Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Arroyo Vista Legis Action Attch 2 Cont (2) Arroyo Vista Project General Plan Amendment ` Rezoning Site Design Review Subdivision Maps ra o~-o2s Final Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2007122066 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner Apri12009 ~, . EXHIBIT E TO ,~ ATTACHMENT 2 ,. -~~ i ~ q~~ Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................... 2 Project Description .........................................................................................2 Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR .............................................. 3 Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ......................................................... 7 Annotated Comment Letters and Responses .............................................. 8 Attachment 1: Revised Traffic Tables ......................................................... 27 Attachment 2: Redevelopment Information Newsletters ........................ 28 ~`1a ~ qo1 Introduction A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated January 2009 was prepared for this Project and distributed for public review January through March 2009. The Project area contains approximately 23.8 acres of land (24.1 gross acres of land) located in the central portion of the City of Dublin. More specifically, the Site is located at 6700 Dougherty Road on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail. DEIR circulation Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA - Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period. As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a public review period between January 31, 2009 and March 23, 2009. This Comments and Responses document augments the DEIR and, together with the DEIR, comprise the Final EIR (FEIR) for this Project. This document contains all public comments received during the 45-day public review period regarding the DEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that comment. The FEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the DEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the DEIR. The City has carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or clarifications and modifications to the DEIR text, against the recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information or clarifications/modifications in this document constitutes significant new information as defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially more severe significant impacts or different feasible alternatives or mitigations, therefore the City has determined that ~° no recirculation is required. Project Description Existing residents on the Site would be relocated from the site consistent with applicable state and Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site would be removed. The Project would then consist of constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the Site, as well as a community building, a day care center and related improvements. The Project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the Site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 2 City of Dublin April 2009 1 ~. The proposed Arroyo Vista residential development would be a community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 for sale units with 141 of these being attached and 57 detached dwellings. Up to 15 of the "for sale" units will be set-aside for below market rate (moderate income level) purchase. The remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income- restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491- bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment unit). Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings. The senior apartments would be located in one three-story building located near the center of the development, adjacent to the childcare center. A small courtyard will be constructed between the senior building wings. A community building would be constructed as part of the proposed Project. The childcare facility is proposed to be located near the intersection of the public loop road and public street A. This facility would include approximately 3,400 square feet and would contain a preschool classroom, toddler classroom and offices. The facility would be open to the public. The facility could accommodate up to 48 children and would also include an outdoor play area. The anticipated hours of operation for the facility are 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The total anticipated number of employees for the facility is 8, which includes teachers, administration and maintenance staff. Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR The following clarifications and modifications to the DEIR are incorporated by reference into the DEIR document. 1) Page 93 of the DEIR, Fire Services, first paragraph, is modified to note that Fire Station 16 at 7494 Donohue is located a distance of 1.3 miles from the Project site. 2) Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 is hereby modified to read as follows: "Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patterns, flooding and drainage system ca acity): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shall indicate that adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional drainage facilities to accommodate the direction, rate and amount of increased stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(s) shall upgrade undersized drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 and all recommendations for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans." Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 3 City of Dublin April 2009 ~l1 ~L~L~ `~ 3) Page 11, the second sentence in second to last paragraph is amended to read: "The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes be~ee~ 3~ at or below 60% of the AMI." 4) The second line of the second paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) be modified as follows "Existing residents on the Site would be relocated to replacement housing sites consistent with applicable , state and Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site would be removed." 5) The first line of the third paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) is modified as follows: "The remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment unit)." 6) The bottom of page 3 in Section 1.5 is modified as follows: "Alternative 2: Reduced Project. The second alternative assumes that existing buildings and related improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per applicable lee~I, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site would be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per acre." 7) The fourth line of the second paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) is modified as follows: "The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141 attached and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491- bedroom apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit which would not be income or age restricted)." 8) The third line of the fourth paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) is modified as follows: "The affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between 20 o and 60% of AMI." 9) The third paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics), page 13, is modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August 15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer team. With HUD approval of the Disposition Application, the Project would be removed from the public housing program and will no longer be subject to the Annual Contribution Contract. Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocation plan which has been approved bX the a Dublin Housing Authority which is consistent with applicable lec-eI, State and Federal relocation guidelines and regulations." Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 4 City of Dublin April 2009 10) Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 80, is modified as follows: "The Project Site is occupied by 1501^~•~ ~^^^-~~ public housing detached single-family dwellings owned by the Dublin Housing Authority. The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq. proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer team. The Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan pursuant to applicable ~~, state and federal guidelines. The plan provides for relocation benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of applicable law. Benefits include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for disabled and _ senior residents if requested, security deposits, credit check fees, comparable replacement housing in the form of a Section 8 voucher or, if ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice to move (but only if HUD approves the disposition application). The relocation plan demonstrates that there are adequate available housing resources for the displaced households and that the DHA will provide advisory assistance and relocation benefits necessary to ensure that all households are adequately housed at the time of displacement." 11) The last paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 91, is modified as follows: "Each of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with extremely low incomes, would be provided with relocation assistance and would have the right to return to the Project, provided their incomes at the time of rehousing are not higher than the Project's maximum affordability levels." 12) The first paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified as follows: "Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to increase both the number and affordability level of the units on the property. The current units, while operating as public housing units, are available to residents with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The 49 senior units will be available only to households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI. T~ _.._ l~I~ZZ~I•-••~•~••~~ .~.1.~.-.r~n,l7 F:.....-..,ir~rr in n~~nnn,nnF..l LTTTTI .....1:.......:11 _.,.___.__ tl--L -i-1---i ef~4~A,~-}: The family rental units will be restricted to varying income levels, none µ of which will exceed 60% of AMI. Thus, all of the affordable rental units will be income-restricted at levels lower than they are currently, including some for those with extremely low income. The proposal is intended to create amixed-income community that more than replaces the number oflow-income units being removed, in compliance with several policies contained in Dublin's Housing Element. 13) The fourth paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified as follows: Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 5 City of Dublin April 2009 1, U~ , r ~- ~I ~ ~ ~.;1 "In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the ,< general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation p~a~~assistance as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale" dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and people from the Site would be less-than-significant." 14) The second paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents, as required by applicable state and Federal ~e;~s ug idelines." 15) The third paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified as follows: "Relocation efforts, as documented in the Relocation Plan, include an outreach program for residents and convening several resident meetings to describe the proposed redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project Site. Relocation specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and would continue to provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for comparable housing opportunities in the Dublin and Tri-Vallev area and referrals regarding governmental and social service agencies, as needed. Relocation payments have been provided to residents and will continue to be provided in accordance with California Guidelines and federal requirements." 16) The fourth paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, is modified as follows: "In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation pis-assistance as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale" dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and people from the Site would be less-than-significant." 17) Page 100-101, Standards of Significance, first bullet point, the threshold for Alameda County Congestion Management Agency facilities is based on the ACCMA monitoring standards and is established at LOS E. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 6 City of Dublin April 2009 18) Revised Tables X and XI from the Traffic Study (see DEIR Appendix 8.7) are included in this document as Attachment 1. Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10 contained in the DEIR are also modified as reflected in Revised Tables X and XI. 19) Page 11 of the DEIR, the first line of the fourth paragraph under Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) is amended as follows: "Of the 198 for sale units, up to 15 ~4 units would be ^a~~ ~~ k,,,y~--~ ..,~~~^ ; ~. +~ Qn a ~ nor ~ +t, ""' -:' r^^"'^ i~.^'„r., ..,., ', + ~+ ~. provided pursuant to the Ci , 's Inclusionary Housing C-rdinance." Summary of DEIR Comment Letters Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the DEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties. Commenter Date State A encies 1.1 De artment of Trans ortation 3 19 09 Local A encies 2.1 Alameda Coun Fire De artment 2 24 09 2.2 Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) 3 9 09 2.3 Alameda County Public Works A enc 3 10 09 2.4 Zone 7 3 23 09 2.5 Alameda County Congestion Mana ement A enc 3 24 09 Interested Persons Or anizations 3.1 Bob and Sofia Brander 2 10 09 3.2 C er 1 Weir 2 18 09 3.3 Alameda Coun Housin Au on 2 13 09 3.4 Alameda Coun Housin Au on 2 25 09 3.5 T e Public Interest Law Project 3 23 09 Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 7 City of Dublin April 2009 __. `_ ~. ~ f ~~ ~~ Annotated Comment Letters and Responses (Note: The following comment letters are not paginated) Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 8 City of Dublin April 2009 Sent By:' CALTRANS TRANSPORTATID PLANNING; 510 288 5560; Mar-19.09 3:56PM; Page 1/1 ~ ~~'~i D f ~~~ STA'CIiOFCALiLK)itNEA-BU91NGa13,TRAN9PORTATiONANDHOj~1Nn~[71ENG'Y AT2W 60FSW DEPA~TMENI' OF TIi.~1NSP4KTA'I')[ON 1114RAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 28684 OAXLAND, (.A 64628-0884 F/rx marl PFit)NE (b10) 622.6491 Br rne~ dal FAX (S10) 28B-5559 1'i`Y 711 March 19.2004 Letter 1.1 ALAS80843 ALA-580-19.8 SCH#2007122066 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin Community Developmem Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94b68 Dear Ms. Fraser. Arooyv VLcta Development Project -Draft Environ~u~ental Impact Report Thank you for continuing to include the California Deparhnent of Transportation (Dcpartment) in the cnvironmeatal review proccss for the Arroyo Vista Development Project. The following comments are based on tha Draft Environmental Impact Report. Forecasting in Table 4.11-2 on page 101, what is the existing site traffic based on? How are the existing AM and PM peak hour totals calculated? Should you have any questions regarding this !titer, please call Yatman Kwan of my staff ati (510) 622-1670. Sincerely, ~., ~~ L1SA CARBONI District $raneh Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "'Cat:mno Gnprovw mobilEty xwoc ()alifnrnia' 1.1.1 03/19/2009 THU 14:59 [TX/RX NO 7904] [~j001 Alameda County Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Phonc: 925-833-6606 Fax: 923-829-5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS ~~~ _~. ~~~/ DATE: 02/24/09 TO: Erica Frasier, Senior Planners Letter 2.1 - FROM: Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: PA-07-028 Arroyo Vista Draft EIR Specific Comments: 1. Recommend clarification on Page 93 under Fire Services. In the fast paragraph add Fire 2.1.1 Station 16 on 7494 Donahue with a distance ,of 1.3 miles. G:1A 2009 Plan ChecklDougherty Road\6700\pa•07.028 wcus draft EIR.doc ~.~~~ `T DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 7051 Dublin Boutevard Dublin, Cal(Cornia 94568 Phone; 925 828 0515 FAX; 925 829 1180 tvww.dsrsd.com ~~~ March 9, 2009 ~~~~~® Letter 2.2 ' MAR Y ~U 2009 Ms. Erica Fraser, Project Planner City ofDublin -Community Development Department pU~~~(~ `~~~~j~N(a 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject; Arroyo Vista Project-PA 0?-028 General Plan Amendment, Rezoning Site Design Review, Subdivision Maps Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Fraser; Thank you for the oppommity to comment on this document. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and has the following comments: • As pointed out in the Draft Report, the project area is within DSRSD's potable water service area; however 2.2.1 - Zone 7 is the current water provider. DSRSD intends to take over being the water provider if approved by Zone 7 and LAFCO. • The project area is within the sanitary sewer service area of DSRSD. DSRSD has provided sanitary sewer service for this location in the past and will continue to do so after construction. • .The project area is within the recycled water service area of DSRSD and DSRSD will provide recycled water to the project for both construction and landscaping. • DSRSD agrees tivith the report's conclusion that the needed increase in potable water demand for the project is reasonably likely to be available. In addition, the potable water facilities needed to serve the project are already existing or planned for constntction. • DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that the needed increase in sanitary sewer treatment service for the project will be available with a less than signif cant impact. • DSRSD agrees with the report's conclusion that recycled water will be available for the project. Use of ,~ recycled water within the project for landscaping will help a great deal in lessening the potable water demand from the increased number of dwelling units with the project. PIanning and construction activities should be coordinated tivith DSRSD to ensure that the proposed activities do not 2.2.2 interfere with existing DSRSD facilities, and the installation of new water and sewer lines are completed in conformance with aI1 applicable DSRSD Master Plans and DSRSD Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings. Recycled water will be required for landscape irrigation. "~ Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Stan Kolodzie at (925} 875-2253. Si 1 , RHODORAN. BIAGTA Principal Engineer RB/ST cc: Dave Requa Stan Kolodzie File: DP-07-028 F)ublln San Rsmen Services District Is a F'ubiie f;nllty H;~ENaDEP'11CEQA1Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft EIR_Jan-09.doc °~a~~O" -°""'~ S COUNTY OF ALAMEDA y PUBLIC WORI~S AGENCY tit° DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 9,51 Turner Court, Room I00 y PUBLIC Hayward, CA 94545-2698 `~~ WORKS (510) 670-6601 ~SO4rces FAX (5IO) 670-5269 March 10, 2009 Erica Fraser, Senior Planner Community Development Department loo Civic Plaza Letter 2.3 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms.Fraser; ~~~~~~~~ MAR 1 ~ 2009 ®U~LIN~ PLANIVIN~ Subject; Draft Environmental ImpactReport ,Arroyo Vista EIR (SCH# 2007122066) _ Reference is made to your transmittal on January 30, 2009, of the above subject project application, located west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail in the CityofDublin. Per our cursory review of the transmitted material, we hereby offer the following comments regarding storm drainage that should be considered in the determination of project status: 1. Although the project site is located in Zone, 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda 2.3.1 Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This flood control facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District, The District is concerned with augmentation in runoff from the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project and in the watercourses between the site and the Federal Project, as well as the potential for runoff from the project to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses that could cause localized damage and result in deposition of silt in the Federal Project. There should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that will adverselyimpact downsheam drainage facilities. 2. The applicant should provide measures to prevent the discharge of contaminated materials 2.3.2 into public drainage facilities. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with Federal, State, or local water quality standards and regulations. Thank you for the. opporhuiity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project. Please provide a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for our file and reference. If you have questions, please call me at (510) 670-5209. Very truly yours, ~V • R se 'e e Lean A sis t gineer Land Development Services TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OIIR ('(~MMr rrvrTv ~~A~E.AMADOg6 ~~ 13 51~ .~^°; _` ~~GP'OlV • FL06~QQO~ March 23, 2009 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY LdVE+RMORE, CA 94551 PHONB {925} 454-5000 FAX (925) 4545727 Ms. Erica Fraser, Project Planner Letter 2.4 City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, Ca. 94568 Subject: ~ Draft Environmental impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development. (SCIi #2007122066) Dear Ms. Fraser: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agricul.ture/irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. We have the following comments for your consideration. On page 80, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (alteration of drainage patters, flooding and drainage capacity), the Project Developer is to prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using RWQCB, Zone 7, and City drainage criteria. The last sentence indicates that the drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department; please change the language to indicate that the drainage and hydrology plan shall also require approval/concurrence from Zone 7 Water Agency. 2. Under the City's Resolution No. 53-93 (1993 Eastern Dublin E1R), each project area is to provide a Storm Drainage Master Plan. Please provide clarification as to whether the drainage and hydrology plan proposed as mitigation in the DEIR is the same as the Storm Drainage Master Plan that was a. requirement of the Easter Dublin EIR. If not, Zone 7 should have the opportunity to review and comment on the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to the drainage and hydrology plan. We appreciate th.e opportunity to~comment on this document. if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via a-mail at mlim(a>,zone7water.com. Sincerely, ~~ Mary lm Environment Services Program Manager Cc: Joe Seto, Jeff Tang ~~~~I~~~ MAR 2 4 2009 2.4.1 2.4.2 DU~L[N Pt.ANN[N~ ~s~l ~j ~o~ "° MAR/24/2009/TUE 04:14 P~,i r-~l.}-11VIEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1333 BROADWAY, SUTE 220.OA(Q1WD, CA 94612 • PHONE: (51~ 826-2560 • FAX: (51~ 838-21x6 t;-MAI(.: mAll9dfxma.Ca.pw • WE6 SRE: Rccma.r,~,q°V AC Tranett ~'1a° FSZR AId9iBdB Caanty SU~>Niaq n~x~ at!ry s«u -;'~ann t:1ty of Alameda µrw ~~~ ~ ~r city of Albany Oxrryr+urber Fw'd Jarabd BART ar~ n»,w eta March 24, 2009 Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP Senior Platu~er Community Developmen Depaztt><tent City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, CA 94568 Letter 2,5 P, OOl/002 SUBJECT': Coztunezxts on the pray ];ztvlrozumental Ixzxpact Report (Dfi1R) for the Arroyo Vista Development Project itt the City of Dublin (PA 07-028) city °r B~rk°far Derr Ms. ~xasex: , IfA7a YfirdtWjbn Crtyouf~nablln Thexdc. you fox the oppoxhu~ity to coxxu~aent ozx tine City , of Dublixt's Arroyo Vista ,~~,,, Development Project in the City o;f Dublin, Tlae 23.8 acre project azea is located on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection with Amador Valley Boulevard and north 'City of EmcryYCe 1+zdt~jcr of tlxe ilxtexsection with the ZTOn p3foxse Frail. Tlxe westerzx bouzxdaxy i5 A.ianl,o Creek. Tlxe I~rh~c~, Projeot involves demolition of the existing 1S0 dwelling tuiits on site and construction of up elty°fFre~mant to 378 ae~v dwelling unifs, a community building and a day care center and related '~tw.ga irapz•ovennezlts. Cit °tHaywatd p~„ ~„ The ,A,CCivTA z`esp~l;'tfu~y subxuits the ~oliowiuxg coezAts: Cify of Livermera ~~ LOS Stazadards o:f Siga3;Ftcance -page 100, iixst era a Ix az~d a 11~ 2nd stated ~ our z•espouse to the lYO.P dated 3azxuaty 2Z, 0 8, the Alameda County C t~gest on city °~ k Management Agency (ACCMA) does not have a standard fos roadway level of salvias ~"°~'°~' as it applies to the Land Use Analysis Program. References to ACCMr~, level of OltyarCaktand sex-vice Ox Sagtxifzcatxce cxitexla staazdard5 Slxould be delefed. The ACCMA does la,ot rn~`+~~` have a policy for detez~nining a threshold of sigzxifzcance. Rather, it is ez~peeted that c~ ~f vl nf• professional judgment will be applied to determi~ze project level impaots. Also, ,~„~ ~ . please oats that ewezi thaugii a roadway. is operatixig at LOS F, this dons not preclude City of Pleasanton the proj act fz'ozn identifying feasible zxa_itigation for those mates. ~~ • Jvu1?G Nos!ennn . . City of &an Leandro ~ ~~ Strategies- Tlae pEIR does not include a>:xy deznar~d-related strategies. A,s r~ recommended in the NOP response letter, meohanisms that encourage ridesharing, '10'~R~D~` t~•atxsit, bicycling, telecoznuxuting Qud otlxer xuea~s o£ reducing peak hour traffe trips cityofAU~on city slxould be considered, Iznpleznenting tlxese strategies could avoid exacerbatiuig the . -~~~ existinb congestion in several project shady area intersections and roadways where the net impact after 1laltigati.pn, is detern~.izxed as sigvxfitcamt and unavoidable, FxeoalJva ~I[actar nth R Fay 2.5.1 2.5.2 -lS5 ~,i_ ~10~ MAR/24/2009/TUE 04:15 PPd P, 002/002 Ms. Erica Fraser March 24, 2009 Page 2 • Tables 4.11»9 & 4.11»10- Shoat and long texzzz Cumulative Cozzdxtzozzs Freeway 2,5.3 Analysis, Pages 120 cR: 127,» Capacity for the interstate routes o~ J-S80 and Z-680 was assumed as 2000 velx/hr/lane for freeway iXnpact axzalysis. Howover, the same capacity was assuzzzed fot; SR 84 as well. SlZ 84 beazzg a state highway witb; dz:~exezzt characteristics compared to the interstate roadways, lesser capacity than 2000 veb/hx/lane sltould be used for the impact atzalysis. Thazil~ you fox fire ol~portu~iry to aozz~eut on tll.is graft Eft.. Please do ~aot hesitate tp cozztac# Diane Stark or nie at 510/836-2560 if you require additional infoiznation. Siracei'eiy, Sax~ava~a Sutbazztbaza Senior Transportation Planner cc: file; CMP - Envirartmental Review Opinions -Responses - 2009 Axaae Starl<, Sez~ioz Trauspoxtataozz }?latauex 03J2q/2009 TUE 16'00 PTxiRU un ~Q~~, ra.n~„ _r~ J ~.~' Bob & Sofia Brander 7041 Stagecoach Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 February 8, 2409 City of Dublitl Community Development Department Letter 3.1 r- 144 Civic Plaza ' Dublin, C.A~ 94568 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report -Arroyo Vista EIR SCH # 2007122066 We have not read the Draft EIR. However, we wauld like to make some geneiral comments about this project. All or almost all~recent housing developments in Dublin have been high-density projecta. City tra£fxc and congestion has increased significantly in the last five years. We are concerned that this Sousing project will place additional strain on city streets and resources at a time when budgets are tight. 3.1.1 In particular, we would like to point out that the only east-west streets in the city, Amador 3.1.2 Valley Blvd and Dublin Blvd, cannot be widened Additional high-density housing will place additional strain on these streets. Dougherty Blvd., which runs right in front of the proposed housing project, has seen significant traffic level increases. This housing project will further increase traffic congestion on Dougherty, especially during commute hours. To put it simply -Dublin is a small city and cannot take any more high-density housing. 3.1.3 Please do not approve this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ~ ,~~ Bob Brander ----_ ~!' Sofia rander ~~~~~~~~ FEB ~ 0 2009 ~1~~~.IR! NL~iNf~li~(~ 'Cheryl Weix 6574 Conestoga Ln Dublin, CA 94568 February 16, 2009 City of Dublin Community Development Department Attn: Erica Fraser, Project Planner 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms, Fraser: RECEIVED FEB 18 2009 DUBLIN PLANNING Letter 3.2 I'm responding to a mailing I received regarding PA 07-028, General Plan Amendment, Stage 1/Stage 2 Rezone and Development Plan. First of all, thank you for soliciting community input. I live close to this parcel and have 3.2.1 some serious reservations about letting it go forward, as planned. Does this really make sense? I know it's been in the works for a long time. But at this 3.2.2 ; point, Dublin is overbuilt for new housing, real-estate prices are Low and the market will not recover in the near future. Adding yet another high-density development now will Leave additional units built but empty for a long period of time. This doesn't seem to be in Dublin's best interest and will only further depress the real estate market for longer than necessary with the oversupply of empty units. I appreciate that Eden Mousing and Citation Homes are simply trying to find profit in this 3.2.3 economy. That's oily good business for them. However, I don't believe this project is in Dublin's best interest, and I think that's the most important factor. Sincerely, ~~ i-- .i~til`tl. ~:..'! {=.~'..tl.:~:. 1.`.t~: (1~ t '. :,i i'~ .r:.. :' '. ~ a;''j;. .~?t:~ f ! ~'~:: j(i .t. .r(~~~'~!O~.(,~~ :t~tr; ~)S i'~i ::1!~'f i~. '~:~.' ii>(. ~.1 .~ rt t)I ~r"~Fw .. ~ <t' (,~'(:''ir ~ '!y~•... 'r> ~~'` 't; 1.11. .r... ..!: _ ._. t}1(' ..: G:: i...rl liJ.' \t';!(I!<<I .':~-+ `.'.~., ~.!: ~. ~i IZ:','.•!: `~:~il ;j.. .. :ji11;, fir. i! !: :•~e .. :r .. From: "Erica Fraser" <Erica.Fraser@ci.dublin.ca.us> Subject: FW: EIR comment Date: February 25, 2009 11:44:44 AM PST To: "Jerry Haag" <jphaag@pacbell.neb Jerry - I just received this email. Erica Letter 3.3 From: Gouig, Chris [mailto:chrisaC~haca.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:45 AM To: Erica Fraser Cc: Robert C. Mills Subject: EIR comment Erica: Bob Mills pointed out that on page 11, the second sentence in the second to the last paragraph should read: The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes at or below 60% of AMI. 3.3.1 The way it reads now, it sounds like a family earning less than 30% (and I know I said it should read 20%) wouldn't be able to live there. Thanks. Chris Christine Gouig Executive Director Alameda County Housing Authority 22941 Atherton Street Hnywnrd, CA 94541-6633 phone 510-727-8513 chrisg@haca.net "~ ~ ~I ~- ~-~10~i 02i13i2009 14:50 N0.529 D01 Letter 3.4 i~ To: Fa~c ~9.z,~) ~~-1~~.2P o~ ~drr~q f3~ ~?0~ ate: ~rn~ ~Y/e ~gass c) incfudang thi9 aov~ pegs ^ Urgent ^ For Revfew O Pleass Commont ^ Please Rapty ~hca Frz>~se~; swim ~ir:+' ^ Please itecycte Canvnents; ~P u ~ ~ ~~ 02/13/2009 14:50 N0.529 D02 ' 1.0 Prod ecl: Summary 1.~. Introducflon This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed Project, a list of enwironmerttal issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each envirorunental impact and associated mitigation measure. ' A discussion of the applicability of tie California En~rixonmental Quality Act (CpQ,ti) and implementing Guidelines to the proposed Project is oufilined in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains a detailed discussion of the proposed Project. Chapter 4 includes a thorough analysis of Project impacts and mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a range of alternatives to the proposed Project as required by C~QA and a discusslon of each alternative. Chapter 6 contains all other CE~A-mandated sections.l~inally, Chapter 7 includes the names of t11e DETIZ preparers, individuals and agencies contacted in the preparation of this document and references. Appendices are included as Chapter 8. '1.2 Summary' of PrajecE Descript7on ' 'T'he Project Site is Iocat~d in the central portion of the City of Dublin. Tulare specifically, the Site is Iocaled at b700 Dougherty Road on the tivesl• side of Dougherty ' `~ Raad, south of the intersection of Dougherty 12oad with Amador 'Valley Boulevard . and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, a regional multi-use trail. Alamo Creek forms a portion of the western boundary of the Site, ,~ which is a major creek in easterx- Alamedl County. The Site contains approximately 23.8 ages of land. y ~.~ Existing residents c~the Site would be relocated to replacement housin sites 3.4.1 `~" consistent with S , state and Federal guidelines and regulations and e existing 150 d~reliings on the Site would be removed. The Project would then consist of constructing up to 37& new dwellings on the Site, as well as a community building, a day Care center and rnlated improvements. The Project also includes upgrading of munia.pal services to the Site and appxovaI of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. ~- 'T'he proposed arroyo "Vista residential de~relopment would be a community of approximately 378 units comprised of 19S for sale units with 141 of these being attached actd 57 detached dwellings, Up to 14 of the "for sale" units will be set-aside f or below market rate (moderate income level) purchase. ~ The remainder of the 1'rojecf would include conslruc ort of up to 130 income- restrictedfamily residential dwellings (with a mix of , 3 and 4 bedroom units in a 3.4.2 combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491- bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apart~nentunit). Pt'aposed dwellings would include a mix of hero- and three-story residential wood- . fr~une buildings. The senior apartments would be located in one throe-story building located treat the center of the development, adjacent to the childcare center. A small courtyard will be cons~zcted between the senior building wings. ~ community building 'would be constructed near the public loop internal road. The cammuruty building would be used in conjunction with the affordable housing , Prcjject to serve the needs of chose residents. The 3,200 square foot building would 02l13I2003 FRi 1~~.r,R fTx/au an ~xoo, ~,~~~ ~1 ~ 1 ~fi q o~1 0211.3/2009 14:50 N0.529 D03 1.3 Suuunary of Envirox~mentai Issues Based on the environmental analysis contained in the Iiukal Study far this Project (see Appendix 8.1) and responses. (see DEIR Appendices 8.2 and $.3) to L•lte Notice of Preparagon issued by the City of Dublin, the following topics are addressed in fhe 17EYR. • Aesthetics and Light and Glare . • Air Quality • Biological Resources • CuIttzralliesources • Geology and Soils • Hazard and Hazardous Materials • hydrology and Water Quality + Noise • Po elation and Housing • Public Services • Transportation and Circulation + Utiiitie$ and Service Systems I.4 Surnulary of Imipacts and Mitigation Measures Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measure (if required) identified in this DEIR is summarized on Table l,.I,. The summary chart has been organized to correspond with the more detailed impact and mitigation measure discussion found in Chapter 4, Table 1.1 is ax'ranged in three columns. The first column identifies environmental impacts by topic area and level of impact(i.e. significant impact, less-than-sig~uficant impact or no impact) prior to implementation of any mitigation measures. The second colixmn includes mitigation measures, The third and final cote ~dentl~es thelevel of significance afterimplementation of mitigation measures. mn This chapter is a summary of the following DEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15123. For a complete description of the environmental setting, impacts associated with this proposed Project and mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DEIR. I.5 &uuunary of Alternatives The DEIR analyzes three alternatives, as follows, Alternative 1,: "N'o project," which assumes that existing public housing dwellings on the Site wauId remAir~ but no additional dwellings would be bz~ilt, although maintenance, repair and upgrades w'quld occur to ensure code compliance. ~ ,~~~,r AIternat~ve 2: I~Edu d Project. The second alternative assumes that exishing buildings and reIa d improvements would be demolished, existing residents 3.4.3 relocated per slate and federal relocation guidelines and regcurements, and the Site would be rEde~veloped wish attached housing at a density~of 10 dwellings per acre. bwellings ender this A.Iternative would be clustered in the approximate center of the Site, leaving greater setbacks Tong Dougherty Road and Alamo Creek. existing Site driveways along pougherry Road would remain as they currently exist. Arroyo Vis;a ~'ralect PA 07•p28 ~• Draft t=nviranmental impact Repor; Page 3 City of Dublfrt January 2409 02i13~2009 14:50 3.5 Pro~ect CTtaracteristlcs N0.529 D04 Overview. The proposed Project includes demolition of tl~e exisLxng 1.50 dwellings and 'other structures on the f'rojeCt Site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the Site. The Protect ~Isa incYudcs upgrading of munia.~al services to the SiEe and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. Exhibit 3.4 shows the proposed Stage? & Stage 2 Development Plan. r Develt3prn concept, The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a community o ~proxiinately 37$ units comprised of 19$ market rate units (with 141 attached and 5 ~ detached dwellings),130income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a max of , 3,and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flat's and townhouses) artd 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491-bedraom apartments and one Z- bedroom manager unit which'would not be income or age restricted). Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood-frame buildings, This development would replace 150 units of ublic housing on Site. At the core of the development, the Village Center wo~.tld include a Community $uiIding with central recreation space and a new Child Care Center. Additional satellite recreational areas, both passive and active, wauld be scattered throughout the proposed development. Three types of housing are proposed: 49 Senior apartments (incIudirtg 49 income- restricted units and one manager unit),134income restricted family dwellings and 198 market rats dwellings. The unit breakdown is as follows: Table 3,I, PropasecT D'welTing tTni1: Summary Hsrig Income-restricted Income-restricted '1" a Famil Units Senior Units MariCet Rafe Sin Ie Fantil Tota] Unlt'I~pe 1$ I.13clrm Flats 491-Bdrm Flats 128drm Flat 6G ~-Bdrm Towrnhomes 141 Attached 36 3-Bdrm Towrnhomes 57 Detached 16 4-Bdrm Townhomes Sub-total 130 Uttits 50 Units 198 Urtits 37B Un.tts Source. Project Applicants, 2007 ' Of the 198 for sale units, l4 units would be sold to buyers whose incomes are between 80 ` and 1,20% Of the area median income (below market rate}, All of the other dwellings proposed t:o be constructed on d1e Site would be rental dwellings. The affordable Senior' units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at or below 50%'0 of the Area Median Income (AM_ The Family' units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes bet~vee ~ and 60% of AMT. . ~ A central Ioop roadway as shown an Exhibit 3. is proposed to link the various community elements and create a unified devel ment. The affordable housing would be located at the heart of the Site ~nrhile the marke -rate units would be splitinta two Arroyo Vista Prajeci RA 07-029 l~ratt Environmental Impaot Repoli City of Ru~lin ~~ Page 11 January 20Q9 3.4.4, 3.4.5 _I~3 ~ ~~~__~ ~2i13i2009 14:50 N0.529 D05 InfrastracEure. The existin Arroyo Vista development is presen[Iy served by water, wastewater, drainage, Solid wash, electrical, telecommunication and natural gas facilities. Water service is presently pprovided from Zone 7 and, as part of the proposed Project, pntablE and recycled water service would be provided by khe Dublin San Ramon Services Districl• (DSRSD). All other existing services ~~'ould continue to be provided to the Site, although portions o! existing facilities may need to be replaced or upgraded to serjiice additional dwellings proposed for the Site. ll,andscaping. Exhibit 3.5 depicts the proposed landscape plan for the Project. ' I'raperty disposition. The proposed Pro'act includ@s dispdsitton a! the 23.8-acre Site from the Dublin 1 Touring Authority (DI~A) to the two Project Applicants (Eden Tdousing and Citation domes), This acq.on would require.approv'al by the Federal Department of I Tousiz~g and Urban 17evelopment (1~UD). The Dublin housing Authority submitfe~d a Disposition Application to hIUU on August 15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden I-Iousing and Cita4on Homes Central developer team. With I-IUD approval of the Disposition Application, the Project would be removed fronn the public housing program and will no longer be subject to the Annual Contribution Cozltract. Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocatiozt plan which has been _ ' the Dublin hIousing Authority which is consistent with State and 3.4.6 Fede~r~e~~tl~'o~n guidelines and regulations. ~,~~~,~~~. Ttegttested enfiElemb As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of this Project. These are described in snore detail below. ~eneraI Plan Amendment. The Dublin General Plan presentl designates the Arroyo Vista Site as Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development between 6.1 and 14.0 dwellings per acre. The proposed Project includes a density of approximately 16 dwellings per acre, which would not be consistent with the current residential density range, Therefore, the Applicants have requested an amendment to the General Plan to re-designate the ProJ'ect Site as Medium/High Density Residential. Tlus designation allows residential development between the ranges of Ih.1 and 25 dwellings per acre. If approved, the requested General Plan (and use designation would allow the densily proposed as part of the Arroyo Vista Protect. The General Plan Amendment also includes a request to dcsi~nate 0.3 acres of to Site ds Public/Semi-Public consistent with the City's Semi Public Facilities Policy. A General PIan amendment is also requested to change the text of the Land Use Element aIIo~v attached and detached units in the Medium/piighDensity Residential land use designation. Currently, the Element does not allow detached dwelling unit types. The Amendment requires a public hearing by the Dublin PIanning Commission to ,, review the application and forward a recommendation to the Dublin City Council. The City Council must then hold a public hearing on the application prior to malting ' a decision. ,~rroy0 Vista PralBCt PA 07.028 Page i3 Draft Environmarttal Impact f3eport January 2009 Clryof Dublin _~ ~,n ~" ~ ~ -x- 02/13/2005 14:50 N~.529 D06 The fallowing measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant 12ve1 by ensuring that appropriate construction methods and materials are used to be consistent with City artd State interior noise levels. h!iitigatinll l+vieasuze 4.8-5 (interior noise levelimpacts); Final building plans shall be accox»panied by a report from a qualified acoustical Consultant indicating Eliot the Project will include appropriate eanstruetior techniques to reduce interior noise levels to a maximum of ~5 dBA Ldn, Tf~is shall include but is eat limited to proper wall construction feehniques, installation of appropriate insulation, the selections of proper winda~vs ancT dears, and the incorporation of forced-air mechaaicaY ventilation systems, Ttesidertces located adJ'acent to Dougherty Road shall also be equipped with a full heating and air-conditioning system because it is unlikely residents would open their windows for ventilation. 4,9 POP•CII~ATIUN A1VD HUU'SIN~ EN'VIItONMENTAUISSDES This section addresses the displacement of existing dwelling units and residents on the Project Site. d - -~k~ ' . EN'VJIZONMEIVTAL SETTTI~JG ~~-' ~ ~~ The Project Site is occupied by 150 ka~~te detached single-family dwellings owned 3.4.7 by the Dublin Housing Authority. ~ _~~ The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to an August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFI 970 et seq. proposing di osition of the Site to the Fden Housing artd Citation ]"Tames Central developer to .The Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Tlelocation Plan purst~ank to state and federal guidelines. The plan provides for relocation benefits that meet or exceed the regtu.remet'tts of applicable law, include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for disabled aztd senior 'dente if requested, security deposits, credit check fees, comparable replacement housin of a Section 8 vouch ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice o move but only if ,~ HUD approves the disposition application}. The relocation plan demonstrates that there ~~~ are adequate available housing resources for the displaced households and that the DH~4 vnll provide advisory assistance and relocation benefits necessary to ensure that alI households are adequately housed at the time of displacement. Aegatatoxy fraute'wark. Federal regulation Section 24 C1JTZ 970.21 requires the Dublin ~ousi>lg Authority to offer each displaced household comparable replacement hocxsing, to provide a mirtirrtlzm of 90 days advance notification of the displacement date, to pay reasonable reIocafiion expenses and offer of relocation advisory services. The State of California has also adopted Guidelines for the payment of relocation benefits to displaced households (25 Cal Code TZegs, 6000 et, seq.), Arroyo Viste Protect PA 07-028 Page 9D Draft ~nvlronmental Impact Report January 20A6 City of puhlin , 02i13i2009 14:50 N0.529 D07 Standards of significance, A population and housing impact would be considered significant if a proposed prefect would diepIace a substantial number of dwelling units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3.4.8 ENViRQNM>1NTAi~ IMPACTS ,,,~~~' ~~ !S ~--~-~yK~u~a.c~" C.4'1~ The proposed rroject would result in a Toss in the number of public housing units by the demolition of the existing 15Q weIlings on the Site, resulting in the displacement of an eetimated 441 residents, based on an average dwelling utut r ~.~~i• occu ancy of 3.0 persons per dwelling (source: Arroyo 'Vista ZZelocalion PIan, January 20Q6~ The Project Site would be redeveloped with up to 37$ dwelling units, I80 of which would be income-restricted, affordable rental units. ~'he Project would increase ~ ~° c' the number of affordable units on the Site as compared to the existing number of units on the Site and would include a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom units. ~~ The combination ofincome-restricted, affordable rental units is as follows: Table 4.9-1. Y'rQpoaed Itlcome-Restricted Rental Units An additional 14 for-sale units would be reserved for moderate-income households, As shown in the above table, the number offour-bedroom units is projected to decrease Y from the current 24 unite to I&.1-towever, an analysis of k~he Dublin Housing Authority's occupancy data indicated that as of .Aprll 2Q07, marry of the households occu in fouz- bedraom units did not have suf!"icientiy sized households to warrant occupati n of a four-bedroom unit. In other words, they were "averrhoused." In fact, Z6 of the familfe~ occupying the 24 four-bedxoom units were in the "over-housed" category in April 2Qp7, The proposal calls for the development to include.76foor-bedroom units, which seems to ba ample for the households at Arroyo Vista that actc7.ally qualify for such coots, The number of two-bedroom units would decrease from 78 in the ettrrent Project to b6 in the new development; the number of three-bedroom units would increase from 32 units to 36 units. Thus, the number of two, three and faux-bedroom units -units which are appropriate for families with children -would decrease only slightly, from 234 units to '" 1T$, while the total number of affordable rental units would increase from 150 to 180. $ach of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with, extremely, low . incomes, 'would be provided'with relocation assistance and would have the right to return to the Project, provided their income are not higher than the Project's maximum affordability levels. ~~ ~ ~~ Arroyo Villa Project PA 07-028 draft environmental Impact Report i~,, ~, r h-c~c~.'~~ Page 9t City of ou611n U January 2009 3.4.9 ft ~l lin tAAnn .-r. ~. ._.._....., __.-...r.,.~..~~...v~+aruunnrr coon 02i13i2009 14:50 ~~~ ~ ~o~ N0.529 D08 Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to increas>a both 3.4.10 the nlJntber and affordability level of the units on the ro er The ~'~trrent units, while o~erating as ppublic housing orals, aze available to res denps ~ th incomes at or below ¢' (~ 8 % of Area lvfedian Income (AMl). The 49 senior units will be available onl to ~ households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI, ~ ~ y ~ _ io. e~ - - --~. r ri ~*'~ •r-rrT~~..1.7.1 _,.... s • •t_... _ .. , -- E~ ~33E}~i-TGii4~~--= ~. restYi,Cte o varying income eve s, none o w`hl-cTi wiIT~ex ee 0~°Jayof AMY, Thus, all of the affordable rental units wvilI be income~restricted at levels•Io'wer than they axe currently, including some for thos,s'with extremely low income, The proposal is intended to create a mixed--income community that more than replaces the number of low-income units being removed, in compliance 'with several policies contained in Dublin's Housing $lerxtent. T'he Aublin .Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents, as required by aPPlicabl~Federal r ~~~~ Relocation efforts, as documented in the lZelaca on Plan, ~cl~xde an outreach ro for residents and converting several resident meetings to describe the proposed gram redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project Site, Relocaton specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and would continue to pra~de a minimum of three referrals to each household for comparable housing APpo~ties in the bublin area and referrals re Arding service agencies, as zteeded Relocation payments have b en provni~ded to residents and will continue to be provide in accordance witft California Guidelines and federal regt~frements. Gt.N-tom ! -'V _Y~ , Irt compliance with State and Federal regulations and guideline, ouse b~C n . - displaced as a result of implementing the prQpQBed Pro))'eofi ha . been and wro~tldng continue to be relocated to comparable Housing within bubIi •and in the general. Dublin area and axe or would be receiving relocatior- as required bylaw. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would not pezmanently reduce the i.ttventory of affordable housing and would increase the net number of affordable dwellings by up t~ 30 rental and fourteen "for sale" dWellin s; related to displacement of dwelling units artd people from the Ssterwould be lessthan~ yigni$cant. •. ~ r,. ~:. .~~' ~N.r ~. . iC ~. Arroyo lflsla ProJeet PA 07028 @i~gtt>"nvironmental impact Report i}!ly of Dubllrt Page 82 January zoos 3.4.11 • 3.4.12 3.4.13 rI'~.a.e Pubic ~la.tereSt Law Protect The Public Interest Law Project and Cal(fornla Affordable Housing Law Protect 449 -16th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, CA 84812 Mlcnael Rawson Co-Director March 23, 2009 Ilia Hand Delivery ,, Extension 145 mrawson@pllpca.org City of Dublin Stephen Ronfoldt Community Development Department CaDlrector Extension 127 100 Civic Plaza sronfeldl(~pilpca.org Dublin, CA 94568 Deborah Collins ManagingAltomeY Attention: Erica Fraser, Project Planner Extension 158 dcolNns@plipca.org Phone (510) 881.9794 Fax (510) 801.8727 www.plipca.org Letter 3.5 Re: Comments on Draft EIR cralg casteilanet A1~oyo Vista EIR SCH #2007122066 Stall Attorney Extension 132 ccasteganet@plipca.org ~ Dear Ms Fraser; Angio Schwartz StallAttomey Extension 125 aschwartz@pilprz.org Ba Area Le al Aid and The Public Interest Law Pro act submit these comments y g j on the Arroyo Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report (Dxaft EIR) on behalf of dudltn cord our clients the Arroyo Vista Tenants Association Rhenae Ke es Andres A Extensiotno111 , , y , rroyo, Darlene Brown and Elise Veal pursuant to the City's Notice of Availability of jgold@pilpca,org Draft EIR dated January 28, 2009. Elizabeth Grabor '~ LegalAssrstant The City's Preparation of the Draft EIR for the Arroyo Vista Project Is Extension 110 egraber@pilpca.org Untimely. Georgia Feitz The Draft EIR is too late in the development process to reasonably guide the Ciry Admintslrator ,~ Extension 101 Council's decision with respect to the environmental impacts of the "proposed" gfeltzQpUpca.org project. In fact, the City Council improperly committed itself to the redevelopment of Arroyo Vista long before evaluating the environmental effects of the project, 3.5.1 As acknowledged in the Draft EIR, the purpose of an EIR is to inform and guide the lead agency's review of the potential environmental effects of a proposed development project, so that the agency can fulfill its responsibility to avoid or minimize the environmental impacts of a proposed project through appropriate mitigation measures or alternatives, See, Draft EIR at 2.0, 2.3, The lead agency cannot take any action that significantly furthers a project in a manner that forecloses the very alternatives or mitigation measures suggested by CEQA review. See Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15004(b)(2)(B); see also Save Tara v City of West Holly)~~ood, 45 Cal.4t1i 116, 130-31 (2008), ~~~~~~~~ MAR 2 3 2009 ~l.P~3LIN R~ ®A~~~rnir~ ~; f nn City of Dublin Community Development Department Page 2 March 23, 2009 Here, the Draft EIR acknowledges that at least 441 Arroyo Vista residents "would be" displaced and 150 income-restricted units demolished pursuant to the proposed project. 3.5.2 See Draft EIR at §§1.2, 3.5, 4.9. The Draft EIR further sets forth three purported alternatives to thie proposed project: • Alternative 1 calls for no project such that the existing public housing units would remain and there would be no displacement of the respective residents from the Site. Id, at §§1.5, 5.1. • Alternative 2 suggests a reduced project, calling for demolition of all existing units, relocation of all residents, and redevelopment at a lower density resulting in fewer units. Id. at § § 1.5, 5.2. • Alternative 3 calls for a mixed use project using a portion of the site for commercial development and the remainder of the site for 188 attached dwelling units reshicted for low and very low income households. Id. at §§ 1.5, 5.3. As a practical matter, the City Council cannot reasonably consider these alternatives, and particularly not Alternative I, because it has already taken a series of significant steps to commit itself to the proposed project, including: In July 2007, it entered into a disposition and development agreement (DDA) with the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA), Alameda County Housing Authority (HACA), Citation Homes, and Eden Housing to carry out the same project that is proposed-here [demolition of all public housing units, relocation of all existing residents, and redevelopment of as a mixed income development of approximately 378 dwelling units]. As part of its disposition and development agreement, the City Council agreed to conhibute $1.5 million for relocation costs and to disburse those funds incrementally as costs are incuixed. Without any environmental review, in March 2007, a relocation consultant was hired; beginning in or about July 2007, DHA and HACA began relocating residents; by August 2007, at least 12 households had been relocated and by June 2008, approximately 60 households had been relocated. See DDA; Contract with Overland Pacific & Cutler; and DHA Relocation Plan. Thus, the City already committed and incurred significant costs in support of the "proposed" project. • As Arroyo Vista residents have been relocated, their vacant homes have been boarded up, resulting in a "de facto" demolition of nearly half of the public - housing units at Arroyo Vista without any environmental review of the environmental impact. _.1 ~ ~' ~.~- c10 City of Dublin Community Development Department Page 3 March 23, 2009 In August 2007, DHA submitted an application for disposition of Ai~oyo Vista to HUD which proposes the same project called for in the DDA. The Application includes a letter of support of the proposed project from the City. • As part of its disposition and development agreement, the City Council made a $1.5 million "construction" loan commitment to Eden Housing. • Although Eden Housing was to pay far predevelopment costs of the project, according to the DDA, in December 2007, the City Council approved a "predevelopment" loan of $325,000 to Eden Housing. Thus, the City's preparation and circulation of a DL•a$ EIR at this late date offers little more than a "post hoc [rationalization] to support action" the City has "already taken," See Save Taja v. City of West Hollytivood, 45 Cal.4th 116, 129-30 (2008) [citation omitted]. It effectively approved the proposed project without any environmental review in violation of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. The City cannot shield itself from its failure to comply with CEQA procedures by 3.5.3 claiming that its DDA is "conditioned" on approval of DHA's application for disposition to HUD and/or completion of the environmental review mandated under CEQA. The court will look beyond the `teams' of the purported `conditional' DDA to examine the record. Where the record reflects that the City or its staff committed significant resources to shaping the proposed project and/or foreclosed any meaningful options to going forward with the project, then for purposes of CEQA, the City will be deemed to have approved the project. Save Ta~•a v. City of West Hollywood, sacpra. Relocating nearly half of the families at Arroyo Vista in advance of any environmental review and expending City funds in support of the project effectively precludes any meaningful consideration of the alteratives outlined in the Draft EIR. Indeed, ~by carrying out the "proposed" project premahuely, the City has foreclosed not only the alternatives outlined in the Draft EIR, but its ability to comply with any conditions that maybe imposed by HUD. The Conclusion That There Would Be a Less Than Significant Impact With Respect 3.5.4 to Population and Housing Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. The E1R must provide adequate information to Local officials, government agencies and members of the public in order to disclose the environmental impacts and propose the mitigation measures and alternatives that will avoid or minimize those impacts. Here, the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would result in a "less than significant" impact with respect to population and housing, See Draft EIR at §4.9. However, this conclusion and the "facts" upon which it is based are not supported by substantial evidence. See Public Resources Code §21168.5. City of Dublin Community Development Department Page 4 March 23, 2009 The Draft EIR acknowledges that there would be a significant impact if the proposed project would displace a substantial number of dwelling units or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Draft EIR §4.9. It concludes, however, that the impact of displacing approximately 441 persons and the demolition of 1S0 homes that are predominately affordable to extremely low income families is "less-than- significant." Id. This conclusion is premised on the false notion that removal of the public housing units is only temporary; residents "would be"relocated pursuant to local, state and federal law; and any residents with incomes that are less than the maximum affordability levels will have a "right to return." "Temporary" Removal of Units. There is no evidence in the record that the units to be demolished will, in fact, be rebuilt. In fact, the DDA calls for the non-profit developer to apply for Section 202 Capital Grant, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and/or other public funds in order to produce rental units that would be affordable to households with incomes up to 60% of AMI. See DDA, Ex. B (Financing Plan/Development Budget). Moreover, development of any rental units at these affordability levels is expressly dependent on the availability of sufficient funding. See DDA §2.3, 2.4. Further, neither DHA's Application nor the DDA even project a construction start date for the purportedly affordable senior and family units. See Application §5; DDA, Ex. E. Sufficient funding for the affordable rental units is not likely to be available in the near fixture. As the recent stimulus package recognizes, the tax credit program suffers from a lack of investors willing to purchase tax credits. Even projects that were already awarded tax credits have stalled as a result. Second, the stimulus package targets HOME funds to assist those stalled projects, not new ones. And, Section 202 funding has suffered from inadequate funding for years, rendering receipt of such funds highly competitive. Thus, there is ~ZO guarantee that demolition of 150 public housing units is only "temporary" and no guarantee that any affordable rental units will ever "replace" the 150 public housing units to be demolished. "Affordability" of Units. Second, the proposed project will not produce units that are affordable to a majority of Arroyo Vista residents, rendering any purported "right of return" misleading at best. Even assuming that the non-profit developer actually secures sufficient funds to produce "affordable" rental units, the projected tax credit rent levels would be out of reach for most Arroyo Vista families. The Draft EIR implies that curxent residents have incomes up to 80% of the AMI. Tn fact, as of September 2007, DHA reported That 65% of Arroyo Vista households have extremely low incomes (at or below 30% of AMI) ~; 24% have very low incomes (at or below 50% of AMI); and 3I% percent ~ In fact, 69% of the households Dave incomes below $25,000 which is below exhemely Io~v income for a household of four; the average annual income at Arroyo Vista is only $21,101. Resident Characteristics _~~~ ~ ~f ~~~~ City of Dublin Community Development Department Page 7 March 23, 2009 years. See Resident Characteristics Report, September 2007. In short, Arroyo Vista has long enjoyed a stable, law-abiding, ethnically and racially diverse community of families with children, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Subjecting applicants for the redeveloped units to arbi#rary and subjective standards may well result in fair housing violations. As long as its current and prior residents are or were tenants in good standing during their Arroyo Vista tenancies (i.e., they were not terminated for cause pursuant to the terms of their rental agreements) and "waiting list" applicants would be eligible for a public housing unit but for disposition of Arroyo ,Vista, they need only meet the eligibility criteria applicable to any state and/or federal funding source that is used in developing the units for which they apply. Relocation of Residents. The Draft EIR states that all residents to be displaced "would be" relocated pursuant to Local, state and federal law. In fact, at least 60 households were relocated already, and most of them were relocated without arty relocation plan or the opportunity to comment on one before they were relocated. Thus, it is misleading for the Draft E1R to imply that all residents "would" receive all relocation required by local, state and federal law. That has already not occurred. Moreover, our clients have challenged the validity of the relocation plan under state and federal law and DHA's failure to comply with its own relocation plan or state or federal law with respect to relocation assistance and benefits. See Bay Legal/PILP Comments to Relocation Plan. For the above reasons, the EIR should be rejected and the DDA rescinded. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and request that our comments be included in the record. We would appreciate a written response and notice of any public hearing on the Draft EIR. Very truly yours, The Public Interest Law Project Bay Area Legal Aid •~ c BY: ~ ~~ Deborah Collins Attorneys for Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, et al. --i -w a ~f - ~ 0~1 N~ J x Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 9 City of Dublin April 2009 Letter 1.1: Department of Transportation • Comment 1.1: The commenter asks about the basis of existing site traffic as documented in Table 4.11-2. Also, how are the AM and PM peak hour totals calculated? Response: The existing site traffic is based on actual driveway counts. The a.m. and p.m. totals were calculated by adding the in and out traffic counts for the four existing driveways that provide access to the project site. See the spreadsheet contained in Appendix C of the Arroyo Vista Traffic Report prepared by TjKM, and included in Appendix 8.7 of the DEIR. The spreadsheet shows detailed calculation for the trip generation analysis and the count data for the four driveways. Letter 2.1: Alameda County Fire Department • Comment 2.1.1: The commenter requests that page 93 of the DEIR, Fire Services, first paragraph, be modified to note that Fire Station 16 at 7494 Donohue is located a distance of 1.3 miles from the Project site. Response: Comment noted. The requested change is made by reference in the Changes and Modification section of this FEIR. Letter 2.2: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Comment 2.2.1: The commenter makes several points with respect to the DEIR, including that the Project site is located within the DSRSD water service area and DSRSD intends to provide future water service to the proposed Project if approved by LAFCO, the site is within the sanitary sewer area of DSRSD, the site is within the recycled water service area of DSRSD, that. there would be an increase in the amount of water needed to serve the proposed Project, there would be an increase in the amount of sewer treatment service as a result of the proposed Project and that recycled water would be available to serve the proposed Project. Recycled water will help in lessening the amount of potable water needed to serve the increased number of dwellings on the site. Response: This comment is noted and no further discussion is required. • Comment 2.2.2: The commenter notes that planning and construction should be coordinated with DSRSD to ensure that such activities do not conflict with existing DSRSD facilities and installation of new utilities are completed in conformance with applicable DSRSD master plans and other standard procedures. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 10 City of Dublin April 2009 Response: This comment is noted. Page 14 of the DEIR notes that follow-on approvals will be required by DSRSD for water and wastewater connections. As conditions of issuing such approvals, the District may require that Project construction does not conflict with existing DSRSD facilities and that all future utility improvements are installed in a manner consistent with DSRSD master plans, procedures, specifications, drawings and all other applicable requirements. Letter 2.3: Alameda County Public Works Agency Comment 2.3.1: The commenter notes that runoff from the Project site ultimately drains into the Alameda Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The commenter is concerned that increased runoff from the site could impact flow capacity and increase the rate of erosion within local watercourses. This could result in localized damage and deposit silt in the Federal Project. The commenter states that there should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that would adversely impact downstream drainage facilities. Response: The City of Dublin notes that the Arroyo Vista DEIR adequately discloses construction and post construction drainage,- hydrology, siltation and related impacts to downstream drainage facilities. Specifically, Impact 4.7-1 notes that soil erosion and siltation from the site could increase due to increases in the amount of graded material and other material being eroded from the site, thus impacting both City and Alameda County Flood Control facilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level by requiring, first, that Project developer(s) prepare Erosion Control Plans to reduce the amount of erosion leaving the site and, secondly, that Project developer(s) prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans that conform to Alameda County Clean Water Program and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Project developer(s) will be required to install Best Management Practices into the proposed Project, including but not limited to grassy swales/biofilters, covering of solid waste dumpsters and similar features. Also, Impact 4.7-2 states that approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the rate, amount and direction of downstream drainage, possibly resulting in localized flooding. This impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. This measure requires the Project developer(s) to prepare a drainage and hydrology plan to show that adequate on-site and downstream drainage facilities will accommodate any increased stormwater runoff from the Project. Therefore, based on the above and the discussion of the full impacts and mitigation measures included in the DEIR, impacts related to drainage, hydrology and erosion will be less-than-significant after compliance with identified mitigation measures. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 11 City of Dublin April 2009 Comment 2.3.2: The commenter states that the applicant should provide measures to prevent discharge of contaminated materials into public drainage facilities. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all water quality standards and regulations. Response: As identified in Response 2.3.1, Project developer(s) will be required to prepare both Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for approval by the Dublin Public Works Department. Both plans are to be prepared in accordance with the Alameda County Clean Water Program and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements to ensure that all applicable federal, state and local water quality standards and regulations will be met. Implementation of these plans will prevent flow of contaminated materials into public drainage facilities, thereby reducing water quality impacts to a less-than- significantlevel. Letter 2.4: Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Comment 2.4.1: The commenter notes that Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 on page 80 of the DEIR requires preparation of a drainage and hydrology study using Zone 7, Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin drainage criteria. The last sentence of the Mitigation Measure indicates that the drainage and hydrology plan is to be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department. The commenter asks that the drainage and hydrology plan should be approved by Zone 7. Response: Based on the commenters request, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 is hereby modified to read as follows: "Mitigation Measure 4.7~ and drains a system capacity): Project Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using Regional Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shall indicate that adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional drainage facilities to accommodate the direction, rate and amount of increased stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(s) shall upgrade undersized drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site flooding would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department and Zone 7 and all recommendations for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into Project improvement plans." Comment 2.4.2: The commenter notes that under Dublin City Council Resolution N0.53-93, each project area is required to provide a Storm Drainage Master Plan. Please confirm if the drainage and hydrology plan included as a mitigation measure in the DEIR is the same as the Storm Drain Master Plan that is required by the Eastern Dublin EIR. If not, Zone 7 should have the opportunity to review Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 12 City of Dublin April 2009 and comment on the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to the drainage and hydrology plan. Response: Dublin City Council Resolution No. 53-93 approved the Eastern Dublin project with mitigation measures; however, the Arroyo Vista site is not located within the Eastern Dublin planning area. Therefore the requirement to prepare a Storm Drainage Master Plan does not apply to this Project. Instead, the developer(s) of the Arroyo Vista Project will be required to prepare the drainage and hydrology plan as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. As identified in the Response to Comment 2.5.1, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 has been modified in this Final EIR to add Zone 7 as an approval authority for the required drainage and hydrology plan. Letter 2.5: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) Comment 2.5.1: The commenter states that the ACCMA does not have a standard of significance for roadway levels of service as applied to the Land Use Analysis Program. References to ACCMA level of service should be deleted The ACCMA expects that professional judgment will be used to determine project impacts. Also, even if a roadway is operating at LOS F, feasible mitigation is not precluded. Response: Based on past practice in City of Dublin EIRs and the traffic engineer's professional judgment, the DEIR and traffic analysis identified the LOS E threshold based on ACCMA monitoring standards. Page 100 of the DEIR, the second sentence of the first run-on paragraph of text and related references in Appendix 8.7 are modified as follows: The threshold for Alameda County Congestion Management Agency facilities is based on the ACCMA monitoring standards and is established at LOS E. The City agrees that feasible mitigation is not precluded for roadways operating at LOS F. The DEIR considered mitigation possibilities for every significant impact, including roadways projected to operate at LOS F or otherwise unacceptably. Impacts 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, for example, identify the improvements needed to reduce the impacts but also note why those improvements would be infeasible for the project. In this case, the improvements are included in the City's CIP and EDTIF projects, so the impact will ultimately be mitigated. In another example, Impact 4.11-5 identifies feasible mitigation but explains that the mitigation will not sufficiently reduce the impact and explains why no further mitigation is feasible. Impact 4.11-6 also explains why no mitigation is feasible to reduce the significant impact. Thus, the DEIR analysis already reflects the commenter's suggestion. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 13 City of Dublin April 2009 _l -~ ~ -,~- ,,. ~~ • Comment 2.5.2: The commenter notes that the DEIR does not include any demand-related strategies. As identified in the response to the NOP such mechanisms include encouragement of ridesharing, transit, bicycling and other means of reducing peak hour trips. Use of these strategies could reduce existing congestion where impacts have been deemed significant and unavoidable. Response: The project design recognizes the infill nature of the site by increasing density and taking advantage of bicycle, pedestrian and transit opportunities. The DEIR includes the following demand-related items. As described in the "Transit System Impacts" section of the traffic report, the proposed Project is consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan and would preserve the existing alignment of the Alamo Creek Trail (ACT), which would form the western boundary of the project site. The ACT is connected to Amador Valley Boulevard. Bicyclists can access BART and downtown areas via Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road. A detailed description of "On site Bus Circulation Options" is also presented under the "Transit System Impacts" section of the traffic report. With the recommended bus circulation option, residents would have access to LAVTA-Wheels buses for commuting to work. • Comment 2.5.3: The commenter states that a lesser roadway capacity than 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour should be used in the impact analysis for State Route 84 compared to I-580 and I-680 due to different characteristics of this roadway. SR 84 has different characteristics than the two interstate facilities also analyzed. Specifically, this analysis affects DEIR Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10. Response: The segment of SR 84 south of I-580 was analyzed in the Draft EIR as a multilane highway with two lanes in each direction and a maximum service flow rate of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. Upon review of the comment and the characteristics of SR 84, e.g., traffic signal spacing, driveway access spacing, roadside development, parking conditions, etc., the City agrees that a more appropriate analysis would be based on a lesser capacity. For the purpose of preparing this response, therefore, the traffic consultant has re-analyzed the roadway segment as an arterial with a capacity of 1,000 veh./hr./lane rather than as a multilane highway. The results of that analysis are shown in attached revised Tables X and XI (see attachment 1 of this document). These revisions also apply to DEIR Tables 4.11-9 and 4.11-10, both of which contain the same information as revised Tables X and IX. Using the lesser roadway capacity, the future cumulative roadway levels of service are LOS E and F. This would be a significant cumulative impact to the extent of LOS F operations. However, the revised analysis for SR 84 shows that Project vehicles would have no measurable contribution to the cumulative conditions. As the revised tables show, the LOS and the v/ c ratio would be the same under cumulative conditions with and without the Project for both 2015 and 2030. This conclusion reflects the fact that the Project simply does not generate many peak hour trips due to its residential nature. The Project site is also distant from SR 84, which is east of the site and must be accessed by using I- 580; there are other routes more direct and convenient to key destinations than Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 14 City of Dublin April 2009 t7 ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~1 ~. t an SR 84 route. Based on the revised analysis, the Project's contribution to 2015 and 2030 cumulative conditions on the SR 84 segment is not cumulatively considerable and there is would be significant cumulative impact of the Project. Letter 3.1: Bob and Sofia Brander • Comment 3.1.1: The commenter notes that all or almost all recent housing built in Dublin have been high density projects. Traffic and congestion have increased significantly in the past five years. The commenter is concerned that the proposed Project will place additional strain on City streets when budgets are tight. Response: This comment is noted. Section 4.11 of the DEIR contains a comprehensive analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed Project. Although construction of the proposed Project would increase traffic on local roadways, in most instances, traffic impacts can be mitigated (reduced) to a less-than- significantlevel. Significant and unavoidable im acts would be created, however, at the intersection of Dougherty Road~Amador Valley Boulevard which is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable level during the AM and PM peak hours (see Impact 4.11-2). Also, the proposed Project would make traffic worse at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and the I-580 westbound offramp during the AM peak hour (see Impact 4.11-3) and the DEIR identified a significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impact in the PM peak hour at the Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersection (see Impact 4.11-6). Comment 3.1.2: The commenters note that the only east-west streets in the City, Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, cannot be widened. Additional high-density housing will place additional strain on these streets. Also, Dougherty Road has seen significant traffic level increases. The housing project will further increase traffic congestion on Dougherty, especially during commute hours. Response: Comments regarding the local street network and the project's contribution to. future traffic congestion are noted. As stated in the response to Comment 3.1.1, traffic impacts of the proposed Project have been fully analyzed in Section 4.11 of the DEIR. Since the proposed Project is located along Dougherty Road near both Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, the traffic impact analysis in the DEIR focused particularly on these major roadways, • Comment 3.1.3: The commenters state that Dublin is a small City and cannot take any more high-density housing. The City is asked not to approve this project. _. Response: This comment is noted and no response is required since it is not a comment on an environmental topic. However, this opinion will be considered by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on this Project. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 15 City of Dublin April 2009 Letter 3.2: Cheryl Weir • Comment 3.2.1: The commenter noted she lives near the Project site and has some serious reservations about letting it go forward as planned. Response: This comment is noted and no response is required since it is not a comment on an environmental topic. However, this opinion will be considered by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on this Project. • Comment 3.2.2: Dublin is overbuilt for new housing, real estate prices are low and the market will not recover in the near future. Yet adding another high- density development now will leave additional units empty for a long period of time. This does not seem to be in the City's best interest and will further depress the real estate market longer than necessary with an oversupply of empty units. Response: Similar to the response to the above comment, this comment is not related to a topic addressed in the DEIR pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines; therefore no response is required. However, the commenter's opinion will be considered by the Dublin Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on this Project. • Comment 3.2.3: The commenter notes that the applicants are seeking to find profit in this economy, but the proposed Project may not be in Dublin's best interest. Response: Refer to the Response to Comment 3.2.2. The City does note, however, that Eden Housing, one of the two Project applicants, is anon-profit housing developer. Letter 3.3: Chris Gouig, Alameda County Housing Authority • Comment 3.3.1; The commenter notes that the second sentence in second to last paragraph on page 11 should read: "The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes ~^'~•~^^^ '~~07 ~ra at or below 60% of the AMI." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. Letter 3.4: Chris Gouig, Alameda County Housing Authority • Comment 3.4.1: The commenter requests that the second line of the second paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) be modified as follows "Existing residents on the Site would be relocated to replacement Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 16 City of Dublin April 2009 ~~~ ~~- ~:- f~ housing sites consistent with applicable 1~1, state and Federal guidelines and regulations and the existing 150 dwellings on the Site would be removed." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. Comment 3.4.2: The commenter requests that the first line of the third paragraph of Section 1.2 (Summary of Project Description) be modified as follows: "The remainder of the Project would include construction of up to 130 income- restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior apartments (with 491-bedroom income-restricted apartments and one 2-bedroom manager apartment unit)." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. • Comment 3.4.3: The commenter requests that the discussion of Alternative 2 the bottom of page 3 in Section 1.5 be modified as follows: "Alternative 2: Reduced Project. The second alternative assumes that existing buildings and related improvements would be demolished, existing residents relocated per ~plicable l~l, state and federal relocation guidelines and requirements, and the Site would be redeveloped with attached housing at a density of 10 dwellings per acre." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. • Comment 3.4.4: The commenter requests that the fourth line of the second paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) be modified as follows: "The Arroyo Vista residential development is proposed as a community of ~~ approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141 attached and 57 detached dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 1 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 49 senior income-restricted apartments (with 491-bedroom apartments and one 2-bedroom manager unit which would not be income or age restricted)." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. • Comment 3.4.5: The commenter requests that the third line of the fourth paragraph of Section 3.5 (Project Characteristics) be modified as follows: "The .~ affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Family units would be targeted to occupancy by families with incomes between 20 o and 60% of AMI." Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 17 City of Dublin April 2009 ~ g 1 ~~~-~ <~t~~~~ Response: This comment is superceded by Comment 3.3.1, above and it's related response. Comment 3.4.6: The commenter requests that the third paragraph of Section 3.5 (Pro)'ect Characteristics), page 13, be modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August 15, 2007, proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer team. With HUD approval of the Disposition Application, the Project would be removed from the public housing program and will no longer be subject to the Annual Contribution Contract. Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex would be relocated from the Site consistent with the relocation plan which has been °..~,w,:++^a }^ approved bX the Dublin Housing Authority which is consistent with applicable , State and Federal relocation guidelines and regulations." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. • Comment 3.4.7: The commenter requests that the second and third paragraphs of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 80, be modified as follows: " "The Project Site is occupied by 150 ~^~~~ ~^^^m^ public housing detached single- family dwellings owned by the Dublin Housing Authority. The Dublin Housing Authority submitted a Disposition Application to HUD on August 15, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 970 et seq. proposing disposition of the Site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes Central developer team. The Dublin Housing Authority has adopted a Relocation Plan pursuant to applicable , state and federal guidelines. The plan provides for relocation benefits that meet or exceed the requirements of applicable law. Benefits include counseling and advisory services, help with packing for disabled and senior residents if requested, security deposits, credit check fees, comparable replacement housing in the form of a Section 8 voucher or, if ineligible, a replacement housing payment, and a 150-day notice to move (but only if HUD approves the disposition application). The relocation plan demonstrates that there are adequate available housing resources for the displaced households and that the DHA will provide advisory assistance and relocation benefits necessary to ensure that all households are adequately housed at the time of displacement." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. • Comment 3.4.8: The commenter notes that the proposed Project would not result in a temporary loss of public housing units, as stated on page 91 of the EIR, in the first line of the first paragraph of the Environmental Impacts section. The commenter states that the applicant is not rebuilding any public housing units on the site. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 18 City of Dublin April 2009 Response: This comment is noted. The intent of the sentence is that existing residents of the Arroyo Vista Housing Project will be relocated, after all necessary Project approvals are obtained, to suitable alternative housing as required by the Relocation Plan. Existing residents would not simply be displaced onto the open real estate market. As further discussed in the DEIR, removal of existing residents from the complex would not be a significant displacement impact. • Comment 3.4.9: The commenter requests that the last paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 91, be modified as follows: "Each of the current residents of Arroyo Vista, including those with extremely low incomes, would be provided with relocation assistance and would have the right to return to the Project, provided their incomes at the time of rehousing are not higher than the Project's maximum affordability levels." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. • Comment 3.4.10: The commenter requests that the first paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows: "Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the proposed Project seeks to increase both the number and affordability level of the units on the property. The current units, while operating as public housing units, are available to residents with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The 49 senior units will be available only to households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI. ' ~,.,,-,~„~,,.~a~ i~.~~„~., ano> „~ nr~rr~. The family rental units will be restricted to varying income levels, none of which will exceed 60% of AMI. Thus, all of the affordable rental units will be income-restricted at levels lower than they are currently, including some for those with extremely low income. The proposal is intended to create amixed-income community that more than replaces the number of low-income units being removed, in compliance with several polices contained in Dublin's Housing Element. Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. Comment 3.4.11: The commenter requests that the second paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows: "The Dublin Housing Authority has prepared a comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents, as required by applicable state and Federal ~e;;e~s guidelines." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 19 City of Dublin April 2009 • Comment 3.4.12: The commenter requests that the third paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows: "Relocation efforts, as documented in the .Relocation Plan, include an outreach program for residents and convening several resident meetings to describe the proposed redevelopment program and the need for relocation from the Project Site. Relocation specialists retained by the Dublin Housing Authority have and would continue to provide a minimum of three referrals to each household for comparable housing opportunities in the Dublin and Tri-Vallev area and referrals regarding governmental and social service agencies, as needed. Relocation payments have been provided to residents and will continue to be provided in accordance with California Guidelines and federal requirements." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. • Comment 3.4.13: The commenter requests that the fourth paragraph of Section 3.9 (Population and Housing), page 92, be modified as follows: "In compliance with State and Federal regulations and guidelines, households being displaced as a result of implementing the proposed Project have been and would continue to be relocated to comparable housing within Dublin and in the general Dublin area and are or would be receiving relocation p~- assistance as required by law. Once the Project is constructed, the number of affordable for sale and for rent dwelling units in the City will increase, providing additional housing opportunities for low income households in the City. The Project would not permanently reduce the inventory of affordable housing and would increase the net number of affordable dwellings by up to 30 rental and fourteen "for sale" dwellings; therefore any impacts related to displacement of dwelling units and people from the Site would be less-than- significant." Response: This comment is noted and included in the Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final EIR. Letter 3.5: The Public Interest Law Project • Comment 3.5.1: The commenter notes that the City's preparation of the Draft EIR for the proposed Project is untimely. The City Council has improperly committed itself to the redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista complex before evaluating the environmental effects of the project. A lead agency cannot take any action that significantly alters a project that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures suggested by CEQA. However, the DEIR notes that at last 441 Arroyo Vista residents would be displaced and 150 income-restricted dwellings demolished pursuant to the proposed Project Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 20 City of Dublin April 2009 ~~~1 of ~o~ Response: The City disagrees that preparation of the Draft EIR is untimely or forecloses alternatives to or mitigation measures for the project. The EIR identifies and analyzes reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and the City has full discretion to approve any of those alternatives. Likewise, the EIR identifies numerous mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant, all of which measures the City has discretion to impose. In fact, the disposition and development agreement (DDA) explicitly identifies where the City is expected to exercise its discretion with respect to the project. For example, Section 6.4 requires the project to obtain all necessary permits, without limitation, and Section 6.7(a) authorizes imposition of whatever mitigation measures are needed. Section 6.7(b) states unequivocally that the City has "absolute discretion and right to approve or disapprove" the project. The City has followed all required public participation requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and responded accordingly throughout the environmental review process. There is no evidence in the record otherwise. Comment 3.5.2: The commenter notes that the DEIR sets forth three Alternatives to the proposed Project (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3). As a practical matter, the City Council cannot reasonably consider all of there Alternatives, and particularly Alternative 1 since it has already taken significant steps to commit to the proposal Project. These steps include entering into a Disposition and Development Agreement with the Dublin Housing Authority in July 2007, a City contribution for relocation costs, relocation of Arroyo Vista residents from the site, approval of a $1.5 million construction loan to Eden Housing and approval of a $325,000 predevelopment loan to Eden Housing. Therefore, the City's preparation and circulation of the DEIR is little more than a "post hoc" rationalization to support the action. It has therefore effectively approved the project in violation of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Response: The City is not foreclosed from considering any of the identified alternatives or imposing identified mitigation measures. Furthermore, the City's previous actions have not effectively approved the Project. Alternatives. CEQA and its Guidelines require an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. (15126.6(a).) The EIR includes a No Project alternative as required by CEQA. The other development alternatives were carefully chosen to respond to environmental factors that affect the site and development on it, primarily the potential for traffic noise from Dougherty Road and the project site location near Alamo Creek. All of the alternatives ' California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq; CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq.. References to CEQA and the Guidelines will generally be by section number only. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 21 City of Dublin April 2009 ~~~> ~~f ~o~. are reasonable under CEQA and the City presently has full discretion to approve any of them instead of the proposed project.2 Under the No Project alternative, the existing units would remain in place subject to ongoing maintenance, repair and infrastructure replacement to meet applicable building, health and safety code requirements. (page 1563). The commenter erroneously asserts de facto demolition of nearly half of the units. To the contrary, all of the 150 existing units remain standing on the project site and would be repaired or maintained as necessary to meet applicable codes under the No Project alternative. There is nothing in the DDA approval or other referenced actions that practically or legally forecloses implementation of the No Project alternative. Alternative 2 describes a reduced density and reduced footprint project. Alternative 2 would reduce the number of residents subject to and contributing to traffic and its related noise on Dougherty Road. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would cluster development in the approximate center of the site, moving the development footprint further away from the creek and further away from Dougherty Road. This is a reasonable alternative for CEQA purposes and nothing in the DDA approval or other actions referenced by the commenter would preclude the City from adopting this alternative when a decision on the project is considered. Alternative 3 describes a mixed-use project with development moved further from the creek and with noise sensitive residential uses replaced by commercial uses along more than half of the Dougherty Road frontage. Again, this is a reasonable alternative for CEQA purposes and nothing in the DDA or other actions referenced by the commenter would preclude the City from adopting this alternative when a deasion on the project is considered. Furthermore, far from the post-hoc rationalization asserted by the commenter, the EIR analyzes each of the alternatives for each of the environmental resources categories. The analysis allows the public and decision makers to compare the project and its alternatives and identifies whether the alternatives avoid the project's significant traffic impacts. This is exactly what CEQA requires for an adequate alternatives analysis. Mitigation measures. The Draft EIR contains a number of mitigation measures across several potential impact categories. The mitigations are reasonable responses to the impacts identified; there is nothing in the DDA or '° other actions referenced by the commenter that would preclude the City from adopting the mitigation measures as conditions for the project if it were approved. 2 In fact, the City is no stranger to approval of CEQA alternatives where appropriate. In 1994, the City approved a variation on the Reduced Density Alternative that reduced the Eastern Dublin planning area from nearly 7,000 acres to approximately 4,200 acres. s All page number references are to the Arroyo Vista Draft EIR unless otherwise noted. Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 22 City of Dublin April 2009 ..:.~ ~,!- ~ ~-~ Previous actions. The commenter is incorrect that other City actions related to the project constitute approval of the project. DDA. The Disposition and Development Agreement for the project was approved by the City on July 17, 2007 and is incorporated herein by reference. As noted above, the DDA specifically and repeatedly states the agreement is not an approval, that full and adequate environmental review is required and that the City retains full discretion with respect to approval, disapproval and the adoption of any mitigation measures for the project. The City never treated the DDA as approval of the project and has continued to follow appropriate land use and zoning procedures and CEQA review, as for any other proposed project. Relocations. Tenants have voluntarily moved from Arroyo Vista; no tenant has been required to move or otherwise relocate as a result of the proposed project. The Dublin Housing Authority has conducted extensive tenant outreach efforts since October 2004, well before the Authority determined to submit a disposition application to HUD for the redevelopment project. Once the Authority determined to seek approval of a redevelopment project, regular Redevelopment Updates and other newsletters specifically and repeatedly advised tenants that they were not required to move and that they would receive information about future relocation assistance. Excerpts from newsletters for April, June and July of 2007 are attached as examples of the information provided to tenants. Legally required notice of the need to vacate units has not been given and no tenants are currently required to vacate their units. For those tenants who wished to move, the Authority provided assistance. Assistance to tenants who wished to move voluntarily is not a substitute for legal relocation requirements and the commenter' attempts to turn such assistance into a project approval do not make it so. The voluntary relocations that have occurred do not preclude the City from approving any of the EIR alternatives or from complying with conditions that HUD may impose. De facto demolition. All of the 150 units are existing on the site; there has been no demolition, de facto or actual. No demolition may occur on the site except in accordance with HUD approval, a certified EIR and applicable City and other permits and approvals. Financial assistance and support. The City has approved financial support for the project; however, none of the support expressly or implicitly requires the City to approve the project. This is in sharp contrast to a key element of the recent Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood case, i.e., a $4.2 million federal grant to develop a senior housing project. (See Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Ca1.4~' 116.) In that case, the City of West Hollywood advised interested parties that in light of the grant, the city "must continue on a path that fulfills this obligation." Related draft agreements vested the determination of adequate CEQA compliance in the city manager, Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 23 City of Dublin April 2009 and were described as committing the city "as long as the developer delivers." None of these features is present for the Arroyo Vista project. There is no federal grant money for the project; and the City has never indicated it was obligated or committed to approving the project. As the Save Tara court noted, interest in or inclination to support a project, no matter how well defined, does not equal project approval. (45 Cal.4~' at 136.) The City's financial support for the project similarly does not constitute project approval. In fact, as documented in the December 18, 2007 City Council agenda report (incorporated herein by reference), the predevelopment loan of $325,000 mentioned by the commenter was for the purpose of covering environmental review costs. It is also not unusual for Dublin projects to require approvals from other agencies, e.g., State Department of Fish and Game, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (and related U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department requirements that the Corps must comply with). Those approvals may include conditions that the project must meet in addition to any City approvals. The developer then has to determine how to satisfy all the conditions imposed on its project, whether by the City or by state or federal authorities. The DDA recognizes the CEQA process and the City's absolute discretion to approve or deny the project. Nothing in the record precludes the City from imposing appropriate conditions or relieves the project from other agencies' appropriate conditions. The CEQA review process for the project is timely and appropriate. The City has a comprehensive CEQA process and routinely processes EIRs and considers projects in light of the EIR information. The circumstances surrounding the project do not rise to an approval under applicable CEQA case law, including the recent Save Tara case. The City will consider whether and in what form to approve the project only after the related EIR has been certified and in light of the environmental information provided in the EIR. Comment 3.5.3: The commenter states that the City cannot shield itself from failure to comply with CEQA procedures by claiming that the Disposition and Development Agreement is "conditional" on approval of DHA's application for disposition to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The relocation of nearly one-half of the families at Arroyo Vista in advance of any environmental review and expenditure of City funds effectively precludes any meaningful consideration of the alternatives outlined in the DEIR. By carrying out the Project prematurely, the City has foreclosed not only on the Alternatives outlined in the DEIR, but the ability to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by HUD. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 3.5.2. • Comment 3.5.4: The commenter states that the DEIR concludes there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to population and housing. This conclusion and the facts on which is based is not supported by substantial Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 24 City of Dublin April 2009 evidence. The DEIR acknowledges that there would be a significant impact if the project were to displace a substantial number of dwellings units or people necessitating construction of replacement housing, however, the document concludes that the displacement of approximately 41 persons and 150 homes primarily affordable to very low income families is less-than-significant. This conclusion is premised on the notion that such relocation is only temporary, residents would be relocated pursuant to local, state and federal laws and residents with appropriate income limits would have the right to return. There is no evidence on the record that units to be demolished will be rebuilt. The DDA calls for the non-profit builder to apply for low-income tax credits and other funding, so that future construction is dependent on the availability of funding. Further, no start date has been identified. Sufficient funding for affordable rentals units are not likely to be available in the near future. Thus, there is no guarantee that demolition of the 150 public housing units is only temporary and no guarantee that any affordable replacement units will be constructed. The commenter further asserts that the proposed affordable units may not be affordable or accessible to current Arroyo Vista residents. The commenter further notes that many households have been relocated without a relocation plan. Response: The comments are largely related to social and economic impacts and are not potential environmental impacts requiring disclosure in the EIR. A significant effect on the environment is a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions affected by the project. (CEQA Guidelines section 15382.) Economic or social effects of a project by themselves are not treated as significant effects on the environment. (See CEQA Guidelines sections 15131(a), 15382.) For this reason, the standard of significance for population and housing impacts asks not just whether housing or people would be displaced, but whether that displacement would require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The DDA and the record generally describe the Housing Authority's long history of outreach and information to the Arroyo Vista tenants. Once the Authority determined to seek approval of a redevelopment project, it was clear that residents would be displaced at some point in time. Formal notice and assistance requirements would be triggered by applicable state and federal guidelines. The formal requirements do not prohibit the Authority from providing information and assistance to the tenants in the meantime. The fact is that the project proposes to build more affordable units than currently exist. The 150 existing units would be replaced by 180 units, at least 178 of which will be income-restricted (the other 2 units are manager units for the family and senior units and will not be income-restricted.) In addition, the project will build up to 15 affordable for-sale units pursuant to the City's inclusionary zoning ordinance. The result is a net increase of income- :.. restricted affordable units. The project proposes demolition of the existing units in connection with building the proposed project and not as a separate Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 25 City of Dublin April 2009 stand-alone action, so the loss of units is reasonably expected to be temporary. The Draft EIR demonstrates that the bedroom count of the proposed units is reasonable based on the Authority's occupancy data (page 91). The Draft EIR also discloses a deeper affordabil component to the extent that existing units are available to residents wi~ incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI), while proposed units will be affordable at or below 50% of AMI for the senior units and at or below 60% of the AMI for family units (page 92). The Draft EIR further describes relocation efforts for relocating tenants to comparable housing in the area. Based on the number of units and deeper affordability, and the required relocation assistance, the project would not permanently reduce the City's inventory of affordable housing and would in fact increase affordable housing opportunities, thus, replacement affordable housing need not be constructed elsewhere. Furthermore, both of the development alternatives in the Draft EIR propose at least 150 affordable units to ensure no net loss of affordable units in the City. The Draft EIR appropriately analyzes displacement in the CEQA context and provides adequate discussion and supporting evidence. It is possible that at the time formal notice is given that the new project is available for rent, some former tenants may not choose to or be able financially to return to the new project; however, this is not a CEQA issue. Similarly, the 150 units of public housing will be replaced by 178 units of income-restricted affordable housing (and up to 15 for-sale inclusionary zoning units); the difference in who qualifies to rent the units is not a CEQA issue. The City also notes that the project will comply with all applicable ADA requirements for disabled accessibility. The social and economic factors related to the project will be an important consideration for the City, but are not required to be analyzed further in the EIR. Attachments: Excerpts from April, June, July 2007 Redevelopment Updates Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 26 City of Dublin April 2009 Attachment 1- Revised Traffic Tables Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 27 City of Dublin April 2009 r ,,. _e ri ~ ,_ ~_ ~ ., _~ ~, ..~: TJKM Ti~nsportation Consultants Table X: Short Term Cumulative (2015) Conditions Freeway Analysis ~ Yeor 2013 (No Pro/ed) Yeor IO1 S plus Pro/ect Humber o f Lanea A.M. Peak Volume V/C LOS P.M. Peak Volume YIC LOS A.M. Peak Volume Y!C f.05 P.M. Peak Vofume V/C LOS 1-580, East of 1-680 Eastbound Westbound 4 5 8,000 10,000 5,089 11,169 0.64 1.12 C F 8,230 5,879 1.03 0.59 F C 5,089 11,185 0.64 1.12 C F 8,230 5,886 1.03 0.59 F C 1-580, Dougherty Road to Hadenda Drive Eastbound Westbound b + aux. 4 + aux. 13,000 .. 9,000 6,365 9,457 0.49 1.05 B F 10,854 5,974 0.83 0.66 D C 6,373 9,457 r 0.49 ..1.05 B F (0,856 5,975 0.84 0.66 D C 1.580, Hacienda Drive to Tazsalara Road Eastbound Westbound 5 4 + aux. 10,000 9,000 4,253 8,391 0.43 0.93 B E 10,988 4,293 1.10 0.48 F B 4,261 8,391 0.43 0.93 8 E 10,989 4,295 1.10 0.48 F B 1-580, Tsssajara Road to Fallon Road Eastbound Westbound 4 + aux. 4 + aux. 9,000 9,000 4,469 10,082 0.50 1.12 B F 10,025 4,594 I.1 I 0.51 F B 4,476 10,082 0.50 1.12 B F 10,026 4,597 I .l I 0.51 F B 1-580, Fallon Road rA Airway Boulevard Eastbound Westbound 4 + aux. 4 + aux. 9,000 9,000 4,181 11,891 0.46 1.32 B F 10, 135 4,320 1.13 0.48 F B 4,186 11,891 0.47 1.32 B F 10, 136 4,323 I.13 0.48 F B 1-b80, Aicosta Boulevard to 1-580 Northbound Southbound 4 4 8,000 8,000 5,853 7,213 X 0.73 0.90 ' C D 7,359 5,473 0.92 0.68 D C 5,853 7,213 0.73 0.90 C D 7,360 5,480 0.92 0.69 D C 1-6B0, South of I-580 Northbound Southbound 3 3 + aux. 6,000 7,000 4,041 6,583 0.67 0.94 C E 8,272 4,231 1.38 0.60 F C 4,041 6.585 0.67 0.44 C E 8,272 4,232 1.38 0.60 F C SR 84, South of I-580 ( Analyzed a s an ,yserial with a raoacit y of 1.000 v ehlhrlla nel Northbound Southbound 2 _ 2 421,000 42,000 2,524 2,260 ,1~2 J,j~ GF CF 1,762 2,345 ~ J,JI 13J< CF 2,524 2,2b0 ~¢ I I CF &p 1,762 2,345 ~ I,,LZ 8f CF Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-I, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections Maximum Service Flow race for freeway segments=2000 vehicleslhr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux., capacity of segment- (N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr Note: Bold values Indicate unacceptable LOS conditions Page 45 Report - Tragic Study for the Arroyo >rsto Housing Development Ap,;r r, 2009 ~1 ~l ~ ~.~ TJ KM Transportation Consulrartts Table Xi: Long Term Cumulative (2030) Conditions Freeway Analysis Year 2030 (No Protect) Year 2030 plus Profect Number o f Lones ~ A.M, Peak Volume V/C LOS P.M. Peak Volume V1C LOS A.M. Peak Yofume V/C LOS P.M. Peak Volume Y/C LOS 1.580, East of 1-680 Eastbound Westbound 4 5 8,000 10,000 6,464 15,708 0.81 1.57 D F 9,960 6.674 1.25 0.67 F C 6,464 15,724 0.81 1.57 D F 9,960 6,681 1.25 0.67 F C 1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive Eastbound Westbound b + aux. 4 + aux. 13,000 9,000 8,016 13,864 0.62 1.54 C F 12,590 7,066 0.97 0.79 E D 8,024 13,864 0.62 1.54 C F 12,592 7,067 0.97 0.79 E D I-580, Hacenda Drive to Tassa(ara Road Eastbound Westbound 5 4 + aux. 10,000 9,000 6,520 12,731 0.65 1.41 C F 12,027 6,351 1.20 0.71 F C 6,528 12,731 0.65 1.41 C F 12,028 6,353 1.20 0.71 F C [-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road Eastbound _.. ....~ Westbound 4 + aux. ---- 4 + aux. 9,000 ---- 9,000 6,344 ----~ 14,490 0.70 --- 1.61 C -- F 12,479 __~- 6,708 1.39 --- 0.75 F --- C 6,351 ---- 14,490 0,71 --w 1.61 C --- F 12,480 ---- 6,71 I 1.39 --- 0.75 F --- C I-580, Fallon Road to Alrway Boulevard Eastbound Westbound 4 + aux. 4+aux. 9,000 9,000 6,632 15,720 0.74 1.75 C F 12,972 6,429 1.44 0.71 F C 6,637 15,720 0.74 ^1.75 C F' 12,973 6,432 1.44 0.71 F Cr I-680, Alcosa Boulevard to I-580 Northbound Southbound 4 4 8,000 8,000 6,646 9,59[ 0.83 1.20 D F 9,028 5,982 1.13 0.75 F C 6,646 9,591 0.83 1.20 D F 9,029 5,989 1.13 0.75 F C 1.680, South of 1-580 Northbound Southbound 3 3 + aux. 6,000 7,000 3,791 8,683 0.63 1.24 C F 10,095 4,51 I 1.68 0.64 F C 3,791 8,685 O.b3 1.24 C F 10,095 4,512 1.68 0.64 F C SR 84, South of 1-580 ( nalyzed a s an arterial with a caoaci of 1.009 v eh/hrA anel Northbound Southbound 2 2 42 000 43,000 3,753 3,549 ^ ,(,,$$ ,~ iF FE 3,198 2,965 ^ i,¢Q l 4$ GF 8F 3,753 3,549 L66 J,,~ ' FF EF 3,198 2,965 ^ J,,¢Q ~ JOE 8F source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-I, Levels of Service for Basic Freeway Sections Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2000 vehlcles/hr/lane, aux. =Auxiliary Lane If number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux„ capacity of segment= {N*2000+1000) vehicleslhr Note: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS conditions Poge 46 Report - Tmf frc Study for the Arroyo Vista Housing Development Agri! 1, 2009 _~~~3 ~ ~~~1~ Attachment 2- July 2007 Redevelopment Update Newsletters Arroyo Vista Project Final EIR Page 28 City of Dublin April 2009 `:' ' `' ~~ .~. ~~ . ~y.., `~~~ -- w... .::r.:, ,:;,: ;..h, ~:~:k; F ur4,~4tJ ~ . ;;;:~ " sti~~• ~ ~ .,, .6700 Dougherty Rd. '~~F ''~ ~, 4 J ~ ,~ Dublin, CA 94568 ~:~ ~if~~'"' ~> Phone: {92S) 828=3132 JF ¢u• wronwm { ~.''S,`.e., . ~'`w^'%X~ iii: 4,_~. Dublin Housing Authority ~: Arroyo Vista Staff " ' ; „" ~ MargieNewman ~' Dublin Area Manager .' ;:;.',`.' Ca"rol Alves ... ~, . Adminis,frative.Services ,.,,. Lee Alejandro.:;.' `;~ ~~ Manny Gutierrez .. Charles Hughes ' ~~'~O:ffice:Hours . ~. `' lYtonday -Friday . 8:30.arn - 3:OOpm Saturday & Sunday Closed Closed Every Other Friday "~~k'~~"'~ ;; Important Numbers , ~•-.r~ '_.~ . ; ; w;.;; •... Office: (925) 828-3132 ~a'~s~=~`~}~=~'~'` Fax: (925) 828-5450 .. ~r~:::~~.Y~t:~iJ:4! REDEVELC)PMEfVT UPDATE The Dublin Housing Authority Commission. held its regular meeting on, March 6 at the Dublin Civic Center. The Commission approved Housing Authority staff's • , recommendation to retain Overland, Pacific & Cutler as the. relocation consultant for the redevelopment •of Arroyo Vista.. Overland, Pacific 8c Cutler (OPC).is. based in Oakland. It has provided relocation and property •acquisition services to local; state and federal agencies for over 25 years. In our immediate geographic area.~it has'done • work for 'San Francisco, ' .Pleasanton, Union City, Oakland, Richmond, San: Jose, . Hayward .and Fremont. Outside .the' Bay' Area,' it ,has done .work for Sacramento, Mendocino, Fairfield; and ' Redding among others. Housing Authority staff checked references for OPC anti they were excellent. . Overland,Pacific & Cutler will meet individually with each . household, conduct meetings and workshop with residents, • deyeiop~a relocation plan,. help residents find replacement ' housing, process claims for moving expenses' and work with potential landlords. Arroyo Vista residents should 'feel assured that they will receive the assistance they need in finding appropriate replacement housing. We anticipate that we will have an informational meeting in late April or early May to introduce the. people from OPC and. have them describe their services. You will receive a separate notice for this meeting. Do.not move or feel you have to start looking for a new home. The Housing Authority has not yet submitted the application •~~ to HUD i~at will allow for the redevelopment. We anticipate it will be submitted in April. However, the •environmental. review document, which must also'be submitted to HUD, will likely not be submitted until the end of the year. HUD needs the environmental document before it can approve the redevelopment application Therefore, HUD approval of the ' redevelopment is not likely Yo occur until 2008. .., V ` J c> I rM1~ ~ --~ Dublin Housing Authority . Arroyo Vista Staff •Margie Newman Dublin Area Manager Carol Alves Administrative. Services Maintenance Staff Lee.tle~andro . Manny .Gutierrez Charles~Hughes Office Hours ~' Monday, -Friday 8:3Oam - 3:OOpm Saturday & Sunday •' Closed closed Every Other Friday Important Numbers Office: (925) 828-3132 Fax: (925) $28-5450 1~C Cc~~C1i 6700 Dougherty Rd: .Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: (925) 828-3132 ~~, REDEVELOPMENT UPDATE . In April all of you received the General Information Notice .about the redevelopment of Arroyo V;sta •and the relocation that will be required. The Notice announced two meetings for April 24 that would be held to discuss the project. Sorne of you were able to attend those meetings. Representatives of the developers, Eden Housing and Citation Homes were present and described their plans for the project. They presented a slide show and pictures of the proposed layout of the new units and cornmunity building. Representatives of the relocation consultant retained by the Housing Authority, Overland• Pacific & Culler, also were present. They described the relocation process and answered a number of questions about timing and relocation benefts. Staff from the Housing Authority were present.to answer questions about Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers At the meeting Housing Authority staff said. there would be a meeting on May 23 to discuss the Section 8 homeownership program. THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CHANGED TO JUNE 6. The meeting is called: Introduction to Family Stability and Section 8 Rental and Homeownership, and will include information on the Section 8' program (both rental and homeownership) and ways of improving your credit to prepare for homeownership or renting in the private market. The meeting will take place 'at Dublin City ,Hall. in the Regional Meeting Room • from 6-8 PM: Watch for the flyer in the mail that announces this meeting. Do not feel you have to move or begin looking for a new home now. Beginning nextyear, the relocation consultant will meet with each family individually to ascertain their relocation needs and explain the assistance that is available. In the meantime, if you have any. questions about relocation, please call Overland Pacific & Cutler at 877-972-8908 (toll free) and ask for either Teresa Laverde or John Morris. • ~ s 4. ~e ;`,.... .. ~'d 6700 Dougherty Rd. :;; :... i ~;;. :,s. . ''6~av' ~ Dublin Housing Authority :~~~•,~~~ Arroyo Vista Staff Margie Newman Dublin Area Manager Carol Alves Y Administrative Services .~ ~~i ~~~~~~'<t~;.' Maintenance Staff y,~,.p ?fir,. Lee Alejandro Manny Gutierrez Charles Hughes ~, Office Hours Monday -Friday == 8:30am - 3:OOpm f.,, ~~ Saturday & Sunday "'` ~'~~ Closed Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: (925} 828-313 Z !•IW R•IIK ONOIII•Nf1Y REDEVELOPMENT UPDATE We had a great turn out at the meeting held at Dublin City Hall on June 61 Thank you to everyone who attended. A lot of information was covered at the meeting: • The application to HUD to sell the property will be submitted in June. It will take about one year before it is approved. • The property cannot be demolished until AFTER the application is approved. • YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE NOW. We anticipate starting relocation activities early next year. • If you WANT to move before next year, you can. • The Section 8 vouchers for all eligible households are available after July 25 (let's say, August 1}. • We have Section 8 vouchers for aI] eligible households-we will not "run out" if you decide to move next year instead of now: • Housing Authority staff and the Housing Authority's relocation consultant will begin holding small group meetings (about 5 families at a time) at Arroyo Vista to more fully explain the Section 8 program and relocation benefits. We will contact you to schedule your meeting. I "" Closed Every Other Friday At the June 6'hmeeting a variety ofbenefits were described including payment of moving assistance, Section 8 voucher Important Numbers program rules, classes and counseling from the Tri Valley Housing Opportunities Canter and inclusionary home ownership ~: Offtce: (925) 828-3132 opportunities in the City of Dublin. You will hear more about all Fax: (925) 828-5450 of these during the relocation process. In the meantime, for questions please call the following: ~~ ~° ^~; . ~ +i: >~ ~ ::~ . x, ~' ; k }r Homeownership/Credit Counseling: Jorge Ramirez 925-373-3930 Relocation: John MomslTeresa Laverde 877-972-8908 (toll free) Section 8 Voucher Rules: Mary Rizzo Shuman 510-727-8570 Section 8 Homeownership: Betsy Safine 510-727-8585 >~'