lost as a result of the demolition and
construction of the new project. Alternative 2 actually calls for Eden to construct
178 affordable units on the site. Eden Housing is required to obtain all necessary
funding to construct the affordable units. Should Eden Housing be unable to
secure funding for the construction of the affordable units, a new developer can be
secured which can provide and manage an affordable project which has a
minimum of ISO units.
Comment 2.6: The number of proposed redeveloped units would include 49 senior
restricted units. At full capacity, the Arroyo Vista project was composed ofless thanlO%
senior units and only 3.6% of the DHA waiting list consisted of seniors. Limiting
occupancy of future residents to seniors only will result in a net loss of dwellings to
families with children.
Response: The proposed unit mix, number of bedrooms and occupancy status was
chosen to reflect future demographic changes. The senior sector of the population
is anticipated to be the fastest-growing segment of the population for the
foreseeable future. The website for the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda
County notes that over 100,000 County residents will turn 65 by 2015, double the
recent rate of the growth of this population segment. Also, approximately 22% of
t.l4LP lfb 44(6
the County's homeless population is estimated to be 55 or older. The redeveloped
Arroyo Vista project is targeted to meet this anticipated trend.
Comment 2.7: The reduced size of the restricted units will not accommodate those
households with children or those with disabilities that reside in the Arroyo Vista Project.
The proposed redeveloped project will only include 15 4-bedroom family dwellings, 34
3-bedroom family units and 69-2-bedroom units. The proposed project results in a net
loss of 16 units of adequate size to accommodate Arroyo Vista families with children and
persons with disabilities. Additionally, 89.1 % of families on the DHA waiting list have
children.
Response: The commenter is correct that the redeveloped Arroyo Vista project
will serve a slightly different population than currently served. There is no
requirement in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), the DHA Plan,
the City of Dublin General Plan, or by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) that requires a one-for-one like bedroom replacement for
removal of existing dwelling units.
Prior to establishing the proposed bedroom mix for the affordable component of
the project, Eden Housing reviewed the existing bedroom make-up of the site as
well as the number of residents who qualified for each type of unit. Based on their
review of the existing number of occupants per unit type, Eden Housing found
that several residents were "over-housed" in the development based on HUD
requirements for the number of occupants per the number of bedrooms. The
proposed mix of unit types was established to accommodate the needs of the
existing residents as well as future residents based on the required number of
occupants per bedroom. The proposed project will include one, two, three and
four bedroom units which will accommodate a variety of household sizes, based
on current regulations regarding the number of persons per bedroom.
The new housing development will be constructed to meet the most current
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements in effect at the time of
Building Permit issuance. Today's ADA standards are greater than what was
required at the time of the construction of the existing Arroyo Vista development
(which was constructed prior to enactment of ADA) and will result in a housing
development which will be more accessible than the existing development.
Comment 2.8: Although Alternative 2 in the EA states the Project would be providing
income restricted affordable housing, the proposed future rents are drastically higher than
the income level of Arroyo Vista residents. Arroyo Vista is the only public housing
development in Dublin with average rents of less than $500 per month. Additionally,
residents who want to move back to Arroyo Vista may be denied the opportunity to live
in the new development if families do not have sufficient funds to pay higher rents, the
family size is not suitable for the number of bedrooms in a unit and other factors related
to behavior and credit ratings. Eden Housing is not required to accept existing tenants at
the new development.
1141 un '-felt
Response: The proposed rent structure for the income-restricted dwellings would
likely be higher than currently charged for new residents. The rent charged for the
affordable rental units would be based on the regulations in effect at that time.
Existing Arroyo Vista tenants, who qualify for affordable housing, will be given
priority to move back into the new units once the development is complete, using
their Section 8 vouchers. Section 8 vouchers allow them to continue to pay 30%
of their adjusted income on rent, the same as what they are currently paying
today. The DDA with Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central specifically
requires Eden Housing to give existing residents priority for occupancy in the new
project, if the residents qualify for affordable housing pursuant to regulations in
effect at the time.
It is possible that when the project is complete, that some of the existing Arroyo
Vista residents will no longer qualify for affordable housing based on income
requirements in effect at that time. Any resident who wishes to move back in to
the development will be screened to ensure that they meet income qualifications
and will only be placed in units which they are qualified for. As previously
discussed, there are current residents who are "over-housed" in the existing
development and are occupying units that they are not qualified for (based on the
number of persons residing in the household and the number of bedrooms in the
unit). Both existing and future tenants are required to follow current HUD
regulations for income and the number of persons residing in a unit per the
number of bedrooms.
Returning residents will not be turned away due to bad credit. Eden Housing will
screen returning residents for serious criminal acts and lease violations from the
period they resided Arroyo Vista to their return date. For non-Arroyo Vista
residents, Eden Housing will enforce its standard criteria, which includes
demonstrated ability to pay rent and credit checks. The DDA provides that Eden
Housing will prepare a Rehousing Policy that includes procedures and standards
for returning resident priority and screening and that DHA must approve the
Rehousing Policy before Eden Housing can implement it.
Comment 2.9: The proposed redevelopment does not mirror the existing demographic
character of Arroyo Vista which is more diverse than the population of Dublin. The
proposed redevelopment project will provide a mix of market rate and income restricted
housing that is considerably less affordable than existing units. Also, minorities and
families are overrepresented on the DHA waiting list but underrepresented in Dublin as a
whole. The proposed project will have the effect of forcing minorities with children out
of the City.
Response: The City of Dublin and the DHA comply with state and federal fair
housing laws, so no racial or other discriminatory factors are used or will be used
to select tenants for the Arroyo Vista project. Arroyo Vista residents will receive
4 4 ~ ~ Lfct.C(..
priority for return to the redeveloped Project. Residents can use their Section 8
vouchers at the Project, which means that the units will be affordable to them as
they will pay 30% of their income for rent. The City of Dublin notes that there has
historically been a shortage of suitable housing for low and very low income
households in the Tri- Valley area. There is a possibility that some households
relocated from the current Arroyo Vista project may need to relocate in non-
Dublin and non-Tri-Valley areas; however, this would not be a significant
environmental impact. See also response to Comment 2.8.
Comment 2.10: There are severe shortfalls in the relocation plan adopted by the DHA.
Relocation of existing residents will not mitigate the effect the displacement of residents
will cause. The City apparently concludes that no mitigation is required. Displacement
began before any relocation plan was drafted. Moreover, the relocation plan adopted by
the DHA suffers from severe deficiencies that render it out of compliance with local,
state and federal law primarily because there has been no detailed analysis of individual
needs of residents. There are other deficiencies related to payment of relocation expenses.
Accordingly, the City's assessment ofthe displacement impacts is false. Current residents
will be permanently displaced from Arroyo Vista and some could become homeless ifthe
project is allowed to go forward, A Finding of No Significant Impact is not supported and
must be rejected.
Response: No displacement of residents occurred prior to drafting or adoption of
the relocation plan, and none has occurred to date. All residents who have
relocated from Arroyo Vista have done so voluntarily. The relocation plan
adopted by DHA adequately studies individual needs of households that might be
displaced as a result of the Project as well as the resources available to those
households to mitigate the impacts of displacement. The relocation plan complies
with all applicable laws.
The plan provides for relocation benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of
applicable law. These 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 ISO-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 in the event
of displacement. The relocation plan also demonstrates that the impacts of
displacement will be mitigated by the provision of relocation benefits; therefore,
there is no basis to believe any resident will become homeless.
Comment 3: Verbal Comments Received from Craig Castellanet of the Affordable
Housing Project during the June 3, 2008 City Council meeting
44t1 rtJ~~'t
Comment 3.1: The EA states that there would be no change in demographic character of
the City if the application were approved. There indeed would be substantial changes in
the demographic character of the area, if nothing else than the addition of almost 200
market rate homes.
Response: The addition of market rate homes will not significantly change the
demographic character of the site. While the addition of market rate homes will
allow a second income category onto this site, the number of affordable units on
the site will only slightly increase which will allow slightly more income
restricted households onto the site. Additionally, the balance between income
restricted and market rate income households will create a more cohesive income
type balance on the site.
Comment 3.2: Through the razing and redevelopment of Arroyo Vista, there would also
be a change in the number of seniors housed there, the number of units available for
families with children would decrease, size of the units would decrease in regard to the
four- and two-bedroom homes.
Response: Please refer to the City's responses to Comments 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8
which address these comments.
Comment 3.3: The rents would be substantially higher in the new project. In the
replacement project, the average rent would be $900 a month versus $500 a month now.
Response: The proposed rent structure for the income-restricted dwellings would
likely be higher than currently charged for new residents. The rent charged for the
affordable rental units would be based on the regulations in effect at that time.
Existing Arroyo Vista tenants, who qualify for affordable housing, will be given
priority to move back into the new units once the development is complete, using
their Section 8 vouchers. Section 8 vouchers allow them to continue to pay 30%
of their adjusted income on rent, the same as what they are currently paying
today. The DDA with Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central specifically
requires Eden Housing to give existing residents priority for occupancy in the new
project, if the residents qualify for affordable housing pursuant to regulations in
effect at the time.
It is possible that when the project is complete, that some of the existing Arroyo
Vista residents will no longer qualify for affordable housing based on income
requirements in effect at that time. Any resident who wishes to move back in to
the development will be screened to ensure that they meet income qualifications
and will only be placed in units which they are qualified for. As previously
discussed, there are current residents who are "over-housed" in the existing
development and are occupying units that they are not qualified for (based on the
number of persons residing in the household and the number of bedrooms in the
unit). Both existing and future tenants are required to follow current HUD
y 50 f1b Lfcti
regulations for income and the number of persons residing in a unit per the
number of bedrooms.
Comment 3.4: The Project would also lead to a change in the demographics of the racial
composition because of the association between families of those incomes and different
protected classes and races. There was also substantial impact due to displacement.
ReslJonse: The City of Dublin and the DHA comply with state and federal fair
housing laws, so no racial or other discriminatory factors are used or will be used
to select tenants for the Arroyo Vista project. There is a possibility that some
households relocated from the current Arroyo Vista project may need to relocate
in non-Dublin and non- Tri- Valley areas; however, this would not be a significant
environmental impact. See also response to Comment 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5.
Michael Rawson
Co-Director
Extension 145
mrawson@pilpca.org
Stephen Ronfeldt
Co-Director
Extension 127
sronfeldt@pilpca.org
Deborah Collins
Managing Attorney
Extension 156
dcollins@pilpca.org
Craig Castellanet
Staff Attorney
Extension 132
ccastellanet@pilpca.org
Angie Schwartz
Staff Attorney
Extension 125
aschwartz@pilpca.org
Elizabeth Graber
Legal Assistant
Extension 110
egraber@pilpca.org
Georgie Feltz
Administrator
Extension 101
gfeltz@pilpca.org
.1.
'-+616fJ qqg
The Public Interest Law Pro. ect
The Public Interest Law Project and
California Affordable Housing Law Project
449 -15th Street. Suite 301
Oakland. CA 94612
Phone (510)8~1-9794
Fax (510) 89l-9727
www.pilpca:dfg
June 27, 2008
HAND DELIVERED
RECEIVED
JUN 2 7 200B
DUBLIN PLANNING
.. '
.
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
I
t
. ..
'11< ~
RE: Comments on Notice of Intent to Request Approval of Property
Disposition re Project Known as Arroyo Vista Redevelopment
City Council Public Hearing: July 15, 2008
. -..' ~
.
Bay Area Legal Aid and The Public Interest Law Project submit these
comments on behalf of the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association and Arroyo Vista
residents Rhenae Keyes, Andres Arroyo, Darlene Brown and Elise Veal with
respect to the City's Notice of Intent to authorize Dublin Housing Authority
(DHA) to submit a Request for Approval of Property Disposition of Arroyo Vista
to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s San
Francisco Field Office on or about July 16, 2008. The comments are submitted
pursuant to the City's Notice of Intent to Request Approval of Property
Disposition dated May 28, 2008. We urge the City Council to deny authorization
for DHA to submit a Request for Approval of Disposition of Arroyo Vista to HUD
for the reasons set forth below.
.
1. The City's proposed Finding of No Significant Impact is
unwarranted and conflicts with NEPA and HUD's Regulations at 24 C.F.R.
Part 58. As set forth in our separate comments objecting to the City's Notice of
Finding of No Significant Impact, the City has failed to adequately analyze or
mitigate the significant socioeconomic impacts of disposition and redevelopment
of Arroyo Vista. We hereby incorporate our comments dated June 27, 2008 with
respect to the Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact by this reference. As set
forth in those comments, there is ample evidence that disposition and
redevelopment of Arroyo Vista will result in significant socioeconomic impacts
that have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated. Therefore, a finding of "no
significant impact" is unwarranted and conflicts with the National Environmental
Protection Act and HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 58. An environmental
review that complies with NEP A and HUD's regulations is a prerequisite to HUD
approval of an application for disposition of public housing. See 24 C.F .R.
~970.13. Because an application for disposition must be supported by an
.. .'......
.
r,. ...
. -+ ""
.
.
Attachment 7
1
1
.Q
c2.~
~.b
~.~
I
tfS-2 db L{ tq ~~
environmental review that complies with NEP A and HUD's regulations, it is premature
for the City to authorize DHA to request approval of an Application for Disposition. An
Environmental Impact Statement, rather than a Finding of No Significant Impact must be
completed.
2. Parties to the Arroyo Vista Redevelopment Project have committed
funds, incurred costs and undertaken activities to dispose of Arroyo Vista, without
prior HUD approval of DBA's Application for Disposition, including approval of
environmental review. In addition, the City, DHA, and the Alameda County Housing
Authority (HACA), all parties to a Disposition and Development Agreement entered into
with Eden Housing and Citation Homes in July 2007 ("DDA"), have committed funds,
incurred costs and/or undertaken activities that were not authorized by HUD in violation
42 U.S.C. ~1437p, 24 C.F.R. Part 970, and 24 C.F.R. Part 58 including:
a. The City. DHA. and HACA entered into a contact for sale of Arroyo Vista
in Julv 2007 without prior HUD approval of an application for disposition. Entering into
a contract for sale of public housing without prior written approval from HUD is
prohibited by 24 C.F.R. ~970.7 and 970.25. The DDA requires DHA to convey property
to Eden Housing and Citation Homes on a set time line following steps that DHA
contractually guaranteed. See DDA ~2.7. Though the DDA purports to condition such
conveyance on HUD approval (DDA ~12.1), DHA already exercised its discretion with
respect to all terms and conditions of the sale. Furthermore, even if HUD disapproves the
application, the sale is not canceled. Instead, DHA committed to "diligently pursue HUD
approval" as required for sale ''until all disposition requirements... are satisfied." DDA
~~4.1, 6.1(a). There is no provision in the DDA for HOO disapproval. Moreover, the
Application for Disposition already submitted to HUD in August 2007 misrepresents to
HUD that a contract of sale would be entered into "90 days" after HUD approval of
disposition when, in fact, DHA, the City, and HACA had already entered into a contract
for sale in July 2007. See Application to HOO, ~5, line 13.
b. DHA submitted an Application for Disposition of Arroyo Vista to Hoo
on or about August 15. 2007 well in advance of any authorization from the City to seek
such approval. As is evidenced by the City's Notice of Intent to "authorize" DHA's
Request for Approval of Disposition and its Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact
dated May 28, 2008, the City has not yet completed an environmental review or
authorized DHA to request approval of disposition. The City Council's hearing on the
FONSI will not occur until July 15, 2008, and it must consider and respond to public
comments in connection with its proposed FONS!. The very earliest that the Council
could and has indicated it will authorize DHA to request approval from HUD is July 16,
2008. Without awaiting the City's authorization, DHA sought HUD approval of an
Application for Disposition in August 2007.
it
. .
c. DHA committed to a below market sales price in the DDA in advance of
securing any appraisal of Arroyo Vista and without accounting for use of the net proceeds
of the sale. As part of an Application for Disposition, DHA is required to submit an
appraisal of the property and certify that the "net proceeds" of the disposition will be
;J. c
.;J.cA
~.. -e.... .
LiS?6/) ~
used to retire outstanding obligations for the property, the provision of low-income
housing, or to benefit residents of DHA. 42 U.S.C. ~1437p(a)(5); 24 C.F.R. ~970.7,
970.19. DHA purports in its Application to justify sale of the property at below market
value due to the purported need for a mixed finance development. DHA Application for
Disposition at ~6, Line 1. At the time the DDA was entered into and the Application was
submitted, however, DHA had failed to even secure an appraisal of the property much
less submit one to HUD. Id. at g8, Line 5. An appraisal secured after-the-fact on
October 28, 2007 indicates there is a tremendous amount of equity in the property for
which the Application does not account. Omission of key information regarding sale of
the property for below market value and use of funds to be derived from the sale of the
property is a central omission that fails to comply with ~1437p(a)(5), HUD's regulations,
and denies residents the opportunity to participate in any decision regarding use of the
equity in the property.
~ ..
d. DHA and HAC A relocated 60 households without prior HUD approval of
an Application for Disposition and without a relocation plan. notice. or relocation
assistance mandated by federal and state law. DHA's relocation of Arroyo Vista
residents prior to HUD approval of an application for disposition is prohibited by 42
U.S.C. ~1437p(a)(4). See Arroyo Vista Tenants Association v. City of Dublin, 2008
LEXIS 41174 (N.D. Cal. 5/22/08). When DHA submitted its Application for
Disposition to HUD in August 2007, it had already displaced 12 households; by the time
DHA adopted a relocation plan, it had already displaced 60 households. See DHA's
Cover Letter accompanying DHA Application to HUD and DHA's June 3, 2008 Agenda
Report ctt page 9. HACA provided Section 8 vouchers to assist DHA in displacing
residents, and the City committed funds to assist in relocating residents in the DDA.
DDA at pp. 50-51 (~~3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2). By displacing residents in advance of HUD
approval, the City, DHA, and HACA deprived Arroyo Vista residents of their rights to
notice and relocation assistance under federal law. By displacing residents in advance of
adopting a relocation plan, the City, DHA, and HACA have deprived residents of their
rights to a relocation plan, notice, and relocation assistance mandated by state law (Govt.
C. ~7260 et seq.; 25 C.C.R. ~6000 et seq.). Though DHA claims that residents have been
"voluntarily" relocated, "voluntary" displacement is not permitted. The only exception to
providing notice to residents is in cases of "imminent threat to health and safety." 42
U.S.c. ~1437p(a)(4)(A); 24 C.F.R. ~970.21(e)(1).
~
.
e. DHA removed 60 public housing units from the market without prior
HUD approval of an Application for Disposition. DHA is required to refrain from taking
any action to dispose of the property without prior HUD approval and is required to
"continue to meet its obligations to maintain and operate the property as housing for low-
income families" until it has such approval. 24 C.F.R. ~~970.7, 970.25. Since at least
August 2007, as residents have been displaced, DHA has boarded up and refused to re-
rent vacant units at Arroyo Vista. When an application for disposition is "pending"
before HUD, a housing authority may refrain from renting units. However, DHA's
Application for Disposition has remained incomplete for nearly a year and remains
incomplete, still lacking an environmental review. Accordingly, DHA has unlawfully
removed and refused to re-rent public housing units for nearly a year.
.
;J.F
3
4-6 ~~L.fqt6
,
..
f. The City advanced local funds to Eden Housing in December 2007
without HVD approval of an Application for Disposition. including approval of the
City's environmental review. The acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, lease, repair,
and construction activities involving disposition of public housing, including the
commitment of HUD or local funds to such activities, requires prior HVD approval. 42
V.S.C. 91437p; 24 C.F.R. 99970.4, 970.7. On December 18, 2007, the City Council
approved a loan to Eden Housing of $325,000 to pay for environmental review costs in
connection with disposition and redevelopment of Arroyo Vista. These costs were to be
borne by the developers pursuant to the terms of the DDA. DDA 992.9,2.10. IfHVD
disapproves the application for disposition, the $325,000 loan to DHA will be "forgiven,"
and the City rather than the developers will bear the cost of the environmental review.
See City Council Agenda Packet for December 18, 2007, Agenda Item 4.9. There was no
HUD approval of any application for disposition at the time the City committed local
funds to the project.
For all ofthe above reasons, HUD is without authority under 42 U.S.C. 91437p(a)
to approve DHA's Application for Disposition, and the City should not authorize DHA to
request approval of the Application for Disposition. .
.
3. HUD must disapprove DBA's Application for Disposition of Arroyo
Vista. As discussed above, HUD is without authority to approve DHA's Application for
Disposition. Moreover, it must disapprove an Application for Disposition where it
determines that "any certification made by the public housing agency . . . is clearly
inconsistent with information and data available to [HUD]. . .. 42 V.S.C. 91437p(b)(I);
24 C.F.R. 9970.29. It also must disapprove an application that ''was not developed in
consultation with . . . residents who will be affected by the proposed demolition or
disposition [and] each resident advisory board and resident council . . . affected by the
proposed demolition or disposition. . .." 42 V.S.C. 91437p(b)(2); 24 C.F.R. 9970.9.
DHA's Application was not developed in consultation with Arroyo Vista residents and
certifications in its Application for Disposition are inconsistent with information we
made available to HUD on November 2, 2007, December 20, 2007, January 30, 2008,
and May 27, 2008. See Exhibits A, B, C and D attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference. For those same reasons, the City Council should not authorize DHA to
request approval of its Application for Disposition of Arroyo Vista, and HVD must
disapprove the Application.
Rather, the City Council should encourage DHA to withdraw its Application for
Disposition, cease the displacement of Arroyo Vista residents, and fully comply with
state and federal laws regulating the disposition of public housing and displacement of
residents.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments, and we look forward to
your written response.
Very truly yours,
L1SS uo~t
BAY AREA LEGAL AID
CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW PROJECT
OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
BY:~
Deborah Collins
Encs.
Y. Sl.P Ltb ~~ct.
EXHIBIT A
11/02/07 LETTER TO HUD
Ramon P. Arim
Executive Director
4.51UbLM~.
,
AREA
LEGAL
AID
WORKING "rOGE''rIH.E:R FOR J:l!'ST'fCE:
November 2, 2007
Alphonso Jackson
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20410
By fax (202) 708-2476
Ainars Rodins
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Special Applications Center
77 W. Jackson Blvd., Room 2401
Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
By fax (312) 886-6413 and email Ainars.Rodins@hud.gov
Kim Kendrick
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W.,
Washington, DC 20410
Re: Disposition Application from Dublin Housing Authority for Arroyo Vista,
Submitted to HUD Special Applications Center on August 15,2007
Dear Mr. Jackson, Mr. Rodins, and Ms. Kendrick:
We represent Rhenae Keyes, Andres Arroyo, Darlene Brown and Elise Veal, low-income tenants
who currently reside in the Arroyo Vista public housing development operated by the Dublin
Housing Authority (DHA). We also represent the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association.
We request that HUn consider the following comments regarding the Dublin Housing
Authority's application for the demolition or disposition of units located at the Arroyo Vista
housing development.
Alameda County Regional Office
405 14th Street, 11th Floor
OaklOnd. CA 94612
The Dublin Housing Authority's disposition application suffers from many
shortcomings and is not in the best interest of the residents or the Dublin
Housing Authority. These shortcomings include prematurely entering into
transactions with developers, conflicting with DHA's own annual and five-
year plans, not creating a relocation plan, failing to consult properly with
residents, and not submitting an appraisal or environmental review. DHA's
Phone: 510.663.4744
Toll Free: 800.551.5554
Fax: 510.663.4740
. www.baylegal.org
iI"=LSC
Serving the counties of Alamedo, Contra Cosla, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Moreo, and Santa Clora
Lt?~ 0fJ Lf ct~
Page 2
November 2, 2007
application for demolition/disposition should be denied because:
(a) DHA failed to satisfy statutory requirements for disposition,
(b) DHA failed to submit a complete disposition application to HUD, and
(c) DHA failed to comply with its obligations and certification with respect to civil rights
laws by failing to affmnatively further fair housing and by proposing to take actions
which would disparately impact African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans and
families with children.
Based upon these short comings and the additional data provided below, HUD should not
approve DHA's application for disposition of Arroyo Vista, 42 D.S.C. 9l437p(b).
BACKGROUND
Arroyo Vista consists of 150, well maintained detached single family homes in Dublin,
California, a city of about 35,581 in the San Francisco Bay Area. 1 Over 300 residents live in the
development which consists of numerous tree-lined cul-de-sacs covering 22.9 acres. The units
themselves are a mix of 16 one-bedroom, 78 two-bedroom, 32 three-bedroom, and 24 four-
bedroom homes. Each ofth.ese homes has a lawn and backyard. Catering to the predominance
of families with children, the center of the complex contains a community center with day care
center, a playground, and basketball courtS,2
DHA proposes to remove these 150 units of occupied public housing to replace them with 405
residential units - 210 market rate "for sale" homes, 16 affordable "for sale" homes, and 179
rental units, 49 of which are proposed to be reserved, with Section 202 funding, for seniors.
These new rental units have proposed rents starting at $471 for 52 extremely low-income one-
bedroom units and range to $1307 per month for five low-income three bedroom units, set
according to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program.
On July 17, 2007 DHA prematurely entered into a binding Development Agreement for Arroyo
Vista with developers ofthe proposed new housing development. Without any prior approval,
DHA has relocated between 15-20 families from Arroyo Vista, and boarded up their now-vacant
units making them unavailable for occupancy. We have been informed that the relocated
residents are mainly elderly residents who have moved to senior housing in Dublin. Relocation
has begun prior to completing a relocation plan or even a survey of residents' relocation needs.
DHA claims that Housing Authority ofthe County of Alameda (HACA) has set aside 150
Section 8 vouchers for families who will be forced to leave Arroyo Vista, It is not clear what
authority, if any, HACA has to allocate its vouchers for the putpose of relocation of Arroyo Vista
Residents. HACA's current Administrative Plan makes no provision for such priority use of
vouchers over current waitlist applicants.3 .
The application for disposition was developed by DHA without consultation of the residents of
1 Arroyo Vista is described in the Alameda County HOME Consortium's FY05-09 Consolidated Plan; viewed at
http://www.acgov.org/cda/hcdlconsolidated.htm.
2 Photos of the development will be sent via email and under separate cover in hard copy.
3 HACA's Administrative can b~ fOWld at http://www.haca.net/haca/pdf/adminplan.pdf.
'lt5t4OU t1~'6
Page 3
November 2, 2007
Arroyo Vista, No .offer .of sale was made to the resident organization .or other eligible
organizations that might preserve the property.
Accarding to DHA' s Five-Year Plan, there are 267 families an the waiting list far housing at
Arroyo Vista.4 Of these families, 73.8% (197 families) have extremely low incomes, and 89.1 %
(.or 238) have children, while only 3.7% (or 10) are elderly. The prapased development to
replace Arroyo Vista does not match the needs of the residents on the waiting list or current
residents.
HUD SHOULD NOT APPROVE DHA's APPLICA TJON FOR DISPOSITION OF ARROY A VISTA BECAUSE
DHA CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT THE DISPOSITION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS AND
THE PHA
The laws governing the disposition of public housing layout the standards for approving an
application. In this case, DHA may only dispose of Arroyo Vista when it has determined that the
disposition is:
(i) in the best interests of the residents and the public housing agency; (ii) consistent with
the goals of the public housing agency and the public housing agency plan; and (iii)
otherwise consistent with this subchapter. . .
42 U.S.C. ~1437p(2)(B). DBA's application to HUD for dispositian fails ta point to any .official
act of the agency making such a determination, other than the applicatian itself. The proposed
disposition shauld be denied because it is nat in the best interest of the residents or DHA, and
therefore is inconsistent with the statute.
DiSTJosition is not in the Best Interest of the Residents
DHA's application is not in the best interest of residents. As proposed, disposition will eliminate
the residents' long-term, stable tenancies. While the application states that families will receive
vouchers to relocate, the application and supparting documents do nat provide far the use of
vouchers in the Dublin area. This problem must be addressed. in any dispositian plan .or the
relocatian plan.
Furthermore, the redevelopment plans for Arroyo Vista include Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LillTC) units, but those units, at best, are only required to be affordable to people who
earn no more than 60% ofthe area median income (AMI). In fact, 64% of Arroya Vista's
current residents make less than 30% AMI. Thus the replacement units will not be affordable to
the current residents. 5
4 DHA's Five Year Plan is available at http://www.haca.netJhaca/pdf72005-2009_5-YearPlanVersion2007_
dublin.pdf.
5 LIHTC housing is not an easy replacement for public housing. On the one hand, residents of public housing may
be too poor to reside in LIHTC properties as their income is so low that rents set at 30% of 60% of AMI is not
affordable. On the other side, LIHTC housing is not targeted to those higher income public housing residents, those
who eam more than 60% of AMI.
y (d) cfb t.{ qC{
Page 4
November 2, 2007
The application does not indicate that there would be appropriate unit sizes available to current
Arroyo Vista residents or families on the waiting list. For example, 83% of current Arroyo Vista
residents are composed of families of2 or more; 56%, 3 or more. And for those on the waitlist
for public housing, 36% need a four bedroom apartment. The proposed redevelopment will not
meet the needs of the current residents. It proposes to increase one bedroom units by 430%,
decrease two bedroom units by 11 %, increase three bedroom units by only 5%, and decrease
four bedroom units by 60%. Furthermore, while only 13 current Arroyo Vista residents are
elderly, and there are only ten elderly persons on the waitlist, DHA proposes to replace 49 units
with housing restricted to senior occupancy only. Simply put, without assurance that a
redevelopment plan will commit to units that are the appropriate size for the needs of the current
residents, disposition is not in their best interests.
Current residents will also suffer if they are forced to relocate using vouchers because housing
affordable to extremely low income families is not available in Dublin. According to the city's
Housing Element plan, the average rent in Dublin ranges from $1350 for a one-bedroom
apartment to $2495 for a four-bedroom home. The fact that this is an expensive rental area is
confirmed by the payment standard for the area which is set at 120% of the fair market rent. 6
According to the City of Dublin itself, only 3% of its housing is potentially affordable to very
low-income families and as of October 24, 2007, the Housing Authority of the County of
Alameda's internet rental listings search found only two available apartments in Dublin.
Disposition is not in the Best Interest of the Dublin Housing Authority
The application fails to establish that the disposition is in the best interest of DHA. DHA
justifies its application for disposition by claiming that the upkeep for Arroyo Vista is too
expensive. DHA has shown no evidence that maintenance is an unmanageable burden or that the
current operating subsidies fail to allow for adequate management and maintenance. In fact, the
most recent Consolidated Plan describes the property as "well-maintained." While DHA notes
that it operates with an annual Capital Fund grant of $273,978, DHA does not demonstrate that
the amount is insufficient to maintain the premises, or that there are not other cost effective ways
to increase the funds available to make capital improvements to the existing buildings. It
continues to say it does not have the funds itself to redevelop the property, but never explains
why the property needs to be completely redeveloped. In fact, as recently as in its 2006 Annual
Plan, DHA discussed making regular improvements such as energy efficient sliding glass doors,
installing ceiling fans, and parking maintenance. In the past years, DHA has used capital funds
to improve sidewalks, repair landscaping, renovate kitchens, and perform other routine
6 Generally, payment standards are set at between 90-110% of fair market rent In order to set the payment standard
at 120%, a PlIA must get special approval fromHUD. 24 C.F.R. ~~ 982.503(c)(4) states thatHUD will only
approve this higher payment standard: "(A) To help families find housing outside areas of high poverty, or (B)
Because voucher holders have trouble finding housing for lease under the program within the term of the voucher."
Thus, the fact that Dublin has a payment standard at 120% of the fair market rate is significant because it
demonstrates that voucher holders have demonstrated difficulty leasing up in the area or that a higher payment
standard is necessary to allow for deconcentration of poverty. Thus, we can expect Arroyo Vista residents to have
the problems leasing up in the area or that disposition of their homes will reduce housing opportunities in areas
outside of high poverty.
4ft> l 00 lfq~
Page 5
November 2, 2007
maintenance. Thus, there is no evidence that disposition would be in the best interest ofDHA.
BUD SHOULD NOT APPROVE DHA' S APPLICA nON FOR DISPOSITI ON OF ARRaY A VrST A BECAUSE
DHA HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE APPLICA TION FOR DISPOSITION
In order for BUD to approve a disposition, the PHA must meet a number of criteria, as listed in
both 42 V.S.C. gl437p and agency regulations at 24 C.P.R. 9970.7. DHA has failed to meet a
number of these criteria.
DHA prematurelv entered into a Development Agreement with Citation Homes and Eden
Housing
The first section ofthe regulation forbids any transaction on a disposition without prior written
approval ofHUD. If a PHA violates that rule, they will not receive any funds from HUD for the
disposition of the property. DHA admits that it has taken action inconsistent with this regulation
in their application, line 13, where the agency explains that it has already signed a disposition
sales contract where that step is not permissible until after HUD approval of the application. In
this case, DHA entered into a Development Agreement, not only without written permission to
do so, but without even having completed basic components of its application for disposition.
This action violates 24 C.F.R. g970.7(a).
The disoosition avolication is inconsistent with PHA annual and five-vear olano or
Alameda Countv's consolidated TJlan
The regulations at 24 C.F.R. g970.7(a)(1) also require that the disposition application "is
identical" with the PHA annual plan. DHA's 2007 Annual Plan provides:
As set forth in the PHA's 5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2005-2009, the PHA plans to
submit an application to HOD, by April, 2007, to dispose of the entire 150 unit Arroyo
Vista Project. . . Eden Housing and Citation Homes, a non-profit and for-profit
developer, respectively, have been selected as the development team to develop 179
affordable rental units and 26 for-sale units, 15 of which will be affordable, on the site. . .
This statement varies considerably from the proposed disposition. First, the Development
Agreement for Arroyo Vista states that 210 for-sale units will be built, not just 26. Second, the
Annual Plan is unclear, in that only the amended 5-year plan discusses disposition; in the original
plan, staff assured residents that they were not seeking disposition. These regulations are meant
to ensure a fair process in a prospective disposition and these inconsistencies highlight the lack
of candor by DHA.
Each housing authority must also certify each year, according to 24 C.F.R. ~ 903.15, that its
Annual Plan is in accordance with its Consolidated Plan. DHA in its 2007 Annual Plan statement
of consistency with the Consolidated Plan, claims that its actions increase the availability of
affordable rental housing for extremely low income, low income, and moderate income
households. The housing authority claims that it is promoting new construction of units by non-
profit developers, a goal articulated in the Consolidated Plan. However, the Consolidated Plan
LfIo2.DVt{?f(
Page 6
November 2,2007
itself provides more context. The section to which DHA refers, Part I of the Strategic Plan, states,
"[o]ver 75% of extremely low income renters have difficulty finding housing that they can afford.
Almost all (95%) extremely low income renters with large families have problems finding
affordable housing.,,7 The majority of proposed rentals will be LlliTC or senior units so these
units will not serve extremely low income renters or renters with large families. Thus, DHA's
certification that it is in compliance with the Consolidated Plan is false because the proposed
Arroyo Vista redevelopment will not increase housing opportunities for families in extreme need
of low income housing.
DHA has not created a relocation plan for current Arrovo Vista residents
A PHA is required to create a relocation plan for current residents ofthe development proposed
for disposition. DHA acknowledges in its application that it has yet to submit a relocation plan,
as it has contracted with the consultants, Overland, Pacific & Cutler to create one. Despite the
lack of relocation plan, DHA has already started relocating residents. While DHA says that it
has told those residents that they do not yet have to move, but may choose to do so, there is no
evidence that they have complied with 42 U.S.C. ~1437p(4), which sets forth a minimum
number ofrelocation requirements. For example, DI:IA must give residents 90 clay notice prior
to displacement, offer comparable housing that meets housing quality standards and is located in
an equally desirable area, and provide relocation expenses and assistance. Moreover, DHA has
not complied with the more stringent relocation requirements of state law, the California
Relocation Assistance Act (Govt. C. 997260 et seq.).
DHA did not lJroperlv consult with residents with regard to oroposed disposition
When considering disposition of a development, 24 C.P.R. g970.9 requires the local housing
authority to develop the plan in consultation with residents. DHA claims that it has consulted
with residents by mailing newsletters and holding public meetings. None ofDRA's supporting
documents suggest that there was actual consultation, but instead show that it simply
disseminated information. For example, the newsletters attached to the application for
disposition describe residents asking whether or not they must move immediately, but do not
suggest that any actual input was requested from the residents. When residents inquired about
redevelopment during comments to the 2006 Annual Plan, DHA staff told them that there were
no plans for disposition and demolition and that no decision could be made without an
amendment to the Annual Plan and "public hearing on the matter." Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines consultation as asking the advice or opinion of someone. 8 The definition does not
contemplate the mere act of informing tenants of what DHA is doing. DHA has not properly
consulted with current residents of Arroyo Vista, many of whom will be left struggling to find
appropriate housing if disposition is approved.
Residents have a right of first refusal to purchase any property that a PHA would like to dispose
of. DHA never even took the first step to provide residents with notice that Arroyo Vista was for
sale. It argues that the resident council disbanded in mid-2006. However, prior to this time that
7 Alameda County FY 05-09 Urban County Strategic Plan can be viewed at
htlp:/lwww.acgov .org/cda/hcd/docum.ents!Urban%20County%20Stategic%20Plan%202005.pdf
8 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at htm:llwww.m-w.com/dictionarv/consu1t.
4<o~~LfCf6
Page 7
November 2, 2007
the council disbanded, DHA was already requesting bids from developers as it simultaneously
researched rehabilitation. While the application does not note the date that the request was sent
out, it does note that residents were shown the proposals from various developers, suggesting
that the DHA had every opportunity to offer Arroyo Vista to residents, but did not. Nor did
DHA inform the resident council that it should continue meeting because of the pending decision
on disposition. Moreover, DHA's board officially recognized the resident organization pursuant
to 24 C.F.R. part 964, as an eligible resident organization. There is no exception in 24 C.F.R.
g970.11 that allows DHA to fail to give notice of the proposed sale ofthe property because DHA
unilaterally determined that the tenant association no longer exists. DHA failed to provide notice
to the officers of the resident association in violation of the regulations.
DHA has not comvleted the required reviews for disposition
DHA also fails to submit either an appraisal or an environmental review. Yet, the premature
Development Agreement provides for the sale of Arroyo Vista for about $12 million. With no
appraisal, setting the sale price of the development is illogical and violates HUD's regulations.
DHA's application for disposition contains serious deficiencies that forsake the notice and
process required for something as .final and serious as disposition of a property.
Disposition of Arrovo Vista is contrary to vublic lJolicy and Con.gressional intent
Finally, DHA's application for disposition of Arroyo Vista is contrary to Congressional and
HUD policy promoting the deconcentration of poverty and creating more family choice in
housing. 42 U.S.C. SI437c-l(d)(3); 42 U.S.C. 1437f(a); 24 C.F.R. S982.353. ill fact, a case
study commissioned by HOD specifically lauds the movement of low-income peofle into
suburban Alameda County from more urban areas such as Oakland and Berkeley. By
displacing residents in Arroyo Vista who will not be able to find adequate housing in the City of
Dublin, a suburb with a high median income, DHA's proposal is contrary to the intent of the
voucher program and legislation such as the Quality Housing and Wark Responsibility Act
("QWHRA"). Thus, for all of the aforementioned reasons, HUD should deny the DHA's
application for disposition of the Arroyo Vista development.
HOD SHOULD DENY DHA' S APPLICATION FOR DISPOSITION OF ARROYO VISTA BECAUSE DHA
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS Willi RESPECT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS BY FAILING TO
AFFIRMA TIVEL Y FURTHER FAIR HOUSING AND BY PROPOSING TO TARE ACTIONS WHICH WOULD
DISPARATELY IMPACT AFRICAN AMERICANS HISPANICS. AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND FAMILIES
WITH CHILDREN
DHA 's Actions have a Discriminatory E(fect
In addition to lacking a basis for disposition of Arroyo Vista and failing to follow statutory and
regulatory guidelines, DHA would violate Fair Housing laws if disposition is to proceed as
planned. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, also known as the Fair Housing Act, prohibits actions
that have a harmful discriminatory effect on members of minori ty groups, even where there is no
9 Center for Urban Policy Research, Case Study of Section 8 Rental Vouchers and Rental Certificates in Alameda
County, California, available at http://www.huduser.org/Publicationslpdf/alameda.pdf
lfU;4-OQ 4,qr(
Page 8
November 2, 2007
discriminatory purpose present. There will be a discriminatory effect if there is a disparate
impact on members of a protected class, such as race. In this situation, the residents of Arroyo
Vista constitute a much a larger of percentage of people of color than are residing in the city of
Dublin. The racial breakdown.of Arroyo Vista residents is as follows:
1 Black/African American: 28%
2 White/Caucasian: 52%
3 American Indian/Alaskan Native: 1%
4 Asian: 15%
5 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander:4 %
6 Latino/Hispanic: 21 %
This must be compared with the racial breakdown of Dublin as a whole:
I Black/African American: 10%
2 White/Caucasian: 69.4%
3 American Indian/Alaskan Native: .7%
4 Asian: 10.3%
5 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: 0.3%
6 LatinolHispanic: 13.5%
For every category, a greater percentage of minorities reside in Arroyo Vista than in the general
population of Dublin. Additionally, Arroyo Vista's redevelopment would disproportionately
impact people of color on the waiting list for public housing. According to DHA's five-year
plan, approved in 2005, over 48% of people waiting for public housing are African American
and there are also disproportionate numbers of Asian and Native American people on the waitlist
when compared to the race of the those families residing in non-subsidized housing in Dublin.
These demographics make it clear that by getting rid of public housing in Dublin, that people of
color will be adversely affected by the disposition. Given the low munbers of minorities in
Dublin, it is likely that the minority residents of Arroyo Vista will not find housing and be forced
to move elsewhere, and thus DHA violates the Fair Housing Act. Also, because it will be
difficult for displaced residents to find housing in the Dublin area, disposition will have the
effect of furthering segregation. .
Families with children will also be significantly impacted by the disposition of Arroyo Vista.
Sixty-three percent of the households in the development are families with children. In fact,
46% of the people living in Arroyo Vista are under 18, with 57% of households composed of3
or more members. On DHA's waitlist, 89% are families with children; 36.6% offami1ies
requested 4 bedroom units. In comparison, Census data shows that only 43% of households in
the City of Dublin are composed of three or more members. Only 15% of the city's housing has
4 bedrooms and the Development Agreement for Arroyo Vista proposes a 60% reduction in such
units. The City of Dublin can not absorb large families with Section 8 vouchers and they will be
forced to look elsewhere for housing. It is clear that there will be a disparate impact on
minorities and families with children ifthe disposition application is approved and thus, DHA, at
a minimum, must prevent such discriminatory effects.
lff.p6 vo 'fCc~
Page 9
November 2, 2007
DHA has failed to affinnativeZv further fair housinz
DHA has a duty not just to avoid discriminatory effect, but also to affirmatively further fair
housing. Section 808 of the Fair Housing Act requires that "the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall [...] administer the program and activities relating to housing and urban
development in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of this subchapter." 42 D.S.C.
g3608(e). PHAs share this duty with HUD, as provided by and Executive Order 11063 and its
implementing regulations. The regulations say that all participants in BUD housing program
must "take all action necessary and proper to prevent discrimination on the basis of race." E.G.
11063 at Part I, 9 101 At a minimum this means that DHA must gather information about
potential racial and socioeconomic effects so that it may make informed decisions. 24 C.F.R. 9
903.7(0).10 QWHRA also requires that PHAs certify that they will affirmatively further fair
housing. 42 U.S.c. g1437c-l(d)(15).1l
Despite its duty to affIrmatively further fair housing, DHA has not obtained any analysis of the
housing market in Dublin. DHA has not determined the racial and class breakdowns of the
residents of Arroyo Vista and compared that to the figures for the City of Dublin; it has not
addressed the fact that the disposition will reduce opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities
and families with children to reside in the Dublin area; it has failed to determine if the loss of
these units will cause the displaced racial and ethnic minorities to re-segregate; and it has not
determined whether it is possible for voucher holders who are minority families or families with
children to fmd and maintain homes in the city of Dublin. It does not appear that DBA has not
in any way engaged in affirmatively furthering fair housing.
CONCLUSION
DHA's application for disposition of Arroyo Vista should be denied for the aforementioned
reasons. There is an acknowledged need for extremely low-income housing in the City of
Dublin and it is necessary to preserve housing affordable for such families in Dublin.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please contact us with any questions. We
also ask that you provide us with a response to our concerns and copy us on any communication
10 The basic duties of the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing are as follows. "Civil rights certification.
(1) ... The PHA also must certify that it will affIrmatively further fair housing.. (3) A PHA shall be considered
in compliance with the certification requirement to affirmatively further fair housing if the PHA .. (i) Examines its
programs or proposed programs; (ii) Identifies any impediments to fair housing choice within those program; (ill)
Addresses those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available; (iv) Works with local
jurisdictions to implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affIrmatively further fair housing that require the
PHA's involvement; and (v) Maintains records reflecting these analyses and actions."
11 In addition to statutory guidance, a number of cases have addressed BUD and PHAs duty to affirmatively further
housing. See, e.g., NAACP, Boston Chapter v. See y of HUD, 817 F.2d 149, 154 (1st Cir. 1987)(rejecting HUn's
argument that it only had a duty to avoid discrimination and noting that this duty includes, among other things, such
actions such as detennining whether a redevelopment will lead to increased segregation); Darst- Webbe Tenant Ass 'n
Bd. V. St. Louis Hous. Auth., 339 F.3d 702, 713 (8th Cir. 2003)(remanding a case challenging a Hope VI
development on the basis that the District Court did not appropriately consider whether the housing authority had
fhlfilled its obligation to affinnafively further fair housing); Shannon v. HUD, 436 F.2d 809,816 (3rd Cir. 1970);
Langlois Y. Abington Hous. Auth., 234 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D. Mass. 2002)(discussing in detail, a PHA's duties under
both Title VIII and the QHWRA).
. .,
%LP Jb tI q~
Page 10
November 2, 2007
to DHA on this matter.
Sincerely,
B~G~
Phillip Morgan
Lisa Greif
Naomi Young
THE CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW
PROJECT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
Craig Castellanet
Deborah Collins
Mike Rawson
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT
Catherine Bishop
Navneet Grewal
cc:
Stephen Schneller
Regional Director
San Francisco Regional Office
600 Harrison St. 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107-1300
Chuck Hauptman
Fair Housing Director
San Francisco Regional Office
600 Harrison St. 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107-1300
~1Db~Cr~
EXHIBIT B
12/20/07 LETTER TO HUD
Raman P. Arias
Executive Diredor
L}(p ~ lib t{bfi
AREA LEGAL AID
WORKING TOGETHER FOR .JUSTICE
December 20, 2007
Dominique Blom
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of Public Housing Investments
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20410
Ainars Rodins
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Special Applications Center
77 W. Jackson Blvd., Room 2401
Chicago,IL 60604-3507
By email Ainars.Rodins@hud.gov
Kim Kendrick
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W.,
Washington, DC 20410
Re: Disposition Application from Dublin Housing Authority for Arroyo Vista,
Submitted to BUD Special Applications Center on August 15,2007
Dear Ms. Blom, Mr. Rodins, and Ms. Kendrick:
Alameda Coon,>, Regional office
405 14th Street, 11th Floor
Oaldond. CA 94612
Thank you for your letter of November 20, 2007 regarding the disposition application for the
Arroyo Vista public housing development. .AB you know. we represent the Arroyo Vista Tenants
Association and individual tenants in the development. Your letter provided initial responses to
some of the particular concerns we raised on behalf of the residents in our letter of November 2,
2007. However, the residents we represent wish to strongly express to the
Department that the proposed disposition is not in their best interest, as
detailed in our prior letter. We would appreciate the opportunity to speak
with representatives of the Department to further discuss this central matter.
and will contact the appropriate offices regarding this request. We write
now to address the particular items addressed in your November 20, 2007
letter and provide further infOlmation about these issues.
Phone: 510.663.4744
Toll Free: 800.551.55.54
Fax: 510.663.4740
www.bay!egal.org
it. LSC
Serving the c.ounties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Page 2
4~q q; y.q~
December 20, 2007
DHA entered into a binding Development Agreement before obtainine: HOD aoproval for the
disposition
First, we appreciate HUD's confirmation that the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) may not take
"any action" to dispose of Arroyo Vista without first obtaining HUD approval. Attached hereto
as Exhibit A is the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) which includes a binding
commitment by DHA to dispose of the property at a set price on set conditions. This DDA is the
complete exercise of discretion by DHA to dispose of Arroyo Vista According to the terms of
the DDA, DHA must "convey the Property to Developer" in order to "cause the demolition of
the Existing Housing." DDA S~ 2.2, 2.1, respectively. The DDA contemplates an exchange of
valuable consideration in exchange for DHA's disposition of the property. The agreement is
"the .:final understanding and agreement between the parties" for disposition of Arroyo Vista
DDA ~ 19.12. The DDA goes far beyond any permitted activity prior to HUD approval of
disposition and is therefore prohibited by HOD regulations, 24 C.F.R. ~~ 970.7, 970.25. We ask
that HUD deny any approval of disposition unless and until DHA rescinds the DDA.
DHA has not completed a relocation plan even though it has relocated 30+ families
DHA continues to engage in unlawful relocation of residents, without a relocation plan, and prior
to HUD approval, contrary to California relocation law and HUD regulations on disposition and
demolition. Your letter of November 20,2007, states that "the Department will disapprove an
application if it determines" that any certification by the PHA is "inconsistent with any
information and data available to the Department:' However, residents do not complain of
inaccuracies in DHA' s application, rather the application itself admits that "[DHA has] already
begun to relocate residents, even though the Application has not been approved." Disposition
Application, Section 5, Line 13. DHA makes no representation that it is engaging in "occupancy
consolidation" or any other permitted activity. DHA's claim that all relocation is "voluntary" is
completely at odds with the information provided by the residents we represent and the
representation by DHA that the project will be demolished. Accordingly, HOD should need no
further information from DHA or the residents to determine that DHAlHACA's premature
relocation activities violate the statue and regulations.
Moreover, the improper relocation activity by DHA is causing serious harm to the residents left
behind and the property at Arroyo Vista As residents move out, DHA is boarding up units.
(See attached photographs at Exhibit B.) This activity is blighting an otherwise well functioning
and viable public housing development. Indeed, the DHA itself athibutes rising criminal activity
to its boarding up of many of the units. (See attached news article at Exhibit C.) There are real
consequences to the remaining residents at Arroyo Vista for DHA's unlawful actions, including
increasing danger to the remaining residents. See DHA's newsletter included with Declaration
of Elise Veal, Exhibit D, attachment #6, vacant units are targeted for ''vandalism, theft and
squatters." According to DHA's time line, complete relocation benefits will not be available, and
actual relocation will not be complete until November 2008, about one year from now. DDA
Exhibit E, page E-3. The remaining residents of Arroyo Vista should not be subject to these
dangerous conditions for the next year as DHA continues its improper relocation activities. The
Department should require DHA and the Housing Authority of Alameda County (HACA) to
Page 3
4'1 D~ L{ct~.
December 20, 2007
cease any relocation activities, and should preclude DBA and HACA from utilizing any federal
:funds, including the issuance of Section 8 vouchers, to relocate Arroyo Vista residents unless and
until disposition of Arroyo Vista is approved.. Moreover, BUD should order DBA to reoccupy
the units which have been vacated.. There shoul<i be no DHA promoted relocation of tenants
pending HUD action on the request for disposition.
Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) has not received approval for the 150
vouchers it is using to relocate residents of Arroyo Vista
Regarding the use ofHACA's Section 8 vouchers for relocation of residents, we have been
infOlmed by cow1se1 for DHA and HACA that HACA has not yet sent to the Department any
application for replacement vouchers for Arroyo Vista. Rather, HACA is awarding vouchers
from its overall allocation to Arroyo Vista residents for the purpose of relocating the residents.
DHA has already relocated at least 33 families from the property. See Veal Deel., Exhibit D,
Attachment #6. Weare not aware of any authority that HACA has to provide vouchers to
current residents of Arroyo Vista; such priority does not appear in HACA's administrative plan.
This raises concerns that families on HACA' s Section 8 waiting list may be 'Jumped over" to
prematurely relocate Arroyo Vista residents. Furthermore, many Arroyo Vista residents are
concerned that they are not or will not be able to find adequate replacement housing utilizing
vouchers -- particularly not when vouchers are being issued in the absence of a relocation plan,
and other relocation assistance and advisory services mandated by federal and state law.
Your letter recites the standard that replacement housing for Arroyo Vista residents must be "in
~ area that is generally not less desirable" than Arroyo Vista. 24 C.F.R. 9970.2l(a). However,
this relocation activity should not occur at all until after the Department has approved .
disposition. Obviously, if it denies approval, relocation of residents will not be required at all.
Accordingly, HACA should not be providing any vouchers for relocation now, much less
engaging in coercive efforts to urge residents to prematurely apply for and accept vouchers. The
clients we represent have informed us that beginning as early as April 2007 HACA began telling
residents that vouchers would be available and that iften.ants waited to move the available
housing stock may be gone. The DHA told residents that they will be required to move out,
because the HUD disposition application will be approved and because the disposition of Arroyo
Vista is approved by the City. Although DHA claims in its application that residents are not
required to move now, tenants have been left with little choice but to move in the near future.
See attached Declaration of Elise Veal, Exhibit D. Further, these contradictory messages from
DHA have created a tremendous anxiety amongst the residents and have prompted families to
move when it has not been in their best interest. Again, the Department should require that
HACA cease issuing vouchers to relocate Arroyo Vista residents unless and until the Department
approves disposition.
DHA did not comply the resident consultation requirements of24 CFR 970.9
DHA created its plan to dispose of Airoyo Vista completely without consultation of the Arroyo
Vista Residents Council. This association is recognized by DHA, however no notification of the
impending disposition was provided to the council prior to the August 2007 disposition
application. There is no indication that DHA has taken any actions to withdraw official
Page 4
L11l 00 ~ tt'6
December 20, 2007
recognition of the residents' council. To the contrary, DHA was actively communicating with
the residents' council just prior to seeking Request for Proposals for disposition in Spring of
2006. The residents' council sent a March 2006 letter to DHA confirming the leadership of the
group and transmitting current by-laws and minutes ofproceedingl3, See attached Letter from
Rhenae Keys to Kurt Wiest, March #, 2006, Exhibit #E. The last communication from DHA to
the residents' council in December 2005 confirmed that DHA continued to recognize the group.
(See attached e-mail from Kurt Wiest to Rhenae Keys, December 13,2005, Exhibit F.) Despite
the fact that DHA had written notification that the recognized tenants council was meeting, it
failed to consult or even notify the group before DHA accepted a "pre~application" for
disposition of their homes from Eden Housing and Citation Homes in May 2007 (See City
Council Resolution 136-07 attached as Exhibit G). DHA again failed to consult or even notify
the group when it determined that rehabilitation of Arroyo Vista was infeasible and sought
applications for redevelopment of the site in July 2006 (See DHA Resolution 18~06, in
Disposition Application, attached as Exhibit H). There is no evidence that DHA rescinded
recognition of the residents' council, so its failure to inform, much less consult with the
residents' council, is a serious matter that the Department must consider.
DHA failed to offer the develo-pment for sale to the resident organization or other eligible
organizations
With respect to DHA' s obligation to offer the property for sale to the resident council, your letter
of November 20,2007, refers to an exemption to the requirement in 24 CPR 970.9(b)(3)(ii)
where the disposition is to "develop a facility to benefit low income families. " We respectfully
diaagree tl1at the sale of the property is for the development oflow income housing. The sale of
the property is for a mixed income development, a majority ofwbich consists of single-family
market rate housing. There is no other exemption for the obligation to notify and consult
resident organizations. The Arroyo Vista Residents Council is an "established eligible
organization within the meaning of24 C.F.R ~ 970.9(c) that must be consulted prior to
disposition of the property. Here, DHA admits in its application that it did not notify the
recognized tenants' council, so there could not have been any "consultation." The Department
must disapprove the disposition application because the resident council was not consulted. 42
U.S.C. ~ 1437p (b)(2).
DHA failed to submit a comolete disposition application pursuant to 24 CFR 970.9
On its face, DHA has not submitted a complete application. According to the application,
"[n] either the appraisal nor the NEP A environmental review are complete." Disposition
Application, Letter to Ainars Rodins, August 14, 2007. Furthermore, DHA's own schedule
contemplates that the application will not be complete for at least 9 months after the August 14,
2007, submission date. See DDA, Exhibit E, for anticipated date to complete environmental
review of May 23, 2008. Permitting DHA to submit a premature and incomplete application has
significant consequences to current residents and the many families on DHA's waiting list for
public housing. The Depar1ment's policy to not pelmit vacated units to be re-rented while an
application is "pending," is particularly relevant here. All Arroyo Vista units should remain
available until such time as a complete application is submitted. DHA should not prematurely
empty the property, relocate residents, use scarce Section 8 vouchers to "re-house" those public
...-.------------- ------~--------_. ---.-
-------.------------.----- -.- ---~---~--- ----____.___ _ __4__.._____ _____~_
Page 5
4'1~ OQ l{qtt
December 20, 2007
housing residents, endanger the remaining residents by boarding up vacated units, and allow
critically needed public housing units to remain vacant for an. extended period of time - all under
the guise of a "pending" application.
Although the application was submitted in August 2007, DHA/HACA acknowledge in the
application that it is incomplete, and estimate that it will take approximately nine months even to
complete the application and approximately a year (August 2008) before HUD can review and
either approve or deny a "completed" application. Further, because DHA/HACA cannot issue
90 days notices for residents to move until HUD approves a "complete" application, the earliest
time that relocations could lawfully occur, according to DHAfHACA's own timetable, is
November 2008. Nonetheless, DHAlHACA admit that they have been issuing Section 8
vouchers and relocating residents since even before the incomplete disposition application was
submitted. The Department should disapprove the disposition application as premature at this
time. Alternatively, it should notify DHA/HACA that its application is deemed incomplete, and
that DHA/HACA must therefore (1) cease any disposition and demolition activities until it
submits a complete application and HUD has approved it, (2) provide residents that were already
relocated with a reasonable opportunity to return to their Arroyo Vista home in the interim
(including move-back expenses), and (3) ifrelocated families voluntarily decline to return., their
vacant unites) should be promptly re-Iet to families on DHA.'s waiting list. This will partially
remedy the hann to Arroyo Vista residents that has already occurred as a result ofDHA and
HACA putting the cart before the horse, and prevent the continued waste of federal housing
dollars.
DHA's proposed disposition action will have a discriminatory effect and shows a failure ofDHA
to affirmativelv further fair housing
Finally, the proposed disposition itself violates civil rights and fair housing laws, and certainly
does not affirmatively further fair housing opportunities. The reference in your letter to a
certification that DHA ''will carry out the proposed disposition action" in accordance with these
laws therefore does not adequately address our clients' central complaint. The removal of deeply
subsidized public housing units at rents affordable to extremely low income households, the only
public housing in the City ofDubIin, will have a discriminatory effect, no matter what
certification is made by DHA. The disposition application submitted by DHA does not address
the discriminatory effects nor how to minimi7.e them. Since the Department and DBA must not
take actions which have discriminatory effects and are obligated to affirmatively further fair
housing, the application should be disapproved. Moreover, the discriminatory effect of any
proposed disposition should be carefully analyzed by DHA/HACA and evaluated by the
Department prior to taking any action regarding the disposition application.
CONCLusrON
We appreciate your consideration of these additional facts and reasons in support of our clients'
request that HOD promptly deny DHA's application for disposition of Arroyo Vista.
Page 6
t.r1 ~ ~ LfCzC6
December 20, 2007
Thank you again for your initial response to our concerns, and we look forward to further
communications with the Department on this issue. Please contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
B~G~
Phillip Morgan
Lisa Greif
Naomi Young
THE CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW
PROJECT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT
Craig Castellanet
Deborah Collins
Mike Rawson
. NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT
Catherine Bishop
Navneet Grewal.
cc:
Stephen Schneller
Regional. Director
San Francisco Regional Office
600 Harrison S1. 3rd Floor
San Fran.cisco, CA 94107-1300
Chuck Hauptman
Fair Housing Director
San Francisco Regional Office
600 Harrison St. 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107-1300
4-1t-t~tfqt
EXHIBIT C
1/30/08 LETTER TO BUD
Mlchael Rawson
Co-Director
Extension 145
mrawson@pllpca.org
Stephen Ronfeklt
Co-Director
Extension 127
sronfeldt@pilpca.org
Deborah Collins
Managing Attorney
Extension 156
dcolllns@pllpca.org
Craig Castellanet
Staff Attomey
extension 132
ccastellanel@pilpca.org .
Angle Schwartz
Staff A/torney
Extension 125
aschwartz@pilpca.org
Elizabeth Graber
Legal Asslslanl
Extension 110
egraber@pilpca,org
Georgie Feltz
Admlnls/ra/or
Extension 101
gfeltz@pllpca.org
~ 15 VV l1t1tt
The Public Interest Law Pro. ect
The Public Interest Law Project and
California Affordable HOUSing Law Project
449 - 15th Street, Suite 301
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 891-9794
Fax (510) 891-9727
www.pllpcaorg
January 30, 2008
(Via Electronic Mail)
Ainars Rodins
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Special Applications Center
77 W. Jackson Blvd., Room 2401
Chicago, 11 60604-3507
Ainars.Rodins@hud.gov
(Additional Addressees listed on Page 6)
RE: Disposition Application for Arroyo Vista, CA142001
Dublin, California
Dear Messrs. .Rodin, Blom, Smith and Sneller and Ms. Kendrick:
I am one of the attorneys of record for plaintiffs Arroyo Vista Tenants Association,
et ai. v. City of Dublin, Dublin Housing Authority, Housing Authority of Alameda
County, et al., U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Cat., Case No. C-07-05794 MHP, and
submit this letter on behalf of my clients to request that HUD promptly disapprove
the above Application for Disposition of Arroyo Vista (Application). As my co-
counsel have informed several of you in previous correspondence and
communications, we represent four lower residents of Arroyo Vista public housing'
located in Dublin, California. We also represent Arroyo Vista Tenants
Association.
We have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the above case on behalf of
our clients seeking a court order to, among other things, enjoin defendants City,
DHA, and HACA from unlawfully implementing a disposition and development
agreement that was approved and executed on or about July 17, 2007 by the City,
DHA, and HACA .. without prior HOD approval, and to enjoin defendants from
displacing residents of Arroyo Vista - in the absence of any approval of an
application for disposition by HUD and in the absence of an approved relocation
plan required under federal law and state law. A copy of our notice of motion,
motion, and memorandum of points and authorities is enclosed. We urge you to
review the motion and memorandum as it sets forth the legal and factual reasons
why defendants in this case are acting entirely outside of the law to dispose of
Arroyo Vista and displace all residents of Arroyo Vista - without prior approval or
even review by HUD of an application for disposition.
Ainars Rodins, et al.
Page 2
January 30, 2008
l.f1 ~ r$b l{'1~
HOO does not have a complete application for disposition regarding Arroyo Vista before
it. It lacks documentation of environmental review and a relocation plan. Thus, HUD
does not have the discretion to approve an incomplete application. 42 U.S.C. ~ 1437p(a);
24 C.F.R. ~970.7, 970.17. Further, nothing in 42 V.S.C. ~1437p authorizes HUD to hold
an incomplete application in abeyance while the PHA proceeds to carry out the very
disposition and displacement that it proposes in its application - all without HUD review
or approval of that application. And, as outlined below, that is precisely what DHA has
done.
Moreover, HUD must disapprove an application if, among other reasons, the Secretary
determines that "any certification made by the public housing agency. . . is clearly
inconsistent with information and data available to the Secretary or information or data
requested by the Secretary," 42 U.S.C. ~ 1437p(b); 24 C.F.R. 9970.29. The Dublin
Housing Authority (DHA) made certifications in its Application that are unequivocally
inconsistent with the Answer defendants themselves filed with the Court in this case, the
Declar~tions signed under penalty of perjury of residents and former residents of Arroyo
Vista, and supporting documentary evidence enclosed with this letter.
DHA's certifications in the Application are inconsistent with the following documented
facts:
. DHA certified it would comply with both the federal and state relocation
assistance laws applicable to its proposed disposition project, and
specifically certified that it would prepare a comprehensive relocation plan
that would be presented to residents for comment and submitted to the
local government for approval before any displacement occurred. Not
only has DHA not prepared a relocation plan for submission to HUn,
rendering its Application incomplete, it has not prepared a relocation plan
for comment by residents, review by BUD, or review and approval by
local government. And it admits these facts in its Answer to the Petition
for Writ of Mandate (copies enclosed). Moreover, it also admits that it has
relocated residents of Arroyo Vista - with no relocation plan and no
notices mandated by state or federal law that must precede any
displacement. 42 U.S.C.~1437p.
. DHA certified in its application that 12 households that had moved by
August 2007 had moved "voluntarily"; DHA had not required any
residents to move and would not require any residents to move before it
issues a 90-day notice. The declarations of eight residents of Arroyo
Vista, including a former resident that was unlawfully displaced (Gretta
Evans) demonstrate very clearly that any moves from Arroyo Vista have
been anything but voluntary. Residents have been pressured, frightened,
misinformed, and cajoled into moving. Moreover, state law does not
Ainars Rodins, et al.
Page 3
January 30,2008
Lf'1/ Vb tf~~
recognize "voluntary" relocations at all. Any resident that has "moved"
since July 2006 - when defendants admit that they initiated negotiations
with Eden Housing, Inc. and Citation Central Homes to sell the property --
is considered to be a "displaced person" under California law and may not
be relocated prior to the adoption of a relocation plan by the local
legislative body and the issuance of all requisite relocation notices.
· DHA certified in its application that it would provide reasonable
accommodations to all residents that have disabilities. Not only has DHA
not provided reasonable accommodations to residents, they have
threatened to "vacate" at least one resident with disabilities who resides in
a fully accessible unit at Arroyo Vista - for 23 years -- ifhe does not move
out in 2008. And, they have failed to even inform him of any relocation
rights he may have. See Costello Declaration. DHA's "relocation
consultant" also refused assistance to a resident being forced to move
when she asked for help with a p~ospective landlord that had unlawfully
told her he would not permit accessible features to be installed in the
prospective unit to accommodate her disability, and another that
discriminated against her on familial grounds. Though this impeded her
ability to use a Section 8 voucher at all and she asked for help, she was
refused necessary counseling and assistance and told all she would get was
a referral. See Veal Declaration. Another resident that would have
accepted a Section 8 voucher and moved was unilaterally down-sized from
a 4-bedroom home to a 2-bedroom voucher with no relocation plan or
notice authorizing her to be denied comparable housing. When she asked
for a reasonable accommodation and offered medical documentation of
the disabilities in her family, HACA refused even to accept the
documentation. See Keyes Declaration.
· DHA certified in its application that it would provide comparable housing,
including Section 8 vouchers to all residents. But see the Declarations of
Carolyn Evans, Gretta Evans, Rhenae Keyes, and Elise Veal. Gretta
Evans was displaced without a Section 8 voucher, comparable
replacement housing payment, and is suffering a $300/month rent increase
as a result ofDHA's unlawful activities. Rhenae Keyes and Elise Veal
were simply unable to use Section 8 vouchers as a result ofDHA's failure
to provide necessary counseling regarding the Section 8 program, unit
sizes for which the family was eligible, and differing rules and HAP
standards in other jurisdictions.
· DHA certified in its application that HACA would apply to BUD for 150
''replacement'' Section 8 vouchers - apparently to replace the Section 8
vouchers that HACA has been unlawfully issuing to persons that are being
unlawfully displaced. Defendants admit now that HACA will not apply
Ainars Rodins, et al.
Page 4
January 30, 2008
Lf1~~ yc,i
for "replacement" vouchers until after HUn approves the disposition, and
that since the property will have been long since vacated, HUD will likely
not replace those vouchers. Thus, it admits that there are and may be
insufficient vouchers to accommodate 150 families. See GreifDecl. Ex. 5.
. Moreover, by pushing families that were already on HACA's Section 8
waiting list to the back of the line so that it can issue 'their' vouchers to
Arroyo Vista residents that it is unlawfully displacing, HACA has violated
the priorities of its own PHA Plan.
. DHA certified in its application that it would provide "actual and
reasonable relocation expenses" to residents it displaces. It has refused to
provide "actual and reasonable" moving expenses, security deposits, credit
checks, and has held half of moving expenses hostage to guarantee a
resident (or the resident's family) vacates the Arroyo Vista unit. See
Gretta Evans, Elise Veal, Carolyn Evans Declarations.
· DHA certified in its application that it would provide benefits under 42
D.S.C. ~5304(d) [Section 104(d)], if applicable. The disposition and
development agreement (GreifDecl. Ex. 2) shows that'Eden ''will apply"
for CDBG and HOME funds, triggering an obligation to plan for, budget
for, and provide notice of residents rights' to relocation assistance under
Section l04(d). No planning, no budget, no notice, and no relocation
benefits required under Section 104(d) have been provided to residents.
. DHA certified in its application that it would not displace any residents
prior to issuing the 90-day notice mandated by 42 U.S.C. ~ l437p. That
notice requires it to inform residents in'writing ofHUD's decision and of
the relocation benefits the residents will receive. Defendants have
misrepresented to residents in a series of meetings that disposition of
Arroyo Vista will occur; it will occur in November 2008 (based on a
timetable it proposed to HUD and HOD has not yet approved), and that
HUD will approve the application for disposition. If the residents don't
move now, they have been told they will "see the bulldozers coming," and
they have been told there may not be enough Section 8 vouchers or
Section 8 units to accommodate their needs. See Keyes and Sanders
Declarations.
. DHA certified in its Application that it does not anticipate HUD approval
before August 2008, and that it will issue 90-day notices only after
receiving that approval. Yet, it has told residents they must move by or
before August 2008. See Sanders Declaration. Thus, it has informed
residents that it will require them to move without a 90-day notice or
without the benefit of the 90 days that the notice guarantees. In fact,
Ainars Rodins, et aI.
Page 5
January 30,2008
,+1'1 1JbL1 ~'6.
because DHA is displacing residents before any HUD approval at all,
there will be no residents left to whom to issue the 90-day notice.
DHA has Wllawfully displaced 33 Arroyo Vista residents as of December 2007. See
GreifDecl. Ex. 7. It has done so without any authority from HUD, without any
relocation plan approved by BUD or local government to guide the process, without
providing notices or benefits approved by BUD or the local government, including any
notices required by 42 V.S.C. ~~ 1437p, 5304(d), and California Govt. C. ~7260 et seq. It
has blatantly usurped HUD's authority to review and approve or disapprove the
Application, and has put HUD in the untenable position of reviewing a "done deal".
For these reasons, we respectfully request that HUn promptly disapprove the Disposition
Application for Arroyo Vista, CA142001 that was received by HUD on or about August
15, 2007. It is clear that BUD has no discretion to approve an incomplete Application,
and that it must disapprove an Application where it has infonnation and data that
demonstrates "inconsistencies" in a PHA's certifications. The enclosed Motion, Answer,
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, and Declarations of Arroyo, Brown, Costello,
Carolyn Evans, Gretta Evans, Keyes, Sanders, and Veal, together with the Declaration of
Lisa Grief and accompanying documentary evidence, all part of the court record in this
action, amply demonstrate that DHA's Application must be disapproved. We further
respectfully request that HUD act promptly to disapprove the Application before more
families are unlawfully displaced from their homes and their neighborhood -- where
many of them have resided for years, if not decades.
Indeed, in many respects Arroyo Vista should be hailed by HUn, DHA, and the local
community as one of the more successful and stable public housing developments in the
country. It is a community of tremendous diversity - racially and ethnically, where
families with children co-exist with seniors, and many persons with disabilities have
accessible and affordable single-family homes near public transportation on smallcul-de-
sacs. Many of these families and individuals have resided in harmony at Arroyo Vista in
a decent, safe, sanitary and affordable home for decades. It is clearly not in their best
interests or the interests of the community to destroy the very diversity that makes Arroyo
Vista so unique.
We look forward to your prompt response.
Very truly yours,
~
Deborah Co s
Attorney for P . tiffs
Ainars Rodins, et al.
Page 6
January 30, 2008
Additional Addressees:
Dominique Blom
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of Public Housing Inves1ments
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7tl1 Street S.W.
VVashington, D.C. 20410
Dominiaue.Blum@hud.g:ov
Kim Kendrick
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7tl1 Street S.W.
VVashington, D.C. 20410
Kim.Kendrick@hud.gov
VV. Jay Smith
Regional Relocation Specialist
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102.3448
Jay Smith@hud.gov
Stephen Schneller
Public Housing Division
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9tl1 Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102.3448
Stephen. Schneller@hud.gov
cc: Craig Castellanet and Michael Rawson, CAHLPIPILP
Lisa Greif, Naomi Young, Phil Morgan, Bay Area Legal Aid
Catherine Bishop, Navneet Grewal, National Housing Law Project
Lt~D Ob iC,tt
lf61 Db tMtt
EXHIBIT D
OS/27/08 LETTER TO HUD
RamOn P. Arias
Executive Director
~2.tiQ i{Cf(t
AREA
LEGAL AID
WORKING TOGETHER FOR JUSTICE
May 27, 2008
Dominique Blom
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of Public Housing Investments
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 71h Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20410
Dominique.Blum@hud.gov
[See additional addresses listed on Page 10]
RE: Disposition Application for AlToyo Vista, CA142001
Dublin, California
Dear Messrs. Blom, Rodins, Smith, Reizes, Schneller and Ms. Kendrick:
On behalf of our clients, plaintiffs in Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, et al. v. City of
Dublin, et al., U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Ca1., Case No. C-07-05794 MHP, I am writing to again
request that HUD promptly disapprove the above Application for Disposition of AlToyo Vista
(Application). Along with my co-counsel, we represent the Arroyo Vista Temints Association
and folU" individual residents ofthe property. Our clients also request that HUD require the
Dublin Housing Authority to fully occupy and operate the Arroyo Vista property. We have
previously provided comment on this disposition application by letters of November 2,2007,
December 20,2007, and January 30,2008, which we incorporate herein by reference.
Alameda Counly Regional Office
405 14th Street, 11th Floor
Ookland, CA 94612
We write now to detail reasons why the Secretary must now deny the Application by the
Dublin Housing AuthoIity (DHA). First, the Secretary mllst disapprove an application if the
Secretary detelmines that "any certification made by the public housing agency. . . is clearly
inconsistent with infol1uation and data available to the Secretary or information or data requested
by the Secretary." 42 US.C. ~1437p(b)(I); 24 C.F.R. ~ 970.29. DHA has made numerous
certifications in its Application that are unequivocally inconsistent with the Answer filed by
DHA in Court, the Declarations signed under penalty ofpeljury of residents and fonner residents
of Arroyo Vista, the Draft Relocation Plan, and other supporting
documentary evidence we provide. As detailed herein, the Application
should be denied for this reason.
Phone: 510.663.4744
Toll Free: 800.551.5554
Fax: 510.663.4740
In addition, the Secretary must disapprove any application that "was
not developed in consultation with - (A) residents who will be affected by
www.boy1esof.org
ii!LLSe
Serving the counlies of Alameda, Contra Cosla, Marin, Napa, Son francisco, San Mateo, and Sanla Clora
~? c.ro Lft:R
Page 2
May 27,2008
the proposed demolition or disposition; [and] (B) each resident advisory board and resident
cotmcil ... affected by the proposed demolition or disposition...." 42 U.S.C. ~ 1437p(b )(2); 24
C.F.R. ~970.9. DBA readily admits in its Application that it failed to develop its disposition
Application in consultation with the recognized resident council for the Anoyo Vista, in
violation of this obligation, also compelling HUD's denial ofthe Application.
While the Secretary must disapprove the Application according to the mandates of
~ 1 437p(b ), the Application has a number of other substantive defects which also compel its
denial. The justification for sale of the property below market rate is not supported by the
appraisal of the property, so that DHA must provide such information. DHA unlawfully entered
into a contract for sale of the property prior to obtaining HUn approval. The relocation activities
described in the Application fail to meet statutory requirements to accommodate persons with
disabilities, and have caused unlawful displacement of residents. The proposed disposition will
have an adverse impact on classes of persons protected by the Fair Housing Act. These are each
independent reasons the Secretary should disapprove the Application.
In light of these circumstances, any further delay by HUD in denying the Arroyo Vista
Application is not justified. More than nine months after submission of the application, it
remains incomplete, unlawful displacement continues to haml innocent residents, Section 8
vouchers are being improperly used in the relocation, and safe, decent,' and affordable public
housing is lying vacant. For these reasons, HUD should act now to disapprove the Arroyo Vista
Application for disposition.
I. Certifications By DBA In Its Application Are Clearly Inconsistent With Information
Available To HUD.
The Secretary must disapprove the Arroyo Vista Application since we have provided
information that is clearly inconsistent with certifications made by DHA. 42 D.S.C.
~1437p(b)(1); 24 C.F.R. ~ 970.29. The following facts document numerous actions DHAhas
taken that are inconsistent certifications in the Application.
DHA Is Relocating Residents Contrary To Certifications in Its Application.
DBA certified in its application that it would not displace any residents prior to issuing
the 90-day notice mandated by 42 U.S.C. ~ 1437p. See Application, Section 5, Line 13. The 90-
day notice requires DHA to inform residents in writing ofHUD's decision and of the relocation
benefits the residents will receive. Of course, HOD has not yet reached any decision on the
Anoyo Vista Application, since it is incomplete, for lack of a relocation plan, among other
things. DBA has misrepresented to residents in a series of meetings that disposition of Arroyo
Vista will occur, it will occur in November 2008, and that BUD will approve the application for
disposition. The residents have been told that if they do not move, they will "see the bulldozers
coming," and they have been told there may not be enough Section 8 vouchers or Section 8 tmits
to accommodate their needs. See Declarations of Keys and Sanders (all Declarations referenced
herein were submitted with our January 30, 2008 letter). By unlawfully relocating residents
without such notice, DHA has failed to act consistently with the cel1ification in its application.
~4tfb Lfccrt
Page 3
May 27, 2008
DHA certified in its application that 12 households had moved "vohmtarily" by August
2007, and that it would not require any residents to move before it issues a 90-day notice. See
Application Section 5, line 13, and August 14,2007, cover letter, p. 1. As of Apri115, 2008, the
relocation consultant for DHA represented that it has relocated 60 households. The declarations
of eight An'oyo Vista residents submitted to HUD with our January 30, 2008 letter demonstrate
that these moves from Arroyo Vista have been anything but voluntary. In particular, the
Secretary must carefully consider the situation of Gretta Evans, a former resident that was
unlawfully displaced owing DBA's actions to inform her that the property will be demolished,
and her fear of a relapse ofhomelessness. See Declaration of Gretta Evans. Ms. Evans had a
horrendous displacement, leaving her home at Arroyo Vista without any assistance from DHA,
including no Section 8 voucher, to live in a rural community far removed from Dublin, solely to
find affordable rent. As all eight Declarations show, the residents have been pressured,
frightened, misinfomled, and cajoled into moving. The information available to the Secretary is
overwhelming that DHA is not merely engaging in "voluntary" relocations, as celiified.
Moreover, Califomia law does not recognize "voluntary" relocations at all. See Cal.
Gov't Code SS 7260 et seq., Memo In Support of Motion For Preliminary hljunction, p. 18-21,
submitted with our January 30, 2008 letter. Any resident that has "moved" since July 2006 -
when defendants admit that they initiated negotiations with Eden Housing, Inc. and Citation
Central Homes to sell the propelty - is considered to be a "displaced person" under Califomia
law. DBA certifies in its Application that it will provide assistance required by the Califomia
Relocation Law (CRL). See Application, Section 7, Line 7, alld see Answer, ~ 72, and
Disposition and Development Agreement for An-oyo Vista, Greif Declaration, Exhibit 2, at p. 21,
both submitted with our January 30, 2008 letter. According to the Califomia Relocation
Assistance Act (CRAA), residents may not be relocated prior to the adoption of a relocation plan
by the local legislative body and the issuance of all requisite relocation notices. DHA's
certification regarding "voluntary" moves is contrary to permissible activity pursuant to the
CRAA.
DHA certified in its Application that it does not anticipate HUD approval before August
2008, and that it will issue 90-day notices only after receiving that approval. See Application,
Section 5, Line 13. Yet, it has told residents they must move by or before August 2008. See
Sanders Declaration. Thus, it has infonned residents that it will require them to move without a
90-day notice or without the benefit of the 90 days that the notice guarantees. In fact, because
DHA is displacing residents before any HUD approval at all, there could be few if any residents
left to whom to issue the 90-day notice.
DHA Is Failing To Provide Relocation Counsel Services
DHA certified in its application that it would provide thirteen separate types of housing
counseling services, the vast majority of which have not been provided, including:
. Conduct in-depth field interview with resident; document rent, income, family
composition, relocation needs and special requirements; explain process rights
and benefits
. Search for and document comparable units for each household; provide referrals;
arrange for transportation to view replacement units,
Page 4
4'65. t/fJ 4:,q It
May 27, 2008
. Work with potential landlords, educating them as to the benefits of Section 8
Vouchers
. Prepare letter of eligibility for each household and obtain authorization of
relocation assistance from Housing Authority
. Determine amount of relocation benefits, including moving payments, rent
differential payments, if any, and re-establishment payments.
. Secure and process an advance claim to assist with the move and a final claim
incorporating all costs.
Application, Section 7, Line 2. None of these services were provided to residents providing the
Declarations submitted with our January 30, 2008 letter. DHA's contractor, Overland Pacific
and Culter (OPC), has refused to provide "actual and reasonable" moving expenses, security
deposits, credit checks, and has held half of moving expenses hostage to guarantee a resident (or
the resident's family) vacates the An'oyo Vista unit. See Declarations of Gretta Evans, Elise
Veal, Carolyn Evans. In particular, the extensive search by Elise Veal demonstrates this failure.
Ms. Veal's particular needs were not detelmined by OPC ('if 7), no search for replacement
housing was done (" 7,9), no transportation was provided (" II, 15), ope directly refused to
work with landlords and failed tq facilitate the use of Section 8 ('if7, 15). The services certified in
the Application are systematicalfy being denied to the residents, causing moves such as Ms.
Evans' to inadequate housing that is in no way comparable.
DBA Has Failed to 'Provide Comparable Replacement Housing
Through this inadequate relocation assistance, DHA has failed to provide comparable
replacement housing, owing to the lack of housing in Dublin that is available to Section 8
voucher holders. Neveltheless, DHA certified in its application that it would provide comparable
housing, including Section 8 vouchers to all residents. See Application, Section 7, Lines 2 and 3.
But see the Declarations of Carolyn Evans, Gretta Evans, Rhenae Keyes, and Elise Veal. Gretta
Evans was displaced without a Section 8 voucher, or a comparable replacement housing payment
required under state law, and is suffering a $300/month rent increase as a result ofDHA's
unlawful activities. Rhenae Keyes and Elise Veal were simply unable to use Section 8 vouchers
as a result ofDHA's failure to provide necessary counseling regarding the Section 8 program,
unit sizes for which the family was eligible, and differing rules and HAP standards in other
jurisdictions. DHA's failure to provide comparable replacement housing is contrary to its
certifications in the Application.
DHA Continues to Ulllawfullv Relocate Residents Without All Adopted Relocation Plan
DHA certified it would comply with both the federal and state relocation assistance laws
applicable to its proposed disposition project. See Application at Section 7, Line 7.
Furthermore, as explained above, DHA is obligated to prepare a comprehensive relocation plan
that would be presented to residents for comment and submitted to the local government for
approval before any displacement occurs. Not only has DBA 110t adopted a relocation plan for
submission to BUD, rendering its Application incomplete, it has accelerated its relocation of the
residents without a plan, displacing 60 families as of April 15, 2008. DHA admits it has not
adopted a relocation plan in its Answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate, provided with our
LfelP ~ ~i
Page 5
May 27, 2008
January 30, 2008 letter. Moreover, it also admits that it has relocated residents of Arroyo Vista-
with no relocation plan and no notices mandated by state or federal law that must precede any
displacement.
The Draft Relocation Plan Is Inconsistent With Its Application
DHA celiifies that it will provide secuIity deposits equal to two times the amount of
monthly rent, and credit check fees for tlu'ee credit rep01iing agencies. Application, Section 7,
Line 7. Using a 2-bedroom Wlit at HUD FMRs of$1250/month rent, DHA fmiher specifically
represented to HUn that it would provide $2500 per household for security deposits and $75 for
each of three applications ($225 per household) for credit checks. Id. On Apri115, 2008, DHA
held a hearing on a Draft Relocation Plan that is inconsistent with the information provided in
the Application. The Draft Relocation Plan proposes to cap security deposits at one-month 's rent
based on HACA's maximum monthly rent standards for Alameda County and
DublinlPleasanton. See Draft Relocation Plan, attached as Exhibit A. Likewise, despite the fact
that it also is typical for Section 8 tenants to have to apply for multiple units and pay multiple
credit check fees (that often exceed $75) before a landlord accepts their voucher, a "one-time"
credit check cost of $75 is unreasonable. A failure to pay for "actual credit check fees and
security deposits" does not minimize the hardship of displacement, and paliicularlynot for
public hO\.lsing residents with minimal income and resources to cover such costs. See
Declaration ofDarlyn Anderson, included as Exhibit B, and Declaration of Gretta Evans,
included with our January 30, 2008 letter. DHA's failure to provide the relocation assistance
certified in its Application is a substantial inconsistency that requires the Secretary to deny the
Application. '
II. DHA Has Failed To Involve Residents In Development Of The Application, As
Requil'ed By 42 U.S.C. ~ 1437p(b).
In our prior correspondence of November 2 and December 20, 2007, we have detailed
DHA's failure to adequately consult the residents of Arroyo Vista, as required by Section 18. 42
U.S.C. ~ l437p(b)(2). In its November 20, 2007 letter to our office, HUD stated that it was
requesting clarification by way of additional information from DHA regarding resident
involvement. If additional infoffilation was provided and considered by HUD, such information
should be provided t~ the residents so that HUD can avoid making an arbitrary decision without
hearing :fl.-om other involved parties. Pursuant to the Freedom of Infomlation Act, we hereby
request a copy of any additional information received by HOD in response to its request for such
infonnation. Our client Rhenae Keyes, the last President of the recognized resident council for
Arroyo Vista, has not been contacted by HUn to verify whether or not any statements by DHA
are accurate. Moreover, we provided fUlther information in our letter of December 20,2007, in
the foml of Exhibits to the letter of cou"espondence between Ms. Keyes and DHA
acknowledging that the resident association existed at the same time DHA was developing its
disposition Application.
With respect to resident participation, the Application both (1) acknowledges that the
Anoyo Vista Residents Council is a recognized by DBA, pursuant to 24 C.F.R. Part 964, and (2)
admits that this recognized tenant association was not consulted. Application Section 8, Line 1.
Lt ~/1 Of) t.ftt ~(
Page 6
May 27,2008
The Arroyo Vista Residents Council is an "established eligible organization" within the meaning
of24 C.F.R. ~ 970.9 that must be consulted prior to disposition. DHA conveniently claims that
the resident organization which opposed the disposition of the property "disbanded," however
DHA failed to take any action pursuant to 24 C.F.R. Part 964 to document that the resident
council no longer exists. To the contrary, the resident cotUlcil continues to operate, despite
DHA's opposition, as evidenced by its participation in the litigation referenced herein. In our
prior letters, we provide evidence that the mere provision of newsletters and one-way
presentations does not satisfy DHA's obligation to "consult" residents in the "development" of
the disposition application. However, there is no doubt and no additional information needed to
determine that the Arroyo Vista Residents Council was not consulted. DHA's admission that
this recognized resident council was not consulted requires the Secretary to disapprove the
application. 42 D.S.C. ~ 1437p(b)(2).
III. The Disposition Application Should Be Denied For Failure to Comply With
Substantive Provisions of 42 U.S.C. ~ 1437p(a).
The Appraisal Provided Does Not Justify The Sales Price Below Market Value
As part of a proper disposition Application, DHA must certify that the "net proceeds" of
the disposition will first be used to retire outstanding obligations for the property, which do not
exist here, or for the provision of low-income housing or to benefit the residents of the public
housing agency. 42 D.S.C. ~ 1437p(a)(5). The Application purports to justify the sale at below
market value due to the need for a mixed finance development. Application Section 6, Line 1.
However, at the time of the Application, there has been no Appraisal completed for the propelty
to determine whether this asseliion is accurate. On October 28, 2007, DHA obtained an
appraisal for the propelty that indicates there is a tremendous anlount of equity in the property
for which Section 6 ofthe Application does not account. We are unaware of any amendment to
the Application to reference the determination of the appraisal, and hereby request any such
information pursuant to the Freedom of Infollnation Act. The Secretary should not approve an
Application that fails to contain an accounting required by law, demonstrating that the equity in
the propelty is being used for the provision of affordable housing.
Fmihermore, the Application itself must contain the justification for sale below market
value; this central infol111ation cannot come in some later communication with HUD that is not
subject to public comment and review. As detailed in Section II above, there must be resident
consultation in the development of the Application, as they are a primary stakeholder for the use
of the property. Omission of the key info1TIlation regarding the use of funds derived fl.'om the
sale ofthe propeliy is a central omission that denies the residents opportunity to participate in the
decision regarding the equity in the property.
DHA Unlawfully Entered Into A Contract For Sale of Arroyo Vista
As detailed in our prior letters, DHA entered into a contract for sale of AlToyo Vista in its
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), directly prohibited by 24 C.F.R. S~ 970.7,
970.25. This contract requires DHA to convey the propeliy to Citation Homes and Eden
Housing on a set time line following steps DHAhas contractually guaranteed. DDA S 2.7.
Y:~ ti1) t.-f 0( ct
Page 7
May 27, 2008
Although a later section does acknowledge that conveyance is subject to HOD approval, ~ 12.1,
DHA has already exercised its discretion with respect to all the terms and conditions ofthe sale.
Furthermore, ill the event HUD does 110t approve the disposition application, the sale is not
canceled. Instead, DHA must continue to "diligently pursue HUD approval" as required for sale
''tmtil all disposition requirements... are satisfied." ~~ 4.1, 6.l(a). There is no provision for
HUD disapproval. The impropriety of this action is imbedded in HUD's own Application foml.
At Section 5, Line'I3 of the Application DHA is forced to enter incorrect information in the
Application that it would enter into a sales contract "90 days" after approval of disposition, when
in fact it must admit that it already entered into a sales contract but "the Disposition Application
fonn would not allow us to insert "0" in this field. The Secretary should not approve this
blatantly improper Application, that is based on actions directly contrary to its regulations.
Rather, HOD should act flOW to deny the application in accordance with the law, and avoid
interference with our clients' efforts to set aside the improper DDA.
DHA Has Failed to Provide Reasonable Accommodations to Residents With Disabilities
Federal regulations require that the Application include a relocation plan that specifically
addresses the relocation of persons with disabilities; 24 C.F.R. ~ 970.7(a)(6). DHA's
Application is deficient since it fails to include a plan to provide reasonable accommodations to
all residents that have disabilities. Not only has DHA not provided reasonable accommodations
to residents, they have threatened to "vacate" at least one resident with disabilities who resides in
a fully accessible unit at Arroyo Vista - for 23 years -- ifhe does not move out in 2008. And,
they have failed to even infonn him of any relocation rights he may have. See Costello
Declaration. DHA's "relocation consultant" also refused assistance to a resident being forced to
move when she asked for help with a prospective landlord that had unlawfully told her he would
not permit accessible features to be installed in the prospective unit to accommodate her
disability, and another that discriminated against her on familial grounds. Though this impeded
her ability to use a Section 8 voucher at all and she asked for help, she was refused necessary
counseling and assistance and told all she would get was a referral. See Veat Declaration.
Another resident that would have accepted a Section 8 voucher and moved was unilaterally
down-sized from a 4-bedroom home to a 2.bedroom voucher with no relocation plan or notice
authorizing her to be denied comparable housing. When she asked for a reasonable
accommodation and offered medical documentation of the disabilities in her family, HACA
refused even to accept the documentation. See Keyes Declaration.
Moreover, state law (with which DHA certified it would comply) requires a displacing
entity to conduct a detailed survey and analysis of resident needs, including special needs of
persons with disabilities, and to identify housing resources available to meet those needs in
relocating such residents. DHA's Draft Relocation Plan while it identifies the number of "units"
at Arroyo Vista that are accessible to persons with disabilities, does not identify or analyze the
special needs of residents that occupy those units and will be relocated. Moreover, it utterly fails
to identify any housing resources that are available to meet the special needs ofthis
disadvantaged population.
DHA's Al'olication Will Have A Discriminatory Effect and Fails to Affirmatively
FU11her Fair Housing
'14A Of) 44'?"
Page 8
May 27, 2008
As detailed in our prior letters, the proposed disposition of Arroyo Vista will remove
from the City of Dublin a vibrant diverse community inclusive of African American, Latino, and
Asian American families. HUD's only response in this regard is that it will request that DHA
"carry out" the disposition in a manner that does not violate fair housing laws. As we responded
in our December 20, 2007 letter, it is the removal of deeply subsidized housing units inherent in
the Application and DHNOPC's steering of most of AlToyo Vista's long-term residents to
Oakland, as is done in DHA's yet "draft" relocation plan, that causes discrimination and fails to
affirmatively further fair housing opportunities.
A review of the Draft Relocation Plan, and patticularly, DHA's identification ofthe units
purportedly "available" as adequate "resources" to relocate all of the displaced residents of
AlToyo Vista demonstrates that DHA is not affilmatively furthering fair housing opportunities.
Residents that have lived in a very diverse neighborhood within a suburban City that is largely
white are being refelTed primarily to cOlmnunities with minority and poverty concentration
without regard to the residents' strong desire to remain in Dublin where many of them have lived
and raised their children for decades. The Secretary should deny the Application based on the
discriminatory effect of the Application and the Draft Relocation Plan on protected classes, and
DHA's failure to affil111atively further fair housing opportunities. Attached to this letter as
Exhibit C are our written comments submitted on March 14,2008. On April 8, 2008 DHA
responded to the written comment. See Exhibit D.
DHA also has failed to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities by depriving
residents that speak different languages of the Draft Relocation Plan in their native language
despite a request from the DHA Board of Commissioners that the Draft Relocation Plan be made
available to all residents in their native language. See Exhibit E attached, April 22, 2008 letter
fi'om DHA and response ofRhenae Keyes on May 6, 2008. Failure to even provide residents
with the Draft Relocation Plan for their review has an inherently discliminatory effect on
residents on the basis of ethnicity. It also demonstrates DHA's failure to provide residents that it
proposes to be relocated with "all necessary counseling".
IV. HUn Must Deny DHA's Application Without Further Delay
More than nine months after its August 14, 2007 submission, DHA has yet to complete
its Application for disposition of AtTOYO Vista. DHA has yet to complete the required relocation
plan, while by its own admission, their consultant continues to relocate families, now having
displaced over 60 households. Moreover, DBA has yet to hold a hearing for the required
enV1rOlIDlental review. As acknowledged by HUD's November 20, 2007 letter, without these
required elements, HUn has no discretion to approve an incomplete application. 42 ns.c.
~1437p(a); 24 C.F.R. ~970.7, 970.17. Further, nothing in 42 V.S.C. ~1437p authorizes HUD to
hold an incomplete application in abeyance while the PHA proceeds to can'y out the very
disposition and displacement that it proposes in its application - all without HUD review or
approval ofthat application.
Furthelmore, by improperly relocating AlToyo Vista residents utilizing its stock of Section
8 vouchers, the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) is taking actions in
~o ~lft'tct
Page 9
May 27, 2008
violation of its administrative plan to relocate residents. DHA also has refused to permit units to
be re-occupied as they become vacant, in violation of its obligation to operate An'oyo Vista. 24
C.F.R. ~ 970.25. There is no provision in law permitting DHA to submit a partial application to
HUD, then engage in de facto demolition by vacating the units over a nine month period while
incomplete plans for disposition are completed. DHA should not be encouraged or rewarded for
its improper activities. As outlined above, DHA's actions both require the Secretary's
disapproval, and the Application itself is fatally flawed. In the face ofthe harm to all the
residents, it serves no purpose to delay disapproval of the AITOYO Vista Disposition Application.
V. CONCLUSION
HUD's refusal to communicate with Arroyo Vista residents through their counsel is a
substantial detriment to HUD's review. In late January and early February 2008, we spoke with
staff of the Special Applications Center, requesting a meeting with Ainars Rodins, which was
tentatively scheduled for February 15, 2008. We were subsequently contacted by David Reizes
ofHUD's Office of Litigation, who requested that all communication with HUD be limited to his
office. Mr. Reizes subsequently informed us that the meeting with Mr. Rodins was cancelled,
and we have been effectively foreclosed fl.-om conveying our concerns to program staff except
through written communication. HUD has offered no authority for limiting public comment and
access to public officials regarding a proposed disposition in this fashion. We ask that HUD
reconsider this position, and meet with An'oyo Visa residents and their counsel to avoid further
misunderstanding and to ensure that the appropriate divisions ofHUD adequately understand the
inconsistencies in DHA's certifications.
To date, we have received no response to our letters of December 20, 2007 and January
30,2008. Rather, we were verbally informed by Mr. Reizes that the information we have
provided will be included in the "administrative record." We look forward to your written
response by June 8, 2008 to this request to deny the Al1'oyo Vista Application.
Very truly yours,
~&
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Page 10
Additional Addressees:
Aiuars Rodins
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Special Applications Center
77 W. Jackson Blvd., Room 2401
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Ainars.Rodills@lmd.gov
Kim Kendrick
Fair Housing and Equal OppOliunity
U.S. Depaliment of Housing and Urban Development
451 ih Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20410
Kim.Kendrick@hud.gov
David M. Reizes, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Office of Litigation
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
451 7th S1. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20410
David.M.Reizes@hud.gov
W. Jay Smith
Regional Relocation Specialist
U.S. Dep1. of Housing and Urban Development
Office of COlmnunity Planning and Development
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3448
J av Smith@hud.gov
Stephen Schneller
Public Housing Division
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3448
Stepllen.Schlleller@hud.gov
cc: Deborah Collins, Craig Castellanet and Michael Rawson, CAHLPJPILP
Naomi Young and Phil Morgan, Bay Area Legal Aid
Catherine Bishop, Navneet Grewal, National Housing Law Project
May 27, 2008
~ I 'b t.f1-;l
\{tt 1- ~ LfC( i
Whether congress intended that these provisions are enforceable against the states. These
are the subsections which may be the ones under which the regulation is authorized.
Identify public laws which most directly included the language in the current statute.
Current statute is 1396a(a)(10)A - see e-mail
Some were minor amendments - these laws were amended many times or reauthorized.
42 Cfr 435.1010
~ ~$-f) t[
Response to June 27, 2008 letter entitled "Comments on Notice of Intent
to Request Approval of Property Disposition re Project Known as
Arroyo Vista Redevelopment" submitted by
The Public Interest Law Project
Prepared by City of Dublin
July 9, 2008
Comment 1: The City's proposed Finding of No Significant Impact is unwarranted and
conflicts with NEPA and RUD's Regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 58.
Response: The City hereby incorporates its responses to comments 2.1
through 2.10 which were raised by the Public Interest Law Project's June
27, 2008 letter objecting to the City's Notice of Finding of No Significant
Impact (contained in Attachment 6 to the July 15, 2008 City Council
Agenda Statement). The City explored these issues exhaustively in
evaluating the proposed project and is satisfied that the project is planned
in the manner that will cause no significant negative environmental
impact.
Comment 2: Parties to the Arroyo Vista Redevelopment Project have committed funds,
incurred costs, and undertaken activities to dispose of Arroyo Vista, without prior HUD
approval of DHA's Application for Disposition, including approval of environmental
reVIew.
Response: The City hereby incorporates its responses to comments 2.1
through 2.10 which were raised by the Public Interest Law Proj ect's June
27, 2008 letter objecting to the City's Notice of Finding of No Significant
Impact (contained in Attachment 6 to the July 15, 2008 City Council
Agenda Statement). . Additionally, Part 24, Section 58.34(a)(1) and (8)
of the Code of Federal Regulations specifically permits funds to be spent
on environmental studies and engineering and design work of a project
without being in violation of NEP A or otherwise needing approval :from
HUD. And Part 24, Section 970.25 of the Code of Federal Regulations
expressly authorizes pre-disposition "planning activities" prior to HUD
approval that include, but are not limited to, project viability studies,
capital planning, and or comprehensive occupancy planning.
Comment 2a: The City, DHA, and HAC A entered into a contract for sale of Arroyo
Vista in July 2007 without prior HUD approval of an application for disposition.
Response: The commentor is correct that the City, together with the
Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) and the Housing Authority of Alameda
County (HACA) entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement
Attachment 8
E{ q t..f 00 t;f eft
(DDA) with Eden Housing Inc., (Eden) and SCS Citation Homes Central
(Citation) prior to HUD approval of DHA's application for disposition.
However, there is nothing in the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEP A), or the Code of Federal Regulations that prohibits such pre-
disposition planning activities. (See, e.g., 24 C.F.R. section 970.25
expressly authorizing pre-disposition planning activities). Furthermore,
the DDA is only binding on the DHA and can, therefore, only obligate
and/or authorize the sale of Arroyo Vista ifHUD approves the application.
(See DDA at p. 43, paragraph 12.1). Thus, the DDA is less a binding
contract for sale than it is an agreement" ...whose terms and conditions
would govern the conveyance of the Property and the development of the
Development" after HUD approval. (See, DDA at p. 2, paragraph D,
emphasis added).
Comment 2b: DHA submitted an Application for Disposition of Arroyo Vista to HUD
on or about August 15, 2007 well in advance of any authorization :from the City to seek
such approval.
Response: Part 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations does not require
DHA to obtain approval :from the City prior to submitting an application
for disposition. Nevertheless, the issue of whether DHA should seek
HUD approval to redevelop Arroyo Vista was exhaustively analyzed and
researched by the City for at least a year prior to DHA's submission in
August 15,2007. Furthermore, the DHA did not submit its application for
disposition until one month after the City entered into the DDA which
conditioned DHA's authority to redevelop Arroyo Vista on compliance
with NEP A and approval by HUD. Moreover, the disposition application
was supported by a March 19,2007 letter :from the City's Mayor to HUD,
in accordance with Part 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section
970.7(a)(14)(ii), expressing the City's strong support for the disposition
application. The City is satisfied that the DHA's submission of an
application for disposition under these circumstances complies with the
law.
Comment 2c: DHA committed to below market sales price in the DDA in advance of
securing any appraisal of Arroyo Vista and without accounting for use of net proceeds for
the sale.
Response: Under Part 24, Section 58.34(a)(2) and 58.35(b)(6) ofthe Code
of Federal Regulations these are activities for which no environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact under NEP A is required. Thus, although DHA
must provide these items to HUD prior to approval, they do not impact the
environmental review process. It is HUD - not the City - that approves
DHA's application for disposition. If DHA's application is deficient in any
respect, HUD alone has the authority to disprove it. Finally, there is no
L\:CrB 00 t.ltt 9
requirement in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) or the
Code of Federal Regulations that requires DHA to sell the property at
market rates.
Comment 2d: DHA and HACA relocated 60 households without prior HUD approval of
an Application for Disposition and without a relocation plan, notice, or relocation
assistance mandated by federal and state law.
Response: Arroyo Vista Tenants Association v. City of Dublin, 2008
LEXIS 4117 (N.D. Cal. 5/2212008) does not stand for the proposition that
the provision of relocation benefits to Arroyo Vista residents prior to HUD
approval of DHA's application for disposition is prohibited by 42 U.S.C.
I437p(a)(4). Furthermore, neither HACA nor DHA has relocated any
residents; all residents who have relocated from Arroyo Vista have done
so voluntarily. The only thing HACA and/or DHA have done during the
pendency of DHA's application for disposition is provide residents who
wish to move with relocation benefits that meet or exceed the
requirements of applicable law. The City of Dublin is not involved in the
relocation of Arroyo Vista residents and neither counsels them nor
provides relocation benefits.
Additionally, the City believes that the relocation plan adopted by DHA
adequately studies individual needs of households that might be displaced
as a result of the Project as well as the resources available to those
households to mitigate the impacts of displacement. The plan provides for
relocation benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of applicable law.
These 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 ISO-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 in the event of displacement. The
relocation plan also demonstrates that the impacts of displacement will be
mitigated by the provision of relocation benefits.
Comment 2e: DHA removed 60 public housing units from the market without prior
HUD approval of an Application for Disposition:
Response: The City has reviewed the relevant regulations and does not
believe that DHA has violated state or federal regulations by choosing not
to re-rent units vacated by residents following submission of its
application for disposition. While it is true that the DHA is required to
"continue to meet all of its obligations to maintain and operate the
Lt--1!1 Ob ~c, <t
property as housing for low income families" that duty does not extend to
non-residents who wish to move into the housing units vacated during the
pendency of an application for Disposition. DHA must only continue to
"...provide full housing services to all residents that remain in the
development."(See 24 CFR 970.25, emphasis added.). The commentor is
incorrect when it states that DHA's refusal to re-rent these vacated units is
unlawful. To the contrary, federal law prohibits DHA from re-renting
vacated units while HUD is considering its application for demolition or
disposition." (See 24 CFR 970.25.)
Comment 2f: The City advanced local funds to Eden Housing in December 2007
without HUD approval of an Application for Disposition, including approval of the City's
environmental review.
Response: Part 24, Section 58.34(a)(1) and (8) of the Code of Federal
Regulations specifically permits funds to be spent on affordable housing
pre-development costs including legal, consulting, developer and other
costs related to obtaining site options, project financing, administrative
costs and fees for loan commitments, zoning approvals, environmental
studies, engineering and design work and other related activities without
being in violation ofNEP A or otherwise needing approval from HUD.
Comment 3: HUD must disapprove DHA's application for Disposition of Arroyo Vista.
Response: This comment urges HUD to disapprove DHA's application for
disposition of Arroyo Vista. Accordingly, the City staff has forwarded
this comment letter to HUD.
L+'i10:b L/qq
NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST APPROVAL OF PROPERTY DISPOSITION
May 28,2008
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
925-833-6610
These Notices shall satisfy two separate but related procedural requirements for
activities to be undertaken by the City of Dublin as Responsible Entity and the Dublin
Housing Authority.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROPERTY DISPOSITION
On or about July 16, 2008 the City of Dublin will authorize the Dublin Housing Authority to
submit a request to the San Francisco Field Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) for approval of property disposition under Section 18 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, to undertake a project known as Arroyo Vista
Redevelopment for the purpose of redeveloping an existing public housing project and
expanding the number of dwelling units, subject to approval of the project by the City. The
project proposes relocating the residents of the existing Arroyo Vista public housing,
demolishing the improvements, and redeveloping the site with up to 180 affordable rental units,
up to 198 for-sale units, including up to 14 affordable units, as well as a child care center, a
community building/management office and recreational open space. The project's
improvements are proposed to be financed with a variety of sources including low income
housing tax credit equity, local funds, state funds, HUD Section 202 funds, Affordable Housing
Program funds, commercial loans and private equity. The project is located at 6700 Dougherty
Road in Dublin.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The City of Dublin has determined that the project will have no significant impact on the human
environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required. Additional project information is contained in the
Environmental Review Record (ERR) on file at the City of Dublin Community Development
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 and may be examined or copied weekdays,
except holidays, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any individual, group, or agency may submit written comments on the ERR to the City of Dublin
Community Development Department. All comments received by June 27,2008 will be
Attachment 9
If"t1~ rib Ct'1ct
considered by the City of Dublin prior to authorizing submission of a request for approval of
property disposition. Comments should specify which Notice they are addressing.
ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION
The City of Dublin certifies to HUD that Richard Ambrose in his capacity as City Manager
consents to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts if an action is brought to enforce
responsibilities in relation to the environmental review process and that these responsibilities
have been satisfied. HUD's acceptance of the certification satisfies its responsibilities under
NEPA and related laws and authorities and allows the Dublin Housing Authority to dispose of
property.
OBJECTIONS TO DISPOSITION ACTION
HUD will accept objections to its approval and the City of Dublin's certification for a period of
fifteen days following the anticipated submission date or its actual receipt of the request
(whichever is later) only if they are on one of the following bases: (a) the certification was not
executed by the Certifying Officer of the City of Dublin; (b) the City of Dublin has omitted a step
or failed to make a decision or finding required by HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 58; (c) the
grant recipient or other participants in the development process have committed funds, incurred
costs or undertaken activities not authorized by 24 CFR Part 58 before approval by HUD; or (d)
another Federal agency acting pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1504 has submitted a written finding
that the project is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality. Objections must
be prepared and submitted in accordance with the required procedures (24 CFR Part 58, Sec.
58.76) and shall be addressed to HUD at 600 Harrison Street, Third Floor, San Francisco, CA
94107-1300. Potential objectors should contact HUD to verify the actual last day of the
objection period.
Richard Ambrose, City Manaqer