Dublin City Council
May 17, 2022

5883-005j
The Project proposes to develop a 55-bed memory care facility on Parcel 2 and an 84-bed assisted living facility on Parcel 3 of the Valley Christian Center (“VCC”) site. The Project site is located at Assessor Parcel Number (“APN”) 941‐0022‐003, 941‐0022‐004, 941‐0022‐005 and 941‐0022‐006 at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The site consists of four parcels, totaling

50.6 acres, which are part of the larger Valley Christian Center (“VCC”) site.

Requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review Permits, a Street Vacation, and Tentative Parcel Map 11241. The General Plan designation for the Project site is Public/Semi-Public. Parcel 2 is located within the A (Agricultural) zoning District, both Parcels 2 and 3 are located within the Planned Development zoning district Ordinance No. 07-03.2 The Project relies on analysis in the 2003 Valley Christian Center Expansion/Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report (“VCC EIR”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“VCC MMRP”)3 and the 2018 Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2018 MND”).4 The Dublin Planning Commission should not recommend that the City Council approve the MND or the Project entitlements, because the MND fails to comply with CEQA, as shown herein.

We have reviewed the MND, its technical appendices, and reference documents with the assistance of East Bay Residents’ expert consultants whose comments and qualifications are attached. Based on our review of the MND, it is clear that the MND fails as an information document under CEQA and lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions that the Project’s significant impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.

There is also substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts are far more extensive than disclosed in the MND. East Bay Residents and their expert consultants have 2 Dublin Planning Commission, April 26, 2022, Regular Meeting Agenda Packet. Available at:
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/dublin/b66f12f2-6db0-11ec-85e3-0050569183fa-ab7ea741- 4587-411e-82f1-bcf7b0ec0e28-1650498883.pdf (“Agenda Packet”). 3 Final Environmental Impact Report, Valley Christian Center Expansion Program, PA #00-017, SCH # 2002012070 (March 2003).
4 Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study, Valley Christian Center, Planning Application Number: PLPA-2014-00052 (June 8, 2018).
978
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
identified numerous potentially significant impacts that the MND either mischaracterizes, underestimates, or fails to identify. Moreover, many of the mitigation measures described in the MND will not, in fact, mitigate impacts to the extent claimed.

We prepared these comments with the assistance of air quality and hazards expert Matt Hagemann P.G., C.Hg, and Paul E Rosenfeld, Ph.D. of Soil Water Air Protection Enterprises (“SWAPE”); and expert environmental biologist and wildlife ecologist Scott Cashen M.S.

SWAPE’s comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A.5 SWAPE concludes that the Project may result in potentially significant construction air emissions and health risk from exposure to toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) that were not adequately analyzed or mitigated in the MND. SWAPE also found the Project’s operational emissions may exceed significance thresholds and are not adequately mitigated.

Mr. Cashen’s comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B.6 Mr. Cashen concludes that the Project’s baseline analysis of existing sensitive natural communities is inaccurate and unsupported, rendering the MND inadequate under CEQA. Further, the MND fails to analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts to special status plants and animals and fails to analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts caused by habitat degradation and cumulative suburban sprawl. SWAPE’s and Mr. Cashen’s comment letters and all attachments thereto are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.7 5 See Exhibit A, SWAPE, Comments on Inspiration Drive Memory Care Project (“SWAPE Comments”).
6 See Exhibit B, Scott Cashen, Comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project (April 23, 2022), (“Cashen Comments”).
7 East Bay Residents reserves the right to supplement these comments, and to file further comments at any and all future proceedings and hearings related to the Project. Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
979
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
East Bay Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential impacts associated with Project development. East Bay Residents includes the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 342, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 their members and their families, and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of Dublin and Alameda County. East Bay Residents supports sustainable development in the East Bay. Residents has a strong interest in enforcing the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Individual members of East Bay Residents and its member organizations include Dublin residents Gary Bonnitti, Devin Kettle, and Connor Smith. The individual members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Dublin and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, East Bay Residents has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.8 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also 8 See Pub. Resources Code § 21000; CEQA Guidelines § 15002. 980
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
informed self-government.”9 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”10 CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.11 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.12
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.13
Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”14 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring 9 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citations omitted). 10 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 11 See Pub. Resources Code § 21100.
12 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602.
13 Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5 (emphasis added).
14 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320.
981
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.15 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.16
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”17 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.

Furthermore, CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.”18 Deferring formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies is generally impermissible.19 Mitigation measures adopted after Project approval deny the public the opportunity to comment on the Project as modified to mitigate impacts.20 If identification of specific mitigation measures is impractical until a later stage in the Project, specific performance criteria must be articulated and further approvals must be made contingent upon meeting these performance criteria.21 Courts have 15 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754. 16 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (“If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact”). 17 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
18 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).
19 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309; Pub. Resources Code § 21061.
20 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1393; Quail Botanical, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1604, fn. 5.
21 Gentry, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1393.
982
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
held that simply requiring a project applicant to obtain a future report and then comply with the report’s recommendations is insufficient to meet the standard for properly deferred mitigation.22
Public Resources Code Section 21093 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 authorize the use of tiered EIRs covering broader general matters planning or policy level actions at the programmatic level, followed by more project-specific matters in focused or site-specific EIRs or negative declarations.23 CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 provides that “where an EIR [or negative declaration] has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy or ordinance should limit the [project-level] EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.”24
The MND explains that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, the MND is tiered off of the VCC EIR, which evaluated proposed improvements to the existing VCC to include an expanded church, as well as a private school. 25 The
MND also explains that it is tiered off of the 2018 Supplemental MND, which analyzed proposed changes to the VCC Master Plan.
26 The 2018 MND evaluated
whether the proposed changes to the development program for the VCC program would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in the VCC EIR.27 The MND discusses the Project’s air quality, biological resources, and hazardous materials impacts at a project level, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(d), as effects that were not previously 22 Id.
23 PRC § 21093; 14 CCR § 15152.
24 14 CCR § 15152(d).
25 MND, p. 1.
26 MND, p. 2.
27 2018 MND, p. 3.
983
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
analyzed at the project level in the VCC EIR or 2018 MND. 28 Accordingly, the issue
of whether the MND’s analysis and mitigation of these impacts is adequate, or whether an EIR is required, is subject to the fair argument standard.

Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provide that when an environmental impact report or negative declaration has been prepared for a project, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required where one or more of the following events occur:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR or Negative Declaration was certified as complete, becomes available that shows:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
b. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the 28 See e.g. MND, pp. 46-47 (VCC EIR did not quantify construction emissions, so MND includes emission modeling); p. 51 (“VCC EIR did not evaluate the potential of the VCC to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; therefore, the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations would be a new impact as compared to the project evaluated in the VCC EIR.”); p. 55 (MND includes a project-level Biological Resources Analysis for the current project); VCC EIR, p. 4 (stating that hazardous materials was a “topic[] not addressed in the EIR”). 984
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.29
The MND applies these subsequent review standards to its consideration of the Project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) and transportation / vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) impacts, due to the changes in CEQA legal requirements for to analysis of these impacts.
30 As shown herein, in addition to being new project-level impacts that were not evaluated in the VCC EIR, a subsequent or supplemental EIR (“supplemental EIR”) is also required for the Project, rather than a supplemental MND, because the removal and relocation of the Conservation Easement on Parcel 3 constitutes substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken and should result in major revisions of the VCC EIR.

As explained herein, an EIR is required for the Project because there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts that were not adequately disclosed and mitigated in the MND.

The MND therefore fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The MND fails to adequately disclose, investigate, and analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts, and fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Because the MND lacks basic information regarding the Project’s potentially significant impacts, the MND’s conclusion that the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment is unsupported.31 The City failed to gather the relevant data to support its finding of no significant impacts. Moreover, substantial evidence shows that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.

III. THE MND FAILS TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE AND

ACCURATE BASELINE
The MND fails to adequately describe the environmental setting against which the Project’s environmental impacts are to be measured for several critical aspects of the Project. This contravenes the fundamental purpose of the environmental review process, which is to determine whether there is a potentially substantial, adverse change compared to the existing setting. CEQA requires an 29 PRC § 21166; 14 CCR § 15162.
30 See e.g. MND, pp. 92, 152.
31 PRC § 21064.5.
985
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
Initial Study to include an accurate and complete identification of the environmental setting.32 A lead agency thus must include a description of the physical environmental conditions, or “baseline,” in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time environmental review commences.33 As the courts have repeatedly held, the impacts of a project must be measured against the “real conditions on the ground.”34 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the “baseline” physical conditions against which the lead agency assesses the significance of a project’s impacts.35 The MND fails to rely on expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other substantial evidence to document its findings related to the environmental baseline.36 A. The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The MND fails to provide a complete and accurate description of the Project’s environmental setting related to hazards and hazardous materials, and thus, the MND’s impact assessment for impacts to hazards are inadequate.

The VCC EIR did not analyze hazardous materials impacts at all, thus the City must perform a project-level analysis of these impacts for the Project.37 The MND states that it reviewed the Cortese List (the California Department of Toxic Substances’ list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action as part of the Health and Safety Code), but did not perform a site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) or any site-specific sampling related to hazardous contamination.38 Hazardous materials experts from SWAPE explain that a review of the online regulatory databases to determine hazards and hazardous materials is an insufficient basis for determining the presence of onsite hazards.39
32 14 CCR § 15063(d)(2).
33 14 CCR § 15125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321 (“CBE v. SCAQMD”).
34 CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal. 4th at 321; Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-22; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors of Monterey County (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246.
35 14 CCR § 15125(a); CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal. 4th at 321. 36 14 CCR § 15063(a)(3).
37 See VCC EIR, p. 4 (topics not considered – hazardous materials). 38 MND, p. 98.
39 SWAPE Comments, p. 1.
986
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
Absent an ESA, the City lacks substantial evidence, and the public lacks certainty, to conclude that no existing release, a past release, or a threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water may pose potentially significant hazards impacts during Project construction or o.
40 SWAPE concludes that a Phase
I ESA is necessary to provide an adequate disclosure of hazards and hazardous materials on the Project site.41 At present, the City has not provided substantial evidence to support its environmental setting analysis with respect to hazards and hazardous materials on the Project site.

B. The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Congdon’s Tarplant and other Sensitive Plant Communities The MND fails to provide a complete and accurate description of the Project’s environmental setting related to Congdon’s Tarplant and other sensitive and rare plants, and thus, the MND’s impact assessment and proposed mitigation for impacts to Congdon’s Tarplant and sensitive and rare plants are inadequate.

The MND fails to support is conclusions regarding the existence of sensitive natural plant species on the Project site, because the Applicant failed to conduct protocol level surveys to determine whether these species may occur onsite. Absent protocol level surveys for rare plants on the Project site, the MND’s assertion that impacts to rare plants can be mitigated to less than significant levels are not supported by substantial evidence.

Biologist Mr. Cashen determined that the Applicant did not conduct adequate baseline surveys to establish the existing baseline conditions for rare plants. The MND defers the rare plant survey to a later date, after the public review process has closed and the project has been approved. This deprives the public of an opportunity to review the rare plant survey and ensure the survey accurately reflects conditions on the ground.
i. Congdon’s Tarplant
The MND fails to provide an adequate baseline for Congdon’s Tarplant because the Applicant has not conducted focused surveys to establish distribution 40 SWAPE Comments, p. 2.
41 Id.
987
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
and abundance of Congdon’s Tarplant.
42 Congdon’s Tarplant is listed as rare, under
the rank 1B.1 by the California Native Plant Society. The presence of Congdon’s Tarplant in the southeastern portion of the Project site (Parcel 3) in 2018 and the inferred presence of Congdon’s Tarplant in the northeastern portion of the Project site (Parcel 1) in 2015, strongly suggests that the species may occur in other portions of the Project site. The MND’s analysis regarding the Project’s baseline with respect to Congdon’s Tarplant is therefore not supported by substantial evidence, as required by CEQA.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 provides that the Applicant shall retain a botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone after the Project is approved. However, since the surveys have not been conducted, and the City will not receive any survey results until after the Project is approved, the City lacks substantial evidence to support a baseline analysis regarding the Congdon’s Tarplant. The baseline information in the MND is entirely lacking, and the requisite baseline analysis of this rare plant is therefore impermissibly deferred, in violation of CEQA. An EIR must be prepared which adequately analyzes the environmental setting with respect to Congdon’s Tarplant on the Project site before the City can approve the Project.

C. The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Oak Woodlands
The MND fails to provide a complete and accurate description of the Project’s environmental setting related to Oak Woodlands including Coast Live Oak, and thus, the MND’s impact assessment and proposed mitigation for impacts to Oak Woodlands are inadequate. Coast Live Oak trees are required to be protected by Dublin General Plan Section 7.4, but the MND fails to even analyze the baseline number of trees on the Project site.

The MND does not provide clarity regarding how many oak trees are onsite, and how many will be impacted or felled for project construction. The baseline analysis for Oak Woodlands is therefore not supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared which adequately analyzes the baseline for Oak Woodlands on the Project site.
42 Cashen Comments, p. 3.
988
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”) provides that “During project-level analysis of parcels with proposed impacts, applicants will provide information on oak woodland stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction as part of the permit process for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database.”43 The MND fails to include information as to the oak woodland stand size or the species composition on the Project site for public review or agency oversight as recommended by the EACCS.

D. The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on California red‐legged frog, White-tailed Kite, Loggerhead Shrike, grasshopper sparrow, Nuttall’s Woodpecker, and Oak Titmouse The MND fails to provide a complete and accurate description of the Project’s environmental setting related to California red‐legged frog, White-tailed Kite, Loggerhead Shrike, grasshopper sparrow, Nuttall’s Woodpecker, and Oak Titmouse species, and thus, the MND’s impact assessment and proposed mitigation for impacts to those species are inadequate. California red-legged frog are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.44 White-tailed Kite are listed as a Fully Protected Species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Mr. Cashen determined that the MND conflicts with the 2015 Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”).45 The 2015 BRA found that six-special status animal species have a “moderate” potential to occur on the Project site, including the California red‐legged frog, White-tailed Kite, Loggerhead Shrike, grasshopper sparrow, Nuttall’s Woodpecker, and Oak Titmouse.
46 But the MND concludes that
such species only have a potential to occur on the Project site. An EIR must be prepared which adequately analyzes the environmental setting with respect to these species on the Project site before the City can approve the Project. 43 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy, p. 3-20. Available at: http://www.eastalcoconservation.org/documents/eaccs_ch3_oct2010.pdf. 44 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Online System, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891. 45 Cashen Comments, p. 2.
46 Cashen Comments, p. 2; WRA Environmental Consultants, Biological Resources Assessment Dublin Valley Christian Center, Dublin, Alameda County, California (June 15, 2015). 989
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
E. The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Foraging Birds
The MND fails to provide a complete and accurate description of the Project’s environmental setting related to the site’s value as foraging habitat for birds, and thus, the MND’s impact assessment and proposed mitigation for impacts to foraging birds are inadequate.

The 2015 BRA provides that the Project site provides foraging habitat for the pallid bat, hoary bat, golden eagle, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, and tricolored blackbird—all of which are special-status species. 47 Special
status species means species that are designated as sensitive, rare, declining, or threatened across their range in California. The BRA provides that 13 special status species have the potential to occur on the Project site, but the Applicant made no effort to conduct focused surveys to determine the baseline levels of these species onsite. The MND’s environmental setting analysis is therefore not based on substantial evidence in the record. An EIR must be prepared which adequately analyzes the environmental setting with respect to foraging birds on the Project site before the City can approve the Project.

IV. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE

PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. The Change to the Conservation Easement is a New Circumstance Requiring the Preparation of the EIR
The MND cannot legally tier from the VCC EIR because the change to the borders of the Conservation Easement causes substantial changes in circumstances which will require major revisions in the VCC EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
48 An EIR must be prepared which
accurately reflects the significant environmental effects that will occur as a result of the adjustment of the boundary of the Conservation Easement on Parcel 3. 47 Cashen Comments, p. 3.
48 PRC § 21166; 14 CCR § 15162(b).
990
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
Generally, a Conservation Easement is a limitation in a deed or other instrument which is binding on successive owners of the land, and “the purpose of which is to retain the land predominantly in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition.”49 A conservation easement “shall be perpetual in duration.”50 The shifting of the easement contravenes the purpose of the easement, and constitutes a change in circumstance underlying the Project such that an EIR must be prepared.

The change in the Conservation Easement’s borders constitutes a substantial change in circumstances requiring the preparation of an EIR to fully analyze impacts to biological resources and hydrology associated with Project construction and operation. The Conservation Easement includes habitat for the rare Congdon’s Tarplant. In fact, Congdon’s Tarplant was detected within the portion of the Conservation Easement in the most recent Biological Resources Analysis conducted for the Project.51 The MND fails to analyze the impacts to the Congdon’s Tarplant as a result of the change in the boundary of the Conservation Easement on Parcel 3.

An EIR must be prepared due to this change in circumstance resulting in a significant environmental effect.

B. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the MND’s Conclusion that the Project Would Result in Less than Significant Air Quality Impacts
The MND explains that the VCC EIR did not quantify construction emissions, and includes site-specific modeling to address Project impacts. However, the City’s analysis of the Project’s air quality emissions contains several errors and omissions which render it inadequate. As a result, the MND concludes, without support and contrary to substantial evidence, that the Project would not cause a new impact beyond that analyzed in the VCC EIR.

SWAPE concludes that the Project’s demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving phases of the Project were inaccurately characterized in the City’s modeling. As such, the MND underestimates the Project construction air emission impacts. SWAPE explains that by disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construct phase lengths without proper justification, the MND’s modeling assumes there are a 49 Cal. Civil Code § 815.1.
50 Id. at § 815.2(b).
51 Cashen Comments, p. 7.
991
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
greater number of days to complete construction.52 This causes an improper reduction of emissions emitted per day.53 SWAPE finds that the model may significantly underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with the construction phases of the Project.54 Therefore, SWAPE finds that the MND’s air emissions modeling and analysis is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
55 As a result of these errors and omissions, the MND’s air quality analysis and modeling cannot be relied on to determine whether air quality impacts are new or more severe than those impacts analyzed in the VCC EIR.56 An EIR must be prepared to adequately analyze and mitigate Project construction and operational air emissions.

C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Project Construction and Operation Would Result in Significant, Unmitigated Health Risk Impacts
The MND’s analysis of Project’s health risk impact is inadequate because it omits an analysis of the Project’s operational health risk impacts. SWAPE performed a screening level health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impacts from exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-related air pollution, and concludes that the Project will result in significant, unmitigated health impacts that exceed thresholds and require mitigation. An EIR must be prepared to accurately disclose and mitigate these impacts.

CEQA requires a detailed analysis of the public health impacts from air pollutants that would be generated by a development project.57 The City’s analysis of the Project’s health risk from construction emissions is inadequate. The MND 52 SWAPE Comments, p. 4.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522; CEQA’s statutory scheme and legislative intent also include an express mandate that agencies analyze human health impacts and determine whether the “environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Public Resources Code § 21083(b)(3) (emphasis added).) Moreover, CEQA directs agencies to “take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.” (Public Resources Code § 21000(d) (emphasis added).) 992
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
concludes, absent substantial evidence, that the Project’s construction air quality emission impacts would be less than significant.58 SWAPE found that the MND failed to provide input parameters and model output files to provide certainty that the health risk impact calculations are supported by substantial evidence. The VCC EIR did not evaluate the health risk of potential projects, in fact, the MND provides that the “VCC EIR did not evaluate the potential of the VCC to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; therefore, the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations would be a new impact as compared to the project evaluated in the VCC EIR.”59 Still, the City concludes, absent substantial evidence, that “construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations” with the Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2.
60 SWAPE concluded that the City’s assertion that TAC emission exposure is not significant, is not supported by substantial evidence.61 SWAPE calculated the excess cancer risk associated with Project operation and found that the excess cancer risk for infants, children, and adults at the maximally exposed individual resident located approximately 350 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 0.701, 2.55, and 3.94 in one million, respectively.62 SWAPE calculated that the excess cancer risk associated with Project operation is approximately 3.65 in one million.63 SWAPE found that with the MND’s construction-related cancer risk of 7.18 in one million, and estimates an excess cancer risk of approximately 10.83 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) (p. 53, Table G).64 As such, the lifetime cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not addressed or mitigated by the MND.

The City did not conduct an HRA for the operation of the Project. This is particularly problematic because operation of the Project is expected to generate an estimated 329 average daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during Project operation. 65 58 MND, p. 53.
59 MND, p. 51.
60 MND, p. 84.
61 MND, p. 53.
62 SWAPE Comments, p. 7.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 SWAPE Comments, p. 7; MND, p. 150.
993
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
SWAPE concludes that the MND failed to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. CEQA Guidelines require an EIR identify “relevant specifics of … health and safety problems caused by the physical changes.”66 The DEIR and its appendices make no mention of a health risk analysis (HRA). The DEIR’s discussion of health impacts is therefore inadequate as a matter of law and the DEIR fails as an informational document.67 The MND is insufficient because it fails to explain “why it was not feasible to provide an analysis that connected the air quality effects to human health consequences.”68 The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) recommends the preparation of HRAs where a project causes exposure exceeding 6 months, and should analyze the health risk over the lifetime of the Project estimated to be 30 years. SWAPE concludes that an EIR should be prepared which includes an HRA to analyze the health risks posed to nearby sensitive receptors from DPM emissions generated during Project operation.

Diesel exhaust contains nearly 40 toxic substances, including TACs and may pose a serious public health risk for residents in the vicinity of the facility. TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or longterm (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines. 66 Id.
67 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 519; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.

City of Bakersfield (2004) 134 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220 (“After reading the EIRs, the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin. On remand, the health impacts resulting from the adverse air quality impacts must be identified and analyzed in the new EIRs.”).
68 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 525. 994
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
Diesel exhaust has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death.69,70,71 Fine DPM is deposited deep in the lungs in the smallest airways and can result in increased respiratory symptoms and disease; decreased lung function, particularly in children and individuals with asthma; alterations in lung tissue and respiratory tract defense mechanisms; and premature death.72 Exposure to DPM increases the risk of lung cancer. It also causes non-cancer effects including chronic bronchitis, inflammation of lung tissue, thickening of the alveolar walls, immunological allergic reactions, and airway constriction.73 DPM is a TAC that is recognized by state and federal agencies as causing severe health risk because it contains toxic materials, unlike PM2.5 and PM10.
74 While the potential exposure period for the closest sensitive receptor may be only 20 months, the inherent toxicity of the TACs requires the City to first quantify the concentration released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.75 Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative significance of the emissions. The City’s failure to perform such an analysis is clearly a major flaw in there MND and may be placing the residents of the adjacent structures at risk from the construction and operational phases of the 69 California Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Staff Report, June 1998; see also California Air Resources Board, Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-andhealth#:~:text=Diesel%20Particulate%20Matter%20and%20Health&text=In%201998%2C%20CARB %20identified%20DPM,and%20other%20adverse%20health%20effects. 70 U.S. EPA, Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, Report EPA/600/8-90/057F, May 2002.
71 Environmental Defense Fund, Cleaner Diesel Handbook, Bring Cleaner Fuel and Diesel Retrofits into Your Neighborhood, April 2005; http://www.edf.org/documents/4941_cleanerdieselhandbook.pdf, accessed July 5, 2020.
72 California Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Staff Report, June 1998. 73 Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on The Report on Diesel Exhaust as adopted at the Panel’s April 22, 1998 Meeting.
74 Health & Safety Code § 39655(a) (defining “toxic air contaminant” as air pollutants “which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412 (b)) is a toxic air contaminant.”)
75 SWAPE Comments, p. 4.
995
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
Project.76 Further, SWAPE determined that the City’s analysis disproportionately altered and extended some of the individual construction length phases without proper justification, thereby underestimating emissions associated with certain phases of construction and underestimated the health risks associated therewith.77 The MND lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusion that the Project would result in less than significant health risks from Project construction and operational TACs. The City must prepare an HRA in an EIR for the Project to quantify the Project’s health risk impacts and mitigate any significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

D. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the MND’s Conclusion that the Project’s Energy Impacts are Less Than Significant
The City’s analysis of the Project’s energy impacts is inadequate. The MND concludes, absent substantial evidence, that the Project’s energy impacts would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those previously identified in the VCC EIR, and no new mitigation is required. The evidence presented in the MND supporting this conclusion is not adequate.

SWAPE concludes that the MND relied on energy modeling that underestimates the Project’s operational energy emissions.78 SWAPE found that the modeling relied on Title 24 standards to reduce emissions in the model, but Title 24 standards are not required as mitigation for the Project.79 As such, the MND’s conclusion that energy impacts are not more severe than analyzed in the VCC EIR is based on inadequate data modeling.80 An EIR must be prepared which accurately reflects the operational energy emissions of the project, and adequately mitigates such impacts.
76 Id.
77 Id.
78 SWAPE Comments, p. 6.
79 Id.
80 Id.
996
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
E. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Is Likely to Result in Significant, Unmitigated Impacts to Biological Resources
The MND fails to comply with CEQA for failure to analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts to biological resources. The MND’s conclusions regarding the significance of impacts to biological resources is therefore not supported by substantial evidence. The MND also does not comport with a legislative policy underlying CEQA, to:

Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities.
81 Mr. Cashen reviewed the MND, relevant biological resources, and public data related to the Projects’ impacts on several sensitive-status species. Mr. Cashen concludes that the Project is likely to have significant, unmitigated impacts on several species and their habitat. An EIR must be prepared which adequately analyzes and mitigates Project impacts to biological resources. i. California Red-Legged Frog
The MND’s analysis regarding Project impacts to California Red-Legged Frog (“CRLF”) is not supported by substantial evidence. The 2015 BRA provides that the “CRLF may inhabit the wet riparian areas and uplands within the Study Area 200 feet of these wet areas.”82 But, the MND fails to analyze the significance of the Project’s impacts on the upland habitat for CRLF, and only requires compensatory mitigation if CRLF are detected during one single pre-construction survey within 24 hours of initial ground disturbance.83 Impacts to CRLF remain significant because the mitigation measures proposed by Mitigation Measure BIO-4 are not adequate to reduce impacts to less than significant, for the following reasons. 81 PRC § 21001(c).
82 2015 BRA, p. 22; Cashen Comments, p. 4.
83 Cashen Comments, p. 4; Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project:

Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program, p. 11 (“MMRP”). 997
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
First, Mr. Cashen determined that a single pre-construction survey within 24 hours of initial ground disturbance is not sufficient to avoid impacts to CRLF, “due to their low detection rate.”84 Mr. Cashen cited substantial evidence that CRLF hide very effectively. The US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote that “Frogs foraging, resting, or dispersing in upland areas also may not be detected by surveys. A great deal of experience, especially with nighttime surveys, is necessary to ensure detection of frogs.”85 Absent adequate surveys, including nighttime surveys, the impacts of the Project on CRLF may be significant, and result in the extirpation of the frogs onsite. Pre-construction surveys should be conducted over the course of weeks, including nighttime surveys. In fact, the US Fish and Wildlife Service recommends in their Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-Legged Frog that:

This Guidance recommends a total of up to eight (8) surveys to determine the presence of CRF at or near a project site. Two (2) day surveys and four (4) night surveys are recommended during the breeding season; one (1) day and one (1) night survey is recommended during the non-breeding season. Each survey must take place at least seven (7) days apart. At least one survey must be conducted prior to August 15th. The survey period must be over a minimum period of 6 weeks (i.e., the time between the first and last survey must be at least 6 weeks). Throughout the species’ range, the non-breeding season is defined as between July 1 and September 30.

Additionally, Mr. Cashen concluded that if surveys show that CRLF are found within the aquatic habitat, they are assumed present in upland habitat within 1 mile of the aquatic habitat.86 As such, the Applicant should have assumed the Project area would be inhabited by CRLF, but the MND failed to conduct any such surveys, and rather deferred this analysis until after Project approval.

Presence of the CRLF at the Project site requires compensatory mitigation and Section 7 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.87 Second, Mr. Cashen concluded that the relocation of the frogs will result in a significant impact that was not disclosed or analyzed in the MND, MMRP, or VCC EIR.88 In fact, moving frogs from one site to another can spread parasites and diseases, especially chytridiomycosis, which is prevalent in California’s amphibian 84 Cashen Comments, p. 8.
85 Id.
86 Cashen Comments, p. 8.
87 Id.
88 Id. at 9.
998
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
populations.
89 Mr. Cashen asserted that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species.90 The measure in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 providing that the frogs would be moved to a “ S Fish and Wildlife/California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved relocation site” is not sufficient to ameliorate these issues because the MND does not provide the public certainty that 1) such a site exists; 2) which agency will identify an appropriate relocation site; 3) and has not provided any evidence that such a measure would adequately mitigate impacts to CRLF. In fact, evidence shows that MM BIO-4 would further negatively impact the CRLF, rather than mitigating it.

Third, the mitigation measures provided in BIO-4 constitute impermissibly deferred analysis and improperly deferred mitigation. The CEQA Guidelines provide that “[t]he specific details of a mitigation measure… may be developed after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review.”
91 The MND does not state why specifying the
potential “avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits” was impractical or infeasible at the time the MND was drafted.92 In Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee, the city impermissibly deferred mitigation where the EIR did not state why specifying performance standards for mitigation measures “was impractical or infeasible at the time the EIR was certified.”93 The court determined that although the City must ultimately approve the mitigation standards, this does not cure these informational defects in the environmental review document.
94 Further, the court in Endangered Habitats
League, Inc. v. County of Orange, held that mitigation that does no more than require a report to be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a county department without setting any standards is inadequate.95 Here, the City impermissibly deferred mitigation with respect to the CRLF in violation of CEQA, 89 Id.
90 Id.
91 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).
92 MMRP, p. 12.
93 Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281. 94 Id.
95 Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794. 999
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
for failure to disclose and analyze the deferred mitigation measure that may be part of the Section 7 permitting process.96 An EIR must be prepared which adequately analyzes and mitigates the impacts of the Project on CRLF in accordance with CEQA.
ii. Congdon’s Tarplant
The MND’s analysis of impacts to Congdon’s Tarplant is not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed above, the MND fails to adequately analyze the baseline environmental setting with respect to existing Congdon’s Tarplant on the Project site. This results in inadequate mitigation. The mitigation measures proposed in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would not adequately analyze or mitigate impacts to Congdon’s Tarplant on the Project site and within the existing Conservation Easement on Parcel 3.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 proposes vague and unenforceable mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 states that “Impacts to special-status plants shall be avoided to the fullest extent feasible.”
97 This measure is neither specific nor legally
enforceable. MM BIO-3 further provides, that “Mature seeds shall be collected from all plants that are present and planted in a suitable mitigation area within the Parcel 3 Conservation Easement.”98 It is concerning that the City is merely shifting these rare plants from one Conservation Easement to a new conservation easement site, because the public cannot be certain the City will not allow for the later movement of the Conservation Easement’s borders to support further development, as they did in the current Project.

Further, BIO-3 constitutes inadequate mitigation because neither the MND nor the MMRP provide any evidence that translocation of Congdon’s Tarplant seeds is likely to succeed.99 Mr. Cashen cites substantial evidence to support the argument that, for most plant species, attempts to establish new plant populations are experimental and often unsuccessful.100 Additionally, Mr. Cashen cites the California Native Plant Society which has stated that “[l]osses of plant populations considered ‘significant’ under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or 96 MMRP, p. 12.
97 Id. at 8.
98 Id. at 10.
99 Cashen Comments, p. 7.
100 Id.; Fiedler PL, Mitigation-related transplantation, relocation and reintroduction projects involving endangered and threatened, and rare plant species in California, Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game (1991).
1000
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) cannot be mitigated to less-thansignificant levels using ex situ conservation techniques.”101 Mr. Cashen concludes that it is not sufficient that the soil type in Parcel 3 is the same for the translocation of the Congdon’s Tarplant seeds.102 But, rare plants may require a particular set of pollinators, fungi or other associate species, aspect, hydrological regime, microclimate, or some combination of these or other factors for survival.103 As a result, CNPS cautions that: “[a]dequate studies of microhabitat selection, fecundity, essential pollinators, community relationships, and other important biological characteristics must be completed before seeds or other plant materials are removed from natural habitats for an ex situ conservation effort.”104 The MND and the MMRP fail to analyze these factors and thus fail to adequately mitigate impacts to Congdon’s Tarplant to less than significant levels.

An EIR must be prepared which adequately analyzes and mitigates impacts to Congdon’s Tarplant before the Project can be approved.

V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT,

UNMITIGATED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(f)(2) provides that “When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion on how to assess whether project impacts are cumulatively considerable, see Section 15064(i).” 105
The MND fails to accurately characterize the significant cumulative impacts associated with the Project. CEQA requires an MND’s cumulative impacts analysis evaluate the incremental impact of the project in conjunction with, or collectively 101 Cashen Comments, p. 7; California Native Plant Society, Policy on Appropriate Application of Ex Situ Conservation Techniques (1992). Available at: https://www.cnps.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/ex_situ-conservation.pdf. 102 Cashen Comments, p. 7.
103 Id. at 8; California Native Plant Society, Statement Opposing Transplanting as Mitigation for Impacts to Rare Plants (1998). Available at: https://www.cnps.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/transplanting2.pdf. 104 Cashen Comments, p. 8.
105 14 CCR § 15152(f)(2).
1001
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
with, other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.106 “Cumulative impacts” are defined as “two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”107 The purpose of this requirement is to avoid “piecemeal” approval of projects without consideration of the total environmental effects the project would have when taken together.108 The adequacy of an EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is determined by standard of practicality and reasonableness.109
The MND’s statement that the Project will not result in any new cumulative impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. The MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of suburban sprawl on rare plants including the Congdon’s Tarplant.110 Mr. Cashen concluded that the “analysis” in the VCC EIR was predicated on the belief that the project would not cumulatively impact any special-status plants or animals.111 It is now known that at least one special-status species, the Congdon’s Tarplant would be directly impacted by the Project.112 The 2018 Supplemental IS/MND did not rectify the deficiency because it merely cited the “analysis” in the VCC EIR: that “No cumulatively considerable impacts were identified with the VCC project in 2004, as documented in the final EIR.”113 As Mr. Cashen demonstrated in his comments, Congdon’s Tarplant has been documented at the following project sites (recently proposed or approved) in the City of Dublin: SCS Dublin, East Ranch (Croak Property), Boulevard (Dublin Crossing), Ikea Retail Center, and Zeiss Innovation Center. None of these projects were contemplated in the VCC EIR (or 2018 Supplemental IS/MND).114 Collectively, the proposed Project, in conjunction with the projects listed above, would eliminate most of the Congdon’s Tarplant populations remaining in the City of Dublin.115 Mr.

Cashen concluded that this impact would be very significant and because the 106 Id.; 14 CCR § 15355(b); City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 905.
107 14 CCR § 15355.
108 Cecily Talbert Barclay and Matthew S. Gray, California Land Use and Planning Law (Solano Press, 37th ed. 2020) p. 180.
109 Environmental Protection & Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 525; 14 CCR § 15130(b).
110 Cashen Comments, p. 6.
111 Id.
112 Id.
113 2018 Supplemental IS/MND, p. 90.
114 Cashen Comments, p. 6.
115 Id.
1002
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
Project does not adhere to the terms of the EACCS, its incremental contribution to the impact would be cumulatively considerable.116 An EIR must be prepared which accurately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s cumulatively considerable impacts to sensitive and rare biological resources.

VI. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO APPROVE
THE PROJECT’S LAND USE PERMITS
A. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Make the Findings Required for the Tentative Parcel Map No. 11241
Tentative Map approval requires that the following findings are made and supported by substantial evidence in the public record, including: “The subdivision design and proposed improvement will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat”; and “The design of the subdivision or type of improvement will not cause serious public health concerns.”
117
As detailed above, the Project may result in significant impacts to biological resources and their habitats. As such, the City cannot make the necessary findings that the Project will not cause substantial environmental damage to fish or wildlife as required by the Dublin Municipal Code.

Additionally, the City cannot make the necessary finding, supported by substantial evidence, that the Project will not result in serious public health concerns. As demonstrated above, and in SWAPE comment letter and expert modeling, the Project may result in a significant cancer risk associated with toxic air contaminants and diesel particulate matter emissions. The City cannot make the necessary findings required under the Tentative Parcel Map approval, and cannot approve the Project absent adequate mitigation as detailed herein and in expert comments attached.
116 Id.
117 Dublin Municipal Code § 9.08(c)(4) and (5).
1003
April 26, 2022

5883-005j
VII. CONCLUSION
There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant adverse impacts that were not identified in the MND, nor the VCC EIR, and thus have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated.

The City also lacks substantial evidence to support many of the MND’s significance conclusions, in violation of CEQA.

We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA by withdrawing the MND and preparing a legally adequate EIR to address the potentially significant impacts described in this comment letter and the attached letters from SWAPE and Mr. Cashen. This is the only way the City and the public will be able to ensure that the Project’s significant environmental impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels.

Sincerely,
Kelilah D. Federman
KDF:ljl
Exhibits
1004

EXHIBIT A
1005
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
April 24, 2022
Kelilah D. Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project (SCH No. 2021110251)
Dear Ms. Federman,
We have reviewed the November 2021 Initial Study (“IS”) for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project (“Project”) located in the City of Dublin (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 35,000-square-foot (“SF”) memory care facility and 75,112-SF assisted living facility, as well as 62 parking spaces on the 50.6-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Analysis and Disclosure of Impacts
The IS fails to include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) for the Project site. The IS instead relies only on an online review of regulatory databases to determine hazards and hazardous materials impacts, which is an insufficient basis for determining the presence of onsite hazards. As outlined below, a Phase I ESA is necessary to adequately identify and disclose environmental issues that may require mitigation.
1006
2 Under CEQA, the preparation of a Phase I ESA is standard industry practice for identifying and disclosing conditions that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions that would indicate a release of hazardous substances according to ASTM International (“ASTM”) standards.1 Essential components of a Phase I ESA include:
• a review of regulatory agency databases to identify sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• a site inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.

The principal objective of a Phase I ESA is to identify any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”). A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water. If RECs are found, a Phase II ESA is usually conducted. A Phase II ESA includes the collection of environmental samples to identify the magnitude and extent of contamination and if cleanup is needed to reduce public exposure to contamination.

To provide an adequate basis for disclosure of hazards and hazardous materials impacts, the preparation of a Phase I ESA is necessary. If RECs are identified in the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA should be prepared to include the collection of soil samples to determine if contamination exists. Any contamination that is found to be above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels2, should be further evaluated in coordination with regulatory agencies to include the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 47).3 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type.

If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input projectspecific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant 1 http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm
2 https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2019/04/HHRA-Note-3-June-2020-A.pdf 3 “CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/archive/download-version-2016-3-2. 1007
3 emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod Output Sheets, provided as Appendix B to the IS, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project” model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 221, 255, 283).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 225, 259, 287):

As you can see from the excerpt above, the grading phase is increased by 50%, from the default value of 20 to 30 days; the building construction phase is increased by 12%, from the default value of 300 to 335 days; the paving phase is increased by 50%, from the default value of 20 to 30 days; and the architectural coating phase is increased by 200%, from the default value of 10 to 30 days. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.4 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
1008
4 “Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in early 2022 and would occur over an approximately 20-month period” (Appendix B, pp. 220, 254, 282).

Furthermore, regarding the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, the IS states:
“Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in late 2022 or early 2023 and would occur over an approximately 20‐month period” (p. 13).

However, these changes remain unsupported. While the IS indicates the total construction duration of 20 months, the IS fails to mention or justify the individual construction phase lengths. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 5
Here, as the IS only justifies the total construction duration of 20 months, the IS fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised individual construction phase lengths. As such, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).6 Thus, by disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As such, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. As a result, the model 5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14.
6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.
1009
5 may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project” model includes the following energy-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 242, 275, 303):

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.7 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for the inclusion of the energy-related operational mitigation measure is:
“Assuming compliance with the 2019 CALGreen Code” (Appendix B, pp. 220, 254, 282).

Furthermore, the IS states:
“The proposed project would comply with the 2019 CALGreen Code, which was accounted for in the analysis.” (p. 49).

However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned energy-related operational mitigation measure is unsupported, as the IS fails to demonstrate that the Project intends to exceed Title 24 standards.

According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, the “Exceed Title 24” mitigation measure corresponds with CAPCOA’s Mitigation Measure BE-1.8Furthermore, CAPCOA indicates that buildings must exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by a specific percentage to be consistent with the BE-1 mitigation strategy (see excerpt below).9
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 58, 59.
9 “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), August 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoaquantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf, p. 64, Table 6-1. 1010
6 Thus, as the IS does not require the Project to exceed Title 24 Standards, this measure is not applicable to the proposed Project. By incorrectly including an energy-related operational mitigation measure, the model underestimates the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS estimates that the maximum mitigated cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 7.18 in one million, which would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 53, Table G).

However, the IS fails to mention or evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project operation whatsoever. Thus, the IS’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for six reasons.

First, the IS’s construction-related health risk analysis (“HRA”) is unsubstantiated, as the IS fails to provide the input parameters and modeling output files. According to the IS:
1011
7 “This refined assessment was conducted using CARB’s exposure methodology, with the air dispersion modeling performed using the USEPA dispersion model AERMOD. The model provides a detailed estimate of exhaust concentrations based on site and source geometry, source emissions strength, distance from the source to the receptor, and site‐specific meteorological data. Table F, below, identifies the results of the analysis utilizing the standard Tier 2 construction equipment. Model snap shots of the sources are provided in Appendix C” (53).

However, upon review of the AERMOD Model Snap Shots, provided as Appendix C to the IS, we found the IS fails to include exact numerical input parameters or output files for the model. As such, we cannot verify the calculation of the Project’s construction-related cancer risk is accurate.

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”10 This poses a problem, as operation of the Project is expected to generate an estimated 329 average daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during Project operation (p. 150). However, the IS fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Third, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. According to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”11 Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).12 While the IS fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure 10 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 11 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4. 1012
8 duration as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from DPM emissions generated during Project operation.

Fourth, the BAAQMD requires projects within 1,000 feet of an existing sensitive receptor or source to evaluate the cancer risk associated with Project operation (see excerpt below):13 Thus, as the IS demostrates that there are existing sensitive receptors at the residential developments immediately adjacent to the Project site, an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project operation should have been conducted pursuant to the BAAQMD (p. 43).

Fifth, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the applicable BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.
14 Specifically, regarding the operational TAC
emissions threshold, the BAAQMD states:
“The Lead Agency shall determine whether operational-related TAC and PM2.5 emissions generated as part of a proposed project siting a new source or receptor would expose existing or new receptors to levels that exceed BAAQMD’s applicable Thresholds of Significance stated below:
• Compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; • An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million…”15 13 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-2, Table 2-1.
14 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-5.
15 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 5-3.
1013
9 Thus, pursuant to CEQA and the BAAQMD, an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project operation should have been conducted.

Sixth, while the IS includes an HRA evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA guidance “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.”
16 However, the IS’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is incorrect and thus, an updated analysis should quantify and sum the entirety of the Project’s construction and operational cancer risks to compare to the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the IS (p. 53).

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.17 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). 18, 19 A Level 2
HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM2.5 exhaust estimates from the IS’s CalEEMod output files, as recommended by the BAAQMD.
20 Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. 21 Subtracting the 671-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.16 years.22 The IS’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will 16 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4 17 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 18 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 19 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 20 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 8-8.
21 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 22 See Attachment B for health risk calculations.
1014
10 generate approximately 24 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in daily vehicle trips over Project operation, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑) =

24.2 𝑙𝑏𝑠
365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ×
453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝑙𝑏𝑠 ×
1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
×
1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟒𝟖 𝒈/𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000348 g/s. Operation was simulated as a 50.6-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 640- by 320-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Dublin was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.23
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.
24 According to the IS the nearest sensitive receptors are residential properties located 15 feet, or approximately 5 meters, to the west of the Project site (p. 119).

However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 350 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project operation is approximately 0.09792 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 350 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of

0.009792 µg/m3for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by BAAQMD.
25 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including highpoint estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of 23 “Dublin.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0620018. 24 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf. 25 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.” BAAQMD, May 2011, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling%20Approac h.ashx, p. 65, 86.
1015
11 time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)26
Age
Sensitivity
Factor27
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home28
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)29
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒𝐴𝐼𝑅,,𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 = 𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 × 𝐸𝐹 × [
𝐵𝑅
𝐵𝑊] × 𝐴 × 𝐶𝐹
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group 26 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_cleanpdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 6; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 27 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 28 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24; see also: “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_cleanpdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 4, 5. 29 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 1016
12 Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘𝐴𝐼𝑅 = 𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑒𝐴𝐼𝑅 × 𝐶𝑃𝐹 × 𝐴𝑆𝐹 × 𝐹𝐴𝐻 ×
𝐸𝐷
𝐴𝑇
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 671-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.41 years of the infant stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), and the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 1.49 * *
Operation 0.51 9.792E-03 7.01E-07
Infant (0 – 2) Total 2 7.01E-07
Child (2 – 16) Operation 14 9.792E-03 2.55E-06
Adult (16 – 30) Operation 14 9.792E-03 3.94E-07
Lifetime 30 3.65E-06
* Cancer risk from Project construction calculated separately in the IS.

As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 350 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 0.701, 1017
13 2.55, and 3.94 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk associated with Project operation is approximately 3.65 in one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the IS’s construction-related cancer risk of 7.18 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 10.83 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) (p. 53, Table G).
30 As such, the lifetime cancer risk greatly exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS.

An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 31 The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, an EIR should be prepared and include updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined HRA which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
30 Calculated: 3.65 in one million + 7.18 in one million = 10.83 in one million. 31 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5 1018
14 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
1019
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
1020
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
1021
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 1022
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 1023
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
1024
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
1025
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 1026
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
1027

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B
1028

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
1029

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
1030

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International 1031

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
1032

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. 1033

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
1034

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
1035

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
1036

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
1037

EXHIBIT B
1038
Scott Cashen, M.S.—Independent Biological Resources Consultant 1 April 25, 2022
Ms. Kelilah D. Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project Dear Ms. Federman:

This letter contains my comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared by the City of Dublin (“City”) for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project (“Project”). Fulcrum Real Estate Development (“Applicant”) is proposing construction of two buildings and associated landscaping, parking, and utility improvements. The Memory Care building would be constructed in “Parcel 2,” while the Assisted Living building would be constructed in a portion of “Parcel 3.” Both parcels are located within the Valley Christian Center (“VCC”) site at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the City of Dublin.

I am an environmental biologist with 29 years of professional experience in wildlife biology and natural resources management. I have served as a biological resources expert for over 150 projects in California. My experience and scope of work in this regard has included assisting various clients with evaluations of biological resource issues; preparation and peer review of environmental compliance documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”); and preparation of written comments that address deficiencies with CEQA and NEPA documents. My work has included written and oral testimony for the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and Federal courts. My educational background includes a B.S. in Resource Management from the University of California at Berkeley, and a M.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Pennsylvania State University. A copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached hereto.

The comments herein are based on my review of the environmental documents prepared for the Project, a review of scientific literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur in the Project area, my work on several other projects in the region, and the knowledge and experience I have acquired during my 29-year career in the field of natural resources management. 1039
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities in California are classified through application of the state standards embodied in the Survey of California Vegetation. 1 This is reflected in the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (“Protocols”).2 The Applicant’s biological resources consultant, WRA, did not use the statewide standards (described in the Protocols) to classify vegetation at the Project site.3 This precludes: (a) the ability to assess the Project’s impacts on sensitive natural communities, and (b) the City’s ability to make the determination that the Project would have “no impact” on sensitive natural communities.

Special-Status Plants and Animals
WRA’s biologist visited the Project site on May 20, 2015. 4 During the site visit, the Study Area
(Project site) was traversed on foot to determine: (1) plant communities present within the Study Area, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present.5 WRA’s Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”) acknowledges that the site visit was not designed to determine presence or absence of any special-status species.6
The WRA biologist revisited the Project site on March 5, 2018.7 In addition, a biologist from LSA Associates visited the Project site on February 18, 2021. 8 Focused surveys for plants and
animals were not conducted during either of these site visits. Instead, the site visits were conducted to confirm site conditions had not changed significantly since WRA’s 2015 site assessment.
9 The IS/MND states: “[a] total of 77 (42 plants and 35 animals) special‐status species were evaluated for the VCC project. Of these only two, Congdon’s tarplant and California red‐legged 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. VegCAMP [website]. Available at:
<https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities>. 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. p. 9. 3 WRA. 2015. Biological Resources Assessment [BRA], Dublin Valley Christian Center, p. 7: “[b]iological communities present in the Study Area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986).” 4 BRA, p. 6.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid, pp. 1 and 9.
7 WRA. 2018. Dublin Valley Christian Center Biological Site Conditions Update [BRA Update]. p. 1. 8 LSA Associates. 2021. Biological Resources Analysis for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facilities in Dublin, California. Memorandum to City of Dublin, p. 2. 9 BRA Update, p. 1.
1040
3 frog, have the potential to occur on the site and could be impacted by the proposed project.” 10 This statement conflicts with the BRA, which identified six special-status animal species with “moderate” potential to occur at the Project site: California red‐legged frog, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, grasshopper sparrow, Nuttall’s woodpecker, and oak titmouse.11 In addition, Appendix B to the BRA states that the Project site provides foraging habitat for the pallid bat, hoary bat, golden eagle, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, and tricolored blackbird—all of which are special-status species. Therefore, according to the BRA, 13 specialstatus animal species have the potential to occur at the Project site. There have been no efforts (i.e., focused surveys) to determine which of these species occur at the Project site, and thus, which species would be impacted by the Project.

Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) and Other Special-Status Plants Congdon’s tarplant (Rare Plant Rank 1B.1) has been detected at the Project site.12 During the 20 May 2015 site visit, two tarplant individuals (Centromadia sp.) were observed in the northeast portion of the Study Area. WRA believed the plants were Congdon’s tarplant; however, the plants could not be identified to the species level due to the timing of the site visit. 13 During the
5 March 2018 site visit, approximately five individuals of the genus Centromadia were observed in a man-made stormwater detention basin outside of the VCC Project footprint (but within the footprint of the currently proposed Assisted Living facility). A portion of one of the senesced annual plants was collected for identification, and it was determined to be Congdon’s tarplant.14 The presence of Congdon’s tarplant in the southeastern portion of the Study Area (Parcel 3) in 2018, and the inferred presence of Congdon’s tarplant in the northeastern portion of the Study Area (Parcel 1) in 2015, strongly suggests that the species could occur in other portions of the Study Area. However, focused surveys to establish the distribution and abundance of Congdon’s tarplant at the Project site have never been conducted. Information on the size and distribution of the Congdon’s tarplant population at the site is essential to the public’s: (a) understanding of the severity of Project impacts on species, and (b) ability to evaluate the sufficiency of the mitigation proposed in the IS/MND.

The fact that WRA detected only a few Congdon’s tarplant individuals at the site is not evidence that the site lacks a significant population. Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb that blooms from June to November.
15 After blooming, it almost always withers and decays before the next growing season. Therefore, it’s entirely possible that the Project site contains hundreds (or thousands) of Congdon’s tarplants, but only five senesced individuals were detectable when WRA conducted the 5 March 2018 site visit.
10 IS/MND, p. 64.
11 BRA, pp. 14 through 18.
12 IS/MND, p. 64.
13 2018 Supplemental IS/MND, p. 44.
14 BRA Update, p. 2.
15 IS/MND, p. 64.
1041
4 The BRA identifies 27 rare plant species that WRA believed were “unlikely” to occur at the Project site.16 The IS/MND does not address these 27 species (i.e., it assumes they are absent from the site). Even if the 27 plant species are unlikely to occur at the Project site, there is no basis for assuming they would not be impacted by the Project until protocol-level (focused) botanical surveys have been conducted. The CDFW Protocols state:
“It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey when:
• Natural (or naturalized) vegetation occurs in an area that may be directly or indirectly affected by a project (project area), and it is unknown whether or not special status plants or sensitive natural communities occur in the project area; • Special status plants or sensitive natural communities have historically been identified in a project area; or
• Special status plants or sensitive natural communities occur in areas with similar physical and biological properties as a project area.”
17 Although the Project site satisfies these three criteria, no protocol-level surveys have been conducted for the Project. Conducting botanical surveys after the CEQA review process terminates, as proposed in Mitigation Measure BIO-3, does not rectify the issue because it precludes the public (and resource agencies) from understanding the magnitude and severity of the Project’s impacts on rare plants.18 Furthermore, because the compensatory mitigation requirements in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 are limited to Congdon’s tarplant, it is impossible for the City to make the determination that the Project would be not have significant impacts on other rare plant species until surveys are conducted to confirm absence of those species.

IMPACTS
California Red-legged Frog (“CRLF”)
The BRA states: “CRLF may inhabit the wet riparian areas and uplands within the Study Area 200 feet of these wet areas.”
19 The BRA then states: “[i]mpacts to these areas may require consultation with the USFWS and compensatory mitigation.” 20 The IS/MND fails to analyze the
significance of the Project’s impacts on upland habitat for the CRLF, and it only requires compensatory mitigation if CRLF are detected during a single pre-construction survey. This is not an effective approach to mitigating the Project’s potentially significant impacts because detection of CRLF in uplands is difficult, and thus, surveys of uplands cannot be used to support 16 BRA, Appendix B.
17 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. p. 4. 18 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires rare plant surveys “for Congdon’s Tarplant or for other species within the project site.”
19 BRA, p. 22. There is no scientific basis for the BRA’s determination that CRLF would be limited to upland areas within 200 feet of wet areas. The USFWS defines upland habitat for the CRLF as: “[u]pland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding and non-breeding aquatic and riparian habitat up to a distance of 1.6 kilometer (1 mile).” See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 75(51):12816-12959. 20 Ibid.
1042
5 a negative finding.21 As a result, Project impacts on upland habitat for the CRLF remain potentially significant.

Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The IS/MND acknowledges the Project site is located in Conservation Zone 1 of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS” or “Conservation Strategy”). The EACCS, which was prepared by the resource agencies in partnership with the City of Dublin, was designed to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County. According to the IS/MND: “[t]he City of Dublin utilizes the EACCS as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource.”
22 The IS/MND then states: “[w]ith
implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, the project would be consistent with the EACCS.”23 This statement is false for three main reasons:

First, implementing the EACCS requires the Applicant to conduct protocol surveys, or alternatively, to assume presence of focal species.24 Focal species that occur, or have the potential to occur at the Project site include the California red-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, golden eagle, and Congdon’s tarplant.25 The Applicant has not conducted protocol-level surveys for any of these species, and the IS/MND only assumes presence of Congdon’s tarplant.

Second, the EACCS establishes “general” and “species-specific” avoidance and minimization measures that need to be implemented to reduce effects on focal species.26 The IS/MND does not require the Applicant to implement those avoidance and minimization measures.

Third, the core of the Conservation Strategy for the focal species is the application of standardized mitigation ratios.27 Implementation of these mitigation ratios ensures project impacts to focal species and their habitat are offset in a biologically effective manner.28 Projects that impact habitat for the California red-legged frog require mitigation at a ratio of

2.5:1 to 3.5:1 (depending on the locations of impacts and compensatory mitigation in relation to critical habitat).29 Projects that impact habitat for Congdon’s tarplant require mitigation at a ratio 21 See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/crf_survey_guidance_aug2005.pdf >. 22 IS/MND, p. 70.
23 Ibid.
24 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. pp. 5-16 and -17. 25 BRA, Appendix B. Although the Project site does not provide nesting habitat for golden eagles, it provides foraging habitat.
26 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 27 Ibid, p. 3-41.
28 Ibid. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permitted Projects Utilizing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy that May Affect Federally Listed Species in East Alameda County, California (Corps File Number 2011-00230S). pp. 8 and 9. 29 Ibid, Table 3-7.
1043
6 of 5:1 (based on the size of the population that is effected or protected). Projects that impact grassland or scrub communities that do not provide habitat for focal species require mitigation at a ratio of 3:1.
30 The IS/MND fails to incorporate the standardized mitigation ratios established in the EACCS.

For these reasons, the mitigation measures proposed in the IS/MND are not consistent with the EACCS, and thus, are not sufficient to offset the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Cumulative Impacts
The IS/MND’s discussion of cumulative impacts is limited to the following statements:
“[c]umulative impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project were considered and evaluated in the VCC EIR and the 2018 Supplemental IS/MND. No new cumulative impacts or substantially more severe significant cumulative impacts were identified as a result of implementing the proposed project.”31
There has been no scientific analysis of the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. The VCC EIR did not provide scientific analysis; it merely made the conclusory statement that:
“[i]mpacts of the project on biological impacts are limited and would not be considered cumulative.”
32 Furthermore, the “analysis” in the VCC EIR was predicated on the belief that the project would not impact any special-status plants or animals.33 It is now known that at least one special-status species (Congdon’s tarplant) would be directly impacted by the currently proposed Project.

The 2018 Supplemental IS/MND did not rectify the deficiency because it merely cited the “analysis” in the VCC EIR: “No cumulatively considerable impacts were identified with the VCC project in 2004, as documented in the final EIR.”
34 Congdon’s tarplant has been documented at the following project sites (recently proposed or approved) in the City of Dublin: SCS Dublin, East Ranch (Croak Property), Boulevard (Dublin Crossing), Ikea Retail Center, and Zeiss Innovation Center. None of these projects were contemplated in the VCC EIR (or 2018 Supplemental IS/MND). Collectively, the proposed Project, in conjunction with the projects listed above, would eliminate most of the Congdon’s tarplant populations remaining in the City of Dublin.35 This impact would be very significant, and because the Project does not adhere to the terms of the EACCS, its incremental contribution to the impact would be cumulatively considerable.
30 Ibid, pp. 3-14 and -17.
31 IS/MND, p. 174.
32 Draft EIR for the Valley Christian Center Expansion Program, p. 112. 33 Ibid, p. 41.
34 2018 Supplemental IS/MND, p. 90.
35 California Natural Diversity Database. 2022. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [Apr 5, 2022].
1044
7 MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure BIO‐3: Congdon’s Tarplant
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 states:
“If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on a special‐status plant species are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of a special‐status plant species shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Mature seeds shall be collected from all the plants that are present and planted in a suitable mitigation area within the Parcel 3 conservation easement. The mitigation area for replanting shall be identified by a qualified botanist before the start of work on the project.

The conservation easement portion of Parcel 3 supports the same soil type (Diablo clay 15‐30 percent) as the detention basin within the proposed assisted living facility area, so mitigation for Congdon’s tarplant is feasible within the easement.”
The proposed mitigation is vague because the IS/MND fails to identify criteria for the “acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences.” For example, the IS/MND does not identify how much land would need to be acquired, nor does it identify the mechanism that would ensure the land is properly protected and managed.

Moreover, the mitigation measure subsequently suggests that the mitigation efforts would be limited to planting seeds in an area that is already protected (by a conservation easement) and not known to contain “existing occurrences” of Congdon’s tarplant.

Congdon’s tarplant was detected within the portion of the conservation easement that would be directly impacted by the Project.36 As mitigation, the IS/MND proposes to reestablish the plants in another portion of the conservation easement. The IS/MND provides no evidence that the proposed mitigation strategy (i.e., collecting and planting seeds) is likely to succeed. Indeed, for most plant species, attempts to establish new plant populations are experimental and often unsuccessful.37 As a result, the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) has stated that “[l]osses of plant populations considered ‘significant’ under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels using ex situ conservation techniques.” 38 The fact that proposed mitigation area has the same soil type as the impact area is not evidence that the mitigation effort would be successful; many other variables affect the presence and viability of a plant population. Rare plants are often specialists that exploit a particular and unusual combination of habitat attributes. In addition to soil type, rare plants may require a particular set of pollinators, mycorhizal fungi or other associate species, aspect, hydrological 36 LSA Associates. 2021. Biological Resources Analysis for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facilities in Dublin, California. Memorandum to City of Dublin, p. 3. 37 Fiedler PL. 1991. Mitigation-related transplantation, relocation and reintroduction projects involving endangered and threatened, and rare plant species in California. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game. 38 California Native Plant Society. 1992. Policy on Appropriate Application of Ex Situ Conservation Techniques.

Available at: <https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ex_situ-conservation.pdf>. 1045
8 regime, microclimate, or some combination of these or other factors for survival. 39 As a result,
CNPS cautions that: “[a]dequate studies of microhabitat selection, fecundity, essential pollinators, community relationships, and other important biological characteristics must be completed before seeds or other plant materials are removed from natural habitats for an ex situ conservation effort.”
40 The IS/MND does not consider these factors; it merely assumes that that all land with Diablo clay soil provides appropriate habitat for Congdon’s tarplant.

The deficiencies described above are exacerbated by the IS/MND’s deferral of success criteria, and monitoring and reporting requirements, for Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Preparation of a mitigation and monitoring plan (“plan”) after the CEQA review process terminates does not rectify the issue because there are no assurances that the plan would contain appropriate success criteria (for example), nor would there be any ability for the scientific community to comment on the adequacy of the plan.

For the reasons described above, and because Mitigation Measure BIO-3 does not comply with the terms of the EACCS, Project impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and potentially other rare plant species remain significant.

MM BIO-4 California Red-legged Frog
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 states:
“For any development near on‐site riparian areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre‐construction surveys for CRLF species within 24 hours of initial ground disturbance. If individuals are found, work shall not begin until they are moved out of the construction zone to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved relocation site. If no species are found, no mitigation shall be required.”
There are two problems with this component of the proposed mitigation. First, a single pre‐ construction survey would not be sufficient to avoid impacts to CRLF due to their low detection rate. According to the USFWS:
“Frogs hide in heavy vegetation and under banks, in holes, in cracks and under objects. A researcher may be able to locate a collared frog by radio to within one square meter and still not be able to see it. Frogs foraging, resting, or dispersing in upland areas also may not be detected by surveys. A great deal of experience, especially with nighttime surveys, is necessary to insure detection of frogs.

Because of these difficulties associated with surveying for the frog, negative survey results do not necessarily indicate an absence of the species, even if conducted by highly qualified biologists. Frogs actually seen during surveys probably represent a relatively small subsample of those actually present.

Therefore, in areas where frogs have been found in the vicinity and suitable 39 California Native Plant Society. 1998. Statement Opposing Transplantation as Mitigation for Impacts to Rare Plants. Available at: <https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/transplanting2.pdf> 40 California Native Plant Society. 1992. Policy on Appropriate Application of Ex Situ Conservation Techniques.

Available at: <https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ex_situ-conservation.pdf>. 1046
9 habitat is present, suitable habitat accessible to frog populations occurring within five miles should be presumed to be occupied by the species.” 41 The survey protocol for CRLF entails eight surveys (three day surveys and five night surveys), with at least seven days between each survey.42 WRA did not conduct any surveys for CRLF.

Therefore, in accordance with USFWS guidance and the EACCS, the City must assume presence of CRLF at the Project site, irrespective of the results of the pre-construction survey. As stated in the IS/MND, presence of CRLF at the Project site requires compensatory mitigation and Section 7 consultation with the USFWS.

Second, relocating frogs has the potential to cause significant impacts that were not disclosed or analyzed in the IS/MND. For example, moving frogs from one site to another can spread parasites and diseases, especially chytridiomycosis, which is prevalent in California’s amphibian populations.43 As a result, CDFW generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species.44 The provision for moving frogs to an “approved relocation site” does not eliminate the issue because there are no assurances that the agency (USFWS or CDFW) would conduct the assessment needed to identify an appropriate relocation site, nor is it likely that such an assessment could be conducted when ground disturbance is imminent.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4 further states:
“If CRLF are found on the project site then the project Applicant shall provide information to support Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the project Applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. The final selected measures may be part of the Section 7 permitting process.”
Contrary to what the IS/MND suggests, the City cannot rely on deferred mitigation and the undetermined permitting requirements of other agencies to conclude impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The USFWS participated in the development of the EACCS and determined that a compensation ratio of 2.5:1 to 3.5:1 was required to mitigate project impacts to 41 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017 Mar. California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Fact Sheet. p. 1. 42 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. p. 6.
43 Dodd CK Jr., Seigel RA. 1991. Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: Are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica 47(3):336-350. See also Germano JM, Field KJ, Griffiths RA, Clulow S, Foster J, Harding G, Swaisgood RR. 2015. Mitigation-driven translocations: Are we moving wildlife in the right direction? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13. See also Germano JM, Bishop PJ. 2008.

Suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation. Conservation Biology 23(1):7-15. 44 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021 Feb 22. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021010318. Comment letter submitted to A Vaughn, City of Ontario. pp. 10 and 11.
1047
10 CRLF habitat in eastern Alameda County.45 Because Mitigation Measure BIO-4 defers formulation of the compensatory mitigation requirement and does not require compliance with the EACCS, impacts to CRLF habitat remain potentially significant.

Sincerely,
Scott Cashen, M.S.

Senior Biologist
45 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. Table 3-7 and pp. 5-16 through -18. See also U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permitted Projects Utilizing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy that May Affect Federally Listed Species in East Alameda County, California (Corps File Number 2011-00230S). pp. 8 through 10. 1048
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 1
Scott Cashen, M.S.

Senior Wildlife Biologist
Scott Cashen has 28 years of professional experience in natural resources management. During that time he has worked as a field biologist, forester, environmental consultant, and instructor of Wildlife Management. Mr. Cashen focuses on CEQA/NEPA compliance issues, endangered species, scientific field studies, and other topics that require a high level of scientific expertise.

Mr. Cashen has knowledge and experience with numerous taxa, ecoregions, biological resource issues, and environmental regulations. As a biological resources expert, Mr.

Cashen is knowledgeable of the various agency-promulgated guidelines for field surveys, impact assessments, and mitigation. Mr. Cashen has led field investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the yellow-legged frog, red-legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and various forest carnivores.

Mr. Cashen is a recognized expert on the environmental impacts of renewable energy development. He has been involved in the environmental review process of over 100 solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy projects. Mr. Cashen’s role in this capacity has encompassed all stages of the environmental review process, from initial document review through litigation support. Mr. Cashen provided expert witness testimony on several of the Department of the Interior’s “fast-tracked” renewable energy projects. His testimony on those projects helped lead agencies develop project alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts associated with the projects.

Mr. Cashen was a member of the independent scientific review panel for the Quincy Library Group project, the largest community forestry project in the United States. As a member of the panel, Mr. Cashen was responsible for advising the U.S. Forest Service on its scientific monitoring program, and for preparing a final report to Congress describing the effectiveness of the Herger-Feinstein Forest Recovery Act of 1998.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• CEQA, NEPA, and Endangered Species Act compliance issues • Comprehensive biological resource assessments
• Endangered species management
• Renewable energy development
• Scientific field studies, grant writing and technical editing

EDUCATION
M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science - The Pennsylvania State University (1998) Thesis: Avian Use of Restored Wetlands in Pennsylvania
B.S. Resource Management - The University of California, Berkeley (1992) 1049
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 2

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Litigation Support / Expert Witness
Mr. Cashen has served as a biological resources expert for over 125 projects subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a biological resources expert, Mr.

Cashen reviews CEQA/NEPA documents and provides his clients with an assessment of biological resource issues. He then submits formal comments on the scientific and legal adequacy of the project’s environmental documents (e.g., Environmental Impact Report).

If needed, Mr. Cashen conducts field studies to generate evidence for legal testimony, or he can obtain supplemental testimony from his deep network of species-specific experts.

Mr. Cashen has provided written and oral testimony to the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and U.S. district courts. His clients have included law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Solar Energy Geothermal Energy
• Abengoa Mojave Solar Project • Casa Diablo IV Geothermal • Avenal Energy Power Plant • Project East Brawley Geothermal • Development • Beacon Solar Energy Project • Mammoth Pacific 1 Replacement • Blythe Solar Power Project • Facility Orni 21 Geothermal Project • ff
• Steamfield
• Calico Solar Project • Western GeoPower Plant
• California Flats Solar Project Wind Energy
• Calipatria Solar Farm II • Catalina Renewable Energy
• Carrizo Energy Solar Farm • Project Ocotillo Wind Energy Project • Catalina Renewable Energy
Project
• SD County Wind Energy
• Fink Road Solar Farm • Ordinance Searchlight Wind Project • Genesis Solar Energy Project • Shu’luuk Wind Project
• Heber Solar Energy Facility • Tres Vaqueros Repowering Project • Imperial Valley Solar Project • Tule Wind Project
• Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating
System
• Vasco Winds Relicensing Project
• Maricopa Sun Solar Complex Biomass Facilities
• McCoy Solar Project • CA Ethanol Project
• • Mt. Signal and Calexico Solar
Projects
• Colusa Biomass Project
• Panoche Valley Solar • Tracy Green Energy Project
• • San Joaquin Solar I & II Other Development Projects • San Luis Solar Project • Cal-Am Desalination Project
• Stateline Solar Project • Carnegie SVRA Expansion Project • Solar Gen II Projects • Lakeview Substation Project
• SR Solis Oro Loma • Monterey Bay Shores Ecoresort
• Vestal Solar Facilities • Phillips 66 Rail Spur
•
•
• Victorville 2 Power Project • Valero Benecia Crude By Rail • Willow Springs Solar • World Logistics Center
1050
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 3
Project Management
Mr. Cashen has managed several large-scale wildlife, forestry, and natural resource management projects. Many of the projects have required hiring and training field crews, coordinating with other professionals, and communicating with project stakeholders. Mr.

Cashen’s experience in study design, data collection, and scientific writing make him an effective project manager, and his background in several different natural resource disciplines enable him to address the many facets of contemporary land management in a cost-effective manner.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Wildlife Studies
• Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Resource Use and Behavior Study: (CA State Parks) • “KV” Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Inventory: (USFS, Plumas NF) • Amphibian Inventory Project: (USFS, Plumas NF)
• San Mateo Creek Steelhead Restoration Project: (Trout Unlimited and CA Coastal Conservancy, Orange County)
• Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory: (CA State Parks, Locke)
Natural Resources Management
• Mather Lake Resource Management Study and Plan – (Sacramento County) • Placer County Vernal Pool Study – (Placer County)
• Weidemann Ranch Mitigation Project – (Toll Brothers, Inc., San Ramon) • Ion Communities Biological Resource Assessments – (Ion Communities, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
• Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment – (The Wyro Company, Rio Vista) Forestry
• Forest Health Improvement Projects – (CalFire, SD and Riverside Counties) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (SDG&E, San Diego Co.) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (San Diego County/NRCS) • Hillslope Monitoring Project – (CalFire, throughout California) 1051
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 4
Biological Resources
Mr. Cashen has a diverse background with biological resources. He has conducted comprehensive biological resource assessments, habitat evaluations, species inventories, and scientific peer review. Mr. Cashen has led investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellowlegged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and forest carnivores.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations (“BA/BE”) • Aquatic Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Terrestrial Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Management Indicator Species Report – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Migratory Bird Report – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BE – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Public Lands Lease Application (Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep)
• Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Simon Newman Ranch (The Nature Conservancy)
• Draft EIR (Vegetation and Special-Status Plants) - Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District)
Avian
• Study design and Lead Investigator - Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory (CA State Parks: Locke)
• Study design and lead bird surveyor - Placer County Vernal Pool Study (Placer County: throughout Placer County)
• Surveyor - Willow flycatcher habitat mapping (USFS: Plumas NF) • Surveyor - Tolay Creek, Cullinan Ranch, and Guadacanal Village restoration projects (Ducks Unlimited/USGS: San Pablo Bay)
• Study design and Lead Investigator - Bird use of restored wetlands research (Pennsylvania Game Commission: throughout Pennsylvania) • Study design and surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird species at a 400-acre site in Napa County (HCV Associates: Napa)
• Surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird abundance following diesel spill (LFR Levine-Fricke: Suisun Bay)
1052
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 5
• Study design and lead bird surveyor - Green Valley Creek Riparian Restoration Site (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA)
• Surveyor - Burrowing owl relocation and monitoring (US Navy: Dixon, CA) • Surveyor - Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys (various clients: Livermore, San Ramon, Rio Vista, Napa, Victorville, Imperial County, San Diego County) • Surveyor - Backcountry bird inventory (National Park Service: Eagle, Alaska) • Lead surveyor - Tidal salt marsh bird surveys (Point Reyes Bird Observatory:
throughout Bay Area)
• Surveyor – Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (various clients and locations)
Amphibian
• Crew Leader - Red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (USFS: Plumas NF)
• Surveyor - Foothill yellow-legged frog surveys (PG&E: North Fork Feather River)
• Surveyor - Mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (El Dorado Irrigation District:

Desolation Wilderness)
• Crew Leader - Bullfrog eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Fish and Aquatic Resources
• Surveyor - Hardhead minnow and other fish surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) • Surveyor - Weber Creek aquatic habitat mapping (El Dorado Irrigation District:

Placerville, CA)
• Surveyor - Green Valley Creek aquatic habitat mapping (City of Fairfield:

Fairfield, CA)
• GPS Specialist - Salmonid spawning habitat mapping (CDFG: Sacramento River) • Surveyor - Fish composition and abundance study (PG&E: Upper North Fork Feather River and Lake Almanor)
• Crew Leader - Surveys of steelhead abundance and habitat use (CA Coastal Conservancy: Gualala River estuary)
• Crew Leader - Exotic species identification and eradication (Trout Unlimited:

Cleveland NF)
Mammals
• Principal Investigator – Peninsular bighorn sheep resource use and behavior study (California State Parks: Freeman Properties)
1053
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 6
• Scientific Advisor –Study on red panda occupancy and abundance in eastern Nepal (The Red Panda Network: CA and Nepal)
• Surveyor - Forest carnivore surveys (University of CA: Tahoe NF) • Surveyor - Relocation and monitoring of salt marsh harvest mice and other small mammals (US Navy: Skagg’s Island, CA)
• Surveyor – Surveys for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Relocation of woodrat houses (Touré Associates: Prunedale)
Natural Resource Investigations / Multiple Species Studies • Scientific Review Team Member – Member of the scientific review team assessing the effectiveness of the US Forest Service’s implementation of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act.
• Lead Consultant - Baseline biological resource assessments and habitat mapping for CDF management units (CDF: San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties)
• Biological Resources Expert – Peer review of CEQA/NEPA documents (various law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups) • Lead Consultant - Pre- and post-harvest biological resource assessments of tree removal sites (SDG&E: San Diego County)
• Crew Leader - T&E species habitat evaluations for Biological Assessment in support of a steelhead restoration plan (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) • Lead Investigator - Resource Management Study and Plan for Mather Lake Regional Park (County of Sacramento: Sacramento, CA)
• Lead Investigator - Biological Resources Assessment for 1,070-acre Alfaro Ranch property (Yuba County, CA)
• Lead Investigator - Wildlife Strike Hazard Management Plan (HCV Associates:

Napa)
• Lead Investigator - Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment (The Wyro Company: Rio Vista, CA)
• Lead Investigator – Ion Communities project sites (Ion Communities: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
• Surveyor – Tahoe Pilot Project: Validation of California’s Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model (University of California: Tahoe NF) 1054
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 7
Forestry
Mr. Cashen has five years of experience working as a consulting forester on projects throughout California. Mr. Cashen has consulted with landowners and timber operators on forest management practices; and he has worked on a variety of forestry tasks including selective tree marking, forest inventory, harvest layout, erosion control, and supervision of logging operations. Mr. Cashen’s experience with many different natural resources enable him to provide a holistic approach to forest management, rather than just management of timber resources.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
• Lead Consultant - CalFire fuels treatment projects (SD and Riverside Counties) • Lead Consultant and supervisor of harvest activities – San Diego Gas and Electric Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project (San Diego)
• Crew Leader - Hillslope Monitoring Program (CalFire: throughout California) • Consulting Forester – Forest inventories and timber harvest projects (various clients throughout California)
Grant Writing and Technical Editing
Mr. Cashen has prepared and submitted over 50 proposals and grant applications.

Many of the projects listed herein were acquired through proposals he wrote. Mr.

Cashen’s clients and colleagues have recognized his strong scientific writing skills and ability to generate technically superior proposal packages. Consequently, he routinely prepares funding applications and conducts technical editing for various clients.

PERMITS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS / ASSOCIATIONS
The Wildlife Society
Cal Alumni Foresters
Mt. Diablo Audubon Society

OTHER AFFILIATIONS
Scientific Advisor and Grant Writer – The Red Panda Network Scientific Advisor – Mt. Diablo Audubon Society
Grant Writer – American Conservation Experience
1055
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 8

TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Instructor: Wildlife Management - The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 Teaching Assistant: Ornithology - The Pennsylvania State University, 1996-1997

PUBLICATIONS
Gutiérrez RJ, AS Cheng, DR Becker, S Cashen, et al. 2015. Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library group in California, USA.

Chapter 19 in: Redpath SR, et al. (eds). Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Cheng AS, RJ Gutiérrez RJ, S Cashen, et al. 2016. Is There a Place for Legislating PlaceBased Collaborative Forestry Proposals?: Examining the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. Journal of Forestry. 1056

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 10, 2022
TO: Amy Million, Principal Planner
FROM: Shanna Guiler, AICP Associate/Environmental Planner Theresa Wallace, AICP Principal/Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Project Supplemental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Response to Comments In accordance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, prior to approving a project, the decisionmaking body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed environmental document together with any comments received during the public review process. Although there is no legal requirement to formally respond to comments on a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as there is for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), this memorandum provides a response to the written comments received on the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Project Supplemental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Supplemental IS/MND) to aid the City of Dublin (City) decision-makers in their review of the project.

The Draft Supplemental IS/MND was available for public review and comment from November 18, 2021 to December 17, 2021. No comment letters were received during the public review period. On April 26, 2022, the City received one comment letter on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development. Generally, the commenter suggests that the Supplemental IS/MND does not comply with CEQA and requests preparation of an EIR. This assertion is based on the commenter’s opinion that the Initial Study’s evaluation of several technical topics is inadequate. Responses to the specific comments provided in this letter are provided herein. However, it should be noted that prior to publication of the Supplemental IS/MND, the City first prepared an Initial Study to determine if the CEQA standards for supplemental review were triggered by the proposed project including whether if the proposed project could have a new or substantially more severe significant effect on the environment than was already identified in the Valley Christian Center Expansion Project EIR (VCC EIR) or the 2018 Supplemental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2018 Supplemental IS/MND). Since an EIR had already been prepared, this determination is subject to the substantial evidence test, not the fair argument test as alleged by the commenters. Based on the evaluation of all environmental issue topics in the Initial Study, the City determined that, in light of the whole record and based on substantial evidence, a Supplemental MND should be prepared.

The Supplemental IS/MND includes an evaluation of all environmental Issue topics outlined in the CEQA Guidelines in accordance with CEQA’s supplemental review standards. In addition, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 1057
5/10/22 2
Program (MMRP) that is based on the mitigation measures identified in the VCC EIR and the 2018 Supplemental IS/MND, as well as any modifications required for the proposed project. The MMRP identifies each required mitigation measure, the schedule or timing for implementation, and the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring the required action. The MMRP is designed to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and would be required as part of the project approval. The project applicant would be required to implement the MMRP as a condition of project approval.

It should be noted that the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project does not in and of itself require the preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the City that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence must consist of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.

Specific points raised by the commenter that relate to the adequacy of the IS/MND are responded to below. Based on a review of all of the comments received on the IS/MND, the City has determined that, consistent with the conclusions in the Supplemental IS/MND, there is no substantial evidence that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and required regulatory measures, the standards for preparation of a supplemental EIR are triggered.

Comment 1: The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The comment, which begins on page 9 of the comment letter, asserts that the Supplemental IS/MND fails to provide sufficient baseline information related to hazards and hazardous materials because a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was not prepared.

As described in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Supplemental IS/MND, the project site includes development of Parcels 2 and 3 within the larger VCC site. Both Parcels 2 and 3 are currently undeveloped. Parcel 1 is developed with the existing VCC complex, which consists of a church and a preschool through grade 12 private school, with associated parking, landscaping, sports and play fields, lighting and other infrastructure. The project site is surrounded by residential development. No industrial uses or identified hazardous materials sites are located on or in proximity to the project site. There is no indication that hazardous materials are present on the project site; therefore, preparation of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was not warranted.

Further, as stated in the Supplemental IS/MND, construction and operation of the proposed project would entail the use of limited quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials, which are required to be handled in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations.

Comment 2: The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Congdon’s Tarplant and other Sensitive Plant Communities
The comment asserts that the Supplemental IS/MND fails to provide sufficient baseline information related to Congdon’s tarplant and other sensitive plant communities because protocol level surveys were not conducted.
1058
5/10/22 3
A Biological Resources Analysis for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facilities in Dublin, California (Biological Resources Analysis) was prepared for the proposed project, which included review of on-line biological resources databases and documents, including the VCC EIR, the Biological Resources Assessment (2015), Biological Site Conditions Update (2018) and the letter report from Jane Valerius Environmental Consulting and a reconnaissance-level field survey to assess existing site conditions and to confirm prior findings. The results of the Biological Resources Analysis, including a description of existing conditions on the project site, is provided in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Supplemental IS/MND. Species observed during the survey are noted in the Supplemental IS/MND. The survey’s purpose was to assess which species may or may not occur in the habitats present onsite. In light of the prior biological surveys conducted on the site, a reconnaissance level survey is considered sufficient for CEQA analysis of the proposed project and protocol level surveys are not required.

As described in the Supplemental IS/MND, a total of 77 (42 plants and 35 animals) special-status species were evaluated for the VCC project. Of these only two, Congdon’s tarplant and California red-legged frog, have the potential to occur on the site and could be impacted by the proposed project. Potential impacts to these special-status species are described in Section 4.a of the Supplemental IS/MND and mitigation measures are identified to reduce potential impacts to these species to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures include additional focused surveys, monitoring and other measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to special-status species. Additional wildlife species noted in the comment letter include special-status bats and bird; these species are addressed further below in Response to Comment 5.

Comment 3: The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Oak Woodlands The comment asserts that the Supplemental IS/MND fails to provide sufficient baseline information related to oak woodlands. As described in Response to Comment 2 above, the results of the Biological Resources Analysis prepared for the proposed project, including a description of existing conditions on the project site is provided in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Supplemental IS/MND. The Supplemental IS/MND identified riparian woodland on Parcel 2, of which two species of oaks are a component, along with two species of willows, with much of the understory composed of weedy no-native species such as poison hemlock, Pampas grass, and Himalayan blackberry. As stated in the Supplemental IS/MND, the proposed project would avoid all impacts to this woodland, therefore, no oaks or other trees would be impacted.

Comment 4: The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on California red‐legged frog, White-tailed Kite, Loggerhead Shrike, grasshopper sparrow, Nuttall’s Woodpecker, and Oak Titmouse
The comment asserts that the Supplemental IS/MND fails to provide sufficient baseline information related to several special-status species. As described in Response to Comment 2 above, the information provided in the Supplemental IS/MND is based on the Biological Resources Analysis prepared for the proposed project, which included a site-specific reconnaissance survey of the project site to assess existing site conditions, and prior biological surveys of the project site. The results of the Biological Resources Analysis, including a description of existing conditions on the project site is provided in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Supplemental IS/MND. In light of 1059
5/10/22 4
the prior biological surveys conducted on the site, a reconnaissance level survey is considered sufficient for CEQA analysis of the proposed project.

The Supplemental IS/MND adequately describes the potential for California red-legged frog (CRLF) to occur within and adjacent to the project site. Given that there is no suitable breeding habitat for CRLF on or near the project site and, based on the adjacent land use discussed in the Supplemental IS/MND, there is a very low probability of CRLF dispersing to the site. However, the Supplemental IS/MND acknowledges that given the presence of a corridor of undeveloped upland habitat, between the detention basin at the western end of the residential area and the drainage on Parcel 2, the presence of a dispersing frog in the drainage, though unlikely, cannot be completely ruled out.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4, originally identified in the 2018 Supplemental IS/MND and VCC EIR, was modified to reflect current regulatory requirements and standard practices for addressing CRLF and would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to CRLF, if present, to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires pre-construction surveys and requires work halt until CRLF are moved out of the construction zone to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved relocation site.

Nuttall’s woodpecker and oak titmouse are identified as bird species of concern by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
1 However, these two native species are common in woodland habitats, particularly with oaks, throughout California including many urban areas with trees. These species and other native birds including all of the bird species noted in comment letter are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. As required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1, preconstruction nesting bird surveys and establishment of appropriate nest buffers, should an active nest be found, would reduce potential impacts to protected birds to a less than significant level.

Comment 5: The MND Fails to Provide Sufficient Baseline Information on Foraging Birds The comment asserts that the Supplemental IS/MND fails to provide sufficient baseline information related to foraging birds because it does not evaluate all of the species identified in the 2015 Biological Resources Assessment. The comment notes that the project site provides potential foraging habitat for the pallid bat, hoary bat, golden eagle, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, and tricolored blackbird—all of which are special-status species. The potential for the project to provide foraging habitat for these species is addressed further below.

Pallid bats roost in crevices in rock outcrops, in expansion joints under bridges, large hollow trees, and in abandoned or little used buildings such as barns. Pallid bats typically forage in open habitats with access to large terrestrial insects. No suitable roosting sites for pallid bats were observed on or adjacent to the project site. While potential foraging habitat exists on the site, much of the project site is covered with dense non-native annual grasses, which would likely limit ground foraging by these bats. Even though pallid bats could occasionally fly over the site during their nocturnal foraging activity the site is unlikely to be an important foraging area given its relatively small size, 1 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program (2021). Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
1060
5/10/22 5
dense grass cover, and the presence of extensive foraging habitat available in the hills to the east.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to this species.

Horny bats are migratory, roost singly in trees, and are powerful flyers that forage on the wing over large areas. This species could occasionally forage over the site; however, given that no potential roosting trees would be impacted by the proposed project, no significant impacts to this species would occur.

Golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and prairie falcons are raptors that typically occur in extensive wild areas supporting grasslands and other open habitats. None of these species would be expected to regularly forage on the areas to be impacted by the proposed project due to its small size. The northern harrier could forage on the site occasionally; however, this species also generally occurs in more extensive areas of open habitat and would not be expected to regularly forage on the relatively small areas of grassland on the project site. The extensive open areas in the hills to the east provide good foraging habitat for golden eagles and northern harrier but ferruginous hawk, and prairie falcons would be considered rare irregular winter visitors to extensive grassland in this area.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to these species.

During the nesting season, tricolored blackbirds require open habitats with a high abundance of large insects near their nesting colonies. During the non-nesting season, tricolored blackbirds often join large mixed flocks of other blackbird species and Eurasian starlings, typically in agricultural areas with fallow fields and feed lots. The project site would not be considered important foraging habitat for tricolored blackbirds due to its small size, generally dense grass cover, and lack of nearby tricolored blackbird nesting colonies. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to these species.

Comment 6: The Change to the Conservation Easement is a New Circumstance Requiring the Preparation of the EIR
The comment asserts that the MND cannot tier from the VCC EIR because the change to the borders of the Conservation Easement causes substantial changes in circumstances, which will require major revisions in the VCC EIR. The existing Conservation Easement was approved as part of the VCC Expansion Project. It was included as part of the approval of Planned Development Ordinance No. 07-03 and not a result of the environmental review and associated mitigation measures. As described in the Supplemental IS/MND, the project does not impact the existing Conservation Easement previously required for the VCC Expansion Project. Instead, it creates new areas of Conservation Easement in addition to the existing Conservation Easement. The existing and proposed areas of Conservation Easement were included as part of the proposed project and evaluated in the Supplemental IS/MND.

It should be noted that the additional area proposed to be placed within a Conservation Easement is no longer part of the requested approvals and therefore, its inclusion in the CEQA analysis is not required.
1061
5/10/22 6
Comment 7: The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the MND’s Conclusion that the Project Would Result in Less than Significant Air Quality Impacts The comment asserts that the demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving phases of the project were inaccurately characterized in the air quality impact modeling. As such, the commenter believes that the Supplemental IS/MND underestimates the project construction air emission impacts.

LSA conducted the construction impact analysis properly and consistent with current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements and best practices. Air quality modeling was conducted based on project specific construction information provided by the project applicant, including construction duration and types of construction equipment, rather than the model defaults used by SWAPE. Use of project-specific inputs to the model is consistent with current regulatory requirements and provides a more accurate assessment of project impacts than use of model defaults. Therefore, the modeling conducted by SWAPE overestimates the project’s construction period air quality impacts.

Comment 8: Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Project Construction and Operation Would Result in Significant, Unmitigated Health Risk Impacts The comment asserts that the Supplemental IS/MND’s analysis of the project’s health risk impact is inadequate because it omits an analysis of the project’s operational health risk impacts and understates the project’s construction health risk impacts.

Construction Health Risk Impacts. As described in the Supplemental IS/MND, LSA conducted a health risk assessment (HRA) for project construction impacts and Mitigation Measure AIR-2 is required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. LSA did a full air dispersion model, which is more detailed than the outdated SCREEN model used by SWAPE. LSA’s impact assessment is consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 requires that the contractors use cleaner construction equipment and exhaust filters. LSA’s analysis shows that this measure would reduce cancer impacts associated with project construction from toxic air contaminants to a less than significant level.

Operation Health Risk Impacts. SWAPE incorrectly prepared an operational HRA to assert that health risk impacts during project operation would be significant. Operational health risk impacts can occur with diesel-fueled traffic. The proposed project would have occasional truck deliveries, but the overwhelming majority of vehicles would be automobiles associated with employees and visitors.

These gasoline powered vehicles would not generate toxic air contaminants, resulting in an increase in cancer risk. The SWAPE analysis improperly used particulate emissions from all automobiles, which are gasoline fueled and do not have a toxic cancer risk profile. Because SWAPE’s operational health risk analysis used inaccurate assumptions about sources of operational health risks, their analysis overstates the potential health risks associated with operation of the proposed project. As described above, diesel particulate matter would not be generated by the proposed project; therefore, no operational toxic air contaminants would be generated. There would be no operationrelated health risk impacts. 1062
5/10/22 7
Comment 9: The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the MND’s Conclusion that the Project’s Energy Impacts are Less Than Significant
The comment asserts that the City’s analysis of the Project’s energy impacts is inadequate because the MND relied on energy modeling that underestimates the Project’s operational energy emissions.

The version of CalEEMod that was used in the analysis was based on 2016 Title 24. The proposed project would be constructed to 2020 standards; therefore, adjustments were made to reflect the increased energy efficiency that will be realized under the latest Title 24 requirements. The adjustments were based on current Title 24 energy requirements, to which the project will be required to adhere. As described above, the duration of construction had to be expanded to reflect the anticipated construction schedule provided by project applicant; therefore, the default values were adjusted in the model to accurately reflect the project’s impacts.

Comment 10: Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Is Likely to Result in Significant, Unmitigated Impacts to Biological Resources The comment asserts that the MND fails to comply with CEQA for failure to analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts to biological resources.

California red-legged frog. Please refer to Response to Comment 3 above. Given that there is no suitable breeding habitat for CRLF on or near the project site and, based on the adjacent land uses discussed in the Supplemental IS/MND, there is a very low probability of CRLF dispersing to the site.

Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure BIO-4, as modified, was included in the Supplemental IS/MND to reduce potential impacts to CRLF, if present, to less than significant.

Congdon’s tarplant. The Supplemental IS/MND acknowledges the previous detection of Congdon’s tar plant on the project site and provided a viable survey and mitigation protocol to address Congdon’s tar plant, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 was modified to reflect current regulatory requirements and standard practices to reduce impacts to small, isolated occurrences of rare annual plants to a level of non-significance under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 correctly outlines the requirements for pre-construction, protocol level surveys to be conducted prior to project ground disturbance and requires appropriate mitigation and monitoring be implements should species be identified as a result of such surveys. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to Congdon’s tarplant to a less than significant level.

Comment 11: Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project will Result in Significant, Unmitigated Cumulative Impacts
The comment asserts that the MND fails to accurately characterize the significant cumulative impacts associated with the project.

The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of significant environmental impacts that would result from project-related actions in combination with “closely related past, present, and probable future projects: located in the immediate vicinity (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b][1][A]). Cumulative 1063
5/10/22 8
environmental impacts are those impacts that by themselves are not significant, but when considered with impacts occurring from other projects in the vicinity would result in a cumulative impact. Related projects considered to have the potential of creating cumulative impacts in association with the proposed project consist of projects that are reasonably foreseeable and that would be constructed or operated during the life of the proposed project.

The proposed project would be located in a highly developed urban area that is largely built out. No other construction projects are anticipated in the immediate area of the project within this timeframe. As described in the Supplemental IS/MND, the majority of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would be temporary, construction-related and would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Supplemental IS/MND. Operational impacts would also be reduced to less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not make a considerable contribution toward a cumulative impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Comment 12: The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Make the Findings Required for the Tentative Parcel Map No. 11241
The comment asserts that the project may result in significant impacts to biological resources and their habitats and may result in a significant cancer risk associated with toxic air contaminants and diesel particulate matter emissions. As such, the City cannot make the necessary findings that the project will not cause substantial environmental damage to fish or wildlife or result in a serious public health concern, as required by the Dublin Municipal Code.

As described in the Supplemental IS/MND and reiterated in the responses above, the majority of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would be temporary, constructionrelated and would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures and required regulatory measures identified in the Supplemental IS/MND. Operational impacts would also be reduced to less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures and required regulatory measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause substantial environmental damage to fish or wildlife or result in a serious public health concern. 1064
Inspiration Drive Memory Care and
Assisted Living Projects
City Council
May 17, 2022
1065
Project Location
1066
Proposed Projects
• Memory Care – Parcel 2 (PLPA-2020-00044)
– 55 bed memory care facility– 2-stories, approximately 35,000 square feet • Assisted Living – Parcel 3 (PLPA-2020-00045)
– 84 bed assisted living facility – 3-stories, approximately 75,400 square feet 1067
Project Applications
Memory Care – Parcel 2
• Planned Development Rezone• Site Development Review Permit• Street Vacation• Purchase and Sale Agreement 1068
Memory Care – Site Plan
1069
Memory Care
1070
Memory Care
Planned Development Rezone
• Existing PD Ordinance No. 07-03 (Agricultural Zoning)• Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan ― Development Standards― Architectural Standards― Allowable Uses― Landscaping― Project Phasing 7 1071
Project Applications
Assisted Living Facility – Parcel 3
• Planned Development Rezone• Site Development Review Permit• Tentative Parcel Map 1072
Assisted Living – Site Plan
1073
Assisted Living
1074
Assisted Living
Planned Development Rezone
• Existing PD Ordinance No. 07-03 (Future Study Area)• Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan ― Development Standards― Architectural Standards― Allowable Uses― Landscaping― Project Phasing 11 1075
Assisted Living
Vesting Tentative Map
12 • Two Parcels
– Conservation Easement (northern 8 acres)– Development (southern 4.6 acres) 1076
Valley Christian Center
Planned Development Amendment
• Valley Christian Center – Parcel 1 • Existing PD Ordinance No. 07-03• Stage 1 Development Plan ― Remove Parcels 2 and 3― No other changes
13 1077
Environmental Review
• Environmental Review
– Valley Christian Center EIR 2003– Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 2018 – Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration • aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
– Public Review Period November 18 to December 17
• April 26, 2022, letter from East Bay Residents for Responsible Development
1078
Recommendation
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and Adopt a Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and:• Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care Project; • Adopt the Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit for the Inspiration Drive Memory Care Project;
• Adopt the Resolution Summarily Vacating Unused Right-of-Way on Dublin Boulevard and Reservation of a Public Service Easement; • Adopt the Resolution Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Valley Christian Center
1079
Recommendation cont’d.
• Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Inspiration Drive Assisted Living Project; • Adopt the Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit and Tentative Parcel Map No. 11241 for the Inspiration Drive Assisted Living Project; • Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending Planned Development Ordinance No. 07-03 for the Valley Christian Center 1080
May 17, 2022
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials
that have been received by the City Clerk’s office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets
have been distributed to the City Council be available
to the public.

The attached documents were received in the City
Clerk’s office after distribution of the May 17, 2022,
Regular City Council meeting agenda packet.

Item 6.1
1081
1 Amy Million
From: Raman Narayanan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 4:31 PM
To: Amy Million
Subject: Re: Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Project (PLPA-2020-00044 & PLPA-2020-00045) Hello Amy,
Below are the points collectively compiled from many many residences, last time hardly anything was discussed on
the concerns.
 The properties are being developed next to our neighborhood and there has not been any impact assessment on us ( Hansen Ranch).  There are many homes along the Inspiration Drive/Circle which is the main access road for all of us. Development of the proposed projects would significantly impact the emergency exit route in case of fire or any other natural calamity. Risk of urban wildfire has increased tremendously because of population growth on fire prone hill sides like ours and the effects of climate change and drought conditions.
 Normally, senior people prefer warmer conditions to live. Being residents, we know that this area is very windy and cold throughout the year and the area is uphill & downhill.

These conditions would be very inconvenient for the senior citizens. We notice when our parents come to stay with us, these conditions make their stay uncomfortable.  Dublin Blvd and Inspiration Drive are single‐lane roads. There is already a lot of traffic on the road during Valley Christian High School hours. During commute hours, freeway drivers also avoid the freeway and drive on Dublin Blvd past Inspiration Drive. With so many seniors living in Memory Care and Assisted Living, the probability of emergency vehicles rushing in and out of the area with sirens blaring will make the traffic situation on the road worse, potentially also stopping school and commute hour traffic. Traffic study conducted by City was done in COVID times which do not represent real time traffic conditions.
1082
2  Proposed projects would alter the existing visual character of the project sites and degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. How can someone (Church) own the views as claimed by the City.  Implementation of the proposed projects would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.  Proposed development work for these projects would result in cumulative increase of pollutants during the construction phase that would span for several years. This would have a knock‐on effect on air quality in the area. With so many children living around the neighborhood and one never know the long‐term impact on all these  Construction activities associated with the proposed projects would elevate noise level at the site and surrounding area.
 Project construction activities would expose residents (Cal Highlands) and structures to excessive ground borne vibration levels.
 This area (Dublin Blvd and Inspiration Drive) is greatly used by neighborhood residents for walking and jogging/biking. These projects would adversely affect these activities for a long time.
 Why was the Hansen ranch community never reached out, does it not impact us? Only the Highland community was reached out, but there are so many residences along Inspiration Drive who will be affected.
1083
3  The eco balance will be lost forever in the entire 2 neighborhoods.  Huge Environment impact. Just wildlife is one example, long term due to dust, etc is simply unknown due to the close proximity with residences.
 Would like to know the reason for this venue when most of the other similar facilities in Dublin and nearby are at 50% occupancy only.
 The number of residences ultimately planned will be equivalent to the entire Hansen Ranch community, has any check been made on water resources and the impact in drought situations?
Warm Regards,
Raman
1084

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 6.2
DATE: May 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Dublin Districts—Public Hearing 2: Program Update and Community Feedback Opportunity
Prepared by: John Stefanski, Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will hold a public hearing to give the community an opportunity to provide input regarding potential boundaries and district composition. At the February 15, 2022, meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Transition From an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System. Pursuant to Elections Code section 10010, the City is required to hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days before any map or maps of the boundaries for the proposed voting districts are drawn. Representatives from National Demographics Corporation will provide a brief presentation prior to the public hearing to detail the map drawing and community outreach process.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation, open the public hearing, receive public comment, and close the public hearing.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The cost of the City’s consultant team of Tripepi Smith and National Demographics Corporation (NDC) includes approximately $59,000 in project management, community outreach, and translation fees, and $50,000 in Demographer Fees. Staff has also budgeted a contingency for translation services (Mandarin and Punjabi) or additional community meetings, should they be necessary, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $125,000.

Additionally, the City may be required to reimburse a prospective plaintiff for its documented attorney’s fees and costs, up to $30,000 (plus an annual adjustment for inflation).

DESCRIPTION:
1085

Background
On February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-22 Declaring its Intention to Transition from an At-Large Election System to a District-Based Election System in conformance with the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA). The Resolution declares the City’s intent to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing district-based elections beginning with the November 2024 regular municipal election.

Under Elections Code Section 10010, a city is required to hold at least five public hearings during the transition process. The first two public hearings will give the community an opportunity to provide input on the composition of the districts before any maps are drawn. Subsequently, draft district maps will be drawn by the city’s demographer, and two additional public hearings will be held for the public to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections. The maps must be published at least seven days before the public hearings.

The fifth, and final, public hearing will be for the governing body to consider an ordinance that establishes the district-based elections and approves the maps.

District Drawing Factors
The public is requested to provide input regarding Communities of Interest and other local factors that should be considered while drafting district maps. A Community of Interest is a neighborhood or group that would benefit from being in the same district because of shared interests, views, or characteristics. Examples of these include, but are not limited to:
- Natural dividing lines such as major roads, hills, or highways. - Areas around parks and other neighborhood landmarks/amenities. - School attendance areas.
- Common issues, neighborhood activities, or legislative/election concerns; and - Shared demographic characteristics, such as:
o Similar levels of income, education, or linguistic insolation. o Languages spoken at home.
o Single-family and multi-family housing unit areas.

The district boundary maps must meet certain criteria. In particular, the districts must be roughly equal in population, excluding persons incarcerated in federal prisons. However, persons incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail are included in the population count for the districts (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (a)).

The districts are further subject to the following criteria in order of priority:
- Geographical contiguity.
- Minimize the division of any local neighborhood or local community of interest. - Easily identified and understood by residents.
- Geographical compactness. (Elec. Code, § 21601, subd. (c).) Community Outreach
1086

In April, the City of Dublin launched an extensive and robust outreach process to ensure that the Dublin community is engaged and empowered to participate in the districting process. Staff began by creating dedicated districting web pages on the City website, and expanded to a multi-media outreach approach. To date, outreach has included weekly districting social media posts on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor, two press releases, emails to website districting subscribers, calls and emails to civic and community business organizations, and a process flyer posted to the website and distributed at the Dublin farmer’s market.

In addition to print and digital outreach, the City hosted two Community Workshops for the public and sent out a Citywide Community Workshop postcard to all Dublin postal customers. The workshops provided an informal setting for community members to learn about the districting process and mapping tools, share their thoughts on their neighborhoods and communities of interest, and ask questions. The first Community Workshop took place on April 28 on Zoom, and the second Community Workshop was held in person at The Wave Community Room on May 4.

Meeting resources from the Community Workshops were posted to the Dublin districting web pages. The virtual workshop held on April 28, 2022 had a total attendance of 43 unique viewers, including staff and consultants. The in-person workshop held on May 4, 2022 at The Wave Community Room had a total attendance of 10.

The City has already received multiple maps and feedback on Communities of Interest and will continue its extensive outreach efforts to ensure that the public’s voice is heard throughout the process. Public input received on potential Communities of Interest can be found in Attachment 1.

Next Steps
Interested community members are strongly encouraged to visit the Dublin Districts webpage at www.dublin.ca.gov/dublindistricts. There individuals can subscribe for program updates and find all materials relating to the transition to district-based elections. Anyone with questions or comments on this process can email the City at [email protected] or call the District Formation Call Line at 925-574-4875.

The tentative schedule for future hearing dates and workshops regarding the City’s potential transition from at-large to district-based elections is as follows:

Table 1: Tentative Schedule
Date Meeting Topics
Thursday
April 28, 2022
6:00 p.m.

Virtual Workshop 1 Overview of Process, Parameters, Mapping Tools; Community Feedback.
(Done)
Wednesday
May 4, 2022
6:00 p.m.

In-Person Workshop 2 Overview of Process, Parameters, Mapping Tools; Community Feedback.
(Done)
Tuesday
May 17, 2022
Public Hearing 2 Map Drawing Criteria, Communities of
Interest; Mapping Tools; Community
1087

7:00 p.m. Feedback.

Tuesday
June 21, 2022
7:00 p.m.

Public Hearing 3 NDC and Community Draft Maps;
Community Feedback.

Tuesday
July 19, 2022
7:00 p.m.

Public Hearing 4 NDC and Community Revised Maps; City
Council Selects Finalist(s); Sequencing of
District Elections.

Tuesday
August 16, 2022
7:00 p.m.

Public Hearing 5 City Council Final Map Selection;
Introduction of Ordinance.

Tuesday
September 6, 2022
7:00 p.m.

City Council Consent
Calendar
Second Reading of Ordinance.

The City may adjust this schedule to include additional public outreach or special City Council meetings. All interested parties are encouraged to subscribe to program updates at www.dublin.ca.gov/dublindistricts to stay up to date.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City published a Public Hearing Notice in the East Bay Times and posted on www.dublin.ca.gov/dublindistricts on May 11, 2022. Individuals subscribed to the Dublin Districts notification list were emailed regarding this meeting. The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Community Feedback Received
1088
Attachment 1
Community Feedback Submitted to City
As of May 6, 2022
1089
From: Chandra Singh
To: Dublin Districts
Subject: OUR NEIGHBOR - MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Date: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:19:20 AM
Hi,
We have a common interest. My family bought a house .

Do we predict the scholar GROWTH in the coming decade? For past year 2021-22 , I see good traffic at school morning / afternoon
On DAVONA STREET.

Our community do contain CHURCHES. CHURCH OF LATER DAY SAINTS AND SAINT PHILIP LUTHERAN.

I am interested. Our DISTRICT has all ethnicities.

We can later discuss MAPS.

Best,
Chandra Mohan Singh
DUBLIN 94568-1240
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1090
May 4, Dublin District Formation Workshop Feedback
Dublin Communities of Interest:
● Middle School Boundaries
o There is a larger impacted area on the East Side, this has created challenges for how kids commute to school.
● School attendance zones
● Dublin Green neighborhood
● Tassajara meadows neighborhood
o Many families, school communities, both Dublin High and elementary schools ● Summer Glen neighborhood
● Intersection of Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road
o Large newer developments and overcrowded
● “Central Dublin”
o East of “Central Dublin” – everything developed after 1997, newer families o West Dublin – older and more engaged
1091
City of Dublin
Public Hearing 2
May 17, 2022 1092
2 Election Systems

1. “At Large”

2. “From District” or “Residence” Districts

3. “By District”
The California Voting Rights Act was written to
specifically encourage by-district elections.

May 17, 2022 1093
3 California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
❑ Under the Federal Voting Rights Act (passed in 1965), a jurisdiction must fail 4 factual tests before it is in violation of the law ❑ The California VRA makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to force jurisdictions into “by-district” election systems by eliminating two of the US Supreme Court Gingles tests:
❑ Can the protected class constitute the majority of a district? ❑ Does the protected class vote as a bloc?
❑ Do the voters who are not in the protected class vote in a bloc to defeat the preferred candidates of the protected class?
❑ Do the “totality of circumstances” indicate race is a factor in elections? ❑ Liability is now determined only by the presence of racially polarized voting
May 17, 2022 1094
4 CVRA Impact
❑ Switched (or in the process of
switching) as a result of CVRA:
❑ At least 240 school districts
❑ 34 Community College Districts
❑ Over 165 cities
❑ 35 water and other special districts
❑ Cases So Far:
❑ Palmdale, Santa Clara and Santa Monica
went to trial on the merits. Palmdale and
Santa Clara lost. Santa Monica is awaiting
a decision.
❑ Modesto and Palmdale each spent about
$1.8 million on their defense (in addition
to the attorney fee awards in those cases).
❑ Santa Monica has spent an estimated $7
million so far. Plaintiffs in Santa Monica
requested $22 million in legal fees after
the original trial.
❑ Key settlements:
❑ Palmdale: $4.7 million
❑ Modesto: $3 million
❑ Highland: $1.3 million
❑ Anaheim: $1.1 million
❑ Whittier: $1 million
❑ Santa Barbara: $600,000
❑ Tulare Hospital: $500,000
❑ Camarillo: $233,000
❑ Compton Unified: $200,000
❑ Madera Unified: about $170,000
❑ Hanford Joint Union Schools:
$118,000
❑ Merced City: $42,000
❑ An estimated $16 million in total
settlements and court awards so
far
May 17, 2022 1095
5 Districting Timeline
Step Description
Public Hearing 1
April 19, 2022
Overview of Process, Outreach Preview, Mapping Tools,
Communities of Interest; Community Feedback.

Workshops
(1) April 28, 2022
(2) May 4, 2022
6:00 p.m.

Overview of Process, Parameters, Mapping Tools;
Community Feedback.

Public Hearing 2
May 17, 2022
7:00 p.m.

Map Drawing Criteria, Communities of Interest; Mapping
Tools; Community Feedback.

June 5, 2022
5:00 p.m.

Deadline to submit draft maps for Council consideration at the June 21st Public Hearing.

Public Hearing 3
June 21, 2022
7:00 p.m.

NDC and Community Draft Maps; Community Feedback.

July 6, 2022
5:00 p.m.

Deadline to submit draft maps for Council consideration at the July 19th Public Hearing.

May 17, 2022 1096
6 Step Description
Public Hearing 4
July 19, 2022
7:00 pm
NDC and Community Revised Maps; City Council Selects
Finalist(s); Sequencing of District Elections.

Public Hearing 5
August 16, 2022
7:00 pm
City Council Final Map Selection; Introduction of
Ordinance.

City Council Consent
Calendar
September 6, 2022
7:00 pm
Second Reading of Ordinance.

Districting Timeline (cont.)
May 17, 2022 1097
7 Equal Population
Federal Voting Rights Act
No Racial Gerrymandering
Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
Future population growth

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas
that should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of
people to get to a more distant
group of people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against
a political party.”

3. Other Traditional
Districting Principles
Districting Rules and Goals
May 17, 2022 1098
8 Demographic
Summary
Estimates using official
2020 demographic data
and NDC’s estimated
total population
figures.

Each of the 4 districts
must contain about
17,867 people.

May 17, 2022 1099
CVAP by
Race/Ethnicity
1100
Other Socio-Economic Demographics
These data are only available at the Block
Group and Tract level of geography, not
the more granular Census Block level.
1101
11 Possible Neighborhoods / Communities
May 17, 2022 1102
12 Possible Neighborhoods / Communities
May 17, 2022 1103
13 Beyond Neighborhoods:

Defining Communities of Interest
1 st Question: What defines your community?
❑ Geographic Area, plus
❑ Shared issue or characteristic
❑ Shared social or economic interest
❑ Impacted by city policies
❑ Tell us “your community’s story”
2 nd Question: Would this community benefit from being “included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation”? ❑ Or would it benefit more from having multiple representatives? Definitions of Communities of Interest may not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

May 17, 2022 1104
14 Public Mapping and Map Review Tools
Different tools for different purposes, levels of technical skill, and interest ❑ Simple “review draft maps” tool
❑ Paper “Draw a draft map” tool
❑ Powerful, data-rich online “Draw a draft map” tool
Whether you use the online mapping tool, the paper kit, or just draw on a napkin, we welcome your maps!
May 17, 2022 1105
15 Share Your Thoughts/Continue Engagement
Click “Subscribe” on
Dublin.ca.gov/DublinDistricts to sign up for
updates
Email: [email protected]
May 17, 2022 1106

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 7.1
DATE: May 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element
Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Each California city and county must update its General Plan Housing Element every eight years to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community. Dublin’s current Housing Element is for the 2014 – 2022 planning period. State law mandates updates to the Housing Element no later than January 2023 for the 2023 – 2031 planning period. In order to meet that mandate, the Housing Element Update must be adopted by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) prior to that date. Staff prepared the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element and it was available for public review between April 15 and May 15, 2022. The City Council is now being asked to review the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element and consider directing Staff to submit it to HCD for review.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Directing Staff to Submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Review.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

In July 2020, the City Council approved a consulting services agreement between the City and Kimley-Horn to assist Staff with preparation of the Housing Element Update. Kimley-Horn’s contract amount is $403,000. The cost to prepare the Housing Element Update will be offset in part by grants totaling $401,436, including $55,000 from an approved Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant, $300,000 from the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant Program, and $46,436 from the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant Program. The City’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget sufficiently covers the remaining cost.

DESCRIPTION:
1107

Background
Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction. A certified Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. Housing Element law mandates that local governments update their Housing Element every eight years to demonstrate how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The community’s housing need is determined through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process.

RHNA is the state-mandated process to identify the number of housing units, by affordability level, that each jurisdiction must accommodate in the Housing Element of its General Plan. As part of this process, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the total housing need for the nine-county Bay Area for an eight-year period, also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for creating a methodology for distributing the RHND across local jurisdictions, resulting in each jurisdiction’s RHNA. Distribution of the RHND includes two key components: 1) allocation of the total regional housing need across local jurisdictions; and 2) allocation of those total shares by income categories (i.e., very-low-, low-, moderate-, and abovemoderate-income). The City filed an appeal of the Draft RHNA based on direction from the City Council with an emphasis on past performance and lack of suitable land, as well as the properties where the City does not have land-use authority. The City’s appeal was rejected by the ABAG Administrative Committee.

On December 16, 2021, the ABAG Executive Board adopted the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023 – 2031. The plan allocates 3,719 housing units to the City of Dublin. Table 1 shows the City’s final RHNA by household income category for the 2023 – 2031 planning period. The City’s updated Housing Element must demonstrate how it can accommodate its RHNA.

Table 1: Dublin’s 2023 – 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Very-Low- Low- Moderate- AboveModerate- Total
Final Allocation 1,085 625 560 1,449 3,719
Staff prepared the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The Draft Housing Element includes the following components:
 Chapter 1: Introduction. Contains a summary of the content, organization, and statutory considerations of the Housing Element.
 Chapter 2: Housing Plan. Describes Dublin’s housing plan, including goals, policies, programs, and objectives.
 Appendix A: Review of Past Performance. Evaluates the housing programs and quantified objectives outlined in the past Housing Element and the City’s efforts in meeting the program requirements and achieving the quantified objectives. 1108

 Appendix B: Community Profile. Contains an analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and the characteristics of the housing stock.  Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

Summarizes governmental and non-governmental constraints on production, maintenance, and affordability of housing and provides a summary of housing resources, including funding and financial considerations, as well as a fair housing analysis.  Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis. Identifies candidate sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA.
 Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary. Summarizes Chapter 2.  Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary. Summarizes the City’s community engagement efforts to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community.
 Appendix G: Glossary of Terms. Defines terms and acronyms using in the Housing Element.

The City Council is being asked to review the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element and adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) directing Staff to submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element (Attachment 2) to HCD for review. The Resolution permits Staff to make non-substantive edits identified in the Staff Report, changes discussed by the City Council, and other non-substantive changes to carry out the intent of the Resolution.

Analysis
The following discussion focuses on two key components of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, Chapter 2: Housing Plan and Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis.

Chapter 2: Housing Plan
The Housing Element must identify specific programs to implement stated policies and achieve goals and objectives, including specific actions the City will take. Programs must also identify: a specific implementation timeframe; responsible party; a description of the responsible party’s specific role in implementation; and specific, measurable outcomes, whenever possible.

Chapter 2 includes housing programs that reflect the results and analyses of the City’s local housing needs, available land and financial resources, and mitigation of identified governmental and non-governmental constraints, which are contained in Appendix B: Community Profile and Appendix C: Housing Constraints Resources, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Many of the proposed housing programs are continuations of successful programs from the 2014 – 2022 Housing Element.

In accordance with State law, the following are new notable housing programs included in the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element:
 Program A.5: Preserve and Monitor Affordable Units At-Risk of Converting to Market-Rate Units. Assisted housing are units whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs. There are 59 assisted multifamily units at-risk of converting from affordable to market-rate units during the ten years following the beginning of the planning period which starts in January 2023. The City is committed to preserving its stock of affordable housing and will provide technical 1109

assistance, seek additional nonprofit and for-profit partners, and facilitate financial assistance for assisted affordable housing units at-risk of conversion to market-rate units.

The City will maintain an inventory and establish an early warning system for assisted housing units that have the potential to convert to market rate.  Program B.8: Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Program. The City will continue to track accessory dwelling unit (ADU) applications, location, affordability, and other important features to ensure adequate ADU development is occurring to meet the City’s 2023 – 2031 construction goals and evaluate the need to adjust programs and policies if the pace of construction is less than anticipated. Should changes need to be made due to a gap in the number of ADUs projected and the number of ADUs permitted, the City will make changes proportional to the gap identified. This may include, but is not limited to, further streamlining and incentivizing ADU construction, rezoning non-residential sites, or similar actions
 Program B.9: Non-Vacant Adequate Sites to Satisfy By-Right Requirements of Assembly Bill 1397. State law requires that any non-vacant site identified in a prior Housing Element to accommodate lower-income households must be zoned at a minimum of 30 units per acre and allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households, if they are to continue being considered an adequate site to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. Four non-vacant sites, located in Downtown Dublin, that were identified in the 2014-2022 Housing Element are shown to be suitable for lower-income housing in the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Therefore, the City is required by statute to permit at least 30 units per acre, which it does, on these sites and to allow residential use by right for housing developments when at least 20% of the proposed units are affordable to lower-income households. The City will amend the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to allow these units by right and exclude them from the Development Pool and Community Benefit Agreement requirement.  Program B.10: Objective Design Standards and Streamlined Ministerial Review. Senate Bill 35 requires local jurisdictions to provide a streamlined ministerial approval process for eligible multi-family residential developments, subject to objective zoning and design review standards. Eligible projects must include a specified level of affordability, be on an infill site, comply with existing general plan or zoning provisions, and comply with other requirements such as location and demolition restrictions. In March 2022, the City adopted Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards (MFODS) and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to ensure that objective zoning and design review standards are in place for multi-family residential projects requesting a streamlined ministerial approval process.

The City will continue to implement the Citywide MFODS.  Program B.14: Residential Incentives. The Sites Inventory identifies several sites that allow residential and non-residential uses, including the non-vacant sites in Downtown Dublin, the Public/Semi-Public sites, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority’s property, and the Hacienda Crossings shopping center. To encourage residential development on these sites and maximize the development potential identified in the Sites Inventory, the City will promote existing residential incentives and identify potential new incentives as appropriate.
1110

 Program C.2: Safety Element and Environmental Justice Policies. Senate Bill 1035 requires that the City revise the General Plan Safety Element to identify flood hazards and address the risk of fire hazards in certain lands upon each revision of the Housing Element.

Additionally, Senate Bill 1000 requires that the City incorporate environmental justice policies within the General Plan. The City will amend the General Plan in accordance with the requirements of SB 1035 and SB 1000.
 Program E.1: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that foster inclusive communities free from barriers which restrict access to opportunities based on protected classes, as defined by State law. To accomplish this, the City will collaborate with local and regional organizations to review any housing discrimination complaints, assist in dispute resolution, and refer select complainants to appropriate state or federal agencies for further investigation, action, and resolution.
 Program E.4: Low-Barrier Navigation Centers. Senate Bill 48 requires approval 'by right' of certain low-barrier navigation centers that meet specified requirements. Low-barrier navigation centers are generally defined as service-enriched temporary living facilities focused on the transition of persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless into permanent housing. Low-barrier navigation centers connect individuals to income, public benefits, health services, and housing. To comply with State law, the City will adopt regulations and procedures for this type of use and establish a ministerial approval process.
 Program E.5: Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. The housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities are typically not fully addressed by local zoning regulations. Persons with disabilities may require modifications to existing units, a varying range of supportive services, and affordable housing. To accommodate residents with developmental disabilities, the City will encourage construction and rehabilitation of housing with supportive services targeted for persons with developmental disabilities. The City will also seek State and Federal funding in support of housing construction and rehabilitation targeted for persons with developmental disabilities.  Program E.6: Farmworker and Employee Housing. California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 require agricultural employee housing to be permitted byright, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in single-family residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. The City will amend the Dublin Municipal Code to comply with the Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8, as well as define agricultural and employee housing in a manner consistent with applicable Health and Safety Code Sections.

Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis
The Housing Element must include an inventory of specific sites or parcels that are suitable for residential development and available for use in the planning period to accommodate the RHNA.

Characteristics to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of sites include physical features (e.g., susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, and environmental considerations) and location (e.g., proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable 1111

for residential development includes vacant sites that are zoned for residential development, underutilized sites that are zoned for residential development and capable of being redeveloped at a higher density or with greater intensity, and vacant and underutilized sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped, and/or rezoned, for residential use.

On November 2, 2021, and March 15, 2022, the City Council received a status report on the Housing Element Update and Preliminary Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s RHNA of 3,719 units. After accounting for pipeline projects, ADUs, and existing zoning to accommodate the RHNA, the Preliminary Sites Inventory identified a “remaining need” of 644 units. The City Council directed Staff to allocate 150 lower-income units to the future affordable housing site on the SCS Property and allocate the balance of the remaining need to the vacant Alameda County Surplus Property Authority’s property at the Transit Center and Hacienda Crossings shopping center.

Since that time, several events triggered the need to make adjustments to the Sites Inventory. The approval for the East Ranch project was repealed, resulting in the loss of 68 lower-income housing units that had been included in the Preliminary Sites Inventory. Additionally, the City received a formal application for the SCS Dublin project, which includes up to 100 units on the affordable housing site – 50 units less than anticipated in the Preliminary Sites Inventory. Also, ABAG released the draft “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA” technical memorandum, which resulted in eight fewer moderate-income units than had been included in the Preliminary Sites Inventory. Staff reallocated these units to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority’s property at the Transit Center and Hacienda Crossings shopping center. This also resulted in allocating additional above moderate-income units to satisfy the City Council’s direction that 50% of the units on these sites are above-moderate income. Table 2 illustrates a remaining need of 720 units to accommodate the City’s RHNA based on these changes.

Table 2: Sites Inventory
Very-Lowand Low- ModerateAboveModerate- Total
Allocation 1,710 560 1,449 3,719
Pipeline Projects (344) (184) (1,572) (2,100)
Accessory Dwelling Units (149) (74) (25) (248)
5th Cycle Sites 0 (252) (573) (825)
Public/Semi-Public Sites (134) 0 0 (134)
Downtown Dublin (363) (50) 0 (413)
Remaining Need 720 0 (721)
Table 3 demonstrates how the remaining need will be accommodated on the Alameda County Surplus Property at the Transit Center, Hacienda Crossings shopping center, and the SCS Property.

Table 3: Distribution of Remaining Need
Very-Lowand Low- ModerateAboveModerate- Total
1112

Table 3: Distribution of Remaining Need
Alameda County Surplus Property
at the Transit Center 323 0 322 645
Hacienda Crossings 297 0 297 594
SCS Property 100 0 0 100
Total 720 0 619 1,339
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis includes the Sites Inventory and provides detailed information on the sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA.

Public Review
The Draft Housing Element was available for public review from April 15 to May 15, 2022. The public comment received prior to publishing this report is included within the Public Feedback Form as Attachment 3. The public comment does not raise significant issues that require substantive modifications to the Draft Housing Element.

While the Housing Element was out for public review, ABAG issued a “Summary of Housing Element Review Letters.” The Summary includes a review of 33 comment letters from HCD to jurisdictions in regions with earlier Housing Element deadlines. The most frequent comments are grouped into the following five categories: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); public participation; sites inventory; government constraints; and policies and programs. Additionally, the City has been participating in the ABAG-sponsored Alameda County Housing Collaborative, which provides technical and other assistance to Alameda County jurisdictions to support preparation of their Housing Elements. The Housing Collaborative performed a peer review of the Draft Housing Element. Based upon this feedback, Staff recommends the following modifications to the Draft Housing Element, prior to submitting it to HCD for review:
 Appendix B: Add a column to Table B-30: Occupied Units by Type and Tenure, outlining the total number of renters and owner-occupied units.
 Appendix B: Clarify the estimated number of units in need of replacement and rehabilitation in the Section D: Housing Challenges.
 Appendix C: Add language on HCD and ECHO Housing’s fair housing enforcement in the Section A.1: Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity.  Appendix C: Add language in Section A.1: Non-Governmental Constraints, to clarify that densities identified in the Sites Inventory are not considered a constraint because land uses designations in Dublin already include minimum and maximum density requirements which preclude development applications at lower densities.  Appendix C: Add a matrix in Section D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) summarizing the AFFH issues and how they relate to the Housing Plan programs.  Appendix F: Add a table summarizing the community feedback received, related policies and programs, and the City’s response to said feedback.

Project Schedule and Next Steps
The Housing Element must be updated and certified by HCD by January 2023 for the 2023 – 2031 planning period. Additionally, the Housing Element Update will trigger recent State law 1113

requirements to amend the General Plan, including policies regarding environmental justice and amendments to the Safety Element. Staff is currently preparing those General Plan Amendments, along with the analysis of the Draft Housing Element Update and related General Plan Amendments under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Table 4 below summarizes the key dates to ensure the City receives HCD certification by the January 2023 deadline.

Table 4: Key Dates
Step / Task Date(s)
Public Review of Draft Housing Element April 15 – May 15, 2022 HCD 90-Day Review of Draft Housing Element May – August 2022 Environmental Review June – November 2022
Prepare General Plan Safety Element and Environmental
Justice Policy Amendments
June – November 2022
Revise Housing Element in Response to HCD’s Comments August – November 2022 Adopt Housing Element Update (Planning Commission
Review and City Council Adoption)
November 2022 – January 2023
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City will prepare the necessary environmental review for the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element.

However, the City Council’s action to direct Staff to submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to HCD for review is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, as the project involves only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which have not been approved or adopted.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:

On April 26, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element and adopted Resolution No. 22-06 (Attachment 4) recommending that the City Council direct Staff to submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to HCD for review.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing Opportunities.

Objective E: Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element in accordance with state law and to ensure an adequate supply of sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the period 2023 – 31.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City implemented an outreach and engagement program to inform the community and seek input regarding the Housing Element Update. Between December 20, 2021, and February 28, 2022, the City conducted an online survey to receive community feedback. Staff also hosted two Housing Element Workshops on January 19 and February 17, 2022. The workshops provided an 1114

overview of the Housing Element, RHNA, Preliminary Sites Inventory, and required policy and program topics, and provided an opportunity for the community to provide feedback. The community was notified of these engagement opportunities through the City’s social media, website, push notifications, and email. Additionally, Staff held one-on-one meetings with the property owners of the “Additional Sites” identified to satisfy the “remaining need” for sites to accommodate the RHNA. The City also has a Housing Element Update webpage on the City’s website that serves as a landing place for information. The Planning Commission held a study session on March 8, 2022, and reviewed the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element on April 26, 2022. The City Council also held meetings to receive updates regarding the Housing Element Update on February 18, 2020, October 6, 2020, June 15, 2021, November 2, 2021, and March 15, 2022. The feedback and information received through these outreach efforts was used to help create the proposed policies and programs to address the housing needs.

In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Additionally, the City Council Agenda and the Staff Report for this public meeting was also made available on the City’s website.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Directing Staff to Submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Review 2) Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element
3) Public Feedback Form
4) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-06
1115
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DIRECTING STAFF TO SUBMIT THE DRAFT 2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR REVIEW
WHEREAS, the State of California requires cities and counties to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element is one of seven mandated elements of the General Plan and must address the existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, State law requires Housing Elements to be updated and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) every eight years; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin prepared the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element in accordance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element includes goals which to accomplish the following:
 Expand housing choice and multi-modal transportation opportunities for existing and future Dublin residents;
 Expand housing opportunities for all economic segments of Dublin’s population;  Use public and private resources to maintain and enhance existing residential neighborhood character;
 Provide housing opportunities for all Dublin residents, regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, age, gender, gender identity and expression, marital status, familial status, medical condition or disability, military or veteran status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic; and
 Promote energy efficiency and conservation throughout Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element includes specific Housing Programs to implement the goals outlined above; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Programs are grouped into the following six categories:
 Housing Conservation and Preservation
 Housing Production
 Adequate Housing Sites
 Removal of Governmental Constraints
 Promoting Equal Housing Opportunity
 Green Building Program; and
1116
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, on February 18, 2020, the City Council received an informational report about the upcoming sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2020, the City Council received a status update on RHNA and the Housing Element Update and provided feedback; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, the City Council conducted a Study Session on the RHNA and Housing Element Update, with focus on the Preliminary Sites Inventory. The City Council directed staff to disperse lower-income housing sites throughout Dublin and prioritized the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority properties at the Transit Center and the Hacienda Crossings shopping center as sites to accommodate the remaining need; and WHEREAS, between December 20, 2021, and February 28, 2022, the City conducted an online survey to receive community feedback that will help to create policies and programs that appropriately address the housing needs of current and future Dublin residents. The 10-question survey, available in English and Mandarin, focused on housing needs, desired housing locations, community assistance, fair housing, the vision for housing, and demographics; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, and February 17, 2022, the City held Community Workshops to solicit input from the development community, service providers, housing advocates, residents, and property owners; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a Study Session on the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the City Council received a status report on the Housing Element Update and provided feedback on the Preliminary Sites Inventory, including: 1) the distribution of units on the additional sites to meet the remaining need; 2) the selection of sites identified in Downtown Dublin; and 3) holding units identified in Downtown Dublin outside of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Development Pool; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Housing Element was available for public review from April 15 to May 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element and adopted Resolution No. 22-06 recommending that the City Council direct Staff to submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to HCD for review; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council recommending that the City Council direct Staff to submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to HCD for review; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the City Council reviewed the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City will prepare the necessary environmental review for the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element. However, the City Council’s action to direct Staff to 1117
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 3 of 3 submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to HCD for review is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, as the project involves only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which have not approved or adopted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby direct Staff to make nonsubstantive edits identified in the staff report, changes discussed by the City Council, and other non-substantive changes to carry out the intent of this Resolution and submit the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to HCD for review.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
1118
2023-2031
Draft Housing Element
Element Update
Attachment 2
1119
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

DRAFT
1120
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
City of Dublin
2023-2031
Housing Element

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
APRIL 15, 2022
DRAFT
1121
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-2
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
A. Role of the Housing Element................................................................................................................................... 1-7 B. State Policy and Authorization................................................................................................................................ 1-7

1. Background..................................................................................................................................................... 1-7

2. State Requirements........................................................................................................................................ 1-7

3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation............................................................................................................... 1-9

4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.............................................................................................. 1-9

5. Public Participation.......................................................................................................................................1-10

6. Data Sources.................................................................................................................................................1-10

7. Housing Element Organization....................................................................................................................1-11 CHAPTER 2 – HOUSING PLAN

1. Housing Goals and Policies...................................................................................................................................... 2-2 A. Range of Housing Types................................................................................................................................. 2-2 B. Housing Opportunities for Segments of the Population ............................................................................. 2-2 C. Maintain and Enhance Residential Neighborhoods..................................................................................... 2-3 D. Promote Equal Housing Opportunities......................................................................................................... 2-3 E. Promote Energy Efficiency and Conservation.............................................................................................. 2-4

2. Housing Programs.................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 A. Housing Conservation and Preservation....................................................................................................... 2-5 B. Housing Production........................................................................................................................................ 2-7 C. Adequate Housing Sites...............................................................................................................................2-16 D. Removal of Governmental Constraints.......................................................................................................2-17 E. Promoting Equal Housing Opportunities....................................................................................................2-19 F. Green Building Programs.............................................................................................................................2-24

3. Summary of Quantified Objectives.......................................................................................................................2-26 APPENDIX A – REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs......................................................................................A-2 Seniors............................................................................................................................................................A-2 Persons with Disabilities................................................................................................................................A-3 Large Households...........................................................................................................................................A-3 Farmworkers..................................................................................................................................................A-3 Single-Parent Households.............................................................................................................................A-4 Persons Experiencing Homelessness............................................................................................................A-4 Extremely Low-Income Households.............................................................................................................A-5

2. 5
th Planning Cycle Program Accomplishments.......................................................................................................A-6 APPENDIX B – COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. Population Characteristics.......................................................................................................................................B-2

1. Population Growth.........................................................................................................................................B-2

2. Age Characteristics.........................................................................................................................................B-3

3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics....................................................................................................................... B-4 B. Economic Characteristics.........................................................................................................................................B-6

1. Employment and Wage Scale........................................................................................................................ B-6 C. Household Characteristics.......................................................................................................................................B-9

1. Household Type.............................................................................................................................................. B-9

2. Household Size..............................................................................................................................................B-11

3. Household Income........................................................................................................................................B-11 D. Housing Challenges................................................................................................................................................B-14

1. Overcrowding...............................................................................................................................................B-15

2. Overpayment (Cost Burden)........................................................................................................................B-17 E. Special Needs Groups
DRAFT .............................................................................................................................................B-18 1122
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-3
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

1. Seniors...........................................................................................................................................................B-18

2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities..............................................................................B-19

3. Large Households.........................................................................................................................................B-22

4. Single-Parent Households............................................................................................................................B-23

5. Farmworkers.................................................................................................................................................B-23

6. Extremely Low-Income Household and Poverty Status.............................................................................B-24

7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness..........................................................................................................B-26

8. Students........................................................................................................................................................B-27 F. Housing Stock Characteristics................................................................................................................................B-27

1. Housing Growth............................................................................................................................................B-28

2. Housing Types...............................................................................................................................................B-28

3. Housing Availability and Tenure..................................................................................................................B-28

4. Housing Age and Conditions........................................................................................................................B-30

5. Housing Costs and Affordability ..................................................................................................................B-31 APPENDIX C – HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) A. Housing Constraints................................................................................................................................................. C-2

1. Non-governmental Constraints.................................................................................................................... C-2 Land Costs and Construction Costs............................................................................................................... C-2 Availability of Financing................................................................................................................................. C-3 Economic Constraints....................................................................................................................................C-5

2. Governmental Constraints............................................................................................................................. C-6 Land Use Controls.......................................................................................................................................... C-6 Variety of Housing Types Permitted............................................................................................................. C-7 Residential Development Standards...........................................................................................................C-19 Planned Development Zoning Standards...................................................................................................C-22 Definition of Family......................................................................................................................................C-23 State Density Bonus Law..............................................................................................................................C-23 Reasonable Accommodations.....................................................................................................................C-24 On-/Off-Site Improvements.........................................................................................................................C-25 Local Ordinances..........................................................................................................................................C-26 Specific Plans................................................................................................................................................C-30 Local Processing and Permit Procedures....................................................................................................C-32 Development Fees.......................................................................................................................................C-33

3. Infrastructure Constraints............................................................................................................................C-38 Dry Utilities...................................................................................................................................................C-38 Water Supply................................................................................................................................................C-38 Fire and Emergency Services.......................................................................................................................C-40 Police Services..............................................................................................................................................C-41

4. Environmental Constraints..........................................................................................................................C-41 Geologic Hazards..........................................................................................................................................C-41 Flood Hazards...............................................................................................................................................C-44 Fire Hazards..................................................................................................................................................C-46 B. Financial Resources................................................................................................................................................C-48

1. Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)..................................................................................................C-48

2. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)........................................................................................C-50

3. HOME Program.............................................................................................................................................C-50 C. Opportunities for Energy Conservation................................................................................................................C-50

1. Energy Use and Providers............................................................................................................................C-50 Alternative Sources......................................................................................................................................C-51

2. Electric Vehicle Chargers and Solar.............................................................................................................C-52 D. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)......................................................................................................C-52

1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
DRAFT
....................................................................................C-52 1123
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Fair Housing and Civil Rights Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement, Settlements or Judgments..................C-53

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Knowledge.......................................................................C-53 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends.....................................................................................C-53 Hate Crimes..................................................................................................................................................C-56 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP).............................................................C-56 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA).............................................................C-58 Disparities in Access to Opportunities........................................................................................................C-61 Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement................................................................................C-79

3. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing.................................................................................C-97

4. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686...........................................................................................................C-99

5. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals............................................................................................C-114 APPENDIX D– ADEQUATE SITES ANALYSIS
A.Adequate Sites Analysis Overview..........................................................................................................................D-2

1. Adequace of Sites to Accommodate RHNA..................................................................................................D-3 Availability of Water, Sewer, and Dry Utilities.............................................................................................D-3

2. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units .................................................................D-4

3. Projects in the Pipeline ..................................................................................................................................D-6 B. Very Low- and Low-Income Sites Inventory...........................................................................................................D-7

1. Strategy for Accommodating Very Low- and Low-Income RHNA...............................................................D-7 Existing Zoning and Land Use........................................................................................................................D-7 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan....................................................................................................................D-7 Rezoning..........................................................................................................................................................D-8

2. Calculation of Unit Capacity...........................................................................................................................D-8 Site-by-Site Calculation..................................................................................................................................D-8 Affordability Assumptions.............................................................................................................................D-9

3. Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate Very Low- and Low-Income Housing................................................D-9 Selection of Sites............................................................................................................................................D-9 Vacant Parcels..............................................................................................................................................D-10 Replacement Analysis..................................................................................................................................D-10 Public/Semi-Public Sites...............................................................................................................................D-10 Alameda County Surplus Property..............................................................................................................D-10 Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center.........................................................................................................D-10 SCS Property.................................................................................................................................................D-10 Identification of Small or Large Sites..........................................................................................................D-11

4. Non-Vacant Sites..........................................................................................................................................D-11 Lease Analysis...............................................................................................................................................D-11 Past Performance Developing Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses.....................................................D-12

5. Rezone Strategy to Accommodate Remaining Very Low- and Low-Income RHNA.................................D-12 Part 1: Rezoning Opportunities Utilizing Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Sites................D-12 Part 2: Rezoning Opportunities Utilizing Hacienda Crossings...................................................................D-13 Part 3: Rezoning Opportunities Using SCS Property..................................................................................D-13 C. Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Sites Inventory..................................................................................D-13

1. Strategy for Accommodating Moderate-Income Allocation.....................................................................D-13 Projects in the Pipeline................................................................................................................................D-14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)................................................................................................................D-14 5th Cycle Sites...............................................................................................................................................D-14 Downtown Dublin........................................................................................................................................D-14

2. Strategy for Accommodating Above Moderate-Income Allocation.........................................................D-14 Projects in the Pipeline................................................................................................................................D-14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)................................................................................................................D-14 5th Cycle Sites...............................................................................................................................................D-15 Rezone Strategies
DRAFT .........................................................................................................................................D-15 1124
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-5
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Selection of Sites..........................................................................................................................................D-15 D. Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory ....................................................................................................D-15 E. Sites Identified to Accommodate RHNA and Maps.............................................................................................D-15 APPENDIX E – HOUSING PLAN PROGRAM SUMMARY
APPENDIX F – COMMUNITY ENAGEMENT SUMMARY
APPENDIX G– GLOSSARY OF HOUSING TERMS

DRAFT
1125
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-6
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION
DRAFT
1126
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-7
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A. Role of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is a State-mandated chapter of the City’s General Plan. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and plan for the City’s existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Housing Element contains a detailed outline and work program of the City’s goals, policies, programs, and objectives that preserve, improve, and ensure housing for a sustainable future. Each eight-year planning cycle, the City is allocated a specific number of housing units to plan for – this is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The RHNA quantifies current and future housing growth for all cities and counties within the ABAG region. Through research and analysis, the Housing Element identifies available candidate housing sites and establishes policies and programs to accommodate the RHNA. The Housing Element is a critical tool for the City to plan for growth within the community over the eight-year cycle.

B. State Policy and Authorization

1. Background
As a mandated chapter of the Dublin General Plan, the Housing Element must meet all requirements of existing state law. Goals, policies, programs, and objectives developed within the Housing Element are implemented within a designated timeline to ensure the City accomplishes the identified actions, as well as maintains compliance with state law. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews each Housing Element for compliance with state law and certification by HCD is required for a Housing Element to be found in full compliance.

2. State Requirements
State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for the Housing Element. California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans no less than once every eight years.

The following overarching Housing Element goals are included in California Government Code Section 65580 to ensure every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment:
a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.
b) The successful development of housing requires cooperative participation of government and the private sector to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians in all economic levels.
c) The provisions of housing, in particular to units affordable to lower and moderate-income households, requiresthe cooperation of all levels of the government. d) Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of DRAFT
1127
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-8
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
all economic segments of the community.
e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs.
f) Designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locality’s housing need for all income levels is essential to achieving the State’s housing goals and the purposes of this article.

Table 1-1 summarizes the Housing Element requirements mandated by the State and identifies where these requirements are addressed in this document.

Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Chapter Reference in Housing Element
Analysis of employment trends. Section 65583.a Appendix B.B.1 Projection and quantification of existing and projected housing needs for all income groups. Section 65583.a Appendix B Analysis and documentation of the City’s housing characteristics, including cost for housing compared to ability to pay,
overcrowding, and housing condition.

Section 65583.a Appendix B.F
An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment potential. Section 65583.a Appendix D Analysis of existing and potential governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels.

Section 65583.a Appendix C.A.2
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental (private sector) constraints upon maintenance, improvement or
development of housing for all income levels.

Section 65583.a Appendix C.A.1
Analysis concerning the needs of the homeless. Section 65583.a Appendix B.E.7 Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly, large families, farm workers, and female-headed households. Section 65583.a Appendix B.E Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Section 65583.a Appendix C.D.1 Identification of Publicly Assisted Housing Developments. Section 65583.a Appendix C.E.2 Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing. Section 65583.a Appendix C.E.2
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing.

Section 65583.a Chapter 2.1
Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Section 65583.b Chapter 2.3 Identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels.

Section 65583.c(1) Appendix D
Identification of strategies to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderateincome households.

DRAFT
Section 65583.c(2) Appendix D
1128
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-9
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Chapter Reference in Housing Element
Description of the Public Participation Program in the formulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs. Section 65583.d Appendix F Description of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Section 65583.e Appendix C.B.1 Analysis of Fair Housing, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Section 8899.50 AppendixC.D
Review of the effectiveness of the past Housing Element, including the City’s accomplishments during the previous planning period.

Section 65583.f Appendix A
Source: State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.

3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the methodology used for determining future housing need, by income category, within the State and is based on growth in population, households, and employment. The statewide determination, which is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is under the administration of HCD. The quantified housing need is then allocated among the State’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) – ABAG for the City of Dublin.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 65583, ABAG is tasked with creating a methodology for distributing the RHND to its member jurisdictions. This distribution results in each jurisdiction’s RHNA. The City’s RHNA is divided into four income categories, which are based on the Alameda County Area Median Income (AMI) for an assumedfamily of four. Table 1-2 identifies the City’s RHNA by household income category for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Table 1-2: City of Dublin 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category Income Category Percent of Area Median
Income (AMI)
RHNA
Very Low-Income 0-50% AMI 1,085
Low-Income 51-80% AMI 625
Moderate-Income 81-120% AMI 560
Above Moderate-Income >120% AMI 1.449
Total RHNA 3,719

4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The Housing Element works in conjunction with other Dublin General Plan Elements, such as the development policies contained in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element is the guide for decision makers on the pattern, distribution, density, and intensity of land uses that help the City achieve its vision for the future. By designating residential development, the General Plan establishes the densities and types of housing units constructed in the City. Land use patterns and decisions are influenced by population and economic growth (which create market demand), transportation access and opportunities, the availability of infrastructure, environmental constraints, and quality of life reflected in DRAFT
1129
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-10
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
parks and recreational opportunities, and cultural amenities. The presence and potential for jobs affects the current and future demand for housing at the various income levels in the City.

The Housing Element also works with the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element to connect housing, community resources and services, employment, and recreation. Dublin’s Circulation and Scenic Highways Element supports continuing programs to improve travel by vehicles, bikes, and walking, and provides guidance on expanding the options for transit and active transportation. In conjunction with the Housing Element, the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element provides policies and incentives that consider the types of infrastructure essential for residential housing units in addition to mitigating the effects of growth in the City.

The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s other General Plan Elements, and the policies and programs in the Housing Element are consistent with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

5. Public Participation
Public participation is a vital component to the Housing Element update process. Public engagement creates opportunities for community members to provide their input and feedback, information which then directs the Housing Element’s goals, policies and programs. Government Code Section 65583 requires local governments to make diligent and continued efforts to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community. Meaningful community participation ensures that a variety of stakeholders and community members are offered a platform to engage in the City’s planning process.

The City completed the following public participation efforts as part of the process to update the Housing Element:
• Two Virtual Community Workshops
• Meetings with the Planning Commission
and City Council
• Online Survey in English and Mandarin
• Social Media Outreach
• Direct Mailings
• Informational Webpage
• One-on-One Meetings with Property
Owners
As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City Council. Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary contains a summary of all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City during the update process.

6. Data Sources
The data used for the completion of the Housing Element comes from a variety of sources. These include, but are not limited to:
• United States Census, 2010 and 2020
• American Community Survey
DRAFT
1130
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Plan Bay Area 2040 and 2050
• California Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017
• California Department of Economic Development
• Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
• Real Estate websites, including Zillow and Redfin
• CalEnviroScreen 4.0
• Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley • California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer
• University of California Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank • AllTransit
The data sources represent the best data available at the time the Housing Element was prepared. The original source documents contain the assumptions and methods used to compile the data.

7. Housing Element Organization
The Housing Element includes the following Chapters:

Chapter 1: Introductioncontains a summary of the content, organization, and statutory considerations of the Housing Element.

Chapter 2: Housing Plan describes Dublin’s housing plan, including needs, goals, policies, programs, and objectives.

Appendices:

Appendix A: Review of Past Performance
Appendix B: Community Profile
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary
Appendix G:Glossary of Terms
DRAFT
1131
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-1
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
CHAPTER 2:

HOUSING PLAN
DRAFT
1132
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-2
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing Plan
The Housing Plan described in this Chapter includes the City’s goals, policies, programs, and objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period. The Housing Plan addresses the need to plan for additional housing opportunities, remove constraints to affordable housing, improve the existing housing stock, and provide equal opportunities for all current and future residents of Dublin.

These goals, policies, and programs were developed based on:
• Review of the City’s 5th Planning Cycle Housing Element; • Input and feedback from the community, stakeholders, and decisionmakers; • New State law requirements; and
• Analysis provided in the Community Profile and the Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing Chapters of this 2023-2031 Housing Element.

1. Housing Goals and Policies
The following describes the goals and policies the City intends to implement to meet its RHNA and address its housing needs.

A. Range of Housing Types
Continuing to provide a balanced inventory of housing types (e.g., single-family, duplexes, apartments, and condominiums), cost, and style will fulfill a variety of housing needs. In addition, providing regulatory and financial assistance will be essential to support the production of affordable housing.

Goal A: Expand housing choice and multi-modal transportation opportunities for existing and future Dublin residents.
• Policy A.1: Ensure the provision of a variety of housing types to fulfill the City’s RHNA. • Policy A.2: Facilitate development of affordable housing through use of financial and/or regulatory incentives, where appropriate and subject to funding availability. • Policy A.3: Maintain streamlined procedures for processing new residential development applications.
• Policy A.4: Encourage the development of residential units intended for special groups, including seniors, large households, persons with disabilities, and the homeless. • Policy A.5: Promote affordable housing opportunities adjacent to public transportation and within walking or cycling distance to places of employment, commerce, recreation, and services. • Policy A.6: Support existing emergency shelter programs in the Tri-Valley area.

B. Housing Opportunities for Segments of the Population A key element in satisfying the housing needs of all segments of the community is the provision of adequate sites for housing of all types, sizes, and prices. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance determine where housing may be located, thereby affecting the supply of land available for residential development. The following goals and policies support the expansion of housing opportunities in Dublin.

DRAFT
1133
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-3
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Goal B: Expand housing opportunities for all economic segments of Dublin’s population. • Policy B.1: Encourage development of affordable housing by non-profit organizations primarily engaged in housing construction or management.
• Policy B.2: Provide and/or facilitate ongoing technical and financial support to affordable housing developers.
• Policy B.3: Negotiate with developers toencourage the development of housing that is affordable to extremely low-income households.
• Policy B.4: Continue to allow accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts and the C-1 zoning district as a means of expanding rental housing opportunities. • Policy B.5: Continue to support the development of affordable housing for first-time homebuyers.

C. Maintain and Enhance Residential Neighborhoods
In general, housing over 30 years old may need rehabilitation and major repairs, such as a new roof, termite damage repair, foundation work, and plumbing. With 31.5 percent of Dublin’s housing stock built prior to 1990, preventive maintenance is essential to avoid housing deterioration. Some households, particularly those that have owned their homes for many years and have relatively low house payments, may be able to afford repairs or monthly payments for rehabilitation loans; however, other households, especially lower-income households, may have difficulty maintaining their homes. Assisting these lowerincome households will help preserve and enhance the City's existing housing stock.

Goal C: Use public and private resources to maintain and enhance existing residential neighborhood character.
• Policy C.1: Continue to provide assistance for the rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating units.
• Policy C.2: Encourage the preservation, rehabilitation, and/or replacement of single-family residences in order to maintain and enhance the established neighborhood character.

D. Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
The City seeks to expand the range of housing opportunities in Dublin, including housing for seniors, lower- and moderate-income residents, persons with disabilities, large families, families with femaleheaded households, and persons experiencing homelessness. In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all segments of the community, the City must also ensure equal and fair housing opportunities are available to all residents.

Goal D: Provide housing opportunities for all Dublin residents, regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, age, gender, gender identity and expression, marital status, familial status, medical condition or disability, military or veteran status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic.
• Policy D.1: Support services and programs that fight housing discrimination; promote agencies and organizations that provide assistance to victims of housing discrimination. • Policy D.2: Promote housing with supportive services to meet the special housing needs of all Dublin residents.
• Policy D.3
DRAFT
: Encourage the provision of housing to meet the needs of households of all sizes. 1134
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-4
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E. Promote Energy Efficiency and Conservation
In September 2020, the City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2.0), establishing the next phase of climate action planning and implementation. Strategies of CAP 2.0 include 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity, building efficiency and electrification, sustainable mobility and land use, materials and waste management, and municipal leadership measures. CAP 2.0 establishes the City’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and strive for carbon neutrality by 2045, resulting in cleaner air, more versatile and flexible transportation, new opportunities for economic growth, reductions in localized flooding risks, and greater energy independence from fossil fuels. Energy conservation can be achieved through environmentally sensitive site planning techniques and implementing building codes that require use of construction materials that maximize energy efficiency. Conserving energy has the dual benefit of reducing housing costs and improving environmental quality.

Goal E: Promote energy efficiency and conservation throughout Dublin. • Policy E.1: Promote the use of Green Building techniques in all residential development. • Policy E.2: Ensure all new residential development complies with the California Green Building Standards Code and Dublin Green Building Standards Code. • Policy E.3: Encourage residential projects to obtain green building certifications, such as GreenPoint Rating and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. • Policy E.4: Continue to require the recycling of construction waste. • Policy E.5: Utilize site planning techniques to allow passive energy efficiencies through solar access, landscaping, and building orientation.
• Policy E.6: Seek opportunities to educate the public about energy efficiency and conservation.

2. Housing Programs
The goals and policies outlined in the prior section address Dublin’s identified housing needs and are implemented through a series of housing programs. These programs are offered primarily through the Planning and Housing Divisions of the City’s Community Development Department and through regional partnerships. Dublin residents may also be eligible for assistance under programs administered by the County of Alameda. Housing programs define the specific actions the City will undertake to achieve the stated goals and policies. The City’s housing programs for addressing community housing needs are grouped into the following categories:
• Housing Conservation and Preservation
• Housing Production
• Adequate Housing Sites
• Removal of Governmental Constraints
• Promoting Equal Housing Opportunity
• Green Building Program
DRAFT
1135
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-5
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A. Housing Conservation and Preservation
Approximately 31.5 percent of housing units in Dublin were constructed prior to 1990 and are likely to have rehabilitation needs, such as new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other major repairs.

Other housing conservation needs include preservation of existing multi-family rental apartments at-risk of converting to condominiums.

Program A.1: Housing Rehabilitation Assistance
Using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the Alameda County Community Development Agency administers minor home rehabilitation grants and home improvement loan assistance. • Alameda County Healthy Homes Department Minor Home Rehabilitation Program provides grants up to $3,000 to low-income homeowners for minor plumbing, carpentry, and electrical repairs and can be used for railings, grab bars, toilets, water heaters, doors, locks, and more. • Renew Alameda County is a home improvement loan assistance program for low-income homeowners, which aims to help keep existing homeowners in their homes and maintain existing housing stock in a safe, livable condition.

Between 2015 and 2021, the Alameda County Community Development Agency has provided 22 Minor Home Repair Grants, one Housing Rehabilitation Loan, and two Accessibility Improvements Grants in Dublin.

Additionally, in 2020, the City created and began administering the Dublin Home Rehabilitation Program to provide supplemental assistance to homeowners that may have received a grant or loan through the County's programs and need additional funding assistance or were turned down because they were not able to meet all of the County's criteria. The program provides grants of up to $5,000 for rehabilitation and beautification projects.

Objectives:
• Continue to support the Alameda County Community Development Agency to implement the Minor Home Improvement Program (including accessibility grants) and Renew Alameda County and promote the Dublin Home Rehabilitation Program with the goal of assisting 32 households between 2023 and 2031.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Alameda County Community Development Agency; Community Development Department
Funding Source: CDBG; Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond Fund; Dublin General Fund Relevant Policies: Policy C.1; Policy C.2
Program A.2: Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance
The Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental subsidies to extremely low- and very low-income households, including families, seniors, and the disabled. The program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent (FMR) as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and what a tenant can afford to pay (i.e., 30 percent of household income).

The Housing Authority of Alameda County administers the program in Dublin. Given the co DRAFT
ntinued need
1136
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-6
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
for rental assistance, the City supports and encourages the provision of additional subsidies through the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Objectives:
• Continue to support the assistance of 350 lower-income households each year between 2023 and 2031.
• Continue to refer interested households to the Housing Authority of Alameda County.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority of Alameda County Funding Source: HUD Section 8
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy D.2; Policy D.3
Program A.3: Code Enforcement
The Planning Division and Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department carry out code compliance and inspection activities to preserve and maintain the livability and quality of neighborhoods. City Staff investigates potential violations of property maintenance standards as defined in the Dublin Municipal Code. When violations are identified or cited, Staff ensures code compliance by encouraging property owners to seek assistance through available housing rehabilitation programs.

The City will continue to enforce property maintenance standards and abate substandard structures.

When code violations are unable to be resolved through voluntary compliance, administrative citations, or abatement, the nuisance may be abated by the City. All costs incurred by the City in abating the nuisance shall be chargeable to the property owner where the abatement occurred.

Objectives:
• Continue to enforce local ordinances relating to property maintenance and substandard housing both proactively and on a complaint basis.
• Conduct residential inspections to ensure property maintenance standards are met and to abate substandard structures.
• Perform annual review of City ordinances.

Timeframe: On a case-by-case basis; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy C.1; Policy C.2
Program A.4: Condominium Conversion Ordinance
The City values its rental housing stock as an important means of meeting the housing needs of all income segments of the community. In 2005, the City Council passed a Condominium Conversion Ordinance to preserve the existing rental housing stock. The Ordinance establishes an annual maximum of seven percent of the total number of multi-family units in developments of 21 or more rental units that can be converted. The Ordinance also establishes tenant notification and relocation assistance requirements, limits rent increases once a notice of intent to convert has been filed and gives tenants the right to purchase units. Condominium conversions are also subject to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.

DRAFT
1137
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-7
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
The City will continue to implement the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to preserve the existing multi-family rental housing stock in Dublin.

Objectives:
• Monitor conversion activities annually.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Permit Processing Fees
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy B.5
Program A.5: Preserve and Monitor Affordable Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate Assisted housing are units whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs. There are 59 assisted multi-family units at-risk of converting from affordable to market-rate units during the 10 years following the beginning of the planning period (2023-2033). The City is committed to preserving its stock of affordable housing and will provide technical assistance, seek additional nonprofit and for-profit partners, and facilitate financial assistance for assisted affordable housing units at-risk of conversion to market-rate units. The City will continue to work with property owners to develop strategies and potential solutions to maintain affordability controls on assisted units.

The City will also maintain an inventory and establish an early warning system for assisted housing units that have the potential to convert to market rate. This will include an annual review of the conversion status of all assisted housing in the City. The City will also pursue partnership opportunities with nonprofit entities to preserve affordable housing in the City.

Objectives:
• Maintain an inventory and establish an early warning system for assisted housing units that have the potential to convert to market-rate units.
• Outreach to and coordinate with property owners with assisted housing units at-risk of converting to market-rate units to preserve affordability.

Timeframe: Develop the warning system within three years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy B.2
B. Housing Production
The City implements various programs to encourage a diversity of housing types. Part of this diversity is addressed through the RHNA, which encourages the construction of housing for all economic segments in the community. Housing diversity is important to ensure that all households, regardless of age, income level, and household type, have the opportunity to find housing suited to their need and lifestyle. The following programs support the production of diverse housing opportunities.

DRAFT
1138
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-8
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Program B.1: Mixed-Use Development
Locating high-density residential uses in compact mixed-use projects where residents have convenient access to jobs, shopping, services, recreation, and multi-modal transportation options can produce several community benefits. Many residents within these areas are less dependent upon single-occupancy vehicles resulting in decreased congestion, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and allow more of their income to be used for other necessary expenses.

The City will continue to promote high-density mixed-use projects through the following actions:
• Promote high-density mixed-use development projects on opportunity sites in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area and near public transportation; • Continue to implement the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; • Promote high-density mixed-use development near the two Dublin Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations;
• Use the Planned Development Zoning process to allow flexible development standards such as alternatives for parking, building height, floor area ratio, lot coverage limits, and residential density, to promote mixed-use developments; and
• Provide incentives for affordable housing in mixed-use projects, including reduced parking requirements, use of the Affordable Housing Fund, assistance in accessing state and federal subsidies, and density bonuses.

Objectives:
• Facilitate the construction of 300 residential units within mixed-use projects between 2023-2031. • Continue to incentivize mixed-use projects through flexible development standards and other means.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund; General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy A.5; Policy B.2; Policy B.5 Program B.2: Affordable Housing Developers
Recognizing that affordable housing cannot be supplied solely by market-rate developers, the City will cooperate with affordable housing developers to expand the supply of lower-income units, including extremely low-income units. The City has a proven track record in facilitating the development of affordable housing. During the 2014-2022 Housing Element cycle, Valor Crossing, Amador Station, and the Regional Street Senior Affordable Apartments projects were facilitated by the City and include a range of affordable units, including units for extremely low-income households.

The City will offer application and technical assistance in accessing local, state, and federal funding for affordable housing by applying for such funding on behalf of affordable housing developers when eligible applicants are limited to public agencies and providing technical assistance or documentation necessary to support applications for funding by affordable housing developers upon request.

The City will also write letters of support (for projects that have received Planning Division entitlements by the City).

DRAFT
1139
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-9
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Objectives:
• Negotiate a specific incentive package for each project, with increased incentives for projects that include units for extremely low-income households, seniors, and persons with disabilities. • Provide application/technical assistance as needed.
• Provide assistance to affordable housing developers to facilitate the construction of 100 affordable housing units between 2023-2031, with the goal of achieving 20 affordable units for extremely low-income households and/or persons with special housing needs. • Contact developers to discuss affordable housing opportunities.

Timeframe: On a case-by-case basis; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund; General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy A.3; Policy B.1; Policy B.2; Policy B.3 Program B.3: Density Bonus
The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in March 2007 to comply with State law (SB 1818 enacted 2005 and SB 435 enacted 2006). In November 2019, the City adopted Ordinance No.14-19 amending the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with current State law. Density bonuses are infrequently used in Dublin because the City’s High-Density Residential land use designation does not have a maximum upper density limit. In addition to density increases, the Density Bonus Ordinance has other provisions that could facilitate the expansion of housing opportunities. The City will continue to annually review its Density Bonus Ordinance and make necessary revisions to ensure compliance with State law.

The City will also continue working with developers on a case-by-case basis to provide regulatory concessions, waivers, and incentives to assist with the development of affordable and senior housing.

Regulatory concessions, waivers, and incentives could include, but are not limited to, reductions to offstreet parking requirements and modified or waived development standards.

Objectives:
• Review and, as necessary, revise the Density Bonus Ordinance to ensure compliance with State law.
• Continue to implement the Density Bonus Ordinance and provide the Ordinance to developers and other interested parties.
• Maintain updated information on the City’s affordable housing incentives, such as density bonus and fee deferment, on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Provide information on a case-by-case basis; Revise as necessary; Review annually; 2023- 2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy A.3; Policy B.1; Policy B.2; Policy B.3 Program B.4: Inclusionary Zoning
Under the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, all new residential development projects of 20 units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy must construct 12.5 percent of the total number DRAFT
1140
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-10
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
of dwelling units within the development as affordable units. Affordable units shall be allocated to households with very low-, low-, and moderate-income levels as follows:

Rental Units Owner-Occupied Units
Very low-income households 30% 0%
Low-income households 20% 40%
Moderate-income households 50% 60%
Upon request, the City Council may grant one or more of the following exceptions to the 12.5 percent affordability requirement:
• Pay a fee in-lieu of constructing up to 40 percent of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct
• Construct affordable housing off-site
• Dedicate land to the City or non-profit affordable housing developer • Use credit transfers
• Waiver of requirements
Also, DMC Section 8.68.070 provides incentives to make the construction of affordable units more feasible, including:
• Fee Deferral – development processing and impact fees • Design Modifications –
o Reduced lot size
o Reduced setback requirements
o Reduced open space
requirements
o Reduced landscaping
requirements
o Reduced interior or exterior
amenities
o Reduced parking requirements
o Height restriction waivers
Objectives:
• Review the Inclusionary Regulations.
• Prepare a nexus study reviewing the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. • Facilitate the construction of 100 affordable housing units.

Timeframe: Review the Inclusionary Regulations and In-Lieu Fees within two years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund; General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy A.3; Policy B.1; Policy B.2; Policy B.3 Program B.5: Commercial Linkage Fee
The City approved a Commercial Linkage Fee on May 3, 2005. Fees are charged to non-residential developments, based on the square footage and type of commercial building space, and placed into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. Between 2015 and 2021, the City has collected a total of $684,263.72 in Commercial Linkage Fees. In accordance with DMC Section 8.68.080, the funds can be used for:
• Affordable housing construction loans
• First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program
• Homeownership training and foreclosure prevention services DRAFT
1141
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-11
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Housing Division administrative costs
• Alameda County Homeless Management Information System Objectives:
• Prepare a nexus study reviewing the Commercial Linkage Fee. • Utilizing funding to facilitate the construction of 100 affordable housing units. • Assist at least five moderate-income households with first-time homebuyer loans. • Provide funding towards homeownership training and foreclosure prevention services, rental assistance programs, and the Alameda County Homeless Management Information System.

Timeframe: Prepare a nexus study reviewing the Commercial Linkage Fee within two years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Provide information on a case-by-case basis; Review annually; 2023- 2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund; General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy A.3; Policy B.1; Policy B.2; Policy B.3 Program B.6: Housing Type and Size Variations
A diverse housing stock in terms of type and size is necessary to meet the needs of all community residents. As a means of achieving housing diversity, the City will continue to require diversity of housing type and size as part of its negotiated process through Specific Plans, Planned Development Zoning, and Development Agreements.

Objectives:
• Require developers to provide a diversity of housing type and size on a case-by-case basis to meet the City’s housing needs.

Timeframe: On a case-by-case basis; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.4; Policy A.6; Policy B.1; Policy B.3; Policy B.4; Policy B.5; Policy D.2; Policy D.3
Program B.7: Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs can be a source of affordable housing with limited impact on existing neighborhoods and public infrastructure. The City will continue to promote the development of ADUs on residential lots with existing or proposed single-family and multi-family residences in the A, R-1, R-2, R-M, C-1, and PD zoning districts.

The City will support and accommodate the construction of at least 248 ADUs during the 2023-2031 planning period by a variety of methods, including but not limited to:
• Maintaining and updating, as necessary, permit-ready ADU plans to minimize design costs, expedite permit processing, and provide development certainty. • Maintaining and updating, as necessary, an ADU Manual guiding applicants through the construction of an ADU
DRAFT .
1142
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-12
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Maintaining and updating, as necessary, an ADU webpage informing the community on ADU related codes, processes, and incentives.
• Developing and implementing a public awareness campaign for construction of ADUs and the City’s incentives utilizing all forms of media and outreach distribution. • Waiving certain City permitting fees for building permits, for ADUs applied for between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2026, that are less than 750 square feet and ADUs 750 square feet or larger that are deed restricted as lower-income units for a period of 55 years.

Objectives:
• Facilitate the development of at least 248 ADUs.
• Maintain updated information on the City’s ADU processes, related code, and incentives, on the City’s website.
• Implement a public awareness campaign for constructing ADUs.

Timeframe: Create and update public information on ADUs within three years of adopting the 2023- 2031 Housing Element; Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.3; Policy A.5; Policy B.4 Program B.8: Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Program The City will continue to track ADU applications, location, affordability, and other important features to ensure adequate ADU development is occurring to meet the City’s 2023-2031 construction goals and evaluate the need to adjust programs and policies if the pace of construction is less than anticipated.

Should changes need to be made due to a gap in the number of ADUs projected and the number of ADUs permitted, the City will make changes proportional to the gap identified. This may include, but is not limited to, further streamlining and incentivizing ADU construction, rezoning additional non-residential sites, or similar actions.

Objectives:
• Maintain the ADU Monitoring Program.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.3; Policy A.5; Policy B.4 Program B.9: Non-Vacant Adequate Sites to Satisfy By-Right Requirements of AB 1397 State law requires that any non-vacant site identified in a prior Housing Element must be zoned at a minimum of 30 units per acre and allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households if they are to be considered an adequate site to accommodate the very low- and low-income categories of the RHNA.

Four non-vacant sites, located in Downtown Dublin, that were identified in the 2014-2022 Housing Element are shown to be suitable for lower-income housing in the Housing Element Sites Inventory provided in
DRAFT
Appendix D. Therefore, the City is required by statute to permit at least 30 units per acre, 1143
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-13
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
which it does, on these sites and to allow residential use by right for housing developments when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lower-income households.

Objectives:
• Amend the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to specify the units on the four non-vacant lowerincome sites in Downtown Dublin are allowed by right and not included in the Downtown Dublin Development Pool and are exempt from a Community Benefit Agreement requirement.

Timeframe: Within three years of adopting 2023-2031 Housing Element Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy B.1
Program B.10: Objective Design Standards and Streamlined Ministerial Review State law (Senate Bill (SB) 35) requires local jurisdictions to provide a streamlined ministerial approval process for eligible multi-family residential developments, subject to objective zoning and design review standards. Eligible projects must include a specified level of affordability, be on an infill site, comply with existing general plan or zoning provisions, and comply with other requirements such as location and demolition restrictions. In March 2022, the City adopted Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards (MFODS) and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to ensure that objective zoning and design review standards are in place for multi-family residential projects requesting a streamlined ministerial approval process. Projects that qualify for the SB 35 streamlined ministerial approval process would be required to comply with all of the Citywide MFODS. All other projects would be subject to the standards, but through the City’s discretionary Site Development Review Permit process could be allowed to deviate from the MFODS when the purpose and intent of the standard is met through alternate means.

Objectives:
• Reviewand, as necessary, revise the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards to ensure compliance with State law in order to facilitate the development of housing. • Continue to implement the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031; If determined to be necessary, the City will make any required changes to the Objective Design Standards within 18 months Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy A.3 Policy B.1; Policy B.2 Program B.11: Transitional and Supportive Housing
California Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires transitional and supportive housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Government Code Section 65651(a) also requires supportive housing to be permitted by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses if they meet the Government Code Section requirements. The City will continue to permit by-right small transitional housing with six or fewer homeless persons or families and small supportive housing with six or fewer occupantsin the A, R-1, R-2, and R-M zoning districts. The City will also continue to permit large transitional housin DRAFT
g for seven or more
1144
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-14
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
homeless persons or families and large supportive housing for seven or more occupantsin R-1, R-2, R-M, C-1, C-2, M-P, and M-1 zoning districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit.

The City will continue to monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing and will solicit input from organizations who specialize in meeting the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income households. The City is committed to prioritizing funding and other available incentives for projects that provide housing for Dublin’s special needs populations.

Objectives:
• Collaborate with local organizations and agencies to discuss the needs of persons experiencing homelessness.
• Support and, when possible, fund local and regional efforts to address the housing needs of persons experiencing homelessness.

Timeframe: On a case-by-case basis; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.3; Policy A.4; Policy B.1; Policy B.2; Policy B.3; Policy D.1; Policy D.2
Program B.12: Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Single-Room Occupancy (SROs) Units may provide a valuable source of affordable housing for individuals and may serve as an entry point into the housing market for persons who previously experienced homelessness. The Dublin Municipal Code conditionally permits SROs in the C-2 zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.

Objectives:
• Collaborate with local organizations and agencies to discuss the needs of persons who previously experienced homelessness.
• Support and, when possible, fund local and regional efforts to address the housing needs of persons in Dublin who previously experienced homelessness.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.3; Policy A.4; Policy B.1; Policy B.2; Policy B.3; Policy B.5; Policy D.2
Program B.13: Universal Design Ordinance
In 2007, the City adopted a Universal Design Ordinance that requires new single-family, duplex, and triplex residential dwelling units that are part of residential development projects in excess of 20 residential dwelling units to install base universal design features. In 2010, the Ordinance was amended to meet the current building code and took effect January 1, 2011. The Universal Design Ordinance is substantially the same as the Model Universal Design Local Ordinance adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The City developed a brochure on the Universal Design Ordinance and DRAFT
1145
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-15
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
updates it periodically to ensure that current information regarding the Ordinance is distributed. The brochure and other related information regarding the Ordinance have been posted to the City’s website and is also available at the City Hall.

Objectives:
• Maintain updated information about the Universal Design Ordinance on the City’s website and at City Hall.

Timeframe: Update as necessary; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Permit Processing Fees
Relevant Policies: Policy C.2; Policy E.1; Policy E.2
Program B.14: Residential Incentives
The Sites Inventory (Appendix D) identifies several sites that allow residential and non-residential uses, including the non-vacant sites in Downtown Dublin, the Public/Semi-Public sites, the Alameda County Surplus Properties, the Hacienda Crossings shopping center, and the SCS Property. To encourage residential development on these sites and maximize the development potential identified in the Sites Inventory, the City will promote existing residential incentives and identify potential new incentives as appropriate.

Objectives:
• Promote existing incentives and identify potential new incentives for the development of residential uses on sites identified in the Sites Inventory that allow both residential and nonresidential uses.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.5
Program B.15: Replacement Housing
The City may have existing non-vacant sites included within the Sites Inventory that may contain vacant or demolished residential units that were occupied by lower-income households or households subject to affordability requirements within the last five years. The City will adopt a formal replacement housing program to ensure any units currently occupied by lower-income households, or households subject to affordability requirements within the last five years, that are lost for housing units are replaced in compliance with Government Code Section 65915.

Objectives:
• Adopt a replacement housing program for units lost that are currently occupied by lower-income households or households subject to affordability requirements of Government Code Section 65915 within t
DRAFT
he last five years.
1146
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-16
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Timeframe: Within three years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy C.2; Policy E.1; Policy E.2
C. Adequate Housing Sites
Meeting the housing needs of all segments of the community requires the provision of adequate sites for all types, size, and prices of housing. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance determine where housing may be located, thereby affecting the supply of land available for residential development.

Program C.1: Sites Inventory and RHNA Monitoring
The City has a total RHNA of 3,719 units. State law requires the City to identify sites to accommodate its fair share allocation for the 2023-2031 planning period. The City has identified unit capacity based on pipeline projects, projected ADU development, and existing zoning to accommodate the moderateincome and above moderate-income units.

To meet the remaining RHNA for very low- and low-income units, the City identified the following three rezoning strategies:
• Alameda County Surplus Properties: The City has identified 9.8 buildable acres on two parcels (identified in Appendix D) to be rezoned to permit residential uses at an assumed density of 66 dwelling units per acre. The rezoning would accommodate 645 units, including 323 lower-income units.
• Hacienda Crossings: The City has identified 12.4 buildable acres on two parcels (identified in Appendix D) to be rezoned to permit mixed-use developments at an assumed density of 48 dwelling units per acre. The rezoning would accommodate 594 units, including 297 lower-income units.
• SCS Property: The City has identified 2.5 buildable acres on one parcel (identified in Appendix D) to be rezoned to permit residential uses at an assumed density of 40 dwelling units per acre. The rezoning would accommodate 100 lower-income units.

The City will continue to use Specific Plans and appropriate zoning to ensure that adequate sites are available (as defined Government Code Section 65583) to accommodate the City’s RHNA for all income categories.

The City will monitor housing development citywide on an ongoing basis to ensure that the sites identified in the Sites Inventory are developed at densities appropriate for fulfilling its RHNA requirement for the planning period. Should a project be approved on a site with a lower density than that identified in the Sites Inventory, the City will assess its continued ability to accommodate the RHNA. Should the project result in a shortfall in sites, the City will address the “no net loss” requirements by identifying additional sites to replenish the Sites Inventory in accordance with State law.

Objectives:
• Ensure the sites identified in the Sites Inventory are developed at densities appropriate for fulfilling the City’s RHNA and identify additional sites as necessary. • Complete the rezoning strategies.

DRAFT
1147
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-17
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Timeframe: Complete the rezoning strategies within three years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Review the Sites Inventory annually and as projects are proposed; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.5; Policy B.6
Program C.2: Safety Element and Environmental Justice Policies SB 1035 requires that the City revise the Safety Element to identify flood hazards and address the risk of fire hazards in certain lands upon each revision of the Housing Element. The City Council will adopt amendments to the Safety Element in accordance with the requirements of SB 1035.

SB 1000 requires that the City incorporate environmental justice policies within the General Plan. The City will amend portions of the General Plan to include environmental justice policies in accordance with the requirements of SB 1000.

Objectives:
• Adopt an updated Safety Element, which identifies and addresses flood and fire hazards. • Amend portions of the General Plan to include environmental justice policies.

Timeframe: Within one year of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.3; Policy A.4; Policy B.1 D. Removal of Governmental Constraints
Under State law, the Housing Element must address, and where legally possible, remove governmental constraints affecting the maintenance, improvement, and development of affordable housing. The following programs are designed to mitigate government constraints and facilitate development of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households, including families, seniors, and persons with special needs.

Program D.1: Remove Development Constraints
City Staff will review the Zoning Ordinance to identify standards and requirements that may constrain the development of affordable housing in Dublin. Specifically, the City will review requirements such as, but not limited to, minimum unit size, setbacks, parking requirements, and height restrictions, to ensure the standards do not impede reasonable development.

The City will continue to provide streamlined processing for eligible affordable housing projects.

Objectives:
• Review residential development standards for potential constraints to the development of new units, particularly affordable units.

DRAFT
1148
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-18
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Timeframe: On a case-by-case basis; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.3; Policy A.4; Policy B.1 Program D.2: Fee Deferment
The City offers two Fee Deferral Programs for residential projects: one for multi-family residential projects within the Transit Districts and one for on-site construction of affordable units. The City will continue to offer multi-family residential development deferral allows the Traffic Impact Fees, Public Facilities Fees, and Fire Facilities Fees to be paid just prior to occupancy, rather than prior to issuance of a building permit.

Additionally, pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.68.070, the City will continue to offer deferment of development processing and development impact fees for affordable housing projects that exceed the inclusionary housing requirementsto reduce the initial cost impact on an affordable housing project.

Objectives:
• Continue to offer the deferment of Traffic Impact Fees, Public Facilities Fees, and Fire Facilities Fees for multi-family projects in the Transit Districts and development processing and development impact fees for affordable housing projects that exceed the inclusionary housing requirements for on-site construction of affordable units. • Maintain updated information on the City’s affordable housing incentives, such as density bonus and fee deferment, on the City’s website.

Timeframe: On a case-by-case basis; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.2
Program D.3: Emergency Shelters
Pursuant to the provisions of SB 2, the City will continue to facilitate the establishment of emergency shelters, and transitional and supportive housing. With approximately 96 acres of land in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district, there is sufficient land available for at least one emergency shelter. The City will review, and revise as appropriate, zoning, development standards, and procedures for consistency with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4).

Objectives:
• Review and amend, if necessary, the Emergency Shelters Ordinance for consistency with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4).

Timeframe: Within two years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant
DRAFT
Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.4; Policy A.6; Policy D.2 1149
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-19
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Program D.4: Monitoring of Development Fees
The City facilitates and encourages the development of a variety of housing types in the community. On a regular basis, the City monitors its development fees to ensure they are reasonable and do not unduly constrain housing development, while protecting the quality, health, and public safety of the community.

Objectives:
• The City will evaluate development fee impacts on housing development and make appropriate adjustments.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.2; Policy A.3
Program D.5: Maintain Zoning, Development Standards, and Fee Schedules Online Pursuant to government transparency laws contained in Government Code Section 65940.19(a)(1)(B), the City will continue to maintain all zoning, development standards, and fee schedules on the City’s website.

Objectives:
• Maintain updated zoning, development standards, and fee schedules on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.3
E. Promoting Equal Housing Opportunities
To adequately meet the housing needs of all segments of the community, the Housing Plan must include programs promoting housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, age, gender, gender identity and expression, marital status, familial status, medical condition or disability, military or veteran status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic.

Program E.1: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Pursuant to AB 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that foster inclusive communities free from barriers, which restrict access to opportunities based on protected classes, as defined by State law. To accomplish this, the City will collaborate with local and regional organizations to review any housing discrimination complaints, assist in dispute resolution, and refer select complainants to appropriate state or federal agencies for further investigation, action, and resolution.

The City will continue to collaborate with the community, stakeholders, and appropriate organizations to address potential constraints to fair housing. This may include, but is not limited to:
• Analyze and identify barriers to entry into homeownership or rental opportunities. • Review restrictions t
DRAFT
hat may prevent disadvantaged groups from locating in Dublin. 1150
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-20
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Foster a more inclusive community for all disadvantaged groups.

Objectives:
• Develop and adopt environmental justice policies in the General Plan. • Review and identify regulations that contribute to disparities in access to housing and consider innovative solutions to encourage diversified development and support opportunities for wealth building through home ownership.
• Research and consider adopting additional policies and regulations to combat displacement. • Collaborate with local community organizations and agencies to better understand and identify solutions to the needs of the community, specifically special needs populations.

Timeframe: Within three years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Review annually; 2023- 2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund; State and Federal Grants
Relevant Policies: Policy A.2; Policy A.4; Policy A.5; Policy A.6; Policy B.1; Policy B.2; Policy B.3; Policy B.4; Policy B.5; Policy D.1; Policy D.2; Policy D.3
Program E.2: Equal Housing Opportunity
The City contracts through Alameda County with ECHO Housing to investigate fair housing complaints and provide fair housing counseling and mediation services. The City will continue to be the point-of-contact for fair housing complaints, information requests, and referrals to ECHO Housing.

The City will also continue to provide information and educational materials on fair housing services for property owners, apartment managers, and tenants at City Hall and on the City’s website.

Objectives:
• Provide referrals to appropriate agencies for services. • Distribute fair housing information in public locations. • Post fair housing information on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department; ECHO Housing; Alameda County Community Development Agency
Funding Source: CDBG; General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy D.1; Policy D.2; Policy D.3
Program E.3: Reasonable Accommodations
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, the City is obligated to remove potential and actual governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, requires that cities and counties provide reasonable accommodation to rules, policies, practices, and procedures where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities.

Reasonable accommodation provides a basis for residents with disabilities to request flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain regulations or requirements to ensure equal access to housing opportunities. The City is required to consider re DRAFT
quests
1151
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-21
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and case law interpreting the statutes. In compliance with Government Code Section 65583, the City provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.38.

The City encourages and promotes accessible housing for persons with disabilities. City Staff considers the provisions of the California Americans with Disabilities Act (Cal ADA) when reviewing and approving housing projects and grants modifications and deviations from the Dublin Municipal Code to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.

The City will provide information about its formal reasonable accommodation procedures at City Hall and on the City’s website, as well as monitor procedures and requirements.

Objectives:
• Maintain updated information on reasonable accommodations on the City’s website and at City Hall.
• Review and update applicable procedures and/or requirements to remove potential constraints.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031; If determined to be necessary, the City will amend its procedures and/or requirements within six months
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.4; Policy D.2
Program E.4: Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
Senate Bill 48 (SB 48) requires approval 'by right' of certain low-barrier navigation centers that meet specified requirements. Low-barrier navigation centers are generally defined as service-enriched temporary living facilities focused on the transition of persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless into permanent housing. Low-barrier navigation centers connect individuals to income, public benefits, health services, and housing.

To comply with State law, the City will adopt regulations and procedures for thistype of use andestablish a ministerial approval process for low-barrier navigation centers. In the interim, any submitted application for this use type will be processed in accordance with State law.

The City will also monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness of these regulations and procedures.

Should any amendments be warranted pursuantto State law, the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance.

Objectives:
• Adopt and implement procedures and regulations to process low-barrier navigation centers.

Procedures shall include establishing a ministerial approval process. • Annually review, and if necessary, update regulations and procedures to comply with State law.

DRAFT
1152
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-22
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Timeframe: Within three years of adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Review annually; 2023- 2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.4; Policy D.2
Program E.5: Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities The housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities are typically not fully addressed by local zoning regulations and may require modifications to existing units, varying range of supportive services, and affordable housing. To accommodate residents with developmental disabilities, the City will encourage construction and rehabilitation of housing with supportive services targeted for persons with developmental disabilities. The City will also seek State and Federal funding in support of housing construction and rehabilitation targeted for persons with developmental disabilities.

The City will explore the granting of regulatory incentives, such as expedited permit processing and fee deferrals, to projects targeted for persons with developmental disabilities. To further facilitate the development of units to accommodate persons with developmental disabilities, the City will collaborate with developers of supportive housing. As such housing is developed, the City will collaborate with the Regional Center of the East Bay to implement an outreach program informing families within Dublin of housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities.

Objectives:
• Encourage construction and rehabilitation of housing with supportive services for persons with developmental disabilities.
• Seek State and Federal funding to support housing construction for persons with developmental disabilities.
• Review and consider regulatory incentives for projects proposing housing for persons with developmental disabilities.
• Collaborate with housing developers and local organizations to identify the needs of local persons with developmental disabilities.

Timeframe: Within three years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Review annually; 2023- 2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.4; Policy D.1; Policy D.2 Program E.6: Farmworker and Employee Housing
The California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 requires agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in single-family residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. The City will amend the Dublin Municipal Code to comply with the Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8, as well as define agricultural and employee housing in a manner consistent with applicable Health and Safety Code Sections. Additionally, the Dublin Municipal DRAFT
1153
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-23
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Code will be amended to state employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds will be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone.

Objectives:
• Amend the Dublin Municipal Code to comply with the Health and Safety Code; update as necessary throughout the planning period.

Timeframe: Within three years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Review annually; 2023- 2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1; Policy A.4
Program E.7: First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program
In 2006, the City initiated a First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program (FTHLP) to assist households with financing the purchase of a home. The FTHLP program provides 30-year deferred loans for households earning up to 120 percent of Alameda County area median income (AMI). The FTHLP program may be used in conjunction with the Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) program and other state or federal home ownership programs.

Objectives:
• Promote the FTHLP program online on the City’s website and at the public counter. • Provide FTHLP loans to households earning up to 120 percent AMI. • Review the FTHLP for opportunities to broaden the use of the program and to ensure compatibility with similar loan programs offered by the County and the State.

Timeframe: Within three years of adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element; Review annually; 2023- 2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund; State and Federal Grants Relevant Policies: Policy B.5
Program E.8: Homeless Assistance
The City will continue to support the Alameda County Homeless Continuum of Care Council (HCCC) and support agencies and organizations that seek to address the problem of homelessness throughout the region. Dublin provided funding to the Alameda Countywide HCCC for development of a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS is intended to collect and report information about the homeless population and its patterns of service utilization. The City also provides Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the Tri-Valley Haven to assist a domestic violence shelter (Shiloh) and a homeless shelter (Sojourner House), both located in Livermore. In addition, the City provided CDBG capital funds, totaling $630,000, to assist in the construction of a commercial kitchen for Open Heart Kitchen, a Tri
DRAFT -Valley non-profit providing food to people experiencing homelessness. 1154
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-24
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Objectives:
• Support and, when possible, fund local and regional efforts that seek to address and lessen homelessness.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department; HCCC; Tri-Valley Haven Funding Source: CDBG; State and Federal Grants; General Fund Relevant Policies: Policy A.6
Program E.9: Water and Sewer Service Providers
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7, the City is required to deliver its adopted Housing Element, and any amendments thereto, to local water and sewer service providers. This legislation allows for coordination between the City and water and sewer providers when considering approval of new residential projects. Water and sewer service is provided to the City by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), who had the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the Public Review Draft of the Housing Element. The City will submit the adopted Housing Element to DSRSD.

Objectives:
• Deliver 2023-2031 Housing Element to DSRSD following adoption. • Coordinate with DSRSD when reviewing proposed residential projects.

Timeframe: Immediately after adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy A.1
F. Green Building Programs
Green building refers to the use of environmentally preferable practices and materials in the design, location, construction, operation, and disposal of buildings. It applies to both renovation and retrofitting of existing buildings and construction of new buildings, whether residential or commercial, public, or private. By continually improving how to locate, design, build, operate, and retrofit buildings, the City can contribute to improving the environment and quality of life. Advanced energy-saving technologies applied in buildings can result in enormous reductions in demand for fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions.

Better design and building practices can also help address environmental challenges such as natural resource depletion, waste disposal, and air, water, and soil pollution. Green building practices can also help improve health and prosperity.

Program F.1: Green Building Guidelines
The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance in April 2009. The City also reviews projects based on the California Green Building Standards Codes (CGBSC), which applies to all projects that require a building permit. In addition to the base requirements of CGBSC, the City has adopted the Tier 2 tables for electric vehicle (EV) charging space calculations, as well as solar energy requirements as defined by the California Energy Code, Title 23 Part 6. The City maintains a brochure about the Green Building Ordinance and continues to update information on green building guidelines on the City’s website.

DRAFT
1155
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-25
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Objectives:
• Continue to implement the provisions of the Green Building Ordinance and State Standards and Codes.
• Continue to update brochures that describe program requirements and make them available to any interested parties and continue to provide Green Building resources on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Update as necessary; Review annually; 2023-2031 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Permit Processing Fees; General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy E.1; Policy E.2; Policy E.3; Policy E.4; Policy E.5; Policy E.6 Program F.2: Energy Conservation
The City will promote energy conservation through the following actions:
• Continue to implement the Waste Management Authority’s model ordinance on recycling of construction waste.
• Continue to implement state building standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) regarding energy efficiency in residential construction. • Continue to provide on-site training for Staff on Green Building techniques. • Continue to review proposed developments for solar access, site design techniques, and use of landscaping that can increase energy efficiency and reduce lifetime energy costs without significantly increasing housing production costs.
• Enroll all new residential electrical accounts to East Bay Community Energy’s Renewable 100 plan, which offers 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity. • Maintain energy conservation and financial incentive (such as tax credits and utility rebates) information on the City’s website and promote at community workshops.

Objectives:
• Implement applicable Building Code regulations, provide Green Building training to Staff, and distribute energy conservation information to the public.

Timeframe: Review annually; 2023-2031
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Permit Processing Fees; General Fund
Relevant Policies: Policy E.1; Policy E.2; Policy E.3; Policy E.4; Policy E.5; Policy E.6 DRAFT
1156
Chapter 2: Housing Plan 2-26
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

3. Summary of Quantified Objectives
Table 4-1 summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period by income group.

Table 4-1: 6th Planning Cycle Quantified Objectives
Objectives
Income Level
Extremely TOTAL
Low*
Very
Low* Low Moderate Above Moderate
RHNA 542 543 625 560 1,449 3,719
Home Repair/ Rehabilitation 0 16 16 0 0 32
Rental Assistance** 2,800 0 0 0 2,800
Home Purchase Assistance 0 0 0 10 10 20
At-Risk Housing Units 59 0 0 59
* Extremely low-income housing need calculated as 50 percent of the very low-income RHNA. ** Provide housing choice voucher rental assistance for 350 extremely low- and very low-income households each year throughout the Planning Period.

DRAFT
1157

APPENDIX A:

REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
1158
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-2
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A. Review of Past Performance
The following is a review of the City’s housing project and program performance in the 2014-2022 Planning Period. It is an evaluation of the 5th Cycle’s Policy Program and considers all current and existing programs and projects, as well as the most current effectiveness and appropriateness for the 2023-2031 6th Cycle. Table A-1 summarizes the City’s quantified accomplishments for 2014-2022.

Table A-1: 5th Planning Cycle Quantified Accomplishments Housing Assistance Type RHNA Accomplishments
RHNA
Very Low-Income 796 26
Low-Income 446 39
Moderate-Income 425 79
Above Moderate-Income 618 4,878
TOTAL 2,285 5,022
Home Repair/ Rehabilitation
Very Low-Income 16
21 Low-Income 16
TOTAL 32 21
Low-Income Rental Assistance 350 407
Home Purchase Assistance
Moderate-Income 10
4 Above Moderate-Income 10
At-Risk Housing 0 0

1. Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs As part of analyzing prior programs, this Appendix must provide an outline of the effectiveness of goals, policies, programs, and objectives in meeting the housing needs of Dublin’s special needs populations.

The following section identifies 5th Cycle accomplishments by special needs groups.

Seniors
Appendix B: Community Profile shows that 9.2 percent of Dublin residents are over the age of 65.

Senior housing is permitted in the form of community care facilities. A Community Care Facility/Small is permitted in all residential zoning districts and the agricultural zoning district. A Community Care Facility/Large is permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in all residential zoning districts and the C-1, C-2, M-P, and M-1 zoning districts. Supportive Housing - Small is permitted in the agricultural zoning district and all residential zoning districts. Supportive Housing/Large is currently permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in all residential zoning districts and the C-1, C-2, M-P, and M-1 zoning districts. In addition, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 provides for density bonuses and other incentives for the development of Senior Housing.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental subsidies to extremely low- and very low-income households, including families, seniors, and the disabled. The Alameda County Housing Authority annually provided Housing Choice Vouchers to 407 households who rented in Dublin between2019 and 2021. DRAFT
1159
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-3
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
The City offers deferment of development processing and development impact fees for affordable housing projects that exceed the inclusionary housing requirementsto reduce the initial cost impact on an affordable housing project. While no senior housing projects took advantage of the incentive during the 5th Cycle, the City provides information on the City’s website and promotes the incentive in conversations with developers.

In addition, a variety of community resources exist for Dublin seniors. The Dublin Senior Center offers a library, computer area, and common spaces, as well as classes and activities. The Open Heart Kitchen also distributes takeout lunches to participating senior residents throughout the community.

Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities may require varying accessibility improvements and may also have a limited ability to earn adequate income. According to 2019 ACS data, about 13.7 percent of the Dublin population has a disability. The most common disabilities in Dublin are ambulatory, independent living, and cognitive difficulties.

Using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the Alameda County Community Development Agency administers minor home rehabilitation grants and home improvement loan assistance. Between 2015 and 2021, the Alameda County Community Development Agency has provided 22 Minor Home Repair Grants, one Housing Rehabilitation Loan, and two Accessibility Improvements Grants in Dublin.

In addition, the City worked with housing developers to fund and support the development of affordable units. This included the development of Valor Crossing which received support from the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Program.

Large Households
Large households consist of five or more residents and may have a harder time finding adequately sized units to avoid overcrowding. Table B-24 in Appendix B shows that nine percent of Dublin households have five or more members, this includes 5.5 percent five-person households, 2.9 percent six-person households, and 0.6 percent seven-or-more person households.

Large, lower-income households may qualify for Housing Choice Vouchers. As noted above, the Alameda County Housing Authority annually provided Housing Choice Vouchers to 407 households who rented in Dublin between 2019 and 2021.

Farmworkers
Farmworkers include persons seasonally or permanently employed in the agricultural industry and generally earn lower incomes than many other workers. According to ACS data, there were 114 people employed in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining sector in Dublin in 2019. According to the California Employment Development Division, Dublin residents employed in the farming, fishing, and forestry occupation earn one of the lowest salaries in comparison to other occupations in Alameda County, with an estimated median
DRAFT
income of $35,142.
1160
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-4
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Agricultural housing is currently permitted in the agricultural zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. Given new provisions in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, Program E.6 has been included in the Housing Plan to permit agricultural housing, by-right, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in singlefamily residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zoning districts for up to 12 units or 36 beds.

Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special consideration and assistance due to their greater need for affordable and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Single parents make up 9.2 percent of Dublin households, with 3.9 percent being single mothers and 5.3 percent being single fathers. Approximately 1.4 percent of households are single parentsliving under the poverty line.

Lower-income single-parent households may also be eligible for Housing Choice Vouchers and may represent a portion of the 407 Dublin households that received rental assistance annually between 2019 and 2021.

The City offers a variety of community resources for children and single parents in the community. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) serves over 12,300 students from preschool through adult education courses. The DUSD includes seven elementary schools, two middle schools, one K-8 school, one continuation high school, and one comprehensive high school. The DUSD and its schools have been recognized with numerous accolades, including the Advanced Placement Honor Roll, National Blue Ribbon School, Gold Ribbon Award, Project Lead the Way Distinguished School, California School of Character, National School of Character, Educational Results Partnership Honor Roll, California Distinguished School, and Title 1 Academic Achievement Award School. Dublin High School is also renowned for its signature programs, including the Engineering Academy, which prepares students to succeed in a post-secondary engineering program; the Biomedical Academy, which prepares students for a post-secondary education in biomedical sciences; and the Culinary Academy, which prepares students for a post-secondary education in the culinary arts. All of Dublin’s elementary schools offer childcare programs daily from 7:00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. for school-age children. The program is offered by Extended Day Child Care (EDCC) which leases space from the DUSD.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness has become an increasingly important issue in the region and throughout California.

There are multiple factors that may contribute to a person experiencing homelessness; Appendix B:

Community Profile provides a detailed definition of “homelessness” and an analysis of the City and County’s unhoused population.

The City supports the Alameda County Homeless Continuum of Care Council (HCCC) and other local agencies and organizations that assist persons experiencing homelessness and prevent homelessness.

Throughout the 5th Cycle, the City provided funding to HCCC to develop a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) intended to collect and report information about the homeless population and its patter
DRAFT
ns of service utilization.
1161
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-5
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
The City funds regional homeless assistance program and participate in regional efforts to address homelessness. City Staff regularly attends meetings organized by Everyone Home and the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development. In late 2018, the City partnered with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton to apply for Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funds in order for CityServe to enhance their homeless outreach and services. CityServe of the Tri-Valley offers assistance to people in crisis; in 2019, the Cities signed agreements to continue the efforts.

Additionally, the City provides CDBG funding to the Tri-Valley Haven to assist a domestic violence shelter (Shiloh) and a homeless shelter (Sojourner House), both located in Livermore.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households are those that earn 30 percent or less of the area median income (AMI) for Alameda County. Extremely low-income households may require rental assistance and other community services assistance. According to CHAS Data, there are approximately 1,295 extremely lowincome households in Dublin, including both renters and homeowners. The City currently has 2,154 deed-restricted affordable housing units.

Throughout the 5th Cycle, the City facilitated the development of affordable housing. Valor Crossing, Camellia Place, the Groves at Dublin Ranch projects were facilitated by the City and include a range of affordable units, including units for extremely low-income households. A total of 79 affordable units were produced between 2015 and 2017, including 20 units set aside for extremely low-income residents and veterans. The City issued Planning entitlements for two notable projects in 2021: the 300-unit Amador Station (BRIDGE Housing) affordable project and the 113-unit Regional Street Senior Affordable Apartments (Eden Housing). In December 2020, the Dublin City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and prepare a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the transfer of approximately one-acre of property in the East Dublin Transit Center for as an affordable housing site development. Once the property has transferred, Staff will work with an affordable housing developer to facilitate development of the site.

The City offers assistance in accessing local, state, and federal funding for affordable housing, as well as technical assistance. In 2001, the City was awarded $3,333,333 in Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) for the 113-unit Regional Street (Eden Housing) affordable project on the 1.3-acre site located at 6541 Regional Street, which is associated with the adjacent Saint Patrick Way Residential Project. The matching funds include the 1.3-acre site, valued at approximately $5 million, plus $5 million from the Alameda County A-1 Bond. Additionally, the City has written letters of support for funding for projects that have received permit approvals by the City. The City negotiates specific incentive packages for each applicable project, with increased incentives for projects that include units for extremely low-income households and persons with disabilities.

Commercial Linkage Fees are collected from developers upon issuance of building permits for commercial development and are placed in the City’s Affordable Housing Fund along with in-lieu fees collected from developers for residential development. The Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) was used to facilitate the development of Valor Crossing, which includes 20 extremely low DRAFT
-income units, six very
1162
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-6
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
low-income units, and 39 low-income units. The AHF is also used to negotiate with other developers looking to build affordable housing.

Extremely low-income households may also be eligible for Housing Choice Vouchers and represent a portion of the 407 Dublin households that annually received rental assistance between 2019 and 2021.

2. 5th Planning Cycle Program Accomplishments
Table A-2 provides detailed, program-specific accomplishments for 2015-2021. The City has demonstrated significant effort in working towards accomplishing many of the objectives established in the 5th Planning Cycle Housing Element. The City’s successful programs have been identified as ongoing for the 2023-2031 planning cycle. Various programs have been modified to account for new requirements and changes in State law.

DRAFT
1163
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-7
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle

1. Housing Conservation and Preservation
Program 1: Housing
Rehabilitation
Assistance
• Continue to support the
Alameda County Community
Development Agency to
implement the Minor and
Major Home Improvement
Programs (including
accessibility grants) with the
goal of assisting 32
households over eight years.

Minor home rehabilitation grants and home improvement loan assistance are available to low-income households through existing Alameda County programs. Alameda County Healthy Homes Department Minor Home Rehabilitation Program provides grants up to $3,000 to low-income homeowners for minor plumbing, carpentry, and electrical repairs and can be used for railings, grab bars, toilets, waterheaters, doors, locks, and more. Renew Alameda County (Renew AC) is a home improvement loan assistance program for low-income homeowners throughout the County.

Renew AC aims to help keep existing homeowners in their homes and maintain existing housing stock in a safe, livable condition.

On November 7, 2020, the City Council approved the Dublin Home Rehabilitation Program to provide supplemental assistance to homeowners that may have received a grant or loan through the County's programs and need additional funding assistance or were turned down because they were not able to meet all of the County's criteria.

Following is a summary of grants and loans provided throughout the 5th Housing Element cycle:
2015:
• Minor Home Repair Grants - 4
• Accessibility Improvement Grants - 1
• Total - 5
2016:
• Minor Home Repair Grants - 1
• Accessibility Improvement Grants - 1
• Total - 2
2017:
• Housing Rehabilitation Loans- 1
Ongoing.

Dublin residents
successfully benefitted from
CDBG funding opportunities
during the 5th Planning
Cycle with a total of 22
Minor Home Repair Grants,
two Accessibility
Improvement Grants, and
one Housing Rehabilitation
Loan. The City will continue
to support the Alameda
County Community
Development Agency
through the 2023-2031
planning cycle.

DRAFT
1164
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-8
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle • Total - 1
2018:
• Minor Home Repair Grants - 6
• Total - 6
2019:
• Minor Home Repair Grants - 7
2021:
• Minor Home Repair Grants - 4
Total:
• Minor Home Repair Grants - 22
• Accessibility Improvement Grants - 2
• Exterior Paint Grants - 0
• Housing Rehabilitation Loans - 1
• Total-25
Program 2: Housing
Choice Voucher
Rental Assistance
• Continue to support the
assistance of 350 lower
income households each year
throughout the planning
period.
• Continue to refer interested
households and homeowners
to the Housing Authority of
the County of Alameda.

The City continues to refer interested households and homeowners to the Alameda County Housing Authority for program information and application procedures. In addition, the City provided information on developments within the City that accept Housing Choice Vouchers in the Tri-Valley Area Affordable Rental Housing Flyer listing Dublin rental communities. With the new requirements under AB 1482, the City has posted notices at City Offices and updated contact information on its website for tenants’ rental assistance resources.

The Alameda County Housing Authority annually provided Housing Choice Vouchers to 407 households who rented in Dublin between 2019 and 2021.

In 2019, the City signed agreements with the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and Alameda County to pool Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funds in order for CityServe to enhance their homeless Ongoing.

The City successfully
provided rental assistance
to a number of households
during the 5th planning cycle
through a variety of
methods. The needs of
Dublin’s rental community
continue to be an important
element to address. As
such, the City will continue
to provide assistance
throughout the 2023-2031
planning cycle.

DRAFT
1165
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-9
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle outreach and services throughout the region. For the 2020-2021 contract, the City of Dublin contributed $34,976.50.

In May 2020, the City selected CityServeto receive a COVID-19 Community Relief Response Grant of $50,500 from East Bay Community Energy to administer an emergency rental assistance program. A total of $42,925 was distributed to help 27 households in the community with an average rental assistance payment of $1,600 paid directly to rental property owners. Additionally, the City administered an Emergency Rental Assistance Program utilizing $176,277 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CARES Act funds and assisted 40 Dublin households in 2021.

Program 3: Code
Enforcement
• Continue to enforce local
ordinances relating to
property maintenance and
substandard housing both
proactively and on a
complaint basis.
• Conduct approximately 2,000
residential inspections during
the planning period.
• Perform annual review of
City ordinances.

There are two areas of Code Enforcement: Planning Code Enforcement and Building Code Enforcement. Planning Code Enforcement enforces violations of the Dublin Municipal Code Property Maintenance and Graffiti Ordinances, as well as the Zoning Ordinance. Common property maintenance violations include weeds, inoperable vehicles, junk and debris, deteriorated paint, dilapidated fences, overgrown/dead vegetation, attractive nuisances, and graffiti. Property maintenance violations are enforced proactively and on a complaint basis. Building Code Enforcement actively patrols City streets enforcing Building Code Violations, such as contractors or homeowners working without required building permits. In addition, Building Code Enforcement responds to anonymous callers, concerned citizens, and other contractors reporting any activity connected to illegal construction. Enforcement officers spend time educating the public on the importance of obtaining required building permits.

The following residential inspections were conducted (these numbers are based on the number of new open residential code enforcement cases):
2015: Planning - 320; Building - 115; Total - 435
2016: Planning - 232; Building - 54; Total - 286
Ongoing.

Safety and well-being are
critical to the livability of a
residence and the quality of
neighborhoods. The City
successfully assisted 1,634
total households with open
code enforcement cases
during the 5th planning
cycle. The City will continue
to work with property
owners to maintain code
compliance and safe, living
environments.

DRAFT
1166
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-10
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle 2017: Planning - 231; Building - 57; Total - 288
2018: Planning - 201; Building - 60; Total - 261
2019: Planning - 188; Building - 43; Total - 231
2020: Planning - 92; Building - 42; Total - 134
2021: Planning - 104; Building - 46; Total - 150
Total: Planning - 1,368; Building - 417; Total - 1,785
Program 4:

Condominium
Conversion
Ordinance
• Monitor conversion activities
annually.

There were no residential condominium conversions during the 5th Planning Cycle.

Ongoing.

The City will continue to
implement the
Condominium Conversion
Ordinance through the
2023-2031 planning cycle.

2. Housing Production
Program 5: Mixed
Use Development
• Facilitate the construction of
100 high-density residential
units within mixed-use
developments within the
planning period.

The City issued a building permit in 2015 for the Aster project, which consisted of 314 residential units with 17,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. In 2021, the City approved the Amador Station project, which consisted of 300 affordable residential units in two separate buildings, ground-floor retail, amenity space, and parking.

Ongoing.

The City was successful in
facilitating the development
of 314 mixed-use units
during the 5th planning
cycle. The City will continue
to promote high-density
residential mixed-use
projects in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area, as
well as near BART Stations,
throughout the 2023-2031
planning cycle.

Program 6:

Affordable Housing
Developers
• Negotiate specific incentives
package for each project,
with increased incentives for
projects that include units for
The City worked closely with Eden Housing on the development of Valor Crossing, a 66-unit affordable rental development that includes 20 extremely low-income units, with support from the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. The City provided support letters and Ongoing.

The City was successful in
working with developers to
DRAFT
accommodate affordable
1167
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-11
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle extremely low income
households and persons with
disabilities.
• Provide application/technical
assistance as needed. Timing
of applications or technical
assistance will depend on
application deadlines for
funding sources.
• Provide assistance to
affordable housing
developers within the
planning period to facilitate
the construction of 100
affordable housing units
within the planning period,
with the goal of achieving 20
affordable units for
extremely low income
households and/or persons
with special needs (including
persons with
disabilities/development
disabilities).
• Annually contact developers
to discuss affordable housing
opportunities.
application assistancefor funding opportunities. In addition to facilitating land acquisition for the site and providing a $6.4 million loan, the City approved reduced parking for the project. The project broke ground in November 2015 and was fully occupied in 2017.

Throughout the 5th Planning Cycle, the City met with several affordable housing developers to discuss potential affordable housing development projects and opportunities on both publicly and privately-owned propertiesin Dublin.

Between 2015 and 2017, the City worked with developers to produce 79 affordable dwelling units (20 of which were set aside of extremely lowincome residents and veterans). 2019:

In 2019, the City received an Award of Merit from the California Association for Local Economic Development and a Helen Putnam Award from the League of California Cities for the Valor Crossing project. 2020:

On September 1, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution, authorizing the City to become an additional member of the California Community Housing Agency (CalCHA); supporting CalCHA’s issuance of tax-exempt bonds for the production, preservation, and protection of essential middle-income rental housing; and authorizing the City Manager to enter into Purchase Option Agreements with CalCHA for essential middleincome rental housing created within the City limits. The CalCHA Program provides affordable housing targeted at moderate and middle-income households earning between 81-120 percent of the area median income (AMI).
housing units on a variety of
projects during the 5th
planning cycle. The City will
continue to facilitate
conversation, provide
incentives, and when
possible, provide funding
assistance to proposed
residential projects which
include affordable housing
components. This will be
additionally important
during the 2023-2031
planning cycle to meet the
City’s RHNA allocation.

DRAFT
1168
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-12
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle On December 1, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and prepare a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the transfer of approximately one-acre of property in the East Dublin Transit Center, located at the southeast corner of Iron Horse Parkway and Martinelli Drive, commonly known as Site D-1, from the Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County to the City of Dublin, or its designee, for as an affordable housing site development. Once the property has transfer, Staff will work with an affordable housing developer to facilitate development of the site.
2021:

The City issued Planning entitlements for three projects in 2021: the 573- unit East Ranch project, which includes 68 affordable units; the 300-unit Amador Station (BRIDGE Housing) affordable project; and the 113-unit Regional Street (Eden Housing) affordable project for a total of 481 affordable units combined between all three projects. The East Ranch project also includes the dedication of a two-acre Public/Semi-Public site for a future affordable housing project. Preliminarily, this site would provide 77 units of very low/low-income affordable rental housing.

In 2021, the City also joined California Statewide Community Development Authority (CSCDA), which allows for the issuance of bonds to acquire properties for the production, preservation, and protection of essential middle-income rental housing. Three properties in Dublin were acquired through the CalCHA and CSCDA programs in 2021, including the 313-unit Aster project, the 390-unit Waterford Place Apartments, and the 324-unit Fountains at Emerald Park, which have resulted in conversion of 76 units that are now affordable to households earning no more than 80 percent AMI, 55 units affordable to households earning no more than 100 percent AMI, and 40 units affordable to households earning no more than 120 DRAFT
percent AMI.
1169
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-13
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle Staff continues to meet with several affordable housing developers to discuss potential affordable housing development projects and opportunities in Dublin on both publicly and privately-owned properties.

Program 7: Density
Bonuses
• Review and, as necessary,
revise the Density Bonus
Ordinance to ensure
compliance with State Law
within two years of adoption
2015-2023 Housing Element.
• Continue to implement the
Density Bonus Ordinance and
provide information on the
Ordinance to developers and
other interested parties.
• Provide information on the
City’s affordable housing
incentives, such as density
bonus and fee deferment or
amortization, on the City’s
website by mid-2015.

The City continues to implement the Density Bonus Ordinance, monitor state legislation, and make necessary changes as needed, and provide information to developers and other interested parties. The City provides information on the City's affordable housing incentives at:
http://www.dublin.ca.gov> Government > Departments > Community Development > Housing > Affordable Housing Development Information In November 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14-19, amending the Density Bonus Regulations (Chapter 8.52) of the Dublin Municipal Code to comply with State law.

Modify.

The City will continue to
implement the Density
Bonus Ordinance, as well as
update it as necessary to
maintain compliance with
State law. The City will also
continue to promote the
Density Bonus Ordinance
and its regulations and
development incentivesto
promote the development
of affordable housing units
throughout the 2023-2031
planning cycle.

Program 8:

Inclusionary Zoning
• Facilitate the construction of
100 affordable housing units
either through direct
construction or through the
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu
Fund within the planning
period.
2015:

In 2015, the City issued permits for a 66-unit affordable rental development, Valor Crossing, by Eden Housing, Inc. This affordable development was made possible in part through a land dedication (the affordable housing project site) by the developer of a market rate residential project on a parcel located to the north of the affordable housing site. The market rate developer fulfilled the inclusionary housing obligation for 313 market rate units by transferring ownership of the 1.37 acre site for the affordable housing project. In addition, the City issued a $6.4 million loan to Eden Housing, Inc. for the Dublin Family Apartments project from the Affordable Housing Fund.

Ongoing.

The City was successful in
developing affordable units
and in collecting in-lieu
funds throughout the 5th
planning cycle.

The City will continue to
implement the Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance
throughout the 2023-2031
DRAFT
planning cycle. The City will
1170
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-14
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle The City also issued permits for threedeed-restricted moderate-income units at Tribeca. These units are part of the inclusionary housing obligation for the Transit Center development area. The project will offer a total of five moderate-income homes.
2016:

In 2016, the City issued permits for the two remaining deed-restricted moderate-income units at Tribeca.
2017:

In 2017, the City issued eightbuilding permits for moderate-income ADUs in Tassajara Hills
2018:

In 2018, the City issued 17 building permits for moderate-income ADUsin Tassajara Hills. The City has also received an agreement for the Saint Patrick Way project developer to dedicate a 1.3-acre parcel to an affordable housing developer for a future affordable housing project. 2020:

In July 2020, the City issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the creation of affordable rental housing in Dublin. Approximately $10 million in funding was available to support predevelopment, acquisition, and construction of affordable rental housing fromthe City’s Affordable Housing Fund and Alameda County A-1 Bond. The funding was intended to provide gap financing between a project’s total development cost and other available financing sources. Eligible projects were required to be new construction rental development, and target extremely low-, verylow-, and/or low-income households earning up to a maximum of 80 percent area median income. The NOFA resulted in two proposals: a 77- unit project at 6501 Golden Gate Drive that is part of a larger multi-phase promote the Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance.

DRAFT
1171
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-15
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle project proposed by BRIDGE Housing, and a 121-unit project proposed by Eden Housing at 7922 Dublin Boulevard. The City Council directed Staff to work with BRIDGE Housing to refine their proposal, while also continuing discussions with Eden Housing.

Additionally, Staff worked with Eden Housing on a preliminary proposal for the State’s Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) grant program to develop between 70 and 114 units of affordable housing with a projected total development cost of between $46 million and $74 million. This proposal, together with a reservation of units from the Downtown Dublin Development Pool and a request to authorize the City Manager to submit the grant application, were presented to the City Council on July 21, 2020.

At that meeting, the City Council also directed Staff to issue a Letter of Intent to Eden to provide matching funds that are required by the grant.

The matching funds include the 1.3-acre site, valued at approximately $5 million, plus $5 million from the Alameda County A-1 Bond.

Furthermore, the City issued building permits for 27 affordable units in 2020.
2021:

In 2021, the City was awarded $3,333,333 in LHTF funding, for the proposed affordable housing project by Eden on the 1.3-acre site located at 6541 Regional Street, which is associated with the adjacent Saint Patrick Way Residential Project.

In 2021, the City approved a 300-unit residential project called Amador Station,which will be built in two phases. Phase I will include 136 units affordable to households earning an average of no more than 43 percent area median income (AMI) (excluding two manager’s units). Phase II of DRAFT
Amador Station will include 164 units affordable at a minimum to 1172
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-16
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle moderate-income households (excluding two manager’s units). In addition, the City also approved the Regional Street Senior Affordable project, which will include 113 units affordable to senior households earning no more than 60 percent AMI, of which 30 percent of the units will be affordable to households earning no more than 30 percent AMI (excluding one manager’s unit). Both projects are receiving financial support from the City. The City committed $7.1 million from the City’s Housing Fund and $2.9 million in Alameda County Measure A-1 Bond funds to Phase 1 of the Amador Station project. In addition, the City committed $5 million in Measure A-1 bond funds and facilitated the site acquisition at low cost (valued at $5 million) for the Regional Street Senior Affordable project.

Additionally, the City issued building permits for 13 affordable ADUs in 2021. The City has exceeded the goal of 100 affordable units.

Program 9:

Commercial Linkage
Fee
• Facilitate the construction of
50 affordable housing units
within the planning period
(10 extremely low/very low,
15 low, and 25 moderate
income units).
• Assist five moderate income
households with first-time
homebuyer loans.
• Provide funding towards
homeownership training and
foreclosure prevention
services, rental assistance
programs and the Alameda
County Homeless
Commercial Linkage Fees are collected from developers upon issuance of building permits for commercial development and are placed in the City’s Affordable Housing Fund along with in-lieu fees collected from developers for residential development. The Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) was used to facilitate the development of Valor Crossing, a 66-unit affordable housing community. The project includes 20 extremely low-, six very low-, and 39 low-income units, as well as a manager's unit. The AHF is also used to negotiate with other developers looking to build affordable housing.

The City continued to contract with Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center (TVHOC) for homebuyer education, foreclosure prevention services, rental assistance, and pre- and post-purchase counseling.

Homeowner education for Dublin residents is available with periodic free trainings from ECHO Housing, serving Alameda County with a grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Foreclosure Ongoing.

The City successfully
collected $612,796.21 from
Commercial Linkage Fees
during the 5th planning cycle
and issued 4 First Time
Homebuyer loans.

The City will continue to
collect Commercial Linkage
Fees and use the funds
towards affordable housing
construction loans, FirstTime Homebuyer loans,
Homeownership training
and foreclosure prevention
DRAFT
services, Housing Division’s
1173
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-17
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle Management Information
System.
prevention services are available from Alameda County's AC Secure Program, funded by Measure A-1. The City also continued to support the Alameda County Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) through the Affordable Housing Fund. HMIS is managed by EveryOne Home, a community-based organization formed in 2007 under the fiscal sponsorship of the Tides Center. EveryOne Home manages the County’s in-house HMIS in the collection and reporting of the homeless count and other data collection.
2015:

In 2015, the City collected $45,829.80 in Commercial Linkage Fees. There were two Re-Issued Mortgage Credit Certificates in 2015. 2016:

In 2016, the City collected $3,461.88 in Commercial Linkage Fees. The City issued one newFirst-Time Homebuyerloan during the 2016 calendar year. 2017:

In 2017, the City collected $359,928.47 in Commercial Linkage Fees. 2018:

In 2018, the City collected $11,878.78 in Commercial Linkage Fees. The City issued one new First-Time Homebuyer loan during the 2018 calendar year.
2019:

In 2019, the City collected $191,696.96 in Commercial Linkage Fees. The City issued two new First-Time Homebuyer loans during the 2019 calendar year.
administrative costs, and
Alameda County Homeless
Management Information
System.

DRAFT
1174
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-18
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle 2021:

In 2021, the City collected $71,467.83 in Commercial Linkage Fees. The City issued one new First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program loan for $40,000 during the 2021 calendar year.

During the 5th Planning Cycle, the City collected a total of $684,264.72 Commercial Linkage Fees and issued five First-Time Homebuyer loans.

Program 10:

Housing Type and
Size Variations
• Require that developers
provide a diversity of housing
type and size on a case-bycase basis to meet the City’s housing needs throughout
the planning period.

The City's General Plan, various Specific Plans, and the Planned Development zoning process facilitate diversity of housing types and sizes to meet the City's housing needs.

The City also created a new housing and size type establishing regulations for junior accessory dwelling units, which are units that are no more than 500 square feet contained entirely within the walls of a single-family residence.

Ongoing.

The City will continue to
promote housing type and
size diversity throughout
the 2023-2031 planning
cycle to accommodate the
housing needs of all
segments of the
community.

Program 11: FirstTime Homebuyer
Programs
• Assist 20 income-qualified
first time homebuyers during
the planning period. Strive to
provide assistance to
approximately 10 above
moderate income and 10
moderate income
households.
• Continue to distribute FTHLP
application packets at the
Civic Center, City website,
and locations that provide
housing services.

Information regarding the City's First Time Homebuyer Loan Program is available on the City's website, in printed materials at the Civic Center, and through local housing service organizations. In addition, the City website provides information and links to other homebuyer assistance programs including the City's below market rate (BMR) home ownership program, Mortgage Credit Certificates (administered for the City of Dublin by Alameda County), and California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) loan programs.
2015:

While First Time Homebuyer Loan Program loan funds remained available, the City did not issue any new loans in 2015 mainly because no new BMR units were sold in 2015.

Ongoing.

The City successfully issued
four FTHLP loans during the
5th planning cycle. The City
will continue to promote
the FTHLP and provide
assistance to qualified first
time homebuyers during
the planning cycle.

DRAFT
1175
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-19
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle 2016:

The City issued one new moderate loan in 2016.
2018:

The City issued one new moderate loan in 2018.
2019:

The City issued two new moderate loans in 2019.
2021:

The City issued one new moderate loan in 2021.

Program 12: Second
Dwelling Units
• Market this program through
an informational brochure.

The brochure will be
available on the City web site
and at the Civic Center,
library, senior center, and
other public locations.
• Facilitate the construction of
30 second dwelling units
within the planning period.

The City has taken multiple streps to incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), such as streamlining the review process, modified development standards (such as parking), developed prototype plans, prepared an ADU Manual (how-to-guide for ADUs), launched a one-stop-shop webpage, and waived permit fees for certain ADUs.
2016:

In 2016, the City issued permits for 12 ADUs at Wallis Ranch in Neighborhoods 1 and 2.
2017:

In 2017, the City issued permits for 22 ADUs.
2018:

In 2018, the City issued permits for 18 ADUsat Wallis Ranch and Tassajara Hills. Seventeen of these units are restricted for moderate-income households.
2019:

Modify.

The City relies upon the
projected development of
ADUs to accommodate a
portion of its RHNA
allocation. As such, the City
will continue to promote
the development of ADUs,
and specifically affordable
ADUs. The City will continue
to develop pre-approved
prototypes plan models and
an ADU Manual. The
program has been modified
to include further incentives
and monitoring, as well as
require updates as
necessary to maintain
DRAFT
compliance with State law.
1176
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-20
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle In 2019, the City submitted (and obtained approval) for Senate Bill 2 funding to streamline accessory dwelling units (ADU). To facilitate ADUs and comply with most recent legislation, the City will develop prototype plans (minimum of three designs); update the Zoning Ordinance to amend development standards; and develop an ADU Manual to guide applicants through the entitlement and construction process. A total of eight ADUs were permitted in 2019.
2020:

Although accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are often considered “affordable by design,” HCD only allows ADUs to count towards the affordable categories if the affordability can be demonstrated through either a deed restriction guaranteeing affordable rents, documentation of proposed rental rates, or through a survey of rental rates of comparable units. In 2020, the City issued building permits for five ADUs that are deed restricted as for moderate-income households.

The City Council took a number of actions to address barriers to development of ADUs and junior ADUs (JADUs) and to facilitate their production in 2020. On November 3, 2020, the City Council adopted a revised Fee Schedule that exempted ADUs less than 750- square feet from paying impact fees and modified the impact fees for ADUs 750- square feet or larger to be proportional to the primary dwelling unit consistent with recent changes in state law. Additionally, on November 17, 2020, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to comply with recent changes in state law, including changes to the development standards for minimum unit size, setbacks, and parking for ADUs and the addition of regulations for JADUs.

DRAFT
1177
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-21
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle 2021:

In 2021, the City issued building permits for 13 ADUs that are deed restricted as for moderate-income households. On December 7, 2021, the City amended the Master Fee Schedule to waive certain City permitting fees for ADUs applied for between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2026. Permit fees are waived for ADUs less than 750 square feet and ADUs 750 square feet or larger that are deed restricted as lower-income units for a period of 55 years.

To further incentivize ADUs, the City worked with RRM Design Group to design eight ADU prototype plan models with a range of sizes and architectural styles. The City launched a webpage for Accessory Dwelling Units, which is a one-stop-shop for ADU resources, regulations, and requirements. The website is available at:
https://dublin.ca.gov/2428/Accessory-Dwelling-Units.

The City issued building permits for 91 ADUs between 2015 and 2021.

Program 13:

Homeless
Assistance
• Continue to fund emergency
shelter programs in the TriValley area to house
residents in need of
emergency shelter. Annually
evaluate the homeless
service needs as part of the
Community Support Grants
program, with the objective
of assisting an average of 300
persons each year.
• Continue to participate in
regional collaborations to
address homelessness.

The City continues to support Tri-Valley Haven (domestic violence and homeless services) and Eden I&R (a service connecting citizens to safety net services) through the Community Support Grants program. Tri-Valley Haven’s Homeless and Family Support Services program offers assistance to Dublin residents through Sojourner House (a family homeless shelter) and their Food Pantry. Eden I&R's 2-1-1 service provides information and referrals. They also serve as the Alameda County first point of contact of Coordinated Entry Systems (CES) screenings and referrals.

The City continues to fund regional homeless assistance programand participate in regional efforts to address homelessness. City staff regularly attended meetings organized by Everyone Home and the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development. In late 2018, the City partnered with the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton to apply for Ongoing.

The City was successful in
providing regional
assistance to address
homelessness. The City will
continue to fund emergency
shelter programs in the
region and participate in
regional efforts to address
homelessness.

DRAFT
1178
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-22
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funds in order for CityServe to enhance their homeless outreach and services. CityServe of the Tri-Valley offers assistance to people in crisis; in 2019, the Citiessigned agreements to continue the efforts.
2015:

Tri-Valley Haven's homeless assistance program served 275 Dublin residents in 2015. Eden I&R served 167 Dublin residents in 2015. 2016:

Tri-Valley Haven's homeless assistance program served 622 Dublin residents in 2016. Eden I&R served 37 Dublin residents in 2016.

Additionally, CityServe served 20 Dublin residents.
2017:

Tri Valley Haven's homeless assistance program served 415 Dublin residents in 2017 and 461 residents were supported through Eden I&R.

Additionally, CityServe served over 1,000 Dublin residents.

In 2017, Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton applied jointly for a $100,000 County grant to further support organizations serving homeless individuals.
2018:

Tri Valley Haven's homeless assistance program served 499 Dublin residents in 2018 and received a $11,400 grant. Eden I&R served 145 Dublin residents in 2018 and received a $9,400 grant. CityServe received a $14,400 grant and served 804 Dublin residentsin 2018. DRAFT 1179
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-23
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle 2019:

Tri-Valley Haven’s Homeless and Family Support Services program received a $10,625 grant and served 499 Dublin residentsin 2019. Eden I&R received a $10,000grant and served 145 Dublin residentsin 2019.

CityServe received a $14,360 grant and served 804 Dublin residentsin 2019.
2021:

For the 2020-2021 CityServecontract, the City of Dublin contributed $34,976.50 of HEAP funds.

Program 14: TriValley Affordable
Housing Committee
• Participate in at least one
affordable housing fair
annually throughout the
planning period.

The City participated in quarterly meetings of the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee. Committee meetings featured presentations from housing-related organizations and facilitated the exchange of information and ideas among participating jurisdictions. This group arranges housing fairs every spring during Affordable Housing Week in May.

The City is also a member of the East Bay Housing Organization and promotes Affordable Housing Week activities in April. The City also participates with the Tri-Valley Anti-Poverty Collaborative.

Ongoing.

The City will continue
participating in regional fair
housing and affordable
housing collaboratives and
seek funding/ partnerships
with local housing service
providers.

3. Adequate Housing Sites
Program 15:

Residential Sites
Inventory and
RHNA Monitoring
• Monitor housing
development on an ongoing
basis to ensure that the sites
identified in the Residential
Sites Inventory are
developed at densities
appropriate for fulfilling the
City’s RHNA and identify
additional sites as necessary.

The City monitors housing development annually to ensure adequate sites remain available to meet the RHNA obligation.

The City evaluates land availability annually to ensure adequate sites remain available to meet the RHNA obligation.

The City met its RHNA allocation for above-moderate units in 2017.

Modify.

The City will continue to use
a variety of strategies to
accommodate its RHNA
allocation throughout the
2023-2031 planning cycle,
as well as monitor
candidate sites. The
program has been modified
DRAFT
to account for the 2023-
1180
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-24
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle • Annually evaluate the land
availability to meet the
remaining RHNA. Ensure
adequate capacity exists to
accommodate the RHNA of
2,285 units (96 very low, 446
low, 425 moderate, and 618
above moderate income
units).
2031 planning cycle RHNA
numbers and the specific
RHNA strategies identified
within this Housing
Element.

4. Removal of Governmental Constraints
Program 16: Fee
Deferment or
Amortization
• Continue to offer the
deferment or amortization of
fees as an option to
interested parties.
• Provide information on the
City’s affordable housing
incentives, such as density
bonus and fee deferment or
amortization, on the City’s
website by mid-2015.

The City continues to offer deferment or amortization of fees as an option to interested parties and has the information available on the City's website.

Ongoing.

The City will continue to
offer defermentor
amortization of planning
and development fees for
senior housing units and
affordable units for lower
and moderate-income
households. The City will
also ensure information is
available to the public
online and at the Civic
Center.

Program 17:

Universal Design
Ordinance
• Continue to make the
brochure and other related
information available on the
City’s website and at the
public counter.

Information regarding the City's Universal Design Ordinance is available on the City's website and in printed materials at the Civic Center.

Ongoing.

The City will continue to
promote the Universal
Design Ordinance in-person
at the Civic Center and
online.

DRAFT
1181
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-25
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle Program 18:

Emergency Shelters
and Supportive and
Transitional
Housing
• Review and amend, if
necessary, the Emergency
Shelters Ordinance within
two years of adoption of the
2015-2023 Housing Element.
• Review and amend, if
necessary, the transitional
and supportive housing
provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance within two years
of adoption of the 2015-2023
Housing Element.

The City annually reviews its ordinances to ensure they are consistent with state legislation.

In 2019, Planning Division staff reviewed the emergency shelters provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with State law.

No amendments were necessary.

Ongoing.

The City will continue to
implement the Emergency
Shelter Ordinance, and
when necessary, update it
and the Zoning Code to
maintain compliance with
State law.

Program 19:

Monitoring of
Development Fees
• As changes are made to the
development fees, the City
will evaluate their impact on
housing development and
make adjustments or
mitigation as appropriate
(such as continuing to offer
fee deferral and amortization
(Program 16).

On November 3, 2020, the City Council adopted a revised Fee Schedule that exempts ADUs less than 750-square feet from paying impact fees and modified the impact fees for ADUs 750-square feet or larger to be proportional to the primary dwelling unit. Other impact fees continue to be evaluated, as needed.

On December 7, 2021, the City amended the Master Fee Schedule to waive certain City permit fees for ADUs applied for between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2026. Permit fees are waived for ADUs less than 750 square feet and ADUs 750 square feet or larger that are deed restricted as lower-income units for a period of 55 years.

On December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 144-21, revising the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee for future development within the Eastern Dublin Area, renaming the program as the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, and updating the Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines.

Ongoing.

The City will continue
review its development fees
annually to ensure they are
reasonable and do not
constrain housing
development.

DRAFT
1182
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-26
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle

5. Promoting Equal Housing Opportunity
Program 20: Equal
Housing
Opportunity
• Provide referrals to
appropriate agencies for
services.
• Distribute fair housing
information to public
locations.
• Post information on the City
website.
• Distribute information to real
estate agents, rental
property owners/managers,
and financial institutions in
Dublin.
• Participate in Alameda
County’s Impediments to Fair
Housing Study through the
CDBG program.

The City provides referrals to appropriate agencies through direct communication with residents (in person at the counter, via email, and over the phone) and information on the City website. The website includes links to Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) and to the State of California Consumer Affairs Office booklet “California Tenants: Guide to Residential Tenants and Landlord's Rights and Responsibilities.” The City, through Alameda County, contracts with ECHO to provide fair housing services to Dublin residents. ECHO offers fair housing counseling and tenant/landlord dispute mediation at no cost to Dublin residents and housing providers. The City also participated in the update to the "TriValley Human Services Pocket Guide," printed in English and Spanish and made them available at the Civic Center. The guide includes contact information for housing and legal service providers.

The City of Dublin Housing Division hosted a Fair Housing Workshop in collaboration with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) in July 2016. The event was attended by property managers and leasing staff from Dublin apartment communities, local service providers, and other housing professionals. ECHO reviewed State and Federal Fair Housing Law and practical applications for rental housing providers and tenants.

Real estate agents, rental property owners/managers and financial institutions are directed to the City’s website for information or are referred to outside agencies, as appropriate. Throughout the year, Housing Staff meets with developers, real estate agents and landlords to discuss the City's housing programs, which may include information on the 211 County-wide social services hotline and ECHO's services. In addition, information is distributed to property managers during the annual rental monitoring site visits.

Ongoing.

The City successfully
participated in a variety of
regional efforts to
investigate and ensure
provision of fair housing
during the 5th planning
cycle. The City will continue
to promote information on
services and resources
available to the community,
as well as participate in
regional efforts to address
fair housing issues
throughout the 2023-2031
planning cycle.

DRAFT
1183
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-27
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle The City participated in the preparation of the most recent version of Alameda County's Impediments to Fair Housing Study through the urban county HOME Consortium, completed and published in February 2015.

City staff provided notes and comments, attended review sessions, and posted draft and final versions of the Analysis on the City's website. In 2019 and 2020, the City participated in the update of Alameda County's Impediments to Fair Housing Study through the Urban County HOME Consortium. A public review draftof the Alameda County's Impediments to Fair Housing Study was publishedin December 2019 and later adopted in January 2020.

6. Green Building Program
Program 21: Green
Building Guidelines
• Continue to implement the
provisions of the Green
Building Ordinance.
• Continue to update
brochures that describe
program requirements and
make them available to any
interested parties and
continue to provide Green
Building resources on the
City’s website.

The City continuedto implement the Green Building Ordinance.

The City continued to update brochures as needed and make them available on the City's website. In 2020, the City also established a handout and procedures to streamline the review of electric vehicle charging stations for commercial and industrial development.

In September 2020, the City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2.0), establishing the next phase of climate action planning and implementation. Strategies of CAP 2.0 include 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity, building efficiency and electrification, sustainable mobility and land use, materials and waste management, and municipal leadership measures. CAP 2.0 establishes the City’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and strive for carbon neutrality by 2045.

The City continues to require covered projects (including construction, demolition, and renovation projects with total costs of $100,000 or greater) to submit a Waste Management Plan to meet the City’s Ongoing.

The City will continue to
implement the Green
Building Ordinance and
guidelinesthroughout the
2023-2031 planning cycle.

This includes promoting
information on the program
and available resources.

DRAFT
1184
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-28
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle Construction and Debris Ordinance, which was adopted in 2008 and amended in 2014. The regulations require the diversion of at least 65 percent for remodels and 75 percent for new construction of construction waste away from landfills.

In 2021, Building and Safety Division Staff received training on zero net energy homes, solar photovoltaic and energy storage systems, SolarAPP+, and energy code.

Additionally, the City continues to work with StopWaste, the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN), and East Bay Energy Watch to provide energy conservation to the public via workshops and direct outreach. The City also promoted the new SB 1383 requirements to divert 75 percent of solid waste from the landfill by 2025 (based on 2014 levels) and divert 25 percent of food waste from the landfill.

Notably, the City transitioned all residential electrical accounts to East Bay Community Energy's Renewable 100 plan, which offers 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity, effective January 1, 2022.

Finally, the City continues to offer subsidized permit fees for the installation of solar roof panels for a variety of projects throughout the City.

Program 22: Energy
Conservation
• Implement applicable Waste
Management and Building
Code regulations, provide
Green Building training to
City staff, and distribute
energy conservation
information to the public.

Strategies of CAP 2.0 include 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity, building efficiency and electrification, sustainable mobility and land use, materials and waste management, and municipal leadership measures. CAP 2.0 establishes the City’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and strive for carbon neutrality by 2045, resulting in cleaner air, more versatile and flexible transportation, new opportunities for economic growth, reductions in localized flooding risks, and greater energy independence from fossil fuels.

Ongoing.

During the 5th planning
cycle, the City successfully
promoted energy
conservation through a
variety of endeavors and
collaborations. Through the
DRAFT
2023-2031 planning cycle,
1185
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-29
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle The City continues to require covered projects (including construction, demolition, and renovation projects with total costs of $100,000 or greater) to submit a Waste Management Plan to meet the City’s Construction and Debris Ordinance, which was adopted in 2008 and amended in 2014. The regulations require the diversion of at least 65 percent for remodels and 75 percent for new construction of construction waste away from landfills. In addition, the City Council adopted Green Building Guidelines for Civic Buildings to promote energy efficiency. The City continues to implement the Guidelines on a project-specific basis.

Informational brochures and pamphlets are available on the City’s website and at the public counter.

In February 2020, the City opened the Dublin Public Safety Complex, a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified zero net energy construction project.Building and Safety Division Staff received training on LEED Project Management and CalGreen Title 24 Part 11.

Additionally, the City continues to work with StopWaste, the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN), and East Bay Energy Watch to provide energy conservation to the public via workshops and direct outreach. In July 2020, the City hosted a webinar with StopWaste and BayREN about residential heating and cooling systems and indoor air quality and educated the community about free technical support and up to $6,000 in rebates offered through the BayREN Home+ program. East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), the City’s community choice energy provider, launched the Resilient Home program, which provides pre-negotiated pricing for rooftop solar from SunRun, with or without batter storage.

Resilient Home offers an additional $1,250 incentive if homeowners enroll their battery with EBCE, sharing power during peak times when there isn’t an outage.
the City will continue to
implement the Waste
Management and Building
Code regulations, as well as
provide staff training and
promote information on
resources available for
proposed projects and
Dublin households.

DRAFT
1186
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-30
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TableA-2: 5th Planning Cycle Policy and Program Accomplishments Policy Programs Objectives Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle Finally, the City continues to offer subsidized permit fees on the installation of solar roof panels for a variety of projects throughout the City.

DRAFT
1187
APPENDIX B:

COMMUNITY PROFILE
DRAFT
1188
Appendix B: Community Profile B-2
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
The Community Profile provides an overview of the City’s housing and population characteristics and evaluates the factors that contribute to the supply and demand of housing in Dublin. To create a comprehensive evaluation of Dublin’s housing needs, the Community Profile discusses population, household, economic and housing stock characteristics, and presents each of these components in a regional context. This assessment serves as the basis for identifying the appropriate goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives for the City to implement during the 2023-2031 Housing Element Cycle.

The Community Profile uses the most current data available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2020 U.S. Census, 2016-2020 American Community Survey, California Department of Finance, California Employment Development Department, California Department of Education, and other currently available real estate market data.

A. Population Characteristics
Understanding the characteristics of a population is critical to plan for the needs of a community.

Population growth, age composition, race and ethnicity, and employment trends influence the type and extent of housing needs and the ability of the local population to afford housing costs. The following subsection describes and analyzes the various population characteristics and trends that affect housing need.

1. Population Growth
According to the U.S. Census and ABAG Projections 2040 by Jurisdiction, the population of Alameda County is forecasted to increase by 24.4 percent through 2040. Table B-1 shows a 15.8 percent countywide growth from 2010 to 2020 and another 22.3 percent increase between 2020 to 2040. The City is anticipated to grow 15.2 percent between 2020 and 2040.

Table B-1: Population Growth (2010-2040)
Jurisdictions
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual
2020
Actual
2025
Projected*
2030
Projected*
2035
Projected*
2040
Projected*
2010-
2020 2020-2040
Dublin 46,036 72,589 54,780 71,870 78,140 83,595 57.6% 15.2% San Ramon 66,822 84,605 78,430 79,520 81,955 84,165 26.0% 0.5% Livermore 78,520 87,955 89,960 99,115 106,190 113,730 6.1% 29.3% Pleasanton 68,204 79,871 76,235 78,370 83,115 87,875 10.0% 10.0% Alameda
County 1,477,980 1,682,353 1,776,495 1,868,635 1,960,630 2,092,370 15.8% 24.4% Sources: Bureau of the Census (2010 and 2020) and Plan Bay Area 2040 ABAG Projections 2040 by Jurisdiction. *Projection numbers do not reflect the City’s current population growth trends and are based on the 2040 ABAG Projections. ABAG’s projections within Plan Bay Area 2050 are not used as they are based on subcounty areas, called super-districts, which are a combination of cities, towns, and unincorporated areas.

DRAFT
1189
Appendix B: Community Profile B-3
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

2. Age Characteristics
Age distribution within a population helps to evaluate different housing needs as housing choices may differ based on the age of the resident. Young adults (18 to 30 years old) and seniors (65 years or older) typically favor apartments, low to moderate-cost condominiums, and smaller or more affordable singlefamily residences because they tend to have limited incomes or smaller families. As a community’s population ages, housing is required to accommodate new or adjusted needs. Appropriate housing is needed to accommodate all stages of life to produce a well-balanced and healthy community.

Figure B-1 below displays American Community Survey (ACS) data for age distribution in Dublin. According to the ACS, the City is predominately made up of 35 to 49 year-olds (27.9 percent), which is followed by five to 19 year-olds (20.1 percent). The adult population of 35 to 49 year-olds was the largest population group between 2010 to 2020. The population of 20 to 34 year-olds decreased from 26.1 percent to 19.2 percent (6.9 percent decrease), while the population of 50 to 64 year-olds increased 1.8 percent during that same time frame. Overall, the data shows an aging trend and the ratio of children to young adults continues to decline as the senior population grows.

Figure B-1: Age Distribution in Dublin (2010-2020)
Source: American Community Survey, Table S0101, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2020.

Table B-2 below shows the age distribution of Dublin and its surrounding communities. Age characteristics are similar throughout the region with the 35 to 49 age group being the largest in the area. The City has a younger population than nearby jurisdictions with the largest percentageof childrenunder the age of five (7.6 percent) and the smallest percentage ofseniors (9.2 percent) compared to nearby jurisdictions.

Table B-2: Age Characteristics/Age Distribution
Jurisdiction Under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 years + Dublin 7.6% 20.1% 19.2% 27.9% 16.1% 9.2%
San Ramon 5.3% 24.5% 12.9% 25.6% 20.5% 11.2%
Livermore 6.5% 18.1% 17.9% 21.5% 22.7% 13.1%
Pleasanton 4.9% 21.5% 14.0% 22.7% 21.9% 15.1%
Alameda County 5.8% 17.1% 22.6% 21.9% 18.7% 13.9%
Source: American Community Survey, Table S0101, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Under 5 years 5 to 19 years 20 to 34 years 35 to 49 years 50 to 64 years 65 years + 2010 7.7% 17.4% 26.1% 28.0% 14.9% 5.8%
2015 7.4% 18.0% 21.5% 27.5% 16.9% 8.6%
2020 7.6% 20.1% 19.2% 27.9% 16.1% 9.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
DRAFT
1190
Appendix B: Community Profile B-4
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics
Creating both equal opportunity and fair housing are essential elements in the provision of housing units within cities and counties. Analyzing and understanding the racial and ethnic composition of a community is important as different racial and ethnic groups have varying household characteristics, income levels, and cultural backgrounds, which may affect their housing needs, housing choice, and housing type.

Cultural influences may reflect preference for a specific type of housing and ethnicity may also correlate with other characteristics, such as location, mobility, and income. This is further analyzed in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) section of Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH. It is important to note that while race and ethnicity are used to identify different sections of a community’s population, they are not the same and are not mutually exclusive. The data identified below shows the racial and ethnic composition of Dublin and nearby jurisdictions using ACS; this allows residents to identify one’s race, as well as one’s ethnicity. Therefore, overlap may occur.

As shown in Figure B-2, persons who identify as Asian comprised the largest racial group in Dublin (50.9 percent), larger than the population of persons who identify as Asian in Alameda County (31.0 percent).

The second largest population in Dublin is those who identify as White at 29.9 percent. A total of 10.2 percent of Dublin’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino of any race. The Hispanic or Latino population was smaller in Dublin than in Alameda County, with a difference of about 12 percent. Persons who identify as Black or African American made up 3.5 percent of the population in Dublin, which is smaller than the population who identifies as Black or African American in Alameda County at 10.1 percent. Overall, American Indian, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders make up the smallest population groups with less than one percent combined – similar to Alameda County. Table B-3 shows the same data for Dublin and Alameda County in comparison with neighboring jurisdictions.

Dublin has the largest population of persons identifying as Asian, the second largest population of persons identifying as Black, and one of the smallest population of persons identifying as White.

Figure B-2: Racial Ethnic Composition
Source: American Community Survey, Table B03002, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

White
(NonHispanic)
Black or
African
American
(NonHispanic)
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
(NonHispanic)
Asian
(NonHispanic)
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
(NonHispanic)
Some
other race
(NonHispanic)
Two or
more races
(NonHispanic)
Hispanic or
Latino
Dublin 29.9% 3.5% 0.3% 50.9% 0.4% 0.3% 4.4% 10.2%
Alameda County 30.6% 10.1% 0.3% 31.0% 0.8% 0.4% 4.6% 22.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%
DRAFT
1191
Appendix B: Community Profile B-5
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-3: Racial/Ethnic Composition
Jurisdiction White* Black*
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native*
Asian*
Native
Hawaiian/
Other
Pacific
Islander*
Some
Other
Race*
Two or
More
Races*
Hispanic
or Latino
(of any
race)
Dublin 29.9% 3.5% 0.3% 50.9% 0.4% 0.3% 4.4% 10.2%
San Ramon 36.8% 2.6% 0.2% 47.4% 0.5% 0.1% 4.7% 7.7%
Livermore 59.1% 1.7% 0.1% 12.9% 0.5% 0.1% 4.3% 21.3%
Pleasanton 46.2% 1.4% 0.3% 37.4% 0.1% 0.2% 3.9% 10.4%
Alameda
County 30.6% 10.1% 0.3% 31.0% 0.8% 0.4% 4.6% 22.2%
*Non-Hispanic
Source: American Community Survey, Table B03002, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Table B-4 shows the City experienced significant changes in racial and ethnic demographics, between 2010 and 2020. The population that identifies as White decreased from 50.8 percent to 29.9 percent.

Those who identify as Black and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander also experienced decreases from

7.9 percent to 3.5 percent and 1.5 percent to 0.4 percent, respectively. Those who identify as Asian experienced the largest population increase, from 23.2 percent in 2010 to 50.9 percent in 2020. The Hispanic and Latino population decreased from about 12.8 percentin 2010 to 10.2 percent in 2020.

Table B-4: Racial/Ethnic Composition of Dublin (2010-2020) Race/Ethnicity 2010 2015 2020
White* 50.8% 42.3% 29.9%
Black* 7.9% 6.1% 3.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native* 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%
Asian* 23.2% 33.8% 50.9%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander* 1.5% 0.3% 0.4% Some Other Race* 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%
Two or More Races* 3.3% 5.0% 4.4%
Hispanic or Latino 12.8% 11.7% 10.2%
*Non-Hispanic
Source: American Community Survey, Table B03002, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2020.

Housing needs may vary between ethnic or racial groups due to different cultural norms or preferences.

An example of this is the tendency for Asian or Hispanic families to live within a single household.

Unaccounted for, housing availability could lead to overcrowding within housing units if suitably-sized housing units are not provided.

DRAFT
1192
Appendix B: Community Profile B-6
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Economic Characteristics
In addition to demographics and culture, economic characteristics also dictate demand for different types of housing. The affordability of housing units is critical in ensuring all community members have their needs met.

Economic data provides valuable insight into the Dublin population’s ability to enter the housing market and identifies financial constraints related to housing needs and accommodations. Incomes associated with different types of employment and the number of workers in a household affect housing affordability and choice. Therefore, to consider a healthy balance between jobs and housing, it is important to consider the community’s employment characteristics. Local employment growth is linked to local housing demand, and the reverse being true when employment rates decrease.

1. Employment and Wage Scale
Employment can directly affect the housing needs for a city as employment and income provides different abilities for a population to purchase housing as well as influences the types of housing residents can afford. Job growth refers to the number of jobs created in the jurisdiction whereas employment growth refers to the number of residents in a jurisdiction that are employed. Table B-5 outlines job growth from 2010 through 2040 for Dublin and nearby jurisdictions. The City is forecasted to experience a 45.9 percent job growth from 2020 to 2040 (9,785 jobs). Compared to the nearby jurisdictions, Dublin is forecasted to experience the greatest percent of overall job growth. Table B-6 outlines employment growth through 2040 with an overall increase of approximately 74 percent, or 13,690 persons. As compared to nearby jurisdictions, Dublin has the highest percentage of change in both job growth and employment growth between 2010 to 2020 and between 2020 and 2040. The figureslisted in Table B-5 and Table B-6 provide a deeper understanding of economic growth as compared to forecasted population growth, shown in Table B-1. The City is projected to experience the largest job and employment growth from 2020 to 2040 with a significantly greater percentage increase than the other nearby jurisdictions.

Table B-5: Job Growth (2010-2040)
Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
%
Change
2010-
2020
%
Change
2020-
2040
Numeric
Change
2020-
2040
Dublin 18,085 21,330 21,815 24,205 30,325 31,115 17.9% 45.9% 9,785 San Ramon 70,500 76,485 78,430 79,520 81,955 84,165 8.5% 10.0% 13,665 Livermore 42,705 43,025 43,335 43,950 45,105 45,870 0.7% 6.6% 2,845 Pleasanton 60,095 65,185 65,445 66,940 72,480 75,440 8.5% 15.7% 10,225 Alameda
County 705,540 858,685 877,220 901,080 933,725 952,940 27.7% 11.0% 92,255 Source: Plan Bay Area 2040/
DRAFT
ABAG Projections 2040 by Jurisdiction.
1193
Appendix B: Community Profile B-7
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-6: Employment Growth (2010-2040)
Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
%
Change
2010-
2020
%
Change
2020-
2040
Numeric
Change
2010-
2040
Dublin 15,325 18,490 20,040 27,925 30,610 32,180 20.7% 74.0% 13,690 San Ramon 49,030 53,850 54,340 55,330 62,735 71,775 9.8% 33.3% 22,745 Livermore 39,605 45,420 47,505 51,790 54,680 57,315 14.7% 26.2% 11,895 Pleasanton 36,345 46,990 47,100 47,770 49,840 51,545 29.3% 9.7% 4,555 Alameda
County 723,810 911,725 929,230 959,745 985,760 1,022,040 26.0% 12.1% 110,315 Source: Plan Bay Area 2040/ABAG Projections 2040 by Jurisdiction.

Based on the 2020 ACS, 67.1 percent of Dublin’s population aged 16 and over are employed. Employment in Dublin increased by 48.9 percent from 2010 to 2019. Table B-7 shows the employment growth in Dublin between 2010 to 2020 by industry sector. Persons employed in professional, scientific, management, and administrative services represented the largest percentage of the City’s employment, followed by education services, health care, and social assistance. Between 2010 and 2020, most employment sectors experienced a decline in percentage of overall employment rates – with retail trade undergoing the greatest change with a loss of 3.1percent. The industry with the lowest employment rate in Dublin (0.4 percent in 2019) is agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, and mining as it employed 95 people in 2020.

Table B-7: Employment by Sector (2010-2020)
Industry Sector
2010 2020 Percent
Change
2010-
2020
People
Employed
% of City
Employment
People
Employed
% of City
Employment
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting,
and mining 29 0.1% 95 0.3% 0.2%
Construction 930 4.7% 1,267 3.9% -0.8%
Manufacturing 2013 10.1% 2,990 9.2% 0.1%
Wholesale trade 930 4.7% 711 2.2% -2.5%
Retail trade 2718 13.6% 3,400 10.5% -3.1%
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities 889 4.4% 1,101 3.4% -1.0%
Information 1071 5.4% 1,803 5.6% 0.2%
Finance and insurance, real estate, and
rental leasing 1776 8.9% 2,595 8.0% -0.9%
Professional, scientific, management, and
administrative services 3240 16.2% 9,104 28.1% 11.9%
Education services, health care, and social
assistance 3209 16.1% 5,682 17.5% 1.4%
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food services 1277 6.4% 1,724 5.3% -1.1% Other services (except public administration) 1027 5.1% 837 2.6% -2.5% Public Administration 877 4.4% 1,128 3.5% -0.9%
Total 19,986 100% 31,335 100% 48.9%
Source: American Community Survey, Table
DRAFT
S2405, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2020.
1194
Appendix B: Community Profile B-8
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
In addition to reporting and analyzing employment sector trends, analyzing the unemployment rate is essential to understanding current housing affordability and needs, as well as projected needs.

Economists identify a 3.5 to 4.5 percent unemployment rate as natural, in that it reflects the real voluntary economic forces within a city or county1. Table B-8 shows the City had an unemployment rate of 3.6 percentin 2020, which is lower than the Alameda County average (4.7 percent) but remains healthy.

Table B-8: Unemployment Rate
Jurisdiction Unemployment Rate
Dublin 3.6%
San Ramon 4.3%
Livermore 3.0%
Pleasanton 3.5%
Alameda County 4.7%
*Population 16 years and over
Source: American Community Survey, Table DP03, 5-
Year Estimates, 2020.

Incorporating economic characteristics, such as unemployment rates, is essential for assessing the housing needs of Dublin, particularly the demand for affordable housing. Based on the data summarized in Table B-8, approximately 3.5 percent of the population was unemployed in 2019. For those employed, income level can further identify housing types that may need to be provided within Dublin. According to the ABAG Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), housing needs by income are broken down into four income categories:
• Very Low-Income (50 percent or less of median income) • Low-Income (51 to 80 percent of median income)
• Moderate-Income (81 to 120 percent of median income)
• Above Moderate-Income (greater than 120 percent of median income) Dublin’s area median income for a household of four is $125,600, according to the 2021 Income Limits published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). As shown in Table B-9, the majority of occupational salaries in Alameda County fall below 50 percent of the area median income (AMI) if salary trends are applied to Dublin. Based on these salaries, housing stock in the City would need to be affordable to accommodate lower-income households. 1 Natural Rate of Unemployment, Its Components, and Recent Trends, Kimberly Amadeo, ed. Eric Estevez, August 30, 2020.

DRAFT
1195
Appendix B: Community Profile B-9
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-9: Median Salary by Occupation in Alameda County Occupation Salary
Management $137,618
Legal $108,348
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $106,907
Architecture and Engineering $101,273
Computer and Mathematical $115,395
Life, Physical and Social Sciences $94,563
Business and Financial Operations $83,777
Construction and Extraction $71,055
Installation, Maintenance and Repair $59,483
Education, Training and Library $57,683
Community and Social Service $57,108
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media $56,923
Protective Services $51,757
Office and Administration Support $49,465
Production $43,804
Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance $41,931
Transportation and Material Moving $39,702
Sales $37,731
Farming, Fishing and Forestry $35,142
Personal Care and Service $32,841
Healthcare Support $32,020
Food Preparation and Serving Related $30,985
Source: California Employment Development Division, Long-Term Occupational Employment Projections data, 2018-2028.

C. Household Characteristics
Households characteristics consider the number of individuals that occupy a single housing unit in a shared state whether they are single occupants, families, or unrelated people. Household trends can be observed throughout Dublin and provide useful information that can then be used to predict the City’s future housing needs. Past behavior for household composition can be applied to future growth and could inform the types of housing units that Dublin may need.

Information on household characteristics is important in analyzing and understanding growth and determining the housing needs of a community. Income and affordability are best measured at the household level, as well as the special needs of certain groups, such as large families, single-parent households, or low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households.

1. Household Type
According to 2020 ACS data, there are 20,883 households in Dublin, representing 3.5 percent of the total Alameda County households. As shown in Table B-10 and Figure B-3, married-couple family households make up 67 percent of the total householdsin Dublin. Married-couple households tend to seek occupancy in single-family residences with multiple bedrooms. In contrast, 21.8 percent of the total households in Dublin are no
DRAFT
n-family households, which may include unrelated persons living together or persons living 1196
Appendix B: Community Profile B-10
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
alone. Non-family households tend to occupy multifamily residential units or seek out more affordable housing options.

Table B-10: Household Characteristics
Jurisdiction
MarriedCouple
Family HH
% of Total
HH
Female HH,
No Spouse
Present
% of Total
HH
Non-Family
HH
% of Total
HH Total HH
Dublin 13,753 65.9% 1,680 8.0% 4,450 21.3 20,883
San Ramon 18,865 73.9% 2,198 8.0% 5,752 20.9% 27,524
Livermore 20,105 62.4% 2,716 8.4% 8,382 26.0% 32,196
Pleasanton 19,151 68.9% 1,891 6.8% 5,980 21.5% 27,815
Alameda
County 289,283 50.5% 64,454 11.2% 191,964 33.5% 573,174 Note: HH = Households
Source: American Community Survey, Table B11001, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Figure B-3: Dublin Household Characteristics in Percent Source: American Community Survey, Table B25011, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Table B-11 summarizes household changes from 2010 through 2020. During this time, Dublin grew by approximately 5,503 new households. From 2010 to 2019, male households with no spouse present and married-couple family households experienced the largest growth at 179.1 percent and 64.2 percent, respectively.

Table B-11: Changes in Household Types
Household Types 2010 2015 2020 Percent
Change
Married-couple Family Households 8,250 10,704 13,753 66.7% Female Households, No Spouse Present 1,081 1,222 1,680 55.4% Male Households, No Spouse Present 363 1,001 1,000 175.5% Non-Family Households 3,579 4,394 4,450 24.3%
Total Households 13,273 17,321 20,2883 57.3%
Source: American Community Survey, Table B11001, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, 2020.

Married-Couple HH Female HH, No Spouse
Present
Male HH, No Spouse
Present Non-Family HH
Dublin 65.9% 8.0% 4.8% 21.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
DRAFT
1197
Appendix B: Community Profile B-11
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

2. Household Size
Household size represents the most basic unit of demand for housing as it identifies the type and size of housing needed in a community. Household size is also an indicator of both population growth and household character. While there can be more than one family in a housing unit, the measure of persons per household provides an indicator of the number of persons residing in a housing unit. Average household size can be both a result and indicator of housing affordability and other household economic conditions and is important in understanding housing need by size and type of housing. For example, data reflecting household size in a community can help identify issues of overcrowding, which is a result of inadequate space for members of a household and considered a burden on a household.

Table B-12 below identifies household size for the City and nearby jurisdictions. At approximately 2.99 persons per household and 2.95 persons per household, the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon, respectively, have the largest household size in the area.

Table B-12: Average Household Size
Jurisdiction Average Persons per
Household
Dublin 2.99
San Ramon 2.95
Livermore 2.84
Pleasanton 2.86
Alameda County 2.84
Source: US Census, QuickFacts 2016-2020.

3. Household Income
Household income is an important indicator of housing needs in a community because household income is directly connected to affordability. As household income increases, households are more likely to afford market-rate units, larger units, and/or pursue ownership opportunities. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing. This may influence increased incidences of overcrowding and substandard living conditions.

HCD has identified the following income categories based on AMI for Alameda County:
• Extremely Low-Income: households earning up to 30 percent of the AMI • Very Low-Income: households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI • Low-Income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the AMI • Moderate-Income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI • Above Moderate
DRAFT -Income: households earning over 120 percent of the AMI 1198
Appendix B: Community Profile B-12
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Combined, the extremely low-, very low-, and low-income categories are referred to as lower income.2 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates based on 2014-2018 ACS data are used below. The CHAS, developed by the Census Bureau for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Dublin. The most recent available CHAS data for Dublin was published in September 2021. Housing problems considered by CHAS included:
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); • Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or • Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

Table B-13 shows a majority of Dublin households have an above moderate-income (77.64 percent).

Approximately 15.51 percent of Dublin households are estimated to have a lower income – with 5.07 percent earning an extremely low income.

Table B-13: Households by Income Category
Income Category (% of County AMI) Households Percent
Extremely Low (30% AMI or less) 995 5.07%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMI) 960 4.89%
Low (51 to 80% AMI) 1,090 5.55%
Moderate or Above (over 80% to 100% AMI) 1,345 6.85%
Above (over 100% AMI) 15,245 77.64%
Total 19,635 100%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.

According to the 2020 ACS data, the City has a median household income of $152,745, which is $47,857 higher than Alameda County. Figure B-4 compares Dublin’s household income to that of nearby jurisdictions; the City has the third highest household income for the area behind San Ramon and Pleasanton. Larger household income allows for more flexibility and opportunity of housing choice.

Households with lower median incomes are more susceptible to housing cost burdens and may have fewer choices. Additionally, lower-income households may not be able to afford adequate housing. Lowincome households may have a challenging time finding housing that can fit the needs of a larger household because larger housing tends to be owned, rather than rented, and is more expensive than smaller rental units. As a result, cost burden, displacement, and overcrowding may occur. 2 Federal housing and community development programs typically assist households with incomes up to 80 percent of the AMI and use different terminology. For example, the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program refers households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent AMI as moderate-income (compared to low-income based on State definition).

DRAFT
1199
Appendix B: Community Profile B-13
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure B-4: Median Household Income by City
Source: American Community Survey, Table S1901, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Table B-14 outlines the median income of nearby jurisdictions and compares the percentage difference with the Alameda County median income. As shown, Dublin’s median household income is 45.6 percent above that of Alameda County. This implies a better ability to facilitate housing units at a wide range of pricing and values.

Table B-14: Median Household Income
Jurisdiction Median Income Percent Above/Below
Alameda County Median
Dublin $152,745 45.6%
San Ramon $167,345 59.5%
Livermore $131,664 25.5%
Pleasanton $160,689 53.2%
Alameda County $104,888 --
Source: American Community Survey, Table S1901, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Figure B-5 below illustrates Dublin’s income, broken down by income level. Households earning less than $122,196 are considered lower income. Forty-eight percent of Dublin households earn an income below $150,000, with 12 percent earning less than $50,000 and two percent earning less than $10,000.

Approximately 36 percent of Dublin households earn $200,000 or more annually. 152,745
167,345
131,664
160,689
$104,888
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Dublin San Ramon Livermore Pleasanton
DRAFT
1200
Appendix B: Community Profile B-14
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure B-5: Dublin Household Income Breakdown by Category Source: American Community Survey, Table S1901, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

D. Housing Challenges
Some households in Dublin face housing-related challenges. The types of housing challenges in Dublin vary according to household income, type, and tenure, as shown in Table B-15. The four housing challenges identified by HCD include incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person living per room, and a cost burden greater than 30 percent. Severe housing challenges also include incomplete kitchen and plumbing facilities but have more than 1.5 persons living per bedroom and a cost burden greater than 50 percent.

In general, there are more owner-occupied households (67.4 percent) than renter households (32.6 percent) in Dublin. Approximately 17.4 percent of owner-occupied households experience at least one housing problem. For renters, 15.2 percent of households experience at least one housing problem. An estimated 14.3 percent of Dublin households experience at least one severe housing challenges. More renters (7.7 percent) than owners (6.6 percent) experience a severe housing challenge. These findings may reflect the level of control over maintenance and repairs. Renters typically rely on property owners and management companies to provide repair services and maintenance, which can result in higher levels of housing problems.

Less than $10,000
2%
$10,000 to $24,999
3%
$25,000 to $49,999
7%
$50,000 to $74,999
7%
$75,000 to $99,999
9%
$100,000 to $149,999
20%
$150,000 to $199,999
16%
$200,000 or more
36%
DRAFT
1201
Appendix B: Community Profile B-15
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-15: Housing Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households Housing Challenge Owner % of total
HH Renter % of total HH Total % of total HH
Housing Challenge Overview*
Household has at least one of
four Housing Challenge 3,420 17.4% 2,985 15.2% 6,405 32.6% Household has no Housing
Challenges or cost burden not
available, no other challenges
9,500 48.4% 3,730 19.0% 13,230 67.4%
Total 12,920 65.8% 6,715 34.2% 19,635 100.0%
Severe Housing Challenge Overview**
Household has at least one of
four Severe Housing Challenges 1,290 6.6% 1,515 7.7% 2,805 14.3% Household has no Severe
Housing Challenges or cost
burden not available, no other
challenges
11,630 59.2% 5,200 26.5% 16,830 85.7%
Total 12,920 65.8% 6,715 34.2% 19,635 100.0%
Note: “% of total HH” equals Percent of total households in the City of Dublin * The four housing challenges are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person living per room, and cost burden greater than 30 percent. ** The four severe housing challenges are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50 percent.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2014-2018.

1. Overcrowding
“Overcrowding” is generally defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room in a unit (including bedrooms, living room, and dining room, but excluding hallways, the kitchen, and bathrooms). An overcrowded household results from either a lack of affordable housing (which forces more than one household to live together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size, especially for large families.

Overcrowded (more than one person per room) and severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 persons per room) households can lead to neighborhood deterioration due to the intensive use of individual housing units leading to excessive wear and tear, and the potential cumulative overburdening of community infrastructure and service capacity. Furthermore, overcrowding in neighborhoods can lead to an overall decline in social cohesion and environmental quality. Such decline can often spread geographically and impact the quality of life and the economic value of property. The combination of lower incomes and high housing costs results in many households living in overcrowded housing conditions.

Table B-16 below illustrates overcrowding tendencies in Dublin and shows that overcrowding disproportionately affects renters. About two percent of renter-occupied units experience overcrowding, while 0.8 percent of owner-occupied units experience overcrowding. Additionally, 0.9 percent of renteroccupied units experience severe overcrowding, while 0.03 percent of owner-occupied units experience severe overcrowding. Overall, 3.8 percent, or 805 units experience some form of overcrowding in Dublin.

DRAFT
1202
Appendix B: Community Profile B-16
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
The existence of overcrowded units can be mitigated by increased opportunities for housing of all types and appropriate sizes for different households.

Table B-16: Overcrowding by Tenure in Dublin
Tenure
Overcrowded Units
(1.0 to 1.50 persons/room)
Severely Overcrowded Units
(>1.51 persons/room)
Total Overcrowded
Occupied Units
Count Percent of Total
Occupied Units Count Percent of Total Occupied Units Count Percent of Total Occupied Units Owner
Occupied 163 0.8% 6 0.03% 169 0.8%
Renter
Occupied 448 2.1% 188 0.9% 636 3.0%
Total 611 2.9% 194 0.93% 805 3.8%
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25014, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

As seen in Table B-17, owner-occupied housing units make up 21 percent of overcrowded units in the City. In comparison, renter-occupied units account for a much larger 79 percent of overcrowded units. In comparison to nearby jurisdictions, Dublin experiences the highest percentage of renter-occupied overcrowded units. Home ownership generally allows for higher-income households to participate while renting is sought more often by those who have insufficient income for home buying.

Table B-17: Overcrowded Housing Units by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Overcrowded Units Renter-Occupied Overcrowded Units Count % ofOvercrowded
Units Count % of Overcrowded Units
Dublin 169 21.0% 636 79.0%
San Ramon 260 29.6% 617 70.4%
Livermore 318 30.2% 736 69.8%
Pleasanton 147 15.9% 779 84.1%
Alameda County 11,403 25.2% 33,833 74.8%
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25014, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Table B-18 below compares the data for total overcrowded housing units in Dublin with nearby jurisdictions. According to the data, the City experiences the highest rate of overcrowding (3.9 percent) compared to nearby jurisdictions, except for the County, which has a total of 7.9 percent of housing units considered overcrowded.

Table B-18: Overcrowded Housing Units
Jurisdiction Total Overcrowded Units Percent
Dublin 805 3.9%
San Ramon 877 3.2%
Livermore 1,054 3.3%
Pleasanton 926 3.3%
Alameda County 45,236 7.9%
DRAFT
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25014, 5-Year Estimates, 2020. 1203
Appendix B: Community Profile B-17
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

2. Overpayment (Cost Burden)
Overpayment is an important factor in understanding housing needs and affordability. State and federal standards indicate that a household paying more than 30 percent of its income for housing is overpaying and considered cost burdened. A household paying more than 50 percent of its income for housing is considered severely cost burdened. Overpayment for housing can cause an imbalance on the remainder of a household’s budget. Understanding and measuring overpayment for housing is also an indicator of supply and demand.

Table B-19 below summarizes Dublin’s cost burdened households. Renters disproportionately experience cost burdens compared to homeowners. In Dublin, 39 percent of renters are cost burdened and 15 percent are severely cost burdened. In comparison, 25.3 percent of homeowners are cost burdened and

8.7 percent are severely cost burdened. The data shows that as income increases, renters are less likely to experience a severe cost burden but still may experience a cost burden. For homeowners, a cost burden is more common for lower-income households, except for those earning over 100 percent of the HUD area median family income (HAMFI).

Table B-19: Summary of Housing Overpayment
Income by Cost
Burden*
Owner Renter
Cost
Burden
> 30%
% of
Owner
HH
Cost
Burden
> 50%
% of
Owner
HH
Cost
Burden
> 30%
% of
Renter
HH
Cost
Burden
> 50%
% of
Renter
HH
Household Income
is < 30% 405 3.1% 325 2.5% 430 6.4% 335 5.0%
Household Income
is 31% to 50%
HAMFI
415 3.2% 335 2.6% 360 5.4% 255 3.8%
Household Income
is 51% to 80%
HAMFI
235 1.8% 150 1.2% 465 6.9% 250 3.7%
Household Income
is 81% to 100%
HAMFI
350 2.7% 120 0.9% 515 7.7% 95 1.4%
Household Income
is >100% HAMFI 1,865 14.4% 195 1.5% 850 12.7% 70 1.0%
Total 3,270 25.3% 1,125 8.7% 2,620 39.0% 1,005 15.0%
Note: HAMFI equalsHUD area median family income, this is the median-family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. HAMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made. * Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2014-2018.DRAFT
1204
Appendix B: Community Profile B-18
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E. Special Needs Groups
State law recognizes that certain households may have more difficulty finding adequate and affordable housing due to special circumstances. Special needs groups include seniors, persons with disabilities, single-parent households, large households, and farmworkers. Special circumstances may be related to employment and income, family characteristics, disability, household characteristics, or other factors.

Consequently, certain residents in Dublinmay experience higher incidences of housing overpayment (cost burden), overcrowding, or other housing problems. The special needs groups analyzed in this section include seniors, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), persons experiencing homelessness, single parents, large households, farmworkers, and students. These categories may also overlap with one another; for example, seniors may also have disabilities. These special needs groups could be assisted by increasing the available affordable housing and adopting programs that offer financial assistance or community resources. Appendix A: Review of Past Performance provides a summary of resources that were provided for each special needs group throughout the 5th Planning Cycle.

1. Seniors
The senior population, generally defined as those 65 years or older, may have several concerns: limited and fixed incomes, high health care costs, higher incidence of mobility and self-care limitations, and transit dependency. Specific housing needs of the senior population include affordable housing, supportive housing (such as intermediate care facilities), and other housing that includes planned service components. As shown in Table B-20, the City has the lowest percentage of persons aged 65 and over, compared to nearby jurisdictions.

Table B-20: Persons Aged 65 and Over
Jurisdiction Population Count Percent
Dublin 5,891 9.2%
San Ramon 9,115 11.2%
Livermore 12,083 13.2%
Pleasanton 12,085 15.1%
Alameda County 231,186 13.9%
Source: American Community Survey, Table S0101, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Federal housing data defines the household type as ‘elderly family’ if it consists of two persons with one or both residents aged 62 or over. Table B-21 summarizes the income and tenure of elderly family households in Dublin. Of Dublin elderly households, 15.9 percent earn less than 30 percent of the HAMFI, and 30.1 percent earn less than 50 percent of the HAMFI.

DRAFT
1205
Appendix B: Community Profile B-19
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-21: Elderly Households by Incomeand Tenure
Income Category Owner Renter Total Percent of Total
Elderly Households
Extremely Low
(<30% HAMFI) 245 235 480 15.9%
Very Low
(31% to 50% HAMFI) 310 119 429 14.2%
Low
(51% to 80% HAMFI) 315 64 379 12.6%
Moderate
(81% to 100% HAMFI) 235 30 265 8.8%
Above Moderate
(>100% HAMFI) 1,220 240 1,460 48.5%
Total 2,325 688 3,013 100%
Source: HUD CHAS, 2013-2017, (Reported by the ABAG MTC Housing Needs Data 2022).

In addition to overpayment problems faced by seniors due to their relatively fixed incomes, many seniors are also faced with disabilities. In 2020, ACS reported 3,207 seniors with disabilities (or 9.9 percent of the total population). Amongst these disabilities, the most common were ambulatory difficulties (having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs) at 14.8 percent and independent living difficulties at 13.1 percent.

2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities Physical and developmental disabilities can hinder access to traditionally designed housing units as well as potentially limit the ability to earn adequate income. Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may deprive a person from earning income, restrict mobility, or make self-care difficult. Thus, persons with disabilities often have special housing needs related to limited earning capacity, a lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs. Some residents suffer from disabilities that require living in a supportive or institutional setting.

Although no current comparisons of disability with income, household size, or race/ethnicity are available, it is reasonable to assume that a substantial portion of persons with disabilities would have annual incomes within Federal and State income limits, especially those households not in the labor force.

Furthermore, many lower-income persons with disabilities are likely to require housing assistance and services. Housing needs for disabled persons are further compounded by design issues and location factors. For example, special needs of households with wheelchair-bound or semi-ambulatory individuals may require ramps, holding bars, special bathroom designs, wider doorways, lower cabinets and counters, elevators, and other interior and exterior design features.

Housing opportunities for persons with disabilities can be addressed through the provision of affordable, barrier-free housing. Rehabilitation assistance can be targeted toward renters and homeowners with disabilities for unit modification to improve accessibility.

The ACS identifies six disability types: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. The U.S. Census and ACS provide clarifying questions to determine persons with disabilities and DRAFT
1206
Appendix B: Community Profile B-20
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
differentiate disabilities within the population. The ACS defines a disability as a report of one of the six disabilities identified by the following questions:
• Hearing Disability: Is this person deaf or do they have serious difficulty hearing? • Visual Disability: Is this person blind or do they have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?
• Cognitive Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? • Ambulatory Difficulty: Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? • Independent Living Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping? According to the 2020 ACS, about 11.1 percent of the Dublin population has a disability (Table B-22). Of this percentage, almost 21 percent have ambulatory difficulties and 21.3 percent have challenges living independently. For those ages 18 to 64, independent living and cognitive disabilities are the most common. It should also be noted that these numbers may be counted multiple times as an individual may fall into multiple disability categories.

Table B-22: Disability Status
Disability Type
Under 18
with a
Disability
18 to 64
with a
Disability
65 years
and Over
with a
Disability
Total
Percent of
Population
with
Disability
Percent of
Total
Population
Population with a
Hearing Difficulty 22 208 581 811 11.7% 1.3%
Population with a
Vision Difficulty 92 582 328 1,002 14.5% 1.6%
Population with a
Cognitive
Difficulty
425 708 222 1,355 19.6% 2.2%
Population with
an Ambulatory
Difficulty
8 564 872 1,444 20.9% 2.3%
Population with a
Self-care Difficulty 264 129 431 824 11.9% 1.3%
Population with
an Independent
Living Difficulty
-- 698 773 1,471 21.3% 2.4%
Total 811 2,889 3,207 6,907* 100.0% 11.1%
*This number may be counted multiple times as some persons report having one or more disabilities.

Source: American Community Survey, Table S1810, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:

DRAFT
1207
Appendix B: Community Profile B-21
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 22
• Is likely to continue indefinitely
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, or economic self- sufficiency
• Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services; individualized supports; or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated According to the Regional Center of the East Bay Purchase of Services Expenditure and Demographic Data Report for 2020-2021, a total of 24,481 individuals from the East Bay diagnosed with developmental disabilities received services. Of those individuals, the majority have been diagnosed with Autism (40.3 percent). The rest were diagnosed with an intellectual disability (31.6 percent); Cerebral Palsy (4.2 percent); Epilepsy (1.3 percent); conditions closely related to intellectual disability (5.9 percent); and 16.7 percent reported some other disability. Of those who received services, 25.6 percent were White, 23.9 were Hispanic or Latino, 18.9 percent were Asian, 15.7 percent reported Other, 15.4 percent were Black, and the remaining half a percent were other races. A number of those who received services were between the age of three and 21 years old (44.6 percent), 39.8 percent were over the age of 22, and 15.6 percent were two years old or younger. A total of 80.2 percent of individuals who received services live at home with their parent(s) or guardian(s), followed by 8.4 percent of individuals living at a Community Care Facility.

The California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) provides estimates of persons with developmental disabilities in Dublin, as shown in Table B-23 below. As of December 2020, CDDS identified 259 juvenile persons and 194 adults as having a developmental disability in the ZIP code 94568.

Table B-23: Developmental Disability Statusfor ZIP Code 94568(2020) Disability Type Number of Residents

BY RESIDENT
Home of Parent/Guardian 354
Independent/Supported Living 35
Community Care Facility 38
Intermediate Care Facility 21
Foster/Family Home 11
Other 11
BY AGE
0-17 Years Old 259
18* Years Old 194
Source: CA DDS data by ZIP Code, December 2020.

Many people with developmental disabilities can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. Individuals with more severe developmental disabilities may require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most se
DRAFT
verely affected individuals may require an
1208
Appendix B: Community Profile B-22
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

There are resources that may be beneficial for people living with a development disability, including rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family residences, inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 (veterans) homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving the needs of this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in new multifamily residences (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

3. Large Households
Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special needs group because many communities have a limited supply of adequately sized, affordable housing units. To save for other necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower-income large households to reside in smaller units with an inadequate number of bedrooms, which frequently results in overcrowding and can contribute to fast rates of deterioration.

Securing housing large enough to accommodate all members of a household is more challenging for renters, because multifamily rental units are typically physically smaller than single-family ownership units. While apartment complexes offering two and three bedrooms are common, apartments with four or more bedrooms are rare. It is more likely that large households will experience overcrowding in comparison to smaller households. Additionally, throughout the region, single-family residences with higher bedroom counts, whether rental or ownership units, are rarely affordable to lower-income households.

Table B-24 below provides a breakdown of large households by tenure in Dublin. The data identifies the household size of homeowners and renters living in large households. About 10.2 percent of all households in Dublin are large households. There are more owner-occupied units with five or more occupants than renter-occupied households; however, renter-occupied households with seven or more occupants represent a larger percentage than for owner-occupied households.

DRAFT
1209
Appendix B: Community Profile B-23
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-24: Large Households (by Tenure)
Household Size
Owner Renter Total
Count Percent of
Owner HH Count Percent of Renter HH Count Percent of Total HH 5-Person Household 690 5.2% 456 6.0% 1,146 5.5%
6-Person Household 421 3.2% 192 2.5% 613 2.9%
7-or-More Person
Households 121 0.9% 14 0.2% 135 0.6%
Total 1,232 9.3% 662 8.7% 1,894 9.0%
HH = Households
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25009, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

4. Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special consideration and assistance due to their greater need for affordable and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Many female-headed households are susceptible to having lower incomes than similar two-parent households. Single mothers often face social pressures that limit their occupational choices and income earning potential, housing options, and access to supportive services.

The City has 1,775 single-parent households, as shown in Table B-25. Out of the total Dublin households,

7.0 percent are single-parent females and 3.8 percent are single-parent males. The percentages of singleparent households in Dublin are similar to the percentages for Alameda County. In Dublin, about 1.4 percent of single-parent households were estimated to be living in poverty in 2019.

Table B-25: Single Parent Households
Jurisdiction
Single-ParentMale, No
Spouse Present
Single ParentFemale, No Spouse
Present
Single-Parent HH
Living in Poverty
Single
Parent
HH
Percent
of Total
HH Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1
Dublin 621 3.8% 1,154 7.0% 284 1.7% 1,775 12.5%
Alameda
County 12,852 3.4% 35,198 9.2% 9,464 2.5% 48,050 15.1%
Note: HH = Households

1. Percent of Total Households
Source: American Community Survey, Table B17010, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

5. Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined by HCD as people whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Generally, permanent farmworkers (working 150 days or more) work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on a year-round basis. When workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal farmworkers, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may hire migrant farmworkers, defined as those whose travel distance prevents them from returning to their primary residence daily. Farmworkers have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers and move throughout the year from one harvest location to the next.

DRAFT
1210
Appendix B: Community Profile B-24
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics provides data on hired farmworkers across the United States at both a state and county level. Within the County of Alameda, there were a total of 593 hired farmworkers in 2017. A total of 305 are considered permanent and 288 were considered seasonal (working less than 150 days annually). Additionally, the County of Alameda reported 34 total migrant farmworkers.

According to ACS, there were 95 people (0.3 percent) employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining in Dublin in 2019. According to the California Employment Development Department, Dublin residents employed in the Farming, Fishing and Forestry occupation earn one of the lowest salaries in comparison to other occupations, with an estimated median income of $35,142. This is considered an extremely low-income for Dublin as it represents 28 percent of the median income for the City.

6. Extremely Low-Income Household and Poverty Status
CHAS data indicates there are approximately 1,090 low-income households and 960 very low-income households in Dublin. Very low-income households are those households that earn 50 percent or less than the HAMFI for Alameda County. Extremely low-income households are those households that earn less than 30 percent of the HAMFI. Extremely low-income households are generally more likely to experience overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing conditions, and are more likely to include transition and supportive housing.

According to CHAS, there are approximately 1,295 extremely low-income households in Dublin (renters and owners). Table B-26 includes data characterizing affordability and cost burden for various income groups. More renters than homeowners are subject to at least one housing challenge in Dublin. The extremely low-income household need is generally estimated as 50 percent of the very low-income RHNA.

The City’s very low-income RHNA is 1,295 units; therefore, the projected housing need for extremely lowincome households is 647 units.

According to 2020 ACS data, four percent of the Dublin population lives in poverty. Figure B-6 illustrates the percentage of people within each racial and ethnic group living below the poverty level. The values shown in Figure B-6 when compared with Figure B-2 show a disproportional ratio of certain racial groups experiencing higher rates of poverty. Persons identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race represent one percent of the population when combined; however, they represent 23.6percent of Dublin residents living in poverty. DRAFT 1211
Appendix B: Community Profile B-25
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure B-6: Percent below Poverty Level, by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin Source: American Community Survey, Table S1701, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Table B-26: Housing Challenges for All Households (by Income Category) Income Category
Owner
Household has at
least one of four
Housing Challenges
% of
Owner
HH
Household has no Housing
Challenges OR cost burden
not available
% of
Owner HH
Extremely Low (<30%) 415 3.2% 70 0.5%
Very Low(31% to 50% HAMFI) 420 3.3% 135 1.0%
Low(51% to 80% HAMFI) 235 1.8% 290 2.2%
Moderate (81% to 100% HAMFI) 360 2.8% 290 2.2%
Above Moderate (>100% HAMFI) 1,995 15.4% 8,705 67.3%
Total 3,420 26.5% 9,500 73.5%
Income Category
Renter
Household has at
least one of four
Housing Challenges
% of
Renter HH
Household has noHousing
Challenges OR cost
burden not available
% of
Renter HH
Extremely Low (<30%) 425 6.3% 85 1.3%
Very Low (31% to 50% HAMFI) 365 5.4% 40 0.6%
Low (51% to 80% HAMFI) 470 7.0% 90 1.3%
Moderate (81% to 100% HAMFI) 525 7.8% 165 2.5%
Above Moderate (>100% HAMFI) 1,200 17.9% 3,345 49.8%
Total 2,985 44.4% 3,730 55.5%
Total Households (Owner and
Renter) 6,405 32.6% 13,230 67.4%
* The four housing challenges are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and cost burden greater than 30 percent.
** The four severe housing challenges are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50 percent.

Note: HAMFI equalsHUD Area Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. HAMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.

Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2014-2018.

2.9%

5.5%

23.6%

3.2% 3.9%

1.8%

9.4%

5.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
White Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Other Pacific
Islander
Some other
race
Two or more
races
Hispanic or
Latino origin
DRAFT
1212
Appendix B: Community Profile B-26
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness has become an increasingly important issue across the State and the region. General factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include increased unemployment and underemployment, a lack of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income persons (especially extremely low-income persons), reductions in public subsidies to the poor, and the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill.

State law mandates that municipalities address the special needs of homeless persons within their jurisdictional boundaries. “Homelessness” as defined by HUD has been updated to include the following descriptions for homeless:
• People who are living in a place not meant for human habitation, in an emergency shelter, in transitional housing, or exiting an institution where they temporarily resided. • People who are losing their primary nighttime residence, which may include a motel or hotel or a doubled-up situation, within 14 days and lack resources or support networks to remain in housing. • Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to continue in that state. This applies to families with children or unaccompanied youth who have not had a lease or ownership interest in a housing unit in the last 60 days or more, have had two or more moves in the last 60 days, and who are likely to continue to be unstably housed because of disability or multiple barriers to employment.
• People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.

These definitions do not include persons living in substandard or overcrowded housing units, persons being discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at risk of homelessness.

The EveryoneCounts! Point in Time Count is conducted by Alameda County in accordance with HUD guidelines and identifies where homeless individuals are living in the County. HUD requires communities to conduct the Point in Time Count every two years. The most recent count with available data was completed on January 30, 2019. The 2021 count was postponed due to the COVID-19 global pandemic and, as of March 2022, the most recent 2022 count data has not yet been released. In 2019, approximately 164 trained guides and 489 volunteers across the County counted 8,022 individuals experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. Of those counted, 1,710 were sheltered and 6,312 were unsheltered.

The count results are shown in Table B-27.

Table B-27: Homelessness in Dublin and Surrounding Cities(2017-2019) Jurisdiction 2017 % of County 2019 % of County Count Change Dublin 21 0.4% 8 0.1% -13
San Ramon* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Livermore 243 4.3% 264 3.3% 21
Pleasanton 18 0.3% 70 0.9% 52
Alameda County 5,629 100% 8,022 100% 2,393
Source: EveryoneCounts! Point in Time Count – Alameda County, 2017, 2019. *Data for San Ramon Point in Time Count is not readily available for 2017 and 2019.

DRAFT
1213
Appendix B: Community Profile B-27
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
In both 2017 and 2019, Dublin had the lowest rate of homelessness compared to nearby jurisdictions. It is important to promote and provide adequate resources to continue combating homelessness. This can be done through the provision of affordable housing and resources, which will allow for stable housing for individuals to then continue advancements in other sectors of their life.

Of those counted, 61 percent identified as male, 35 percent as female, two percent as transgender, and two percent as gender non-binary. The largest age group of persons experiencing homelessness was 25 to 59 year-olds (73 percent), followed by the age group 60 years and over (14 percent). The population of persons experiencing homelessness in Alameda County is racially and ethnically made up of 47 percent Black or African American, 31 percent White, and 17 percent Hispanic or Latino. A total of 42 percent of persons counted also reported having at least one disabling condition, with 39 percent experiencing psychiatric or emotional conditions, 30 percent experiencing alcohol and drug use, and 30 percent experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. Out of those counted, 33 percent believe rent assistance,30 percent believe benefits and income, 23 percent believe employment assistance, and 21 percent believe mental health services might have prevented homelessness.

8. Students
The need for student housing is another significant factor affecting housing demand. Student housing often only produces a temporary housing need based on the educational institution enrollment duration.

Typically, lower-income students are affected by a lack of affordable housing, especially within easy commuting distance from campus. Students often seek shared housing situations to decrease expenses.

Students living independently have varied needs and may live on fixed incomes.

According to ACS data, Dublin has approximately 3,043 persons enrolled in college or graduate school, which represents approximately 19 percent of the total population. Of the Dublin residents enrolled in higher education, 79.2 percent are enrolled in public institutions and 20.8 percent are enrolled in private institutions. Several large universities are located within a 30-minute drive of Dublin, including the University of California at Berkeley and California State University East Bay.

A report by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office studied 70 community colleges and found that 56 percent of students were food insecure, 35 percent were experiencing housing insecurity, and 14 percent were homeless. 3 Students often require affordable rental housing; the City recognizes that housing affordability and availability may provide a burden on students in Dublin.

F. Housing Stock Characteristics
Growth, type, availability and tenure, age and condition, housing costs, and affordability are important characteristics affecting how well the housing stock meets current needs for the community. This section details Dublin’s housing stock characteristics.
3 California Community Colleges, Chancellor’s Office, Basic Needs Survey report, 2018.

DRAFT
1214
Appendix B: Community Profile B-28
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

1. Housing Growth
Table B-28 below displays housing stock growth data for Dublin and nearby jurisdictions. According to ACS data, Dublin added 7,446 additional housing units between 2010 and 2020, a 53.2 percent increase and the highest in the area. Of the nearby communities, Dublin has consistently remained at the top in the number of housing units added between 2010 and 2020.

Table B-28 Housing Unit Growth (Growth Trends)
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2020 Percent Change
2010 to 2015
Percent Change
2015 to 2020
Dublin 14,061 18,030 21,507 28.2% 19.3%
San Ramon 24,809 25,950 28,370 4.6% 9.3%
Livermore 29,796 31,378 33,330 5.3% 6.2%
Pleasanton 24,486 26,852 29,069 9.7% 8.3%
Alameda County 577,538 589,858 605,767 2.1% 2.7%
Source: American Community Survey, Table DP04, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2020.

2. Housing Types
Table B-29 provides a breakdown of number of housing units by type for Dublin and Alameda County.

Housing in Dublin is predominantly detached single-family residences (55.3 percent). About 29.4 percent of Dublin housing units are multi-family residences. A wider range of housing types is important in providing for the diverse housing needs of the Dublin population.

Table B-29: Total Housing Units by Type
Jurisdiction
Single- Family
Detached
Single-Family
Attached Multi-Family
Mobile Homes,
Boats, and other
Types of Housing
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Dublin 11,309 54.2% 3,325 15.9% 6,225 29.8% 24 0.1%
Alameda County 304,285 53.1% 50,561 8.8% 211,039 36.9% 7,289 1.3% Source: American Community Survey, Table S2504, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

3. Housing Availability and Tenure
Housing tenure and vacancy rates generally influence the supply and cost of housing. Housing tenure defines if a unit is owner occupied or renter occupied. The tenure characteristics in a community can indicate several aspects of the housing market, such as affordability, household stability, and availability of unit types, among others. In many communities, tenure distribution generally correlates with household income, composition, and age of the resident.

Homeowners tend to gravitate towards single-family, detached residences as they are typically better suited for larger households and more affordable to home buyers rather than renters. Table B-30 shows that in Dublin 70 percent of renters live in multi-family residences as opposed to 18.8 percent who live in single-family, detached residences. For homeowners, about 74 percent live in single-family, detached residences.

DRAFT
1215
Appendix B: Community Profile B-29
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-30: Occupied Housing Units by Type and Tenure
Tenure Single- Family
Detached
Single-Family
Attached Multi-Family
Mobile Homes,
Boats, and other
Types of Housing
Owner Occupied 74.3% 18.6% 6.9% 0.1%
Renter Occupied 18.8% 11.1% 70.0% 0.1%
Source: American Community Survey Table B25032, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

While multi-family residences are typically more affordable to renters, the average household size in Dublin is one of the largest in the area. Table B-31 shows that owner-occupied households in Dublin exceed the average household size in the County, and renter-occupied household sizes are consistent with the County average. Dublin has about 3.15 persons per owner-occupied household and 2.71 per renteroccupied household.

Table B-31: Average Household Size by Tenure
Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied
Households1
Average Owner
Household Size
Renter-Occupied
Households1
Average Renter
Household Size
Dublin 63.7% 3.15 36.3% 2.71
San Ramon 71.8% 3.15 28.2% 2.44
Livermore 72.6% 2.87 27.4% 2.75
Pleasanton 67.9% 3.02 32.1% 2.53
Alameda County 53.6% 2.91 46.4% 2.63

1. Percent of total households
Source: American Community Survey, Table CP04, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Vacancy rates are also an important housing indicator as they indicate the degree of housing choices available. High vacancy rates usually indicate low demand and/or high supply conditions in the housing market. High vacancy rates can be difficult for owners trying to sell or rent. Low vacancy rates usually indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing market. Low vacancy rates can inflate prices making it more difficult for lower- and moderate-income households to find housing. Vacancy rates between two to three percent are usually considered healthy for single-family or ownership housing, and vacancy rates of five to six percent are usually considered healthy for multi-family or rental housing.

Vacancy rates must be viewed in the context of all local and regional market characteristics. Dublin has the lowest vacancy rate compared to f the nearby jurisdictions, as illustrated in Figure B-7.

Figure B-7: Vacancy Rates by Jurisdiction
Source: American Community Survey, CP04, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

2.9%

3.0%

3.4%

4.3%

5.4%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0%
Dublin
San Ramon
Livermore
Pleasanton
Alameda County
DRAFT
1216
Appendix B: Community Profile B-30
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-32 below displays ACS data for vacancy rates in Dublin. The largest housing type that is vacant is for housing units for rent (50.6 percent), followed by those that remain vacant for unknown reasons (24.2 percent). Seasonal, recreational, or occasional use units may include secondary vacation homes or shortterm rental homes; these homes often do not contribute to the housing needs of a community as they are not considered valuable for long-term rental or occupancy purposes.

Table B-32: Vacant Housing Units by Type in Dublin
Type of Housing Estimate Percent of
Vacant
For rent 316 50.6%
Rented, not occupied 17 2.7%
For sale only 70 11.2%
Sold, not occupied 26 4.2%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 44 7.1%
Other vacant 151 24.2%
Total 624 100%
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25004, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

4. Housing Age and Conditions
Housing age can be an important indicator of housing conditions within a community. Housing that is over 30 years old is typically in need of major rehabilitation, such as a new roof, foundation, or plumbing.

Figure B-8 illustrates the housing stock age in Dublin. The majority of the housing stock was built after the City incorporated in 1982 with the greatest housing boom between 2000 and 2009 when 29.1 percent of existing units were built. Approximately 21.7 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1980.

Figure B-8: Housing Stock Age
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25034, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Built
2014 or
later
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1939 or
earlier
Dublin 13.3% 11.4% 29.1% 13.7% 10.9% 4.4% 14.5% 1.4% 0.7% 0.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
DRAFT
1217
Appendix B: Community Profile B-31
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure B-9 below displays housing units by the year they were built and sorted by whether they are currently occupied by homeowners or renters. Based on the data below, renters and owners tend to live in units built after 2000. However, owners are more likely than renters to live in units built prior to 2000.

Approximately forty-five percent of homeowners live in housing units built prior to 2000.

Figure B-9: Tenure by Year Structure Built
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25036, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

5. Housing Costs and Affordability
Housing costs reflect the supply and demand of housing in a community. The following summarizes the cost and affordability of the Dublin housing stock.

Table B-33 below shows the median home value in Dublin was $934,500 in 2010. This is above the regional median for Alameda County ($825,300).

Table B-34 below shows average monthly rental rates for units in Dublin. The monthly rental rates for all unit types increased from 2016 to 2020, with the highest increase to one-bedroom units. Units containing five or more bedrooms were the only unit type to have experienced a decrease in costs; however, between 2018 and 2020 the cost increased.

Table B-33: Median Home Value by Community
Jurisdiction Median Home Value
Dublin $934,500
San Ramon $1,001,600
Livermore $806,100
Pleasanton $1,056,100
Alameda County $825,300
Source: American Community Survey, Table DP04, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Built
2014 or
later
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1939 or
earlier
Renter Occupied 10.1% 9.0% 32.4% 20.6% 9.6% 5.4% 8.7% 2.3% 1.1% 0.9% Owner Occupied 15.3% 12.9% 26.0% 10.0% 12.2% 3.9% 17.8% 0.9% 0.5% 0.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
DRAFT
1218
Appendix B: Community Profile B-32
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-34: Monthly Rental Rates(2016-2020)
Unit Type 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 % Change
2016-2020
Studio 2,080 2,221 2,173 2,227 2,332 12.1%
1 bedroom 1,770 2,018 2,124 2,236 2,293 29.5%
2 bedrooms 2,193 2,378 2,623 2,761 2,799 27.6%
3 bedrooms 2,627 2,788 2,987 3,076 3,135 19.3%
4 bedrooms 2,777 2,914 3,035 3,177 3,500+ 26.0%
5 or more bedrooms 3,500+ 3,500+ 3,403 3,429 3,500+ 0.0% Source: American Community Survey, Table B25031, 5-Year Estimates, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020.

Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home with the maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. Taken together, this information can generally show who can afford what size and type of housing and indicate the type of households most likely to experience overcrowding and overpayment.

HUD conducts annual household income surveys nationwide to determine the HAMI and a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this survey, HCD developed income limits, which can be used to determine the maximum price affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income category. The maximum affordable housing costs for homeowners and renters in Alameda County are shown in Table B-35 and Table B-36, respectively.

The data shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment). This amount can be compared to median home value (Table B-33) and monthly rental rates (Table B-34) to determine what types of housing opportunities a household can afford.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households earn less than 30 percent of the County HAMI – up to $28,800 for a one-person household and up to $44,400 for a five-person household in 2022. Extremely low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Dublin without assuming a substantial cost burden.

Very Low-Income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31 percent and 50 percent of the County HAMI – up to $47,950 for a one-person household and up to $74,000 for a five-person household in 2022. The maximum affordable price for very low-income households is $236,000 for a one-person household and $365,000 for a five-person household. A one-person very low-income household can afford to pay up to $1,199 in monthly rent and a five-person very low-income household can pay up to $1,850 in monthly rent. Given housing costs, very low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Dublin without assuming a substantial cost burden.

DRAFT
1219
Appendix B: Community Profile B-33
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 percent and 80 percent of the County’s HAMI - up to $76,750 for a one-person household and up to $118,400 for a five-person household in 2022. The maximum affordable home price for a low-income household is $378,000 for a one-person household and $584,000 for a five-person household. Based on the median home value in Dublin in 2019 (Table B-33, homeownership is not affordable to low-income households. A one-person low-income household could afford to pay up to $1,919 in rent per month and a five-person low-income household could afford to pay as much as $2,960 per month. Low-income households in Dublin would not be able to find adequately sized affordable apartment units (Table B-35).

Moderate-Income Households
Persons and households of moderate-income earn between 81 percent and 120 percent of the County’s HAMI – up to $162,750, depending on household size in 2022. The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $520,000 for a one-person household and $802,000 for a five-person household. Moderate income households may be able to purchase a home in Dublin, depending on the household size. The maximum affordable rent payment for moderate-income households is between $2,426 and $3,661 per month. Appropriately-sized, market-rate rental housing is generally affordable to moderate-income households.

DRAFT
1220
Appendix B: Community Profile B-34
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-35: Affordable Housing Costs for Homeowners(2022) Annual Income Mortgage Utilities1 Tax and
Insurance
Total
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Affordable
Purchase Price
Extremely Low-Income (30% of HAMI)
1-Person $28,800 $400 $212 $108 $720 $142,000
2-Person $32,900 $451 $248 $123 $823 $162,000
3-Person $37,000 $473 $313 $139 $925 $182,000
4-Person $41,100 $518 $355 $154 $1,028 $203,000
5-Person $44,400 $536 $408 $167 $1,110 $219,000
Very Low-Income (50% of HAMI)
1-Person $47,950 $807 $212 $180 $1,199 $236,000
2-Person $54,800 $917 $248 $206 $1,370 $270,000
3-Person $61,650 $997 $313 $231 $1,541 $304,000
4-Person $68,500 $1,101 $355 $257 $1,713 $338,000
5-Person $74,000 $1,165 $408 $278 $1,850 $365,000
Low-Income (80% HAMI)
1-Person $76,750 $1,419 $212 $288 $1,919 $378,000
2-Person $87,700 $1,616 $248 $329 $2,193 $433,000
3-Person $98,650 $1,783 $313 $370 $2,466 $486,000
4-Person $109,600 $1,974 $355 $411 $2,740 $540,000
5-Person $118,400 $2,108 $408 $444 $2,960 $584,000
Moderate-Income (120% HAMI)
1-Person $105,500 $2,096 $212 $330 $2,638 $520,000
2-Person $120,550 $2,389 $248 $377 $3,014 $595,000
3-Person $135,650 $2,654 $313 $424 $3,391 $669,000
4-Person $150,700 $2,942 $355 $471 $3,768 $743,000
5-Person $162,750 $3,152 $408 $509 $4,069 $802,000
Assumptions: 2021 HCD income limitsfor Oakland-Fremont, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; 30 percent gross household income as affordable housing cost; 15 percent of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10 percent down payment; and 4.5 percent interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on the Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule (2022).

1. Utilities include heating, cooking, water heating, electric, air conditioning, water, sewer, trash collection, microwave, and refrigerator. All utilities are assuming natural gas.

Source: Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule; California Department of Housing and Community Development, 20
DRAFT
21 Income Limits, and Kimley Horn and Associates.
1221
Appendix B: Community Profile B-35
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table B-36: Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for Renters(2022) Annual Income Rent Utilities1
Total Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Extremely Low-Income (30% of HAMI)
1-Person $28,800 $508 $212 $720
2-Person $32,900 $575 $248 $823
3-Person $37,000 $612 $313 $925
4-Person $41,100 $673 $355 $1,028
5-Person $44,400 $702 $408 $1,110
Very Low-Income (50% of HAMI)
1-Person $47,950 $987 $212 $1,199
2-Person $54,800 $1,122 $248 $1,370
3-Person $61,650 $1,228 $313 $1,541
4-Person $68,500 $1,358 $355 $1,713
5-Person $74,000 $1,442 $408 $1,850
Low-Income (80% HAMI)
1-Person $76,750 $1,707 $212 $1,919
2-Person $87,700 $1,945 $248 $2,193
3-Person $98,650 $2,153 $313 $2,466
4-Person $109,600 $2,385 $355 $2,740
5-Person $118,400 $2,552 $408 $2,960
Moderate-Income (120% HAMI)
1-Person $105,500 $2,426 $212 $2,638
2-Person $120,550 $2,766 $248 $3,014
3-Person $135,650 $3,078 $313 $3,391
4-Person $150,700 $3,413 $355 $3,768
5-Person $162,750 $3,661 $408 $4,069
Assumptions: 2021 HCD income limitsfor Oakland-Fremont, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; and 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost. Utilities based on the Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule (2022).

1. Utilities include heating, cooking, water heating, electric, air conditioning, water, sewer, trash collection, microwave, and refrigerator. All utilities are assuming natural gas.

Source: Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule; California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021 Income Limits and Kimley Horn and Associates.

DRAFT
1222
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

DRAFT
1223
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-1 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

APPENDIX C:

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
DRAFT
(AFFH)
1224
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-2 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A. Housing Constraints
There are multiple potential factors that may affect the provision of adequate housing or access to opportunities for current and future residents in Dublin. These factors may include non-governmental, governmental, infrastructure, and environmental constraints, such as:
• Non-Governmental Constraints:
o Land costs
o Constructions costs
o Availability of financing
• Governmental Constraints:
o Land use controls
o Development standards
o Permitting processes and fees
o Local ordinances
• Infrastructure Constraints:
o Dry utilities
o Water supply
o Fire and emergency services
o Police Services
• Environmental Constraints:
o Geologic hazards
o Flood hazards
o Fire hazards
Combined, these factors may create barriers for current and future residents to access adequate and affordable housing options, especially for lower- and moderate-income households.

1. Non-governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints largely affect the cost of housing in Dublin and can produce barriers to housing production and affordability. These constraints may include real wages, land cost and availability, housing demand, financing and lending, construction costs, and labor availability, which can make it financially challenging to build any housing, especially affordable housing. The following highlights the primary marketfactors that affect housing production in Dublin.

Land Costs and Construction Costs
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family residences. However, there is wide variation within each construction type, depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. A key indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC updates the estimated cost of construction at six-month intervals and provides estimates for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type VA protected wood-frame construction.

Estimates are based on “good
DRAFT -quality” construction, providing materials and fixtures well above state and 1225
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-3 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
local building code requirements. In February 2021, the ICC estimated that the average cost for goodquality housing was $125.18 per square foot for multi-family residences, $138.79 per square foot for single-family residences, and $156.95 per square foot for residential care/assisted living facilities, which are expected to be higher due to inflation. Construction costs for custom homes and units with extra amenities run even higher. Construction costs are also dependent upon materials used and building height, as well as regulations set by the Building Code. Although construction costs are a significant portion of the overall development cost, they are consistent throughout the region and, especially when considering land costs, are not considered a major constraint to housing production in Dublin.

Land costs may also create a constraint to the development of affordable housing. Land costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that must be removed. Similarly, site constraints such as environmental issues (e.g., steep slopes, soil stability, seismic hazards, and flooding) can be a factor in land cost. A Zillow search for vacant lots sold between 2019 and 2022 returned seven lots between 0.05 acres at $1,180,000 to 7.58 acres at $1,430,000. Table C-1 shows the average cost of vacant land in Dublin and nearby jurisdictions. The data shows that the City’s average cost of vacant land is similar to San Ramon. Notably, lots sold in neighboring communities were located in rural regions, while the City’s vacant land is located in developed neighborhoods. The cost of land does not create a constraint to the development of housing in Dublin.

Table C-1: Vacant Land Cost – Zillow
Jurisdiction Average Lot Size
(Acres)
Average Cost Per
Square-Foot
Dublin 2.5 $256
Pleasanton 2.9 $702
San Ramon 27.2 $233
Livermore 30 $24
Source: Zillow.com, accessed February 10, 2022.

Availability of Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on multiple factors, including the type of lending institutions active in a community, lending practices, algorithms, rates, and fees charged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to such loans. Additionally, availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The primary concern in a review of lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to all residents of a community, regardless of income, sex, race, or ethnicity. The data presented in this section include the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing in the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Statistical Area/Metropolitan Division (MSA/MD).

Table C-2 displays the disposition of loan applications for the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland MSA/MD, per the 2016 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Report. Applicants with at least a 120 percent MSA/MD median income had the highest rates of loan appro
DRAFT
val. Of that income category, applicants who identify
1226
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-4 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
as White had the highest percentage of approval and number of applications. Applicants with less than 50 percent of the MSA/MD median income had the highest percentage of denied loans than the other income categories. Applicants who identify as White were more likely to be approved for a loan than other races or ethnicities. Applicants who identify as American Indian and Alaska Native were the most likely to be denied for a loan than another race or ethnicity. Given the generally high loan approval rates, home financing is typically available and not considered to be a constraint in Dublin.

Table C-2: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity – San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland MSA/MD Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other*
Total
Applications
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 34.7% 36.4% 28.9% 121 Asian 43.2% 31.0% 25.8% 3,320
Black or African American 41.5% 28.9% 29.6% 1,260
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 40.2% 30.7% 29.1% 127 White 48.3% 25.3% 26.5% 7,678
Hispanic or Latino 41.5% 30.7% 27.8% 2,509
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.1% 19.6% 29.3% 184 Asian 63.6% 14.7% 21.6% 7,727
Black or African American 56.1% 17.9% 25.9% 2,515
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 54.8% 18.4% 26.9% 294 White 65.8% 12.0% 22.2% 16,372
Hispanic or Latino 59.7% 15.4% 24.8% 5,994
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 63.5% 21.6% 14.9% 74
Asian 67.4% 11.0% 21.6% 3,236
Black or African American 59.6% 14.3% 26.1% 819
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 56.0% 15.6% 28.4% 109 White 68.4% 9.4% 22.2% 6,573
Hispanic or Latino 63.4% 12.0% 24.6% 1,933
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 58.4% 17.3% 24.3% 173 Asian 69.8% 9.1% 21.1% 11,974
Black or African American 60.7% 14.2% 25.1% 2,258
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 66.3% 10.8% 22.9% 297 White 72.4% 7.7% 20.0% 18,195
Hispanic or Latino 65.5% 11.7% 22.8% 4,327
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 62.7% 11.5% 25.8% 330 Asian 68.4% 7.8% 23.8% 50,498
Black or African American 60.5% 12.9% 26.6% 3,508
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.8% 24.0% 483 White 71.2% 7.3% 21.6% 50,678
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 10.2% 25.2% 5,862
* Percent Other includes applications approved but not originated, applications withdrawn, and files closed for incompleteness.

Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan DRAFT
applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2020.
1227
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-5 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Economic Constraints
Market forces on the economy and the trickle-down effects on the construction industry can act as a barrier to housing construction and especially to affordable housing construction. It is estimated that housing price growth will continue in the City and the region for the foreseeable future. Moving into 2020, California was seeing a 1.6 percent growth in jobs from 2019 and experiencing an all-time low in unemployment rates. The COVID-19 pandemic had stalled much of the economy in early 2020. However, as Figure C-1 below shows, the Dublin housing market experienced an overall sustained growth with a 5.2 percent year-over-year growth since 2019. According to Redfin’s Housing Market Insights, homes spent a median seven days on the market. A total of 57 homes were sold in December 2021, which represents a 36 percent decrease year-over-year as shown in Figure C-2.

Figure C-1: Dublin Housing Market Trends – Median Sale Price (2019-2021) Source: Redfin – Dublin Housing Market Insights(Accessed: February 2022) Figure C-2: Dublin Housing Market Trends – Number of Homes Sold (2019-2021) DRAFT
Source: Redfin – Dublin Housing Market Insights(Accessed: February 2022) 1228
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-6 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A December 2021 California Association of Realtors (CAR) report found that the average cost of singlefamily residences in Alameda County was $1,200,000, which experienced a 13.2 percent year-to-year increase from 2020. Comparably, the State-wide average cost for a Single-family residence was $796,570.

According to a CAR First-Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index Report for the fourth quarter of 2021, the median price for a single-family residence, purchased by first-time homebuyers, was $1,075,250 with monthly payments of $5,080 (including taxes and insurance). This required a minimum qualifying income of $152,400. In comparison, the State-wide median cost for a single-family residence, purchased by firsttime homebuyers, was $677,850 with monthly payments of $3,200 and a minimum qualifying income of $96,000.

In conclusion, Dublin households must earn a higher income to be able to participate in the current housing market. Given this is not a phenomenon unique to Dublin and jurisdictions State-wide are experiencing high market costs, this is not considered a constraint. However, policies and programs are included in the Housing Plan to provide households with assistance in entering the market.

2. Governmental Constraints
Land Use Controls
Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes permitted land uses and development density throughout the City. These land uses provide a wide variety of housing types while also ensuring compatibility between neighboring uses. Table C-3 lists the land uses that permit residential development and their density ranges.

Table C-3: Residential Land Uses and Density Ranges
General Plan Land Uses Dwelling Units/Acre
Rural Residential / Agriculture 0.01
Estate Residential 0.01-0.8
Low-Density Single Family Residential 0.5-3.8
Single Family Residential 0.9-6.0
Medium –Density Residential 6.1-14.0
Medium/High-Density Residential 14.1-25.0
Medium/High-Density Residential and
Retail Office 14.1-25.0
General Commercial/DC Medium-High
Density Residential 14.1-25.0
General Commercial/DC High Density
Residential 20.1-60.0
High-Density Residential 25.1+
Mixed Use 6.1-25.0
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 6.1-25.1+
Campus Office Not specified
General Commercial Not specified
Neighborhood Commercial Not specified
Public/Semi-Public Not specified
DRAFT
Source: Dublin General Plan, Chapter 2: Land Use Element. 1229
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-7 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Variety of Housing Types Permitted
Cities are required by California Housing Law to make sites available through zoning for the development of a variety of housing types for all socioeconomic levels of the populations. Housing types include singlefamily residences, multi-family housing, accessory dwelling units, factory-built homes, mobile homes, employee and agricultural workforce housing, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, and housing for persons with disabilities. Table C-4 provides the housing types permitted through the Dublin Municipal Code in the following zoning districts:
• A – Agricultural District: The purpose and intent of the Agricultural Zoning District is to establish regulations which preserve and protect agricultural lands that are being used for the commercial production of agricultural commodities consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and appropriate standards of public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics, as well as encourage compatibility of all Agriculture use types with the surrounding neighborhood. • R-1 – Single-Family Residential District: The R-1 zoning district is intended to provide for and protect neighborhoods that include detached, single-family homes and residential use types compatible with a quiet, family-living environment. The R-1 zoning district is consistent with the Low-Density Single-Family Residential, Single Family-Residential, and Medium Density Residential designations of the General Plan depending on the Lot Square Footage Per Dwelling Unit selected for the development.
• R-2 – Two Family Residential District: The R-2 zoning district is intended to provide for and protect neighborhoods that include single-family dwellings, two family dwellings that have development characteristics similar to single-family neighborhoods, duplexes, and residential use types compatible with a quiet, family-living environment. The R-2 zoning district is consistent with the Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential designations of the General Plan depending on the Lot Square Footage Per Dwelling Unit selected for the development.
• R-M – Multi-Family Residential: The R-M zoning district is intended to provide for and protect neighborhoods that include single-family residences, two family residences, and multi-family residences that are clustered to provide generous open space areas for common use, and that are generally close to transit, shopping, and public facilities. The R-M zoning district is consistent with the Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, and High-Density Residential designations of the General Plan depending on the Lot Square Footage Per Dwelling Unit selected for the development.
• C-1 – Retail Commercial District: The C-1 zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of retail commercial use types along major transportation corridors and intersections, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses. The C-1 zoning district is consistent with the Retail/Office and General Commercial designations of the General Plan.
• C-2 – General Commercial District: The C-2 zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of general commercial use types along major transportation corri
DRAFT
dors and intersections, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential 1230
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-8 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
and commercial uses. The C-2 zoning district is consistent with the Retail/Office, Retail/Office and Automotive, and General Commercial designations of the General Plan. • M-P – Industrial Park District: The M-P zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of industrial park use types in proximity to major transportation corridors, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses. The M-P zoning district is consistent with the Business Park/Industrial, Industrial Park, and Industrial/Campus Office designations of the General Plan. • M-1 – Light Industrial District: The M-1 zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of light industrial use types in proximity to major transportation corridors, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses. The M-1 zoning district is consistent with the Business Park/Industrial, Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage and Industrial Park designations of the General Plan. • M-2 – Heavy Industrial District: The M-2 zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of heavy industrial use types in proximity to major transportation corridors, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses. The M-2 zoning district is consistent with the Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage designation of the General Plan.

DRAFT
1231
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-9 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-4: Permitted Housing Types by Zoning District
Residential Uses A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Accessory Dwelling
Unit P P P P - - P - - - -
Agricultural Housing C/ZA - - - - - - - - - -
Animal Keeping –
Residential P P P P - - - - - - -
Boarding House - C/ZA C/ZA C/ZA - - - - - - -
Caretaker Residence C/ZA - - - - - C/PC C/PC C/PC C/PC C/PC Community Care
Facility (Small) P P P P - - - - - - -
Community Care
Facility (Large) - C/PC C/PC C/PC - - C/PC C/PC C/PC C/PC - Cottage Food
Operations ZC/MUP ZC/MUP ZC/MUP ZC/MUP - - - - - - -
Duplex - - P P - - - - - - -
Emergency Shelter - - - - - - - - - P -
Farm Mobile Home C/ZA - - - - - - - - - -
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P - - - - - - -
Mobile Home P P P - - - - - - - -
Mobile
Home/Manufactured
Home Park
- C/PC C/PC - - - - - - - -
Multi-Family
Residence - - P P - - - - - - -
Residential Use
Secondary to
Commercial Use
- C/PC - - - - C/PC - - - -
Residential
Conversion of Garage
to Living Space
- P - - - - - - - - -
Single Family
Residence P P P P - - - - - - - DRAFT
1232
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-10 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-4: Permitted Housing Types by Zoning District
Residential Uses A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Single Room
Occupancy Units - - - - - - - C/PC - - -
Supportive Housing
(Small) P P P P - - - - - - -
Supportive Housing
(Large) - C/PC C/PC C/PC - - C/PC C/PC C/PC C/PC -
Temporary Mobile
Home/Manufactured
Home

TUP TUP TUP - - - - - - - -
Tract and Sales
Offices/Model Home
Complex
- TUP TUP TUP - - - - - - -
Transitional Housing
(Small) P P P P - - - - - - -
Transitional Housing
(Large) - C/PC C/PC C/PC - - C/PC C/PC C/PC C/PC -
LowBarrier
Navigation Centers - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:

P – Permitted
(-) – Not Permitted
ZC – Zoning Clearance
MUP – Minor Use Permit
C/ZA – Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Administrator
C/PC – Conditional Use Permit/Planning Commission
Temporary Use Permit – TUP
Source: Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.12.050
DRAFT
1233
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-11 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
The term Single-Family Residence is defined by the Dublin Municipal Code as a building designed for and/or occupied exclusively by a single housekeeping unit. This includes factory-built housing, modular housing, manufactured housing, mobile homes, and the rental of bedrooms within a single-family dwelling to no more than four boarders. A residence with more than four boarders where residents do not live as a single housekeeping unit constitutes a boarding house.

A Single Housekeeping Unit refers to a residence with two or more members, whose members are a nontransient interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including but not limited to the joint use of common areas and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses.

Single-Family Residences are permitted in all residential zoning districts.

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
The term Multi-family Residence is defined as a building or a portion of a building used and/or designed as residences for two or more families living independently of each other. A Multi-Family Residence includes:
• Half-plex structures (a half-plex is a single residential unit that is half of a two-unit building where a property line separates the two units)
• Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes (detached buildings under one ownership with two, three, or four residential units (respectively) in the same building) • Apartments (five or more units under one ownership in a single building) • Attached unit projects such as condominiums and townhouses • Boarding House
This use type may include other residential use types determined by the Director of Community Development to be substantially similar to the use types listed above. Multi-Family Residences are permitted in the R-2 and R-M zoning districts.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The term Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is defined as a residential unit that provides independent living facilities for one or more persons and includes separate kitchen, sleeping, and bathroom facilities. An ADU may be a part of, attached to, or detached from a single-family, two-family, or multi-family residence and is subordinate to the principal residence. An ADU also includes an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.

The term Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is defined as a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size that is contained entirely within the walls of a single-family residence, including attached garages, and that has a separate entrance. At a minimum, a JADU must include an efficiency kitchen with a food preparation counter, cooking facility with appliances and storage cabinets, and may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities within the existing single DRAFT
-family residence.
1234
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-12 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
ADUs are permitted in all residential zoning districts and in the C-1 zoning district. JADUs are permitted in all residential zoning districts. As of February 2022, ADU and JADU zoning and development requirements are compliant with current State mandates.

MOBILE HOME/ MANUFACTURED HOME
The term Mobile Home is defined as a vehicle designed and equipped for human habitation, and for being drawn behind a vehicle. Such mobile home must either be constructed after September 15, 1971, and issued an insignia of approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and permanently located on a permanent foundation system, or be constructed after July 15, 1976, and issued an insignia of approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and permanently located on a permanent foundation system, or other type of housing determined to be substantially similar by the Director of Community Development.

A Mobile Home Park or Manufactured Home Park is also defined as a development or subdivision of an existing parcel, or contiguous parcels, of land for the purpose of separate sale, lease, or financing to allow the installation of mobile homes or manufactured homes.

Mobile Home and Manufactures Homes are permitted in the A, R-1, and R-2 zoning districts. Mobile Home Parks and Manufactured Home Parks are permitted in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. There are currently no Mobile Home Parks located within Dublin.

FARM MOBILE HOME
The term Farm Mobile Home is defined as a mobile home which is used for the housing of a full-time employee (and family) of the farm on which it is located where that farm has a minimum size of 50 acres and where it can be demonstrated that security cannot be obtained by existing single-family dwelling occupancy.

Farm Mobile Homes are permitted in the Agricultural zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator.

AGRICULTURAL HOUSING
The term Agricultural Housing is defined as dwellings and/or living quarters for farm laborers, or other types of dwellings determined to be substantially similar by the Director of Community Development.

Agricultural Housing may not be in addition to a Caretaker Residence or a Farm Mobile Home.

Agricultural Housing is permitted in the Agricultural zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. The California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 requires farmworker and employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in single-family residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. Program E.6 is included in the Housing Plan to ensure the City’s zoning and development standards for farmworker/agricultural housing is compliant with State law.

DRAFT
1235
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-13 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO)
The term Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Unit is defined as a building or buildings constructed or converted for residential living consisting of one-room dwelling units, where each unit is occupied by a single individual or two persons living together as a domestic unit, and where the living and sleeping space are combined. A one-room dwelling unit is not required to contain a bathroom or a kitchen; if a bathroom or kitchen is not provided within the unit, common facilities shall be provided on-site for residents. A unit that contains both a bathroom and kitchen shall be considered a studio unit and not an SRO Unit. Common facilities for laundry may or may not be provided on-site.

SRO Units are permitted in the C-2 zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Program B.12 is included in the Housing Plan to consider permitting procedures and technical assistance for potential SRO Unit developers.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY – SMALL
The term Community Care Facility/Small is defined as a 24-hour residential facility providing care for six or fewer persons, including:
• The elderly
• Persons in an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility • Persons in a facility for mentally disordered
• Handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children • Persons in an intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-habilitative • Intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-nursing • Congregate living health facilities
A Community Care Facility/Small may be located in any type of residence. A Community Care Facility/Small shall be considered a residential use of property and is permitted in all residential zoning districts and the agricultural zoning district.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY – LARGE
The term Community Care Facility/Large is defined as a 24-hour residential facility providing care for seven or more persons, including:
• The elderly
• Persons in an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility • Persons in a facility for mentally disordered
• Handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children • Persons in an intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-habilitative • Intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-nursing • Congregate living health facilities
A Community Care Facility/Large may be located in any type of residence. A Community Care Facility/Large is permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in all residential zoning districts and the C
DRAFT
-1, C-2, M-P, and M-1 zoning districts.
1236
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-14 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING – SMALL
The term Supportive Housing - Small is defined as a dwelling unit occupied by a target population of six or fewer persons, with no limit on the length of stay, that is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident(s) in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. A target population means persons with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4500) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated youth, families, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires supportive housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Supportive Housing - Small is permitted in the agricultural zoning district and in all residential zoning districts, in compliance with State law.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING - LARGE
The term Supportive Housing - Large is defined as a dwelling unit occupied by a target population of seven or more persons, with no limit on length of stay, that is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident(s) in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. A target population means persons with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4500) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated youth, families, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans and homeless people.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires supportive housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Supportive Housing – Large is currently permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in all residential zoning districts and the C-1, C-2, M-P and M-1 zoning districts.

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING – SMALL
The term Transitional Housing - Small is defined as a dwelling unit occupied by six or fewer homeless persons or families, which is operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time which shall be no less than six months.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires Transitional Housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same DRAFT
1237
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-15 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
zone. Transitional Housing - Small is permitted in the agricultural zoning district and in all residential zoning districts, in compliance with State law.

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING – LARGE
The term Transitional Housing - Large is defined as a dwelling unit occupied by seven or more homeless persons or families, which is operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time which shall be no less than six months.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires Transitional Housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. TransitionalHousing - Large is currently permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in all residential zoning districts and the C-1, C-2, M-P and M-1 zoning districts.

EMERGENCY SHELTER
The term Emergency Shelter is defined as a facility that provides temporary, short-term housing, with minimal supportive services, for homeless individuals or families, provided that no facility shall be used as temporary, short-term housing by any individual or family for more than 30 consecutive days.

Per Assembly Bill 139 (AB 139), emergency shelters must be permitted in at least one zoning district without approval of any discretionary permits. Emergency Shelters are permitted in the M-1 zoning districts, in compliance with State law.

There are approximately 28 parcels within the M-1 zoning district, covering a total of 96.6 acres. The parcels range from 0.1 to 20.9 acres and the average parcel size is 2.5 acres. Of these parcels, four are currently vacant and cumulatively total five acres. All M-1 zoning districts are reflected in Figure C-3.

Figure C-4 shows the location of hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste percentile for the region surrounding the M-1 zoning district. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, this indicator is calculated by considering the number of permitted Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs), generators of hazardous waste or chrome plating facilities, the weight of each generator or site, and the distance to the census tract. The figure shows two hazardous waste generators located in the M-1 zoning district. As of February 2022, these generators include Valent Dublin Laboratories (which manufactures herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, and other product types for crop production and pest management) and Hexel Research and Development (a research laboratory). DRAFT 1238
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-16 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-3: Dublin Zoning Map – Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District

Source: City of Dublin Zoning Map
Figure C-4: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Hazardous Waste
DRAFT
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
1239
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-17 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Additionally, the M-1 zoning district is located near existing commercial and retail resources, as well as existing public transportation routes. Figure C-5 shows the two Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations located near the M-1 zoning district and the transit routes and stops running through the area. As the figure shows, the M-1 zoning district and potential emergency shelter occupants are located within a short distance to public transportationwith destinations throughout the City and the Bay Area region.

Figure C-5: Transit Routes – Dublin/Pleasanton BART Stations Source: 511 Free Bay Area Transit Information – Transit Routes

LOW-BARRIER NAVGIATION CENTERS
AB 101 states that “The Legislature finds and declares that Low Barrier Navigation Center developments are essential tools for alleviating the homelessness crisis in this state and are a matter of statewide concern.” California Government Code Section 65660 identifies Low Barrier Navigation Centers as a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessnes
DRAFT
s to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low-Barrier Navigation 1240
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-18 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Centers are required as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and non-residential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. The Dublin Municipal Code does not currently identify, nor zone for, Low-Barrier Navigation Center. As such, Program B.12 is included in the Housing Plan to ensure compliance with State law.

DRAFT
1241
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-19 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Residential Development Standards
The City establishes development standards through the Zoning Ordinance to regulate development of the uses listed above. The development standards include minimum lot size and width, minimum setbacks, and maximum lot coverage, height limits anddensity. Table C-5 below provides the Dublin Municipal Code standards established for each zoning district which permits residential developments. The City also utilizes Planned Development Zoning, as further discussed below, which provides significant flexibility regarding development standards.

Table C-5: Development Standards for Residential Developments Zoning
District
Minimum Lot Area Minimum Setbacks (Feet) Maximum Construction Standards Lot Size Lot Width Lot Depth
(Feet) Front Side Street Side Rear Lot Coverage
Height
Limit (Feet)
Units Per
Interior Lot Corner Lot Interior Lot Corner Lot Lot
A 100 acres 100 acres 300 ft. 300 ft. N/A 50 30 50 50 N/A 25/354 1 R-1 4,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. 100 181 52 10 20 1 story: 40% 2 story: 35% 25/354 1
R-2 8,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 90 ft. 100 181 10 10 20 1 story: 40% 2 story: 35% 25/354 2
R-M 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. 100 20 103 10 30 1 story: 40% 2 story: 35% 25/354 1/750 sq. ft.

C-O 10,000 sq. ft. 11,000 sq. ft. 70 ft. 80 ft. 100 20 10 10 10 N/A 35 N/A C-N 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft 50 ft. 60 ft. 100 20 05 10 06 N/A 35 N/A C-1 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft 50 ft. 60 ft. 100 07 05 08 06 N/A 459 N/A C-2 6,000 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft 50 ft. 60 ft. 100 07 05 08 06 N/A 459 N/A M-P 40,000 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft 150 ft. 150 ft. 100 50 20 20 40 N/A 35 N/A M-1 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 10 10 10 20 N/A 45 N/A M-2 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft 150 ft. 150 ft. 100 10 10 10 10 N/A 45 N/A Notes:

1. Minimum setback

2. Side Yard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district shall be a minimum of five feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by lot width exceeds minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet.

3. Buildings with four or more residences in the R-M zoning district shall have a 15-foot Side Yard on one side.

4. West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and two stories; may be increased to 35 feet and two stories pursuant to a Site Development Review approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and two stories.

5. 0 feet except, if abutting an R zoning district, the same as the Side Yard Setbacks of that district.

6. 0 feet except, 15 feet if a C-1 or C-2 zoning district backs up on an R zoning district

7. 0 feet except, if abutting an R zoning district or C-O or C-N zoning district, the same as the Front Yard Setback of that zoning district.

8. 0 feet except, if the Street Side Yard of a corner lot in a C-1 or C-2 zoning district abuts a Key Lot in any R, C-O or C-N zoning district, not less than half of the Front Yard setback required for the Key Lot.

9. 45 feet, except 35 feet if the principal structure in a C-1 or C-2 zoning district is within 50 feet of an R zoning district.

Source: Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.36.020
DRAFT .
1242
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-20 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

YARD REQUIREMENTS
The term Yard is defined by the Dublin Municipal Code as open space on a lot, other than a court, unobstructed and unoccupied from the ground upward. A Yard refers to the area between the lot line and the structural setback line. The term Setback is defined as the required distance that a building, structure, or other designated item must be located from a lot line. Yard and setback requirements are established to allow for light and air, circulation, emergency access, and aesthetic improvements. Dublin’s yard requirements are not considered a constraint

LOT COVERAGE
The term Lot Coverage is defined as the maximum lot area which may be covered with buildings and structures. Buildings and structures include all land covered by Principal Buildings, garages and carports, Accessory Structures, covered decks and gazebos, and other enclosed and covered areas; but not standard roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, paved areas such as walkways, driveways, patios, uncovered parking areas or roads. All areas of coverage are computed in terms of net lot area at ground level. Dublin’s lot coverage standards are not considered a constraint.

OPEN SPACE
The Dublin Municipal Code defines “Common Useable Open Space” as minimum useable open space within the area of a Building Site designed and reserved for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, and landscaping. The calculation of Common Useable Open Space is made by deducting from the total area of the building site:
• Maximum Lot Coverage.
• Paved parking areas, driveways, and maneuvering areas. • Areas having a slope in excess of 20 percent.
• Any open space less than 10 feet in its smallest dimension.

Dublin’s open space requirements are not considered a constraint.

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
The term Height is defined as the height limits for buildings and structures and is measured as the vertical distance from the highest point of the structure to the average of the highest and lowest points where the exterior walls touch the natural grade. Dublin’s building height standards are not considered a constraint.

PARKING STANDARDS
The City establishes off-street parking regulations to ensure adequate parking availability, prevent interference with circulation and create a safe environment, and to protect surrounding uses from adverse noise and visual impacts. Table C-6 provides the number of parking spaces required for residential uses throughout the City. In comparison, Table C-7 provides the off-street parking requirements for neighboring communities. The City has greater parking requirements for new single-family residences; however, multi-family residences generally have the lowest parking requirements compared to nearby cities. The City’s parking requirements are more nuanced than neighboring communities and require DRAFT
1243
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-21 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
differing parking requirements for rental multi-family residences and for-sale multi-family residences. In general, Dublin’s parking standards are not considered a constraint.

Table C-6: Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements
Residential Use Types Number of Parking Spaces Required Accessory Dwelling Unit See DMC Section 8.80.030 of the Zoning Ordinance Agricultural Housing 2 per dwelling
Boarding House 2 per dwelling, plus .5 per sleeping room Caretaker Residence 2 per dwelling
Community Care Facility/Small 2 per dwelling
Cottage Food Operations
Provide the number of spaces required for the type of
residential dwelling plus 1 space for an employee not
residing in the home (if applicable) plus 1 space for a company vehicle (if applicable). A company vehicle
that also serves as the day-to-day personal vehicle of
the individual conducting the cottage food operation
shall not require an additional parking space.

Emergency Shelter
1 parking space for every 20 beds plus 1 parking space
for each employee on the largest shift plus 1 parking
space for each company vehicle.

Farm Mobile Home 2 per dwelling
Family Day Care Home/Large (up to 14) Not regulated
Family Day Care/Small (up to 8) Not regulated
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit See DMC Section 8.80.030 ofthe Zoning Ordinance Mobile Home 2 per dwelling
Mobile Home Park 2 per dwelling, plus 1 guest space for every 2 dwellings Apartments Studio and 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space 2+ Bedrooms for unreserved and guestparking.

Condominium
Studio and 1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking
space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest
parking space
2+ Bedrooms
2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking
space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest
parking space
SB 9 Unit Developments See DMC Section 8.81.060 relating to SB 9 Unit parking.

Senior Citizen Apartments 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus one guest parking space for every three dwelling units.

Residential Use Secondary to Commercial Use 2 per residence Single-Family/
Duplex/
Townhouse
Lots 4,000 square feet or less
2 in enclosed garage per dwelling* plus one on-street
parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that dwelling unit.

Lots greater than 4,000 square
feet
2 in enclosed garage per dwelling* plus one parking
space per dwelling unit provided in the driveway or
on-street within 150 feet of that dwelling unit.

Single Room Occupancy Units 1 per unit plus 1 guest parking space for every 3 units Supportive Housing - Small 2 per dwelling
Supportive Housing - Large 1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds Transitional Housing - Small 2 per dwelling
Transitional Housing
DRAFT - Large 1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds 1244
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-22 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-6: Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements
Residential Use Types Number of Parking Spaces Required * Except if two, full-size, unenclosed parking spaces are provided elsewhere on a lot for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space pursuant to Chapter 8.78 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.

Source: Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.080.

Table C-7: Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements for Nearby Jurisdictions Residential Use Types Number of Parking Spaces Required Pleasanton
One-family dwelling units* 2 spaces
Condominiums, community apartments and
separately owned townhouses 2 spaces per unit
Apartments with two bedrooms or less* 2 spaces per unit for the first 4 units; 1.5 spaces per unit for additional units
Apartments with three or more bedrooms* 2 spaces per unit Visitor parking 1 space per 7 units
*At least one space per dwelling unit must be located in a garage or carport.

San Ramon
Live/work units 2 spaces per unit
Mobile homes 2 spaces per unit, with at least 1 covered 1 space per 4 units for guest parking
Multi-family
Studio/ 1-bedroom 1 covered space per unit
2- and 3-bedroom 2 spaces per unit, with at least 1 covered 4-bedroom or more 3 spaces per unit, with at least 1 covered Guest parking 1 space per 4 units
Residential care homes
6 or fewer clients 2 covered spaces
7 or more clients 1 space per 3 beds
1 space per 4 units for guests and employees
Rooming and boarding houses 1 space per bedroom
Single-family dwellings
Up to 4 bedrooms 2 covered spaces within a garage
5 bedrooms 3 covered spaces within a garage
6 or more bedrooms 4 covered spaces within a garage
Livermore
Studio 1 space
1 bedroom 1 space
2 or more bedrooms 2 spaces
Guest spaces (multiple family) 1 space per 4 units
Mobile homes 2 spaces per unit
Source: Pleasanton Municipal Code; San Ramon Municipal Code; City of Livermore Development Code.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING STANDARDS
The City relies heavily on Planned Development Zoning Districts to provide property owners with maximum flexibility to create development standards tailored to different product types and site characteristics. The Planned Development Zoning also helps to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be possible. Planned Development Zoning Districts provide maximum flexibility and encourage development within Dublin. The Planned Development Zoning District regulations are outlined in Dublin DRAFT
1245
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-23 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Municipal Code Chapter 8.32. Dublin’s Planned Development zoning standards are not considered a constraint.

Definition of Family
Under the right of privacy, the California Constitution prohibits a restrictive definition of “Family” which limits the number of unrelated persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together. The City defines “Family” as one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit, including any servants. This is distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, community care facility, supportive or transitional housing when configured as group housing, hotel or motel, club, fraternity, or sorority house.

State Density Bonus Law
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 establishes density bonus regulations to provide for the development of affordable housing. The State-mandated density bonus provides incentives to developers to produce housing affordable to very low-income households, low-income households, moderate-income households, senior citizens, transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, and persons experiencing homelessness, as well as for the development of childcare facilities.

An applicant proposing a density bonus may submit a Preliminary Application prior to the submittal of a formal application. Once ready, the applicant must submit a complete application with fees and/or a deposit. The application must state what density bonus, incentives, concessions, waiver or modifications of development standards, or favorable parking requirements are being requested from the City and the rationale for the request.

The application must also include a statement describing whether residential development is proposed on any property that:

1. Includes parcel(s) on which rental dwelling units are, or if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to very low- or low-income households;

2. Has been subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public agency’s exercise of its police power; or

3. Has been occupied by very low- or low-income households.

The Community Development Director evaluates the application based on the following criteria:

1. The requested density bonus meets all the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law.

2. The requested incentives and concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents for the target dwelling units, and whether such incentives and concessions would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and/or National Register of Historic Places, and for which there is no feasible DRAFT
1246
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-24 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households, or violates such other requirements as may be set forth in the State Density Bonus Law for incentives and concessions.

3. The City’s development standards physically preclude the construction of the development project at the density and with the concessions and incentives to be provided to the proposed project pursuant to this Chapter, and whether the requested waiver or modifications are necessary to enable the construction of the development project at such density and with such concessions and incentives.

4. The density bonus housing project complies with the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning, and development policies and standards of the City.

5. Any conversion of apartment units to condominiums will result in a reduction in the affordable housing stock for lower-income groups, as of most recent inventory.

AB 2345 states that all jurisdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50 percent additional density provided those projects produce the additional below market rate (BMR) units in the “base” portion of the project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35 percent. The bill also lowered the BMR thresholds for concessions and incentives for projects with low-income BMRs. As of 2021, Government Code Section 65915 authorizes an applicant to receive two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower-income households, at least 10 percent of the total units for very low-income households, or at least 20 percent moderate-income households. It also allows an applicant to receive up to three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower-income households, at least 15 percent of the total units for very low-income households, or at least 30 percent for persons or families of moderate-income households. The Dublin Municipal Code refers tothe State Density Bonus Law for specificity on the density bonus allowances.

Reasonable Accommodations
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations(modifications or exceptions) to their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired.

Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.38 establishes procedures and requirements for reasonable accommodation applications for persons with disabilities. An application for reasonable accommodations is reviewed ministerially through a Zoning Clearance and is not subject to discretionary review or a public hearing. A Zoning Clearance is issued if the request complies with the following development standards and regulations:
• Zoning Districts.The request for reasonable accommodation is for a legally established residential dwelling located in an agricultural, residential, or comparable Planned Development zoning district.

DRAFT
1247
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-25 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Occupancy. The residential dwelling is the primary residence of the person(s) requesting reasonable accommodations and such persons have been determined to be protected under Fair Housing Laws.
• Design Compatibility. Any exterior modification to the dwelling is designed to be compatible with the architectural character, colors, and texture of the dwelling and surrounding neighborhood. • Side Yard Setbacks. For additions to a dwelling, a minimum side yard setback of five feet is maintained.
• Rear Yard Setbacks. For additions to a dwelling, a minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet is maintained.
• Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage does not exceed 50 percent for a one-story dwelling or 45 percent for a two-story dwelling.
• Uncovered Access Ramp.An uncovered access ramp may be located within a front, side, or rear yard setback so long as the height of the ramp does not exceed the grade level finish floor of the dwelling.

On-/Off-Site Improvements
New subdivisions may be required to improve streets, highways, public ways, and easements, as well as improvements that may not be part of the subdivision but are affected by the subdivision. Thus, these are costs that may influence the sale or rental price of housing. Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.16 establishes the required on- and off-site improvements below:
• Streets and Roads. Grading; curbs and gutters; and surfacing of streets, highways and public ways, and the drainage thereof.
• Grading Lots. The grading of the lots and the drainage may be required by the design of the approved tentative map.
• Stormwater Control and Treatment. Stormwater control measures in compliance with the Dublin Municipal Code, the latest Regional Water Quality Control Board clean water construction general permit, and the latest Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The control and treatment measures shall reduce erosion and sedimentation from entering the storm drain system from the subdivision site (point source). • Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer. Subdivisions shall be served with water and sanitary sewer connections in the manner approved by the Dublin San Ramon Services District unless an alternative design is proposed and approved by the City Engineer. • Utilities. Subdivisions shall be served by public utilities (gas, electricity, Internet/cable/phone) unless an alternative design is proposed and approved by the City Engineer. • Public Safety. Construction of such structures necessary for public safety, including but not limited to local neighborhood drainage, traffic safety signs and devices, and street lighting. • Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be furnished and installed as approved by the local water district, Fire Marshal, and City Engineer.
• Trails and Bikeways. Trails and bikeways as designated on the General Plan or applicable Specific Plan, or the City’s adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.