Dublin City Council
May 17, 2022

DRAFT
1248
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-26 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Additionally, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, the City may impose a requirement that the subdivider install improvements for the benefit of the subdivision, property not within the subdivision, and the public. If the improvements are dedicated to the public, then the City will enter into an agreement to reimburse the subdivider for that portion of the cost of those improvements, including an amount attributable to interest, in excess of the construction required for the subdivision.

Further conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
• Dedication and improvement of streets, alleys, including access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, public utility, and other public easements;
• Reservations;
• The design and improvement of subdivisions;
• Requirements to implement California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA mitigation measures; • Ensuring proper grading and erosion control, prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property;
• Energy conservation; and
• Ensuring compliance with adopted development standards.

Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of housing development and are not considered a constraint to development.

Local Ordinances
Urban Growth Boundaries (UBG)
Growth management measures are techniques used by a government to regulate the rate, amount, location, and type of development. Growth management measures allow cities to grow responsibly and orderly; however, they can produce constraints to the development of housing if overly restrictive. This may be particularly restrictive for accessible and affordable housing.

Dublin residents approved Measure M in 2000 to create an Urban Growth Boundary (UBG) on the western limits of the City. Measure M restricts residential development on the foothills by requiring voter approval of any proposed residential project. As such, the foothills were preserved as agricultural and open space areas.

In addition, the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 was adopted to preserve the Doolan Canyon area east of the City and on the foothill area to the west. This initiative prevents urban development (residential and commercial) without voter approval. As the City does not currently provide services to the Doolan Canyon area, proposed development in the area would also need to fund new infrastructure and public services. The ballot measure requirement to allow residential development outside the UBG and cost of adding infrastructure and services are together considered a constraint to the development of housing, and specifically affordable housing.

DRAFT
1249
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-27 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

SHORT-TERM RENTALS
Short-Term Rental Ordinances are commonly defined as an accessory use of a primary residence for the purposes of providing temporary lodging for compensation for up to 30 days. A Short-Term Rental Ordinance establishes regulations, standards, and a permitting process for the renting or leasing of the privately owner, visitor-serving dwelling unit. Short-Term Rental Ordinances are often established to safeguard residents by ensuring that short-term rental activities do not threaten the character of neighborhoods and that such short-term rental activities do not become a nuisance, or threaten the public health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties. The City does not currently have an adopted ShortTerm Rental Ordinance, but short-term rentals are defined as Bed and Breakfast Inn, which require approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in the agricultural and residential zoning districts and the C-1, C-2, M-P, and M-1 zoning districts.

INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68 establishes the requirements and procedures for the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which assists the City in producing residential units affordable to lowerincome and moderate-income households. The purpose of the Ordinance is to contribute to the City’s housing goals and ensure future development occurs in a manner consistent with the City’s housing policies and needs.

The City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requires all new residential development projects of 20 units or more, designed and intended for permanent occupancy, to designate 12.5 percent of the total number 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:

Table C-8: Inclusionary Zoning Requirements
Rental Units Owner-Occupied Units
Very low-income households 30% 0%
Low-income households 20% 40%
Moderate-income households 50% 60%
All affordable units in a project or phase of a project are the be constructed concurrently with marketrate units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that extenuating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical. In addition, all affordable units shall reflect the range and number of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole and shall not be distinguished by exterior design, construction, or materials. Affordable units may be of smaller size than the units in the project and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project.

Residential development projects subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance may seek approval from the City Council to instead use an exception listed below:
• Payment of Fees In Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon request of the applicant, the City Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to 40 percent of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to Dublin DRAFT
1250
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-28 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Municipal Code Section 8.68.030A. The amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which may be amended from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In lieu fees must be paid in the amount set forth in the resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. • Off-Site Projects. An applicant may construct the affordable units not physically within the development in lieu of constructing some or all affordable units within the development, with the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds:
o That construction of the units off-site in lieu of constructing units on-site is consistent with the chapter’s goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households.
o That the units to be constructed off site are consistent with Dublin Municipal Code Section

8.68.030E.
o That it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site. o That conditions of approval for the project require that the off-site affordable units would be governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units.
o That the conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within a reasonable period (not to exceed five years). • Land Dedication. An applicant may dedicate land to the City or city-designated local non-profit housing developer in lieu of construction of some or all required affordable units, if the Council finds:
o That dedication of land in lieu of constructing units is consistent with the chapter’s goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very-low, low- and moderate-income households.
o That the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and contaminated soils, and is fully improved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and all development-impact fees paid excluding any inclusionary zoning ordinance fees. o That the proposed land dedication is of sufficient size to meet the following requirements:
 The dedication includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.68.030.A, based on the size of lots in the subdivision for which the applicant is meeting its obligation; and
The dedication includes such additional land where the market value is equal to or exceeds the difference between the value of a 1,200-square-foot unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an Affordable Unit times the number of units required. • Credit Transfers. An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.68.030A by using transfer credits created pursuant to Section 8.68.060. Credit certificates are presented to the Community Development Director, who shall note at the time of project approval the credit certificate by number. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy DRAFT
1251
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-29 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
the requirements for Inclusionary Units for the income category and number of bedrooms for which they are issued.
• Waiver of Requirements. The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68 if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of the Chapter.

However, the City may also offer incentives or financial assistance to encourage the development of onsite affordable units in excess of the 12.5 percentinclusionary requirement. These incentives may include, but are not limited to:
• Fee deferral for development processing fees and development impact fees. • Design modifications such as reduced lot sizes, reduced setback requirements, reduced open space requirements, reduced landscaping requirements, reduced interior or exterior amenities, reduction in parking requirements, and/or height restriction waivers.

Prior to issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, the City must establish resale restrictions, rental controls, or both, in an agreement between the City and the developer. The agreement must be executed by the City Manager, and its requirements run with the land and bind future property owners.

Agreements involving rental units shall require the owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income levels do not exceed very low-, low-, or moderate-income levels, and preclude the tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit. The agreement also requires the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager including, but not be limited to, an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year. Agreements for ownership units must specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner(s) and may not be leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions must provide that in the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City will have the right to purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible household.

The Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requires households to receive eligibility approval from the City prior to occupying an affordable unit. Potential eligible occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income, the median combined household income statistics for Alameda County published periodically by HCD, all sources of household income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by law. The developer is also required to use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children.

Selection of qualified person is based on priorities established using the point system described below:
• Employed within the boundaries of Dublin for at least six months prior (three points, one per household)
• Public Service employee working in Dublin (one additional point) DRAFT
1252
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-30 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Dublin resident for at least one year prior (three points, one per household) • Seniors (one point per household)
• Permanently disabled (one point per household)
• Immediate family member of Dublin resident (one point per household) • Required to relocate from current Dublin residence due to demolition of dwelling or conversion of dwelling from rental to for-sale unit (one point per household) In general, the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is not considered a constraint as it contributes to the development of affordable housing throughout the City.

Specific Plans
The City utilizes specific plans as a tool to implement the guiding policies contained in the General Plan.

The City adopted four specific plans that encompass specific geographic areas. Each specific plan contains policies and design guidelines that are tailored to implement the community’s vision for the future of these areas and to ensure a coordinated development scheme. Physical improvements to property within each of these plan areas must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan and the corresponding specific plan.

DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP)
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) guides the creation of a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting.

The DDSP area is 284 acres in size and includes three districts – the Retail District, the Transit-Oriented District, and the Village Parkway District. Table C-9 provides the permitted residential uses in each district.

In total, 2,500 net new residential dwelling units are permitted in the DDSP with the following densities:
• Retail District: 22 units per net acre with no maximum density • Transit-Oriented District: 30 to 85 units per net acre • Village Parkway District: No minimum density to 15 units per acre Table C-9: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan - Permitted Residential Uses Building Uses Retail District Transit-Oriented District Village Parkway District Live-Work1 Allowed2 Allowed CUP/PC3
Multi-Family Residential1 Allowed2 Allowed Allowed
Mixed-Use Residential1 Allowed2 Allowed Allowed
Notes:

1. Subject to additional development standards if located within 1,000 feet of I-580 or I-680.

2. Allowed throughout the Retail District except on those properties west of San Ramon Road.

3. May be permitted with a CUP/PC in a mixed-use development.

CUP – Conditional Use Permit
PC – Planning Commission
Source: City of Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
DRAFT
1253
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-31 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan guides future development in the specific plan area to be sensitive to the area's historic past and to preserve and enhance the area's historical, cultural, and archaeological resources.

The Dublin Village Historical Area consists of approximately 38 acres of land and includes commercial, residential, public, and business park/industrial uses. Table C-10 outlines the permitted residential land uses and the totaldevelopment potential.

Table C-10: Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan - Permitted Residential Uses Residential LandUses Density Range Maximum Development Potential Medium Density Residential 6.1 – 14 units/acre Up to 83 units Medium/High Density Residential 14 – 25 units/acre Up to 207 units TOTAL 290 units
Source: Dublin Village Historical Area Specific Plan

EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides a planning framework for the future growth and development of approximately 3,300 acres that lie to the east of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. As provided in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the residential land use category has six classifications: High Density, Medium High Density, Medium Density, Single Family, Estate Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural. Taken together, the Specific Plan projects a total of 13,950 housing units at "buildout." Approximately 58 percent of the new housing units are single-family residential character; however, to encourage affordability, many are smaller units on smaller lots. Table C-11 outlines the permitted residential land uses and the total development potential.

Table C-11: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan - Permitted Residential Uses Residential LandUses Land Area Density Unit Yield
Rural Residential/Agricultural 539.55 acres 0.01 units/acre 5 units Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 units/acre 4 units
Single Family1 947.25 acres 4 units/acre 3,789 units
Medium Density2 492.71 acres 10 units/acre 4,744 units
Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 units/acre 3,132 units High Density 58.74 acres 35 units/acre 2,056 units
Mixed Use 0 acres 15 units/acre 115 units
TOTAL 2,225.26 acres -- 13,950 units

1. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of four units. This change results in 64 excess single-family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report.

2. 50 percent of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the East Ranch and Jordan properties shall have private, flat yards.

Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
In east Dublin, higher density housing is located in the flatter areas where there are fewer environmental and development constraints, and in proximity to commercial centers where the concentration of population will contribute to the social and economic vit DRAFT
ality of the area.
1254
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-32 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN
The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area is located in the heart of the City and seeks to provide a vibrant neighborhood where people can work, live, and play. The large central park will serve as a gathering place for the entire City, with direct access to the Iron Horse Regional Trail and links to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan accommodates up to 1,995 residential units with densities ranging from six to 60 units per acre, as shown in Table C-12. The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan allows for a variety of housing types throughout the project area, including single-family detached and attached, as well as multi-family units located near the existing high-density residential development adjacent to the BART stationand the existing medium-density residential neighborhood. Residential density ranges within each residential neighborhood are allowed to provide flexibility of subdivision design and to adapt to changing future housing market conditions.

Table C-12: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan - Permitted Residential Uses Residential LandUses Net Acreage1 Density
Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC MDR) 43.4 acres 6 – 14 units/acre Dublin Crossing Medium High Density Residential
(DC M-HDR) 46.5 acres 14.1 – 25 units/acre
General Commercial/ DC Medium High Density
Residential (GC/DC M-HCD)2 9.1 acres 14.1 – 25 units/acre General Commercial/ DC High Density Residential (GC/DC
HDR)2 23.1 acres 20.1 – 60 units/acre
TOTAL UNIT POTENTIAL 1,995 units

1. Net acreage is defined as the gross acreage less backbone street, public street, and right-of-way area.

2. Can have commercial only, mixed-use, or residential-only uses.

Source: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development community commonly cites the permit processing time as a contributor to the high cost of housing in California. Depending on the magnitude and complexity of the development proposal, the time that elapses from application submittal to project approval may vary considerably. Factors that can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include the completeness of the development application and the responsiveness of developers to staff comments and requests for information. Approval times are substantially lengthened for projects that are not exempt from CEQA, require rezoning or general plan amendments, or encounter community opposition. Applicants for all permits or reviews are recommended to request a meeting with the respective department to confirm City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; discuss the City’s review process, possible project alternatives, or revisions; and identify information, submittal requirements, and any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project. Table C-13 provides the planning application review process and typical review time of each.

DRAFT
1255
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-33 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-13: Planning Application Review Process
Planning Application
Public
Notice
Community
Development
Director
Zoning
Administrator
Planning
Commission City Council Typical Review Time
Conditional Use Permit1 Yes X2 X X 4-6 months
Minor Use Permit Yes X 3-4 months
Planned Development
Stage 1 Development
Plan
Yes X2 X X 6-12 months
Planned Development
Stage 2 Development
Plan
Yes
X2 X X 6-12 months
Site Development
Review1
Yes X X X 3-8 months
Site Development
Review Waiver
X <2 weeks
Temporary Use Permit X <1 week
Variance1 Yes X X X 4-6 months
Zoning Clearance X <1 week
Zoning Ordinance
Amendment
Yes X X 6-12 months
Note: Decision-maker may refer decision making on applications to a higher body (i.e., the Community Development Director may refer a Minor Use Permit to the Planning Commission).

1. Review body is dependent on project-specific requests.

2. Minor amendments.

Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State law. All information regarding the City’s development fees is available to the public on the City’s website as required pursuant to Government Code Section 65940.1 (a)(1)(B). Development fees can be a constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing because the added costs for developers may result in higher housing unit costs.

Development fees are, however, necessary to provide planning and public services. Table C-14 provides the planning processing fees and Table C-15 and C-16 provide the development impact fees.

DRAFT
1256
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-34 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-14: Planning Division Fees
Permit Fee
Use Permits (TUP/CUP)
Minor Use Permit $1,068
Minor Use Permit – Minor Amendment $271
Minor Use Permit – Major Amendment $1,086
Non-Residential Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
(Approval considered by Planning Commission) $1,629
Non-Residential Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
(Can be approved by Zoning Administrator) $1,629
Residential Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
(Approval considered by Planning Commission) $2,715
Residential Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
(Can be approved by Zoning Administrator) $2,715
Conditional Use Permit – Minor Amendment
(Administrative Determination) $543
Conditional Use Permit – Time Extension
(Administrative Determination) $380
Conditional Use Permit – Time Extension
(Planning Commission Determination) $1,629
Temporary Use Permit - Minor $271
Temporary Use Permit – Major T&M
Zoning Clearance – General
Reasonable Accommodations No fee
Indoor Recreational Facilities/Day Care Center/Scarlett Court $543
Zoning Clearance – General $81
Variance
Non-Residential Variance T&M
Residential Variance T&M
Site Development Review (SDR)
Site Development Review -General T&M
Site Development Review – Residential Additions >
500 sq. ft. T&M
Site Development Review – Single Sign (Master Sign
Program is handled as a Site Development ReviewGeneral)$352 Site Development Review Waiver $380
Site Development Review Waiver for Projects with
Development Deposit Account T&M
Site Development Review – Time Extension
(Administrative Determination) $244
Site Development Review – Time Extension
(Planning Commission Determination) $1,221
Planned Development (PD) Processing
Planned Development Application (Stage 1 / Stage 2) T&M Planned Development Minor Amendment –
(Administrative Determination) $566
Planned Development Minor Amendment for Project's
with Development Deposit Account T&M
Planned Development Minor Amendment
DRAFT
– T&M
1257
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-35 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-14: Planning Division Fees
Permit Fee
(Planning Commission Determination)
Planned Development Major Amendment –
(City Council Determination) T&M
Other Charges
Appeal of Action by Applicant T&M
Appeal of Action by member of public (non-applicant) $217 Estoppel Certificate – Development Agreement $253
Heritage Tree Removal Permit $271
Preparation of Mailing Address Labels (Noticing
Requirements) $70
Equivalent Fees and Charges As determined by City Manager or designee based on actual costs and rates plus general overhead
General Plan Amendment T&M
Specific Plan Amendment T&M
Tentative Map T&M
Development Agreement T&M
Lot Line Adjustment T&M
Building Division permit referral
1 $147
Planning Composite Hourly Rates & Overhead
Composite City Planning Staff Hourly Rate (Includes
Overhead) $299
Overhead Rate - Applied to actual costs incurred for
consultant services and expenses billed under T&M 30%

1. In order to incentivize accessory dwelling units (ADUs): 1) an ADU less than 750 square feet; and 2) ADUs 750 square feet or larger that are deed-restricted as lower-income units for a period of 55 years are not subject to these City permit fees, effective for building permits applied for between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2026. ADUs required to satisfy Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations), the scope of work beyond the establishment of the ADU, and/or enforcement fees are not eligible for this fee waiver.

Source: City of Dublin Master Fee Schedule, FY 2021-2022.

DRAFT
1258
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-36 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-15: Development Impact Fees by Housing Type
Residential Single Family &
Townhome
Other Multi
Family Senior Housing ADU1
Public Facility Impact Fees
Aquatic Center $373 $227 $135 $227
Civic Center $1,652 $1,009 $600 $1,009
Community Buildings $4,144 $2,530 $1,506 $2,530
Community Nature Parks,
Improvement $318 $194 $115 $194
Community Parks,
Improvements $5,017 $3,061 $1,824 $3,061
Community Parks, Land $8,853 $5,404 $3,218 $5,404
Libraries $298 $183 $108 $183
Neighborhood Parks,
Improvements $2,932 $1,790 $1,067 $1,790
Neighborhood Parks, Land $3,987 $2,434 $1,449 $2,434
Public Facility Total $27,574 $16,832 $10,022 $16,832
Fire Impact Fee
Per Unit $339 $207 $207 $123
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
Per Unit $5,057 $3,484 -- $0
Affordable Housing In Lieu Fee
Residential – $217,696 per unit
Public Art In Lieu Fee
Residential - Project of more than 20 units may make a monetary contribution to the City equal to five-tenths percent (0.5%) of the development project’s building valuation (exclusive of land).

1. Effective January 1, 2020, through January 1, 2025, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) less than 750 square feet is not subject to impact fees. An ADU 750 square feet or larger are subject to impact fees that are proportional in relation to square footage of the primary dwelling unit or based on the impact fee per ADU, whichever is less.

Source: City of Dublin Impact Fees, FY 2021-2022.

DRAFT
1259
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-37 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-16: Development Impact Fees by Residential Density Fee Type
Low
(<6 units/
acre)
Medium (6.1-
14 units/
acre)
Med/High
(14.1-25
units/ acre)
High (>25.1
units/ acre) ADU1
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees
Outside
Transit
Center
EDTIF Cat. 1 $9,408 $9,408 $6,589 $5,646 $5,646
EDTIF Cat. 2 $3,211 $3,211 $2,249 $1,926 $1,926
Total Fee $12,619 $12,619 $8,838 $7,572 $7,572
Inside
Transit
Center
EDTIF Cat. 1 $9,408 $9,408 $6,589 $4,295 $4,295
EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,421 $2,421 $1,696 $1,090 $1,090
Total Fee $11,829 $11,829 $8,285 $5,385 $5,385
Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
Per Unit $6,507 $6,507 $4,034 $3,384 $3,384
Dublin Crossing Transportation Fee
Per Unit $9,476 $9,476 $6,633 $5,685 $5,685
Eastern Dublin Freeway Interchange Fee (Sept. 1, 2021 – Aug. 31, 2022) Base Fee $214.60 $214.60 $150.22 $128.76 $128.76
Escalator $147.07 $147.07 $102.94 $88.23 $88.23
Total Fee $361.67 $361.67 $253.16 $216.99 $216.99
Eastern Dublin Noise Mitigation Fee
Per Unit $4.74 $4.74 $3.32 $2.85 $2.85

1. Effective January 1, 2020, through January 1, 2025, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) less than 750 square feet is not subject to impact fees. An ADU 750 square feet or larger are subject to impact fees that are proportional in relation to square footage of the primary dwelling unit or based on the impact fee per ADU, whichever is less.

Source: City of Dublin Impact Fees, FY 2021-2022.

The development impact fees associated with each project are dependent on the housing type, density, intensity of use, and location. In addition to these direct fees, the total cost of development is contingent on the project meeting the City’s policies and standards, as well as the applicant submitting necessary documents and plans in a timely manner.

The estimated total development impact fees for a typical single-family residence (measuring 3,000 square feet) are $61,572 per unit. The estimated total development impact fees for a typical multi-family residential project (10 units measuring a total of 34,848 square feet) are $82,344 per unit.

These estimates are illustrative in nature and the actual costs are contingent upon unique project circumstances. Considering the cost of land and the International Code Council (ICC) estimates for cost of labor and materials, the combined costs of development impact fees represent about 2.3 percent of the direct cost of constructing a single-family residence and 0.5 percent of constructing a multi-family residential development. These costs do not include landscaping, utility connection fees, on- and off-site improvements, and shell construction or amenities and, therefore, the total cost of development impact fees charged by the City may represent a smaller percentage or total development costs.

DRAFT
1260
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-38 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Program D.4 is included in the Housing Plan to evaluate the impact of development fees on housing development and adjust or mitigate as appropriate.

3. InfrastructureConstraints
Another factor that could constrain new residential construction is the requirement and cost to provide adequate infrastructure (I.e., major and local streets; water and sewer lines; and street lighting) needed to serve new residential development. In most cases, where new infrastructure is required, it is funded by the developer and then dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for its maintenance. Because the cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, it increases the cost of new construction, with much of that increased cost often “passed on” as part of home rental or sales rates.

Dry Utilities

ELECTRICAL
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) is the County of Alameda's Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, a community-governed power supplier that provides cleaner electricity to Alameda County residents and businesses, at rates that are lower or comparable to PG&E. EBCE partners with PG&E, which continues to deliver electricity and gas, maintain the power lines, respond to outages, and provide billing and customer service. EBCE provides electricity generated from a high percentage of renewable sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. The goal is to have more local control over our community's sources of energy, which can lead to cleaner, greener, and more local electricity.

PG&E’s distribution system delivers electricity directly to residential and commercial customers. Most electric power is brought to electric substations in the region via transmission lines connected to the statewide grid system. Electric power capacity is looked at on a subregional (rather than citywide) basis.

Local electrical capacity is a function of: (1) transmission network capacity to bring this power to Dublin and the greater Tri-Valley area; (2) capacity of the local substations to lower the voltages (or step down the power) to deliverable suitable voltage; and (3) the ability of the local distribution network to deliver adequate power to customers.

NATURAL GAS
Natural gas is supplied directly to residential and commercial customers by PG&E. Natural gas is pumped from the underground reservoir into large transmission pipelines, which transport the gas to local distribution pipelines. Some local distribution systems lead to underground storage. These natural gas storage areas are utilized during seasonal peaks. Dublin General Plan Chapter 13 – Environmental Resources Management: Energy Conservation Element establishes policies and programs, which promote energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing buildings throughout the City.

Water Supply
According to Dublin General Plan Chapter 12 – Environmental Resources Management: Water Resources Element, the City does not control the supply or delivery of water to customers, nor does the City control cost and pricing mechanisms related to water supply. The City does not manage regional flood control facilities either. However, the City
DRAFT
works in collaboration with other agencies that provide these services 1261
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-39 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
and, therefore, the scope of the Water Resources Element reflects this reality. The scope of City influence extends mainly to promoting and encouraging water conservation among business and residential users, implementing Low Impact Development measures to help treat stormwater, and managing stormwater runoff and pipelines that lead to flood control facilities. The Water Resources Element is intended to guide these efforts.

DUBLIN WATER SOURCE
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the water retailer for residents in Dublin and the Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon. DSRSD buys wholesale potable water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (also referred to as the Zone 7 Water Agency, or Zone 7). Zone 7 obtains most of its water supply from the State Water Project (SWP), with additional supplies derived from the local watershed and the Byron Bethany Irrigation District. Zone 7 uses the main groundwater aquifers in the Tri-Valley area to store imported water. Approximately 80 percent of Zone 7’s water comes from the SWP, traveling from the Sierra Nevada mountains through Lake Oroville and the Sacramento/ San Joaquin Delta. The water is then pumped into the South Bay Aqueduct near Tracy, where it enters the Tri-Valley. Zone 7 also pumps DSRSD’s groundwater quota for delivery to DSRSD customers.

WATER DEMAND
According to the Water Resources Element, potable and recycled water use in Dublin has generally increased since 2002 with much of the increased water usage as a result of planned growth. The Water Resources Element identifies residential users, specifically single-family residential users, as the largest consumer of water in the City. Although the total water demand has increased for the single-family residential category, the total number of single-family households has increased at a greater rate than the total water demand rate reported in the Water Resources Element. However, the average annual consumption of a single-family residence has decreased due to many factors, including a greater use of water efficient features, installation of more water-efficient landscapes, and greater public education regarding the importance of water conservation.

WASTEWATER
DSRSD owns and operates sanitary sewer facilities in Dublin and San Ramon and a wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton. Two wastewater treatment plants serve Tri-Valley residents, businesses, and institutions. DSRSD operates the plant located in Pleasanton, which has a capacity of 17 million gallons per day (MGD). The City of Livermore operates the other plant, which has a capacity of eight MGD.

Regional wastewater disposal matters are the business of the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers authority formed in June 1974 between DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. LAVWMA is responsible for maintaining the pipeline that transports treated wastewater from the two treatment plants to San Lorenzo. It is discharged into San Francisco Bay by the East Bay Dischargers Authority, another joint powers authority formed by cities and agencies in the East Bay, which operates and maintains a large outfall system to DRAFT
the Bay.
1262
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-40 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Fire and Emergency Services
According to Dublin General Plan Chapter 8 – Environmental Resources Management: Seismic Safety and Safety Element, the Alameda County Fire Department provides all fire prevention, fire protection, and First Responder Emergency Medical Services including advanced life support (paramedics) within Dublin.

DSRSD supplies water to the City for both domestic use and fire protection purposes through a series of pipelines, pump stations, and reservoirs. For fire protection, the Alameda County Fire Department specifies the required fire flows, which the DSRSD system is designed to provide. For non-sprinklered buildings, Alameda County Fire requires a minimum of 1,500 gallons of water per minute for two hours.

For sprinklered buildings, up to 2,000 gallons of water per minute is needed for four hours. DSRSD maintains separate fire protection water storage with an adequate volume to abate two simultaneous fires.

FIRE SERVICES
The Alameda County Fire Department includes four organizational branches: Operations, Communications and Special Operations, Administrative Support Services, and Fire Prevention. The Fire Chief provides overall leadership and is responsible for the effective management, coordination, and service delivery of all aspects of the Department. The Deputy Fire Chiefs, Fire Marshal, and Administrative Services Director oversee their respective organizational branches ensuring the overall day-to-day readiness of all aspects of the organization. The following summarizes the responsibilities of the four Alameda County Fire Department branches:
• Operations Branch. The Operations Branch is responsible for emergency response and incident mitigation for fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials, urban search, rescue, and other emergencies. The Operations Branch is charged with ensuring that personnel meet established training guidelines so the Department can meet any emergency response challenge. The Operations Branch is also responsible for the management of the Reserve Program which provides a cadre of individuals who volunteer their time and skills to assist front line firefighters.

First-responder paramedic services are always available throughout the unincorporated areas of the County (excluding Fairview) as well to the cities of Dublin, Newark and San Leandro, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The goal of the Operations Branch is to contribute to the safety of the citizens of Alameda County by safely providing emergency response and incident management for fires, rescues, medical emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, and disasters.
• Communications and Special Operational Branch. The Communications and Special Operational Branch is responsible for the operations of the Alameda County Regional Emergency Communications Center (ACRECC), the Emergency Medical Services Division, Hazardous Material and Water Rescue Programs, and Emergency Preparedness. The goal of the Communications and Special Operations Branch is to administer special fire operational programs to ensure that local, State, and federal mandated and discretionary service levels are maintained within the communities served and to
DRAFT
dispatch all fire emergency calls quickly and efficiently. 1263
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-41 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Administrative Support Services Branch. The Administrative Support Services Branch is responsible for a broad array of administrative, financial, and programmatic service areas that are essential for maintaining operational readiness. These areas include Fleet Management (Apparatus Maintenance and Repair), Financial Services, Facilities, and Human Resources. The goal of the Administrative Support Services Branch is to administer support service activities and programs that are essential for maintaining operational readiness. • Fire Prevention Branch. The primary responsibilities of Fire Prevention Branch are the enforcement of all applicable State and local fire codes and standards, and fire investigations.

Code enforcement is accomplished through the review and approval of building and facility plans, inspection of completed work, and certification of occupancy. The goal of the Fire Prevention Branch is to provide fire prevention services to meet the current and future needs of communities served.

Police Services
The Dublin Police Services contracts with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) for police services.

The Sheriff’s Office Commander assigned to Dublin Police Services (DPS) serves as the Chief of Police and within the Sheriff’s Office, reports to the Assistant Sheriff of Law Enforcement Services. Since 1982, the City and ACSO have renewed and/ or extended the agreement between the two organizations 11 times.

Most recently, the City renewed its contract with Alameda County Sheriff’s Office through June 30, 2030.

The Dublin City Manager may request modifications to the level of service provided at any time.

Dublin Police Services has 59 sworn personnel and eight professional staff members who provide public safety to the City. The Operations Division consists of the Patrol and Traffic Units. There are five sergeants who serve as the supervisor and shift watch commanders. They are responsible for Patrol Operations and the 28 officers who are assigned to Patrol. Two of those officers are police service dog handlers (K9 Unit).

The Traffic Sergeant is responsible for four traffic officers. The Investigative Services Unit and the Special Investigations Unit make up the Investigations Division. Each Unit is supervised by a sergeant. The Investigative Services Unit consists of five detectives who investigate major crimes. The Special Investigations Unit investigates narcotics and other quality of life-related incidents. In 2020, Dublin Police Services drove 455,955 miles, and maintained a presence in business and commercial districts, residential areas, and parks. Specifically, Dublin Police Services responded to 30,706 service calls with an average response time of 5.3 minutes. Dispatch Services are provided by Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

4. Environmental Constraints
The City may be susceptible to several environmental constraints to the development of housing. This section details potential environmental factors in Dublin.

Geologic Hazards
The City is located between the western hills that form part of the ridgelands extending from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara County and the eastern hillside. The City is also situated along major fault traces, similar to most California jurisdictions.

DRAFT
1264
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-42 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
According to Dublin General Plan Chapter 8 – Environmental Resources Management: Seismic Safety and Safety Element, the City has potential geologic hazards commonly found in California. Specifically, downslope movement and surface fault rupture due to earthquakes pose significant constraints on the location of urban development. Downslope movement includes landslides, rockfalls, debris flows, and soil creep. Factors affecting downslope movement are groundwater, rock and soil type, slope angle, propensity to erosion, seismic activity, vegetation, and grading or other human alterations. Figure C-6 shows fault traces and boundaries within the City. The Safety Element identifies policies and programs aimed at mitigating potential damage and constraints from these geologic hazards.

Seismic Hazards
The California Earthquake Authority (CEA)provides risk identification and mapping throughout the State.

The CEA identifies a 76 percent likelihood of one or more magnitude-7.0 quakes striking Northern California as it straddles the San Andreas fault system—the major geologic boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The San Andreas and Hayward faults are the most notable faults in the vicinity. The Calaveras and Hayward faults extend up the east side of the San Francisco Bay. These and several other major faults in the region are part of the San Andreas fault system and can cause damaging earthquakes, like the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. According to the CEA, there is a 51 percent chance that the San Francisco region specifically will experience one or more magnitude-7.0 or greater earthquake by 2044. There’s a 98 percent chance of one or more magnitude-6.0 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco area during that same timeframe.

Liquefaction
Due to the potential for seismic activity and soil type in the region lowland areas away from major faults may be subject to liquefaction, according to the CEA. Residences on liquefied soil may settle or even move laterally on gentle slopes. Landslides are also possible on steep slopes. Figure C-6 illustrates liquefaction and landslide areas within Dublin. The City is heavily impacted by potential risks, but the Safety Element identifies policies and programs that address the risk factor, such as requiring new residential developments to comply with the Building Code, which includes earthquake safety provisions.

DRAFT
1265
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-43 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-6: Geologic Hazards and Constraints (2014)
Source: Dublin General Plan Chapter 8 – Environmental Resources Management: Seismic Safety and Safety Element DRAFT
1266
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-44 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Flood Hazards
According to the Safety Element, and as illustrated in Figure C-7, the City faces flood hazards from 100- and 500-year floods. According to the Safety Element, most of the areas in the 100-year flood plain have been developed. Any new construction in flood prone areas must comply with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.24 (Flood Control) including constructing the first floor above the floodplain level. A number of channel improvements have been implemented since the early 1990s as a result of local developments partnering with Zone 7, the City, and Caltrans. Channel improvements have been made along Tassajara Creek (Line K), Alamo Creek (Line F), and Big Canyon Creek (Line J-1). In addition to the major creeks in Dublin, several tributaries have undergone improvements as well.

While no major flood improvement projects have been identified in the City, Zone 7 is updating their Stream Management Master Plan (SMMP), which will consider new, innovative approaches to providing regional flood protection. Areas along Chabot Canal located in Camp Parks and upland areas along Tassajara Creek will likely present partnering opportunities for Zone 7 and the City.

DRAFT
1267
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-45 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-7: Potential Flooding – FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (2014) Source: Dublin General Plan Chapter 8 – Environmental Resources Management: Seismic Safety and Safety Element DRAFT
1268
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-46 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Fire Hazards
According to the Safety Element, steep, inaccessible slopes and brush pose a potential high fire hazard in the western hills. Additionally, areas within the Extended Planning Areas adjacent to open space are susceptible to fire hazards. Figure C-8 shows Fire Hazard Severity Zones as identified by CalFire. Alameda County Fire reviews development projects to address any potential fire hazards. As shown, Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones exist in the eastern region of the City. For projects that are constructed outside a fire station service area (greater than 1.5 miles from the nearest fire station) and/or interface with open space, Alameda County Fire imposes certain built-in fire protection measures to ensure safety and mitigate fire hazards.

DRAFT
1269
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, andAFFH C-47 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-8: CalFire – Fire Hazard Severity Zones
DRAFT
Source: CalFire Fire and Resource Assessment Program – FHSZ Viewer (Accessed February 2022) 1270
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-48 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Financial Resources
Providing an adequate supply of decent and affordable housing requires funding from various sources.

This section provides an overview of funding sources available to increase and maintain affordable housing options.

1. Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)
The Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program(HCVP) extends rental subsidies to extremely lowand very low-income households, including families, seniors, and the disabled. HCVP participants can choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located within subsidized housing projects. Participants typicallypay 30 to 40 percent of their income for rent and utilities.

The Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) operates programs funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide rental housing or rental assistance for lower-income households, the elderly, and people with disabilities. HACA’s programs include the distribution of Housing Choice Vouchers. According to HACA, over 7,000 households and 3,500 homeowners participate in the HCVP. Figure C-9 displays the percentage of vouchers throughout the City and in the surrounding region.

The City has two areas where five to 15 percent of households use housing choice vouchers and one area where less than five percent use the vouchers. The area with a higher concentration of voucher use includes numerous multi-family residential developments.

DRAFT
1271
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-49 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-9: Housing Choice Vouchers
DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1272
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-50 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

2. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Program provides annual grants on a formula basis to cities to develop viable urban communities by providing a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income households (up to 80 percent AMI).

CDBG funds can be used for a wide array of activities, including:
• Housing rehabilitation;
• Lead-based paint screening and abatement;
• Acquisition of buildings and land;
• Construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and infrastructure, and • Public services for low-income households and those with special needs.

Alameda County administers CDBG funds on behalf of the City through the CDBG Urban County Program.

Using these funds, the Alameda County Community Development Agency administers the minor home rehabilitation grants and home improvement loan assistance. The Alameda County Healthy Homes Department Minor Home Rehabilitation Program provides grants of 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. 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.

3. HOME Program
HOME Investment Partnerships provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by lowincome households.

The City does not currently receive funding from the HOME Program.

C. Opportunities for Energy Conservation

1. Energy Use and Providers
The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation, lighting, water heating, and space heating and
DRAFT
cooling. The high cost of energy demands that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the 1273
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-51 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
overall level of urban energy consumption. Energy conservation is important in preserving non-renewable fuels to ensure that these resources are available for use by future generations. There are also benefits associated with energy conservation including improved air quality and lower energy costs.

According to Dublin General Plan Chapter 13 – Environmental Resources Management: Energy Conservation Element, regulatoryand service agencies, including California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPCU), and PG&E, play roles in decreasing energy consumption. In 2011, the CPUC’s California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan envisioned California’s local governments would be leaders in using energy efficiency to reduce energy use and global warming emissions both in their own facilities and throughout their communities. The CPUC sees local governments taking a very active role in energy efficiency improvements through efforts to provide both incentives and regulatory requirements to mandate decreased energy consumption.

Alternative Sources
East Bay Community Energy’s power mix is mostly sourced from renewable energy and large hydropower.

Our Board of Directors have established the goal of purchasing 100 percent clean power by 2030 — a full 15 years before the State's goal date. Meanwhile, the City of Dublin took the bold action of transitioning residential customers onto 100 percentrenewable energy service effective in January 2022, to accelerate the reduction of emissions and hasten the investment in wind, solar, and battery storage projects. In doing so, the City set the “default” service level for customers as Renewable 100, EBCE’s service sourced from 100 percent California wind and solar, including the output of EBCE’s Scott Haggerty Wind Center in Livermore. Any EBCE customer can choose our Bright Choice service, sourced from renewable energy, large hydroelectric, natural gas, and nuclear energy, if they prefer to save money on their PG&E bill each month.

According to the Energy Conservation Element, common uses of solar energy are solar water heating systems and photovoltaic facilities. The Tri-Valley climate is suitable for the implementation of solar energy technologies. In addition to more alternative sources being used by the utility provider, individual properties are increasingly generating their own power and drawing less off the grid. The City currently generates 19 percent of its energy needs from solar voltaic arrays. The remaining energy comes East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), which provides the City with 100 percent renewable energy. Of the energy consumed by City-owned buildings, 57 percent is produced by the solar arrays at the Civic Center, Dublin Library, Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, Fire Station 18, Shannon Center, and the Senior Center.

Wind energy is also a viable option in Dublin. There are currently no wind energy facilities in the City.

As part of the Energy Conservation Element, the City has adopted the following guiding policies:
• Educate Dublin residents and local businesses on the variety of energy programs available. • Encourage energy efficient improvements be made when residential and commercial properties change ownership.
• Explore additional ways to support solar and wind power generation options. • Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and commercial development.
• Encourage designing for solar access.
• Encourage energy ef
DRAFT
ficient improvements on residential and commercial properties. 1274
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-52 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Serve as a model for residents, local businesses, and public agencies by continuing to reduce the City’s energy demand.

2. Electric Vehicle Chargers and Solar
In addition to the base requirements of California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC), the City adopted the CalGreen Tier 2 requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charger space calculations. The adoption of Tier 2 requires double the amount of non-residential “EV capable” stalls than before (10 percent of stalls to 20 percent of stalls). The adoption of Tier 2 requirements also increases the multifamily residential standard from six percent to 10 percent for EV “capable” stalls. To be considered “EV capable,” a parking stall must have an installed “raceway” (the enclosed conduit that forms the physical pathway for electrical wiring to protect it from damage) and adequate panel capacity to accommodate future installation of a dedicated branch circuit and charging station(s).

Most new residential dwelling units are required to install solar panels. For residential projects that qualify for an exception and commercial development, the City requires future access to solar systems by installing conduit from the solar zone (as defined by the CA Energy Code, Title 24 Part 6) to a location within the building that is suitable for future controllers and inverters. The conduit shall be installed as part of the original construction and prior to first occupancy.

D. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
AB 686 established new requirements for all California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” These characteristics can include, but are not limited to race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, or disability.

1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City partners with the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) for fair housing resources and services. ECHO provides information for tenants on their housing rights and provides mediation services between landlords and tenants. ECHO’s goal is to promote equal housing access and provide support services to prevent homelessness and promote permanent housing conditions. Programs organized by ECHO relating to fair housing include the following:
• Fair Housing Services
• First-Time Home Buyer Counseling
• First Time Homebuyer Education
• Homeseeking Counseling
• Shared Housing Counseling and
DRAFT
Placement
1275
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-53 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Rent Review and Relocation Programs
• Rental Assistance Program
• Tenant/Landlord Services
Fair Housing and Civil Rights Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement, Settlements or Judgments The City’s Community Development Department works closely with residents, property owners, outside agencies, and other City departments to resolve health, safety, and public nuisance conditions that adversely affect the quality of life in Dublin and that are not in compliance with adopted regulations.

Enforcement is provided proactively and on a complaint basis. Most code violations are resolved on the initial contact made by Staff. Staff generally works under the model of voluntary compliance within a reasonable amount of time allotted. In rare instances, penalties are assessed to those who fail to comply with the Dublin Municipal Code. The Planning Division is primarily responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Property Maintenance Ordinance, and the Building and Safety Division is primarily responsible for enforcing the provisions of the California Building Codes, the Dublin Municipal Code, and the Uniform Housing Code. In 2021, the City processed 134 code enforcement complaints relating to housing. These complaints addressed issues relating to property maintenance, access to heating and air conditioning, construction without building permits, and complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. None of the code enforcement complaints received by the City related to fair housing issues.

Should a fair housing complaint be brought to the City’s attention, the City would direct the complaint to ECHO for further assistance. During the 5th Cycle Housing Element, the City was not involved in any fair housing lawsuits, settlements, or judgments.

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Knowledge Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
The dissimilarity index is the most-commonly used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods (as defined by census tracts). The index represents the percentage of the minority group that would have to move to new neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration of that group. An index score can range in value from 0 percent, indicating complete integration, to 100 percent, indicating complete segregation. An index number above 60 is considered to show high similarity and a segregated community.

Figure C-10 shows the dissimilarity index for racial and ethnic groups in the City. The figure shows segregation for the City’s Black population, which has a dissimilarity index of 64.9. No other racial or ethnic group scored above 60. When compared to the overall population, persons who identify as Black represent only 3.5 percent of the total City population. Similarly, those who identify as American Indian and Native Hawaiian had higher dissimilarity indices of 36.6 and 34.2, respectively, despite making up a combined six percent of the total population. When a racial or ethnic population is small, its dissimilarity index may be high even if the racial or ethnic group members are evenly distributed throughout the area.

Thus, when a group's population is less than 1,000, exercise caution in interpreting its dissimilarity indices.

Figure C-11 also shows spatial mapping of neighborhood segregation for the City and surrounding region.

As shown, the City is made up of “Mostly Asian” areas with some areas of “Asian-Latinx” and “4 Group Mixed.” This is consistent with the rest of the region to the north and to the south of the City and DRAFT
1276
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-54 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
correlates with the data in Figure C-10 showing about half of the City’s population is made up of persons who identify as Asian.

It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segregation, with some residents choosing to live among people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country. Alternatively, when white residents leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, those neighborhoods can become segregated.

Another major factor is the concentration and availability of affordable housing, which the City deliberately chose to disperse when selecting properties for the Sites Inventory (as shown in Appendix D). Other factors include housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.

Figure C-10: Dissimilarity Index with White Population, Dublin *Non-Hispanic only.

Source: Census Scope, Social Science Data Analysis Network White* Black* American
Indian* Asian*
Native
Hawaiian
*
Other*
Two or
More
Races*
Hispanic
Dissimilarity Index 64.9 36.6 12.1 34.2 19.4 9.8 25.2
% of Population 29.9% 3.5% 0.3% 50.9% 0.4% 0.3% 4.4% 10.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Percent of Total Population
Dissimilarity Index
DRAFT
1277
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-55 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-11: Neighborhood Segregation(2021)
DRAFT
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021). 1278
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-56 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate, or act violently toward a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice.

As shown in Table 3-17, between 2014 and 2020, a total of four hate crimes were reported in Dublin, which were all based on race, ethnicity, and ancestry. Specifically, the hate crimes that occurred in 2014 related to anti-Black or African American actions, the hate crime reported in 2017 related to anti-Asian actions, and the hate crime reported in 2019 related to anti-Hispanic or Latino. No further details are available as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not make case-specific data available.

Table 3-17: FBI Hate Crimes by Bias(2014-2020)
Year
Race/
Ethnicity/
Ancestry
Religion Sexual
Orientation Disability Gender Gender Identity Total
2014 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime Data Explorer, 2014-2020.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward:

R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Neighborhoods of extreme poverty are defined as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line.

Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD also defines a neighborhood as a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three or more times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

Location can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. However, these areas may also provide different opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identify and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a city.

Figure C-12
DRAFT
shows there are no R/ECAPs located in Dublin, nor in the surrounding communities. 1279
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-57 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-12: R/ECAP in Dublin and Neighboring Communities DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1280
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-58 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty are a long-standing, contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, the White population is the most severely insulated (separated from other racial groups). Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.

Data used in the analysis of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) is from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and measured at the census tract level. The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.

The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
• RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
• Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average about 20 percent of a typical tract.
• RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than R/ECAPs. • The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
• The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.

Overall, RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices.

Figure C-13 shows White-majority census tracts in the City and surrounding communities. As illustrated, there is one census tract on the western side of the City with a majority population identifying as White.

In addition, Figure C-14 shows median income by block group. A large majority of the City reports a median income greater than $125,000. When overlaid with the White majority tracts, two census tracts stand out as having RCAAs. These two tracts are identified in Table C-18 and both have approximately 65 percent of their population identifying as White and earning over $137,000 annually.

When compared to the County as a whole, the City’s White population earns a median income of approximately $124,846 whereas the County’s White population earns a median income of approximately $108,506 (Table C-19). In both jurisdictions, the White population represents just under half of the total population.

DRAFT
1281
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-59 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-13: RCAA in Dublin and Neighboring Communities – White Majority DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1282
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-60 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-14: RCAA in Dublin and Neighboring Communities – Median Income DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1283
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-61 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-18: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race by Block Group, Dublin Block Group Percent Population White Median Income
Block Group 2, Census Tract 4505.01 64.91% $137,857
Block Group 1, Census Tract 4505.01 64.91% $165,313
Source: (U.S. Census Bureau) from HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Accessed February 4, 2022.

Table C-19: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race, Dublin and Alameda County Race
Dublin AlamedaCounty
Median Income1 Population Median Income 1 Population
White $124,846 45.7% $108,506 46.8%
All Households $150,299 -- $99,406 --
Notes: 1 Median income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITY INDEX (ROI)
The University of California, Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both people and place components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.

The ROI: People is a relative measure of people's education, economic, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life opportunities as follows:
• Education: Assesses people’s educational success in the form of higher education, elementary school achievement, and elementary school attendance.
• Economic: Measures a community’s economic well-being in the form of employment and income level.
• Housing: Measures a community’s relative residential stability, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
• Mobility/Transportation: Assesses a community’s relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
• Health/Environment: Measures a community’s health, particularly infant, teen, and general health.
• Civic Life: Assesses social and political engagement in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.

Figure C-15 illustrates the City’s ROI: People results. As shown, Dublin residents generally have high assets in education, economic, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life opportunities. This is consistent with neighboring communities that also report high opportunities.

The ROI: Place is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, economic, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life opportunities as follows:

DRAFT
1284
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-62 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Education: Assesses a census tract's relative ability to provide educational opportunity, in the form of high-quality schools that meet the basic educational and social needs. • Economic: Measures the relative economic climate of a community, in the form of access to employment and business climate.
• Housing: Measures housing availability in a community, in the form of housing sufficiency and housing affordability.
• Health/Environment: Measures how well communities meet the health needs of their constituents, in the form of access to health care and other health-related environments. • Civic Life: Measures the social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and citizenship.

Figure C-16 illustrates the City’s ROI: Place results. The City offers high to moderate assets in education, economic, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life opportunities. Areas of low opportunity exist in east Dublin. This is due to low health and environmental factors; all other assets remain highly rated. However, this data does not include the significant development in east Dublin, such as the Kaiser Medical Center and residential developments, since the data in 2014 was released In addition, Table C-20 displays specific ROI data for the City and the State. The data shows the following key findings:
• The City shows excellent educational scores with almost double the percent of college educated adults, greater high school graduation and University of California/California State University eligibility rates, and significantly higher proficiency levels. • Dublin residents have a higher percentage of employment with greater incomes. Jobs in the City are generally higher quality and have been growing at a fasterrate. • While housing adequacy is greater in Dublin, a higher percentage of residents experience a cost burden.
• A greater percentage of Dublin residents have access to vehicles and commute less. • General health and environmental factors in Dublin are highly rated. Infant health, prenatal care, years of life lost, and air quality are better rated in Dublin. The City does have less access to supermarkets, indicating a need for additional resources for existing residents. This data does not include the Whole Foods in Persimmon Place, which was opened in 2015, or Lucky’s at Fallon Gateway, which opened in 2018.
• As it relates to civic involvement, almost all Dublin residents speak English and a high percentage vote.

Overall, the City is shown to be a high opportunity city. As part of the candidate sites analysis, the City identified sites that can accommodate new housing units at a variety of income levels in areas where future residents will have access to high degrees of opportunity. By increasing stable and affordable housing options, the City hopes to further increase opportunities for current and future Dublin residents.

DRAFT
1285
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-63 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-15: Regional Opportunity Index, People – Dublin and Neighboring Communities

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

DRAFT
1286
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-64 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-16: Regional Opportunity Index, Place – Dublin and Neighboring Communities DRAFT
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014. 1287
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-65 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-20: Opportunity Indicators, Dublin and California ROI Indicator Dublin California
Education
People
College Educated Adults 63.2% 38%
Math Proficiency 84.8% 70.1%
English Proficiency 82.9% 65%
Elementary Truancy 18.6% 24.3%
Place
High SchoolGraduationRate 93.6% 83.1%
UC/CSUEligibility 62.9% 41%
Teacher Experience 25.1% 36.3%
High School DisciplineRate 1.3% 6.4%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 95.5% 89.4%
MinimumBasic Income 88.4% 63.5%
Place
Job Availability 977.4 701.8
JobQuality 4.9% 2.9%
Job Growth 56.4% 40.4%
Bank Accessibility 0.4 0.2
Housing
People
Home Ownership 58.5% 54.7%
Housing CostBurden 59.5% 51.6%
Place
Housing Adequacy 97.6% 90.6%
Housing Affordability 0.2% 0.2%
MobilityPeople
Vehicle Availability 92% 86.4%
Commute Time 51.8% 59.9%
InternetAccess 5 4
Health/EnvironmentalPlace
InfantHealth 94.8% 94.9%
Birth to Teens 0.9% 6.6%
Years of Life Lost 17.2% 29.8%
Place
Air Quality 8.6% 10%
Prenatal Care 88.6% 83.1%
Access to Supermarket 22.9% 53.3%
Health Care Availability 1.8% 1.8%
Civic Life
People
Voting Rates 37.6% 30.6%
English Speakers 95.9% 88.1%
Place
US Citizenship 83.2% 82.6%
Neighborhood Stability 80.6% 84.9%
Source:

DRAFT
UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014. 1288
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-66 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

CALIFORNIA TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE (TCAC/HCD) OPPORTUNITY AREA DATA HCD together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task Force developed the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task Force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.

According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision-makers identify tracts within each region where research suggests low-income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live—but might, if given the choice.

Figure C-17 shows the TCAC Opportunity Scores for the City and surrounding region. As illustrated, the City is categorized as High and Highest Resource. This is generally consistent with the region. The region to the east with moderate resource scores represents mostly undeveloped land. Overall, future housing developments within the City will benefit from access to high levels of resources, bringing additional opportunities for existing and future residents.

DRAFT
1289
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-67 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-17: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map
DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1290
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-68 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TCAC/HCD DATA – EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include education data, as illustrated in Figure C-18. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
• Math proficiency – Percentage of fourth graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards. • Reading proficiency – Percentage of fourth graders who meet or exceed literacy standards. • High school graduation rates – Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time. • Student poverty rate – Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.

Figure C-18 shows educational scores for the City and surrounding region. As shown, a large portion of the City lacks adequate data to identify scores; however, the remainder of the City is scored at the highest positive educational outcomes. Overall, Dublin provides high opportunities for education achievement and in return Dublin residents show high educational achievements and successes in achieving college degrees.

DRAFT
1291
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-69 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-18: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Educational Opportunities DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1292
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-70 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
TCAC/HCD DATA – ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include economic data, as illustrated in Figure C-19. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following five factors:
• Poverty – Percent of population with income above 200 percent of federal poverty line. • Adult Education – Percent of adults with a bachelor's degree or above. • Employment – Percent of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces.
• Job Proximity – Number of jobs filled by workers with less than a Bachelor of Arts degree that fall within a given radius (determined by the typical commute distance of low-wage workers in each region) of each census tract population-weighted centroid. • Median Home Value - Value of owner-occupied units.

Figure C-19 shows economic opportunity scores for Dublin and the surrounding region. The majority of the City has a high level of positive economic outcome. The area of the City near Interstate-680 is shown to have moderate economic outcomes; this area includes a large percentage of residential uses as well as the City’s downtown region and large commercial and industrial centers. When compared to proximity to jobs (Figure C-20), Dublin residents generally live close to employment. Overall, Dublin residents have high access to positive economic opportunities. Future housing development will add to opportunities for existing and future residents.

DRAFT
1293
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-71 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-19: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Economic Opportunities DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1294
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-72 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-20: Jobs Proximity Index
DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1295
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-73 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

HUD OPPORTUNITY INDICATORS
Opportunity indicators also help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity. HUD developed opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity.

The scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access to key opportunity assets in the County. Table C-21 provides the index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices for Alameda County:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures the poverty rate at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. • School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of fourth grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower-performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital.
• Transit Trips Index: The transit trips index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: The low transportation cost index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person singleparent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA.

The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation. • Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better access to employment opportunities.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.

Table C-21 displays the opportunity indicators by race and ethnicity for persons in Alameda County – data is not available for the City. There are lower school proficiency rates and labor market rates among the population identifying as Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic. In addition, Alameda County residents report low job proximity scores, which is not the case for Dublin residents who benefit from high proximity to employment.

DRAFT
1296
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-74 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-21: Opportunity Indicators, Alameda County
(Alameda
County, CA
CDBG)
Jurisdiction
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, NonHispanic 74.5 64.8 69.0 62.5 88.4 41.6 50.0
Black, NonHispanic

59.4 46.9 47.4 66.1 90.4 36.0 50.7
Hispanic 58.3 39.9 48.6 70.0 90.1 31.0 50.3
Asian or
Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

71.5 61.9 66.3 63.9 88.5 44.4 49.7
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

63.5 50.9 49.7 63.1 89.7 37.9 51.1
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, NonHispanic

63.7 50.6 58.0 69.8 90.1 32.1 47.8
Black, NonHispanic

46.2 32.8 42.9 74.6 92.5 26.3 48.3
Hispanic 44.9 29.4 45.6 76.1 91.6 29.1 49.6
Asian or
Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

62.3 53.1 63.2 74.5 91.6 47.2 43.2
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

42.1 18.3 43.3 76.7 91.9 12.8 52.8
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Online Mapping Tool, Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA DRAFT
1297
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-75 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

ACCESS TO TRANSIT
Access to transportation, specifically public transit, provides households with affordable and environmentally-friendly commuting options. It can also increase accessibility to essential retail, such as grocers and markets, and recreational activities.

AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. Dublin scored a AllTransit performance score of 5.3, as shown in Figure C-21 below, illustrating moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling a moderate number of people to take transit to work. Additionally, AllTransit identified the following transit related statistics for Dublin:
• 94.6 percent of all jobs in Dublin are located within half a mile of transit. • There are 3,765 customer households within a 30-minute transit commute of local businesses. • 1.11 percent of workers in Dublin walk to work.
• 0.41 percent of workers in Dublin bike to work.
• No low-income households (earning under $50,000) live within half a mile of high frequency fullday transit.

DRAFT
1298
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-76 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-21: All Transit Performance Score – Dublin (2021) DRAFT
Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, 2021.
1299
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-77 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

CALENVIROSCREEN - ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethnicities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants.

The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Model is made up of a suite of 20 statewide indicators of pollution burden and population characteristics associated with increased vulnerability to pollution’s health effects. The model uses the following analysis and calculation to identify areas of health risk:
• Uses a weighted scoring system to derive average pollution burden and population characteristics scores for each census tract.
• Calculates a final CalEnviroScreen score for a given census tract relative to the other tracts by multiplying the pollution burden and population characteristics components together. • Measures the relative pollution burdens and vulnerabilities in one census tract compared to others; the score is not a measure of health risk.

Figure C-22 displays mapped results of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 for the City and surrounding region. The City has low to moderate levels of pollution burdens. Tables C-22 and C-23 compare two census tracts with the highest and lowest pollution burdens in the City. As detailed, Census Tract 6001450400 reports a higher pollution burden, but is still considered relatively low to moderate on the scale. The housing burden and unemployment percentile in this census tract is greater than that of Census Tract 6001450502.

In general, new housing opportunities throughout the City would have access to low levels of pollution burdens.

DRAFT
1300
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-78 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-22: All Transit Performance Score – Dublin
DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1301
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-79 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-22: CalEnviro Screen 4.0 – Highest Scoring Census Tract (6001450400) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
CalEnviro Screen 4.0 29 Pollution Burden 41
Ozone 25 Asthma 18
Particulate Matter2.5 25 Low Birth Weight 72
Diesel Particulate Matter 93 Cardiovascular Rate 10
Toxic Releases 42 Education 21
Traffic 86 Linguistic Isolation 47
Drinking Water 39 Poverty 14
Lead from Housing 33 Unemployment 53
Cleanup Sites 10 Housing Burden 32
Groundwater Threats 75
Hazardous Waste 78
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 0
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Accessed 2/7/2022)
Table C-23: CalEnviro Screen 4.0 – Lowest Scoring Census Tract (6001450502) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
CalEnviro Screen 4.0 4 Pollution Burden 26
Ozone 18 Asthma 12
Particulate Matter2.5 20 Low Birth Weight 23
Diesel Particulate Matter 51 Cardiovascular Rate 6
Toxic Releases 44 Education 15
Traffic 99 Linguistic Isolation 31
Drinking Water 39 Poverty 3
Lead from Housing 3 Unemployment 11
Cleanup Sites 50 Housing Burden 4
Groundwater Threats 44
Hazardous Waste 47
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 0
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Accessed 2/7/2022)
Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement
Disproportionate housing needs refer to disparities in cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and displacement risk for special needs populations in comparison to the rest of the population. Housing needs are assessed by the HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on ACS data.

Housing problems and severe housing problems include the following elements:

Housing Problem
• Incomplete kitchen facilities
• Incomplete plumbing facilities
• 1+ person per room
• Cost burden greater than 30 percent
Severe Housing Problem
• Incomplete kitchen facilities
• Incomplete plumbing facilities
• 1.5+ person per room
DRAFT
• Cost burden greater than 50 percent
1302
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-80 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-24 shows a breakdown of housing challenges for Dublin and Alameda County households by race and ethnicity. Dublin residents experience lower rates of housing challenges for both owner and renter households. Renter households across both jurisdictions experience more housing challenges than owner households. Renters and homeowners who identify as White have the highest rates of household challenges and those who identify as Asian report the second highest rates of housing problems.

Table C-24: Housing Problems by Tenure and Race/Ethnicity Has One or More
Housing Challenges White
Black or
African
American
Asian American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic or
Latino
City of Dublin
Owner Households 3.2% 0% 2.3% 0.1% 0% 0.9%
Renter Households 3.5% 0.4% 2.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8%
Alameda County
Owner Households 2.6% 0.8% 2.5% 0% 0% 1.5%
Renter Households 3.8% 3.2% 3.5% 0.1% 0.1% 4.5%
Source: HUD, Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data, City of Dublin and Alameda County.

COST BURDEN
Table C-25 shows data for households experiencing overpayment and cost burden for Dublin, Alameda County, and the State of California. The City had the lowest rates of cost burden in 2019 after experiencing a four percent decrease for those with a cost burden over 30 percent between 2017 and 2019. Overall, jurisdictions have experienced cost burden decreases between 2017 and 2019. Figures C-23 and C-24 show overpayment by tenure. Both figures show there is a relatively similar percentage of overpayment between renters and homeowners throughout the City. The Primary Planning Area, as shown in General Plan Figure 1-2, experiences higher rates of overpayment at 40 to 60 percent. Both figures show consistency with neighboring communities, with Figure C-24 showing a generally lower percentage of the City’s renters overpaying for housing compared to the region.

Table C-25: Cost Burden Change Over Time by Geography (2017-2019) Overpayment/
Cost Burden
City of Dublin Alameda County State of California
2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019
Cost Burden >30% 30% 26% 29% 28% 32% 31%
Cost Burden >50% 8% 8% 11% 11% 14% 13%
No Cost Burden 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019 and 2017.

DRAFT
1303
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-81 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-23: Overpayment by Homeowners
DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1304
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-82 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-24: Overpayment by Renters
DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1305
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-83 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-25: Location Affordability by Median Gross Rent DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1306
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-84 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
In addition to overpayment, general housing affordability is also an important factor. Figure C-25 displays the location of affordable rents throughout the City and the surrounding region. In comparison to the area to the north of Dublin, the City has a higher rate of affordable rents. There is a pocket of median gross rent exceeding $3,000 in the eastern part of the City; however, the rest of the City has a median gross rent which does not exceed $2,500.

OVERCROWDING
Table C-26 shows overcrowding trends for the City, County, and State from 2010 to 2019. Overcrowding in all three regions has increased to varying degrees. In the City, renter households experiencing overcrowding increased from 0.1 percent to one percent. Alameda County experienced a doubling of renter households experiencing overcrowding. In comparison, renter households across California remained about the same with a couple percentage increases. Severely overcrowded owner households in Dublin and owner households across the State experienced decreases, with Dublin’s severely overcrowded owner households dropping from 0.1 percent to 0.02 percent. Figure C-26 also shows overcrowded households in the City and the region. The City and the majority of the surrounding area does not have an overcrowding rate that exceeds the statewide average.

Table C-26: Overcrowding Change Over Time byGeography
Overcrowding and
Tenure
City of Dublin Alameda County State of California
2010 2019 2010 2019 2010 2019
Owner Households
Overcrowded 0.8% 0.8% 1.3% 1.4% 1.8% 1.6%
Severely
Overcrowded 0.1% 0.02% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded 0.7% 2% 2.4% 3.6% 3.5% 3.6%
Severely
Overcrowded 0.1% 1% 1.2% 2.4% 2.2% 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019 and 2010.

DRAFT
1307
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-85 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-26: Overcrowded Households
DRAFT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1308
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-86 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Table C-27 below displays the City’s housing stock by year built. Older housing may generally require more upkeep and regular maintenance and can cause a cost burden on both renters and homeowners. Units over 30 years of age are considered older and more at-risk of requiring upgrades. Approximately 20.8 percent of the City’s housing stock was built prior to 1980. Table C-28 provides specific figures on the number of units lacking complete plumbing facilities in comparison to year the residence was built. Most substandard housing units with incomplete plumbing were built after 1950. A total of 43 units are overcrowded, lack complete plumbing facilities, and were built prior to 1950. In total, Table C-28 shows there are 103 units requiring additional care and maintenance to create a safe and livable environment for its tenants.

Table C-27: Age of Dublin Housing Stock
Year Built Number of Occupied Housing
Units Percent
2014 or later 2,328 11.5%
2010 to 2013 2,470 12.2%
2000 to 2009 6,271 31%
1980 to 1999 4,949 24.5%
1960 to 1979 3,751 18.5%
1940 to 1959 339 1.7%
1939 or earlier 127 0.6%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table C-28: Plumbing Facilities by Occupants Per Room by Year Structure Built Year Built Number of Occupied Housing Units
Lacking Plumbing Facilities

1.00 or Less Occupants Per Room
Built 1950 or later 60
Built 1940 to 1949 0
Built 1939 or earlier 0

1.1 or More Occupants Per Room
Built 1950 or later 0
Built 1940 to 1949 35
Built 1939 or earlier 8
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
The senior population is generally regarded as those over the age of 65. Senior householders may be more at risk of requiring additional services, accessibility improvements, and be located near public transit or community resources and commercial and retail needs. Table C-29 shows occupied household trends by age of householder for the City, County, and State from 2010 to 2019. The table shows an overall increase in senior householders between 2010 and 2019. Householders between the ages of 65 and 74 across the State had the greatest increase. In comparison, senior householders in Dublin increased by less than one percent for each age category. Senior households remain a small portion of the Dublin community, but still require additional attention when considering the location of future senior housing developments.

DRAFT
1309
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-87 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-29: Occupied Households by Age of Households by Geography Age of Households City of Dublin Alameda County State of California 2010 2019 2010 2019 2010 2019
65 to 74 years 6.2% 7.7% 9% 12.8% 9.9% 13.7%
75 to 84 years 3.1% 3.8% 5.9% 6.2% 6.6% 7.1%
85 years and over 0.6% 0.9% 2.5% 2.9% 2.6% 3.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

TENURE
Table C-30 displays tenure trends for the City, County, and State between 2010 and 2019. The City reports higher rates of home ownership than households in the County and across the State. While 53.5 percent of Alameda County households are owner-occupied, Dublin households are made up of 65.5 percent owner-occupied units. This represents a slight decrease of about one percent between 2010 and 2019.

The trend is consistent across the County and the State where homeownership has decreased over the nine-year period.

Table C-30: Overcrowding Change Over Time by Geography
Tenure City of Dublin Alameda County State of California 2010 2019 2010 2019 2010 2019
Owner Households 66.3% 65.5% 55.1% 53.5% 57.4% 54.8%
Renter Households 33.7% 34.5% 44.9% 46.5% 42.6% 45.2%
Total Occupied
Households 13,273 20,235 532,026 577,177 12,392,852 13,044,266 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

DISPLACEMENT
The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunities. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.

Urban Displacement
The U.C. Berkeley Urban Displacement Project developed a neighborhood change database to map neighborhood transformations and identify areas vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. This data was developed to assist local decision makers and stakeholders better plan for existing communities and provide additional resources to areas in need or at-risk of displacement and gentrification. The displacement typologies and the criteria used to identify each category are listed in Table C-31 with the census tracts identified in each, as illustrated in Figure C-27.

Figure C-27 shows the City does not have any census tracts reporting displacement or gentrification risks.

Over half of census tracks in Dublin report stability with either moderate/mixed income or advanced exclusivity. One census tract is currently becoming exclusive. Overall, the City is surrounded by areas of stable and advanced exclusivity. Stable mixed and moderate incomes exist throughout Pleasanton, as well as two areas of displacement and gentrification occurring in Livermore.

DRAFT
1310
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-88 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-31: Displacement Typology Criteria and Dublin Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Dublin Census Tracts
Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018. --
Ongoing Displacement of Low-Income Households
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
--
At Risk of Gentrification
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
• Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018. • Did not gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018.
• Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018.
• Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap.
--
Early/Ongoing Gentrification
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
• Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018.
• Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2-12-2018. • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
--
Advanced Gentrification
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed highincome households in 2018. • Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
--
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. 6001450300
6001450400 6001450501
At Risk of Becoming Exclusive
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income traact in 2018. • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed highincome households in 2018. • Marginal change or increase in housing costs.
--
Becoming Exclusive
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income traact in 2018. • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed highincome households in 2018. • Rapid increase in housing costs.
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
• Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018.
• Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000.
6001450200
Stable/Advanced Exclusive
• High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
• Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018. • Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. 6001450502
6001450101
6001450102
Unavailable or Unreliable Data 6001450750
6001450751 6001450752
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).

DRAFT
1311
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-89 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-27: Displacement and Gentrification Around the Dublin Region (2021)

Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).

DRAFT
1312
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-90 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
In addition to displacement and gentrification data, the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project also analyzes the occurrence of anti-displacement policies, as defined below:
• Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Just cause eviction statutes are laws that allow tenants to be evicted only for specific reasons. These “just causes” can include a failure to pay rent or violation of the lease terms.
• Rent Stabilization or Rent Control. Rent Control ordinances protect tenants from excessive rent increases, while allowing landlords a reasonable return on their investments. Such ordinances limit rent increase to certain percentages, but State law allows landlords to raise rents to the market rate once the unit becomes vacant.
• Rent Review Board and/or Mediation. Rent review boards mediate between tenants and landlords on issues related to rent increases and encourage them to come into voluntary agreement. As mediators, the board normally does not make binding decisions. • Mobile Home Rent Control. Mobile home rent control places specific rent increase restrictions on the land rented by mobile homeowners, or the mobile homes themselves. • SRO (Single-Room Occupancy) Preservation. Single room occupancies, also called residential hotels, house one or two people in individual rooms. Tenants typically share bathrooms and/or kitchens. These are often considered a form of permanent residence affordable for low-income individuals. SRO Preservation Ordinances help to preserve or create new SRO units. • Condominium Conversion Regulations. In addition to state laws regulating the conversion of multi-family rental property into condominiums, many cities have enacted condominium conversion ordinances. These impose procedural restrictions and/or substantive restrictions on the ability to convert apartment units into condominiums to protect the supply of rental housing.
• Foreclosure Assistance. Many cities and counties have local programs that assist homeowners when they are at risk of foreclosure. These programs may be funded with federal grants. • Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee or Affordable Housing Impact/Linkage Fee. Affordable housing impact/linkage fees are charges on developers of new market-rate, residential developments.

They are based on the square footage or number of units in the developments and are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
• Commercial Linkage Fee/Program. Commercial linkage fees are charged to developers per square foot of new commercial development. Revenues are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
• Housing Trust Fund. A housing trust fund is a designated source of public funds—generated through various means—that is dedicated to creating affordable housing. • Inclusionary Zoning/Housing (Below Market Rate Housing). Inclusionary housing policies require market-rate developers of rental or for-sale housing to rent or sell a certain percentage of units at affordable prices. Some policies include a provision for developers to pay “in-lieu fees” in place of building the housing; this revenue is used to develop affordable units elsewhere.

DRAFT
1313
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-91 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Density Bonus Ordinance. Density bonuses allow developers of market-rate housing to build higher-density housing, in exchange for having a certain portion of their units offered at affordable prices. In this inventory, we only include a city as having this policy if they allow an additional density bonus beyond that mandated by the State. • Community Land Trusts. Community land trusts are nonprofit, community-based organizations (supported by the city or county) whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land. • First Source Hiring Ordinances. First Source hiring ordinances ensure that residents are given priority for new jobs created by municipal financing and development programs.

Table C-32 identifies which of these policies the City has adopted, according to the Urban Displacement Project as specified above. While the City is reported not having a Density Bonus Ordinance, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 establishes regulations for implementing the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, which was adopted in March 2007 and updated in November 2019. Figure C-28 illustrates the propensity of anti-displacement policies across jurisdictions surrounding Dublin. As shown, the Urban Displacement Project incorrectly identifies the City as having fewer anti-displacement policies than communities in the region.

Table C-32: Anti-Displacement Policies
Anti-Displacement Measures Dublin Policy Measure
Just Cause Eviction Ordinance No
Rent Stabilization or Rent Control No
Rent Review Board and/or Mediation No
Mobile Home Rent Control No
SRO Preservation Yes
Condominium Conversion Regulations Yes
Foreclosure Assistance Yes
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee No
Commercial Linkage Fee Yes
Housing Trust Fund No
Inclusionary Zoning Yes
Density Bonus Ordinance Yes
Community Land Trusts No
First Source Hiring No
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021), and the City of Dublin.

DRAFT
1314
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-92 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-28: Anti-Displacement Policies Around the Dublin Region(2021) Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).

DRAFT
1315
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-93 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
At-Risk Assisted Affordable Housing
Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government-assisted housing that is eligible to convert from affordable to market-rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy, or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. This section will provide:
• An inventory of assisted housing units that are at risk of converting to market-rate housing, • An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing these units, • Resources that could be used to preserve at-risk units, • Program efforts for preservation of at-risk housing units, and • Quantified objectives for the number of at-risk units to be preserved during the Housing Element planning period.

Table C-33 below identifies deed-restricted, assisted rental properties within Dublin, of which 59 units are at-risk of converting from affordable to market-rate units between 2023 and 2033. Consistent with the requirements to analyze impacts of potential conversion of these units to market-rate units, this section provides an analysis to preserve these at-riskunits.

Table C-33: Assisted Affordable Housing and At-Risk Units in Dublin Project Name Total
Units
Assisted
Units Type Unit Types Funding Source Earliest Date of Conversion Units at
Risk
Park Sierra at Iron Horse
Trail 283 57 Senior/VLI Vouchers 1, 2 Tax Credits/ Bonds 2029 57 Pine Grove 55+
Apartments 322 292 Senior 1, 2 Tax Credits/ Bonds/ City Loan 2062 0 Wicklow Square Senior
Apartments 54 53 Senior/ Disabled 1 Tax Credits/ City Loan 2075 0 Fairway Family Community 304 243 Family 1, 2, 3 Tax Credits/ Bonds/ City Loan
2062 0
Camellia Place 112 111
Senior/
Disabled/
Family
1, 2, 3
HCD MHP Grant/
Tax Credits/
CalHFA Bonds/
HOME
2062 0
Carlow Court Senior
Apartments at Emerald
Vista
50 49 Senior/
Disabled 1 City Loan/
Private 2067 0
Wexford Way at Emerald
Vista 130 129 Family/ Disabled 1, 2, 3, 4 City Loan/ Private 2067 0 Avalon Dublin Station 505 50 Family Studio, 1,
2, 3 Private 2067 0
Archstone Apartments 177 2 Senior/
Disabled 1, 2 Private 2033 2
Dublin Station by Windsor
(Formerly Eclipse at Dublin
Station)
305 30 Moderate
Income
Studio, 1,
2, 3
DRAFT
Private 2063 0
1316
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-94 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C-33: Assisted Affordable Housing and At-Risk Units in Dublin Project Name Total
Units
Assisted
Units Type Unit Types Funding Source Earliest Date of Conversion Units at
Risk
Tralee Village Apartments 130 16
Low/
Moderate
Income
1, 2, 3 Private 2069 0
Tralee Townhomes 103 3 Moderate
Income 3 Private 2063 0
Valor Crossing 66 65 Homeless
Veterans 1, 2, 3 HCD Grant/ LIHTC 2072 0
Total 2,541 1,100 59
Cost of Preserving At-Risk Units
While there are many options to preserve at-risk units including providing financial incentives to property owners to extend lower-income use restrictions, purchasing affordable housing units by a non-profit or public agency, or providing local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units, the strategy considered below is to provide local rental subsidy to residents. The rent subsidy would provide financial assistance to residents if their affordable units converted to market-rate units. To determine the subsidy needed, fair market rents were compared to market-rate rents. Table C.34 below outlines an estimated monthly subsidy that would be required to preserve these at-risk units.

Table C.34: Estimated Monthly Subsidy to Preserve At-Risk Units Unit Size
Monthly Rents Number of
Units
At-Risk*
Difference Monthly
Subsidy
Annual
Subsidy
Fair Market
Rents1
Market Rate
Rents 2
Efficiency $1,538 $2,726 0 $1,188 $0 $0
1-Bedroom $1,854 $2,655 59 $801 $47,259 $567,108
2-Bedroom $2,274 $3,173 0 $899 $0 $0
3-Bedroom $3,006 $4,720 0 $1,714 $0 $0
4-Bedroom $3,578 N/A 0 N/A $0 $0
Total $567,108
*This is based upon the assumption that the units at-risk of converting to market rate at Archstone Apartments and Park Sierra at Iron Horse Trail are only 1-bedroom units.

Source:

1. HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System – Oakland-Fremont, CA HUD Metro FMR Area.

2. Kimley-Horn and Associates Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across 15 properties on April 13, 2022.

Cost of Replacing At-Risk Units
The City can also consider the cost of replacing the units with new construction. Construction cost estimates include all hard and soft costs associated with construction in addition to per unit land costs.

The analysis assumes the replacement units are apartments withconcrete block with steel frame buildings and parking provided on-site. Square footage estimates are based on estimated size of units to be replaced and assume housing units are developed on multi-family zoned properties. Land costs have been determined on a per unit basis. Table C.35 below estimates that $7,980,812 would be required to replace the at-risk units.

DRAFT
1317
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-95 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table C.35: Replacement Cost of At-RiskUnits
Unit Size Cost per
Square Foot1
Average
Square Foot
per Unit2
Replacement
Cost per Unit
Number of
Units AtRisk*
Total
Replacement
Cost
Efficiency $179.40 629 $112,843 0 $0
1-Bedroom $179.40 754 $135,268 59 $7,980,812
2-Bedroom $179.40 1,041 $186,755 0 $0
3-Bedroom $179.40 1,446 $259,412 0 $0
4-Bedroom $179.40 N/A N/A 0 $0
Total $7,980,812
*This is based upon the assumption that the units at-risk of converting to market rate at Archstone Apartments and Park Sierra at Iron Horse trail are only 1-bedroom units.

Source:

1. International Code Council – August 2021.

2. Kimley-Horn and Associates Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across 15 properties on April 13, 2022.

Resources to Preserve At-Risk Units
A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units.

The following summarizes financial resources available:
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate-income persons. Eligible activities include administration, fair housing, energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements, and public services. • HOME Investment Partnership. Local jurisdictions can receive funds by formula from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower-income households.

Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance.
• Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market-rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants, senior citizens, disabled persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing. • Section 202/811 Program. Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no-interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 Program for construction of very low-income rental housing with the availability of supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811 funds, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities, and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properties developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance. • California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs. CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Loan program which provides DRAFT
1318
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-96 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
acquisition/rehabilitation and permanent loan financing designed to preserve or increase the affordability status of existing multifamily housing projects. • Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
• California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC). The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multi-family affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.

Qualified Entities to Preserve At-Risk Units
The following organizations have the experience and capacity to potentially assist in preserving future atrisk units:
• Eden Housing
• Mercy Housing
• BRIDGE Housing
• Allied Housing
• Building Opportunities for Self
Sufficiency (BOSS)
• East Bay Asian Local Development
Corporation
• Affordable Housing Associates
• Resources for Community Development
Quantified Objectives
State law requires that jurisdictions establish the maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. The City’s objective is to preserve the 59 affordable units at-risk of converting to market-rate units as outlined in Program A.5 the Chapter 2: Housing Plan.

Senate Bill 330 (SB 330)
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) aims to increase residential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. Under this legislation, local jurisdictions are restricted in the policies and regulations that can be applied to residential development. The revised definition of “Housing Development” now contains residentialprojects of two or more units, mixed-use projects (with two-thirds of the floor area designatedfor residential use), transitional, supportive, and emergency housing projects.

SB 330 sets a temporary five-year prohibition of residential density reduction associated with a “housing development project,” from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025. For example, during this temporary prohibition, a residential triplex cannot be demolished and replaced with a duplex as this would be a net loss of one unit.

The City has identified sites as part of its adequate sites analysis that have existing residential uses.

Program B.15 is included in the Housing Plan to maintain compliance with SB 330.

DRAFT
1319
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-97 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

3. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing
HUD requires an analysis of impediments to fair housing every five years. The County of Alameda Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), released January 2020, examines contributing factors to fair housing across the region, including Dublin. The AI includes goals and priorities the region and jurisdictions agree to implement to improve fair housing conditions following community feedback and analysis.

For Alameda County, the primary issue identified as part of the AI was housing affordability and availability. Additional issues found to affect the region include:
• Across the County, white residents make up the majority of homeowners, but only approximately a third of the County’s population.
• Segregation between white residents and minority residents has increased in the last decade. • The County’s black resident population has decreased by nearly seven percent since 1990. Black residents are primarily located in Oakland and Berkeley, but the percentage of black residents in these areas has decreased by 19 percent and 10 percent, respectively, since 1990. • Overall, minority residents are being displaced from areas with a traditionally large minority population. Some specific minority majority cities, however, are seeing increases in minority populations.
• Areas with higher levels of minority residents have less access to proficient schools, jobs, and environmental health.
• Median rents have risen an average of $1,000 (unadjusted for inflation) since 2010, representing an increase of 55 percent in a nine-year period.
• The average home sales prices have increased from approximately $300,000 to nearly $900,000 in less than 20 years (unadjusted for inflation).
• The wage needed to rent an average housing unit in the County is $44.79 an hour or $93,000 a year.
• Homelessness has increased by 42 percent since 2017.
• Minority households, especially black and Hispanic households, have the highest rate of disproportionate housing needs, which includes having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent.
• Overall, the rate of mortgage approvals has gone up in the last seven years, but the disparities in the rate of approval across race and ethnicity have stayed relatively the same. Black applicants continue to have the lowest mortgage approval rate at 59.1 percent and Hispanic applicants the second lowest at 61.5 percent compared to white applicants at 70 percent. • Based on community feedback, Housing Choice Voucher holders and those with disabilities often find it difficult to find an appropriate housing unit. Some find it difficult to find an appropriately sized unit that will take their voucher and others experienced that the vouchers will not cover the rent of an appropriately sized
DRAFT
unit.
1320
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-98 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

The AI is required to identify specific contributing factors to the above issues. The contributing factors listed below were identified as creating, perpetuating, and/or increasing the severity of fair housing issues for the whole region.
• Contributing factors affecting segregation:
o Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
o Location and type of affordable housing
o Historical discrimination against people of color
o Limited supply of affordable housing within neighborhoods • Contributing factors affecting R/ECAPs:
o Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
o Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods o Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities o Location and type of affordable housing
o Lack of local taxation to support social services and affordable housing o Limited supply of affordable housing within neighborhoods • Contributing factors affecting access to opportunity:
o Access to financial services
o Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods o Location of employers
o Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies o Location and type of affordable housing
o Limited supply of affordable housing in areas with access to opportunity • Contributing factors affecting disproportionate housing needs:
o The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes o Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
o Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods o Land use and zoning laws
o Lending discrimination
o High cost of developing affordable housing
o Limited supply of affordable housing within neighborhoods • Contributing factors affecting publicly supported housing:
o Land use and zoning laws
o Community opposition
o Source of income discrimination
o Lack of federal, state, and local funding for publicly supported housing • Contributing factors affecting disability and access:

DRAFT
o Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities 1321
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-99 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
o Lack of affordable housing for individuals who need supportive services o Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications o Location of accessible housing
o Limited supply of affordable housing within neighborhoods • Contributing factors affecting fair housing:
o Lack of local private (nonprofit) fair housing outreach and enforcement o Lack of local public (local, state, federal) fair housing enforcement o Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations o Lack of federal, state, and local funding to support affordable housing As part of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element AFFH Analysis, the following contributing factors have been identified to specifically affect fair housing in the City:
• Displacement Risk Due to Economic Pressures. Dublin residents generally earn a high annual income. As Figure B-5 shows, approximately half of Dublin households earn over $150,000.

Additionally, Table B-33 states the median home value in Dublin is $934,500, which is the second highest value in the region and greater than Alameda County’s median home value. Given the current housing market trends and the high propensity for greater incomes, lower income households may feel economic pressures to relocate out of the City. • Location and Type of Affordable Housing. As noted above, the Dublin community is generally affluent and has high housing costs, in addition to being a very high opportunity City. The retail trade and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food service sectors represent about 15 percent of the City’s total workforce but earn incomes that are much lower than the City’s median income. Persons working in these sectors, as well as other sectors earning below the City’s median income, may not have the opportunity to live in the City they work in and commute longer distances.
• Access to Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. Affordability, design, and discrimination limit the supply of housing for persons with disabilities. Amendments to the Fair Housing Act, as well as State law, require ground-floor units of new multi-family construction with more than four units to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Units built prior to 1989 are not required to be accessible to persons with disabilities. As shown in Figure B-8, 32.6 percent of the City’s housing stock was built prior to 1989.

4. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Appendix D), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. Figures C-29 through C-35 below identify the sites to accommodate future housing, as identified in the adequate sites analysis, overlaid on demographic data.

DRAFT
1322
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-100 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-29 shows the identified candidate sites to meet the RHNA in relation to the percentage of Dublin residents with Hispanic origin. These sites take into consideration access to vital goods, services, and public transportation and are therefore ideal areas for future housing growth in the City. Figure C-29 shows the following:
• 17 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 2,180 units, including 952 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population with Hispanic origin less than 20 percent. • 8 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 1,323 units, including 608 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population with Hispanic origin between 20 and 40 percent. • Four candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 676 units, including no units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population with Hispanic origin between 40 and 60 percent.

DRAFT
1323
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-101 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-29: Candidate Sites and Percent Hispanic Population DRAFT
1324
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-102 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-30 shows the identified candidate sites to meet the RHNA in relation to the percentage of NonWhite population per census block group. Figure C-30 shows the following:
• Eight candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 1,323 units, including 608 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within block groups that have a percentage of Non-White population between 40 and 60 percent.
• 21 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 3,486 units, including 952 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within block groups that have a percentage of Non-White population between 60 and 80 percent.

DRAFT
1325
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-103 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-30: Candidate Sites and Percent Non-White Population DRAFT
1326
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-104 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-31 below shows the identified candidate sites to meet the RHNA in relation to the percentage of low- and moderate-income population per census block group. Figure C-31 shows the following:
• 11 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 1,686 units, including 134 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within block groups that have a percentage of low- and moderate-income population less than 10 percent. • 17 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 3,023 units, including 1,326 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within block groups that have a percentage of low- and moderate-income population between 10 and 25 percent. • One candidate site to accommodate RHNA (totaling 100 units, including 100 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) is located within a block group that has a percentage of low- and moderate-income population between 25 and 50 percent.

DRAFT
1327
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-105 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-31: Candidate Sites and Percent Low- and Moderate-Income Population DRAFT
1328
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-106 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-32 below shows the identified candidate sites to meet the RHNA in relation to R/ECAP areas within the City. R/ECAPs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; they are marked in red hatchings. As shown, there are no R/ECAPs located within Dublin.

DRAFT
1329
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-107 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-32: Candidate Sites and R/ECAPs
DRAFT
1330
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-108 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-33 below shows the identified candidate sites to meet the RHNA in relation to RCAAs within the City. RCAAs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence; they are identified as areas with both a White, Non-Hispanic population greater than 80 percent and median-household income greater than $125,000. Figure C-33 shows there are no RCAAs located within the City.

DRAFT
1331
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-109 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-33: Candidate Sites and RCAAs
DRAFT
1332
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-110 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-34 below shows the identified candidate sites to meet the RHNA in relation to California Tax Credit Allocation Committee/Housing and Community Development (TCAC/HCD) Opportunity areas within the City. TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps show how resources are spatially distributed throughout the City. The figure shows the following findings:
• Eight candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 1,323 units, including 608 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within census groups identified as High Resource areas.
• 21 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 3,486 units, including 952 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within census groups identified as Highest Resource areas.

DRAFT
1333
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-111 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-34: Candidate Sites and TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas DRAFT
1334
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-112 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-35 shows the identified candidate sites to meet the RHNA in relation to displacement and gentrification data. The figure shows the following findings:
• Eight candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 1,323 units, including 608 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within Stable Moderate/Mixed-Income displacement typology areas.
• 11 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 2,243 units, including 718 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within Stable/Advanced Exclusive displacement typology areas.
• 10 candidate sites to accommodate RHNA (totaling 1,243 units, including 234 units affordable to low- and very low-income households) are located within an that has unavailable or unreliable data.

DRAFT
1335
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-113 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure C-35: Candidate Sites and Displacement Mapping
DRAFT
1336
Appendix C: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH C-114 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

5. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals
Chapter 2: Housing Plan of this Housing Element provides goals, policies, and programs to increase housing opportunities, remove constraints to affordable housing, improve the existing housing stock, and provide equal opportunities for all current and future residents of Dublin.

Goal D of the Housing Plan is: 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. The following three policies are established to support this goal:
• 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: Encourage the provision of housing to meet the needs of households of all sizes.

Additionally, the following programs have been established to implement the City’s goals and policies as they relate to fair housing:
• Program A.2: Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance • Program A.5: Preserve and Monitor Affordable Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate • Program B.5: Commercial Linkage Fee
• Program B.6: Housing Type and Size Variations
• Program B.11: Transitional and Supportive Housing
• Program B.12: Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
• ProgramD.3: Emergency Shelters
• Program E.1: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
• Program E.2: Equal Housing Opportunity
• Program E.3: Reasonable Accommodations
• Program E.4: Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
• Program E.5: Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities • Program E.6: Farmworker and Employee Housing
• Program E.7: First-Time Homebuyer Program
• Program E.8: Homeless Assistance
• Program E.9: Water and Sewer Service Providers
DRAFT
1337
APPENDIX D:

ADEQUATE SITES ANALYSIS
DRAFT
1338
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-2
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A. Adequate Sites Analysis Overview
The Housing Element is required to identify sites by income category to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The sites identified within the 2023-2031 Housing Element represent the City’s ability to accommodate housing at the designated income levels during the 2023-2031 planning period.

This Appendix provides detailed information on the sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA, including:
 Assessor Parcel Number (APN)
 Address
 Size (Acres)
 Zoning
 General Plan Land Use
 Ownership
 Existing On-site Uses
 Density
 Potential Development Capacity
(Dwelling Units)
Table D-1 shows the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA by income category and how the RHNA will be accommodated. The analysis demonstrates the City has the capacity to meet the RHNA through a variety of methods, including:
 Projects in the pipeline
 Future development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)  Capacity on existing, residentially-zoned sites
 Identification of land to rezone to accommodate remaining RHNA Table D-1: Summary of Sites Inventory

Extremely Low-
/Very LowIncome
LowIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
RHNA (2023-2031) 1,085 625 560 1,449 3,719
Projects in the Pipeline and ADUs
Projects in the Pipeline 344 184 1,572 2,100
Accessory Dwelling Units 149 74 25 248
Existing Zoning
Downtown Dublin 363 50 0 413
Vacant 5th Cycle Sites 0 252 573 825
Public/Semi-Public Sites 134 0 0 134
Total Potential Capacity Based on
Existing GP and Zoning 497 302 573 1,372
Strategies to Accommodate Remaining Need
Alameda County Surplus
Properties 323 0 322 645
Hacienda Crossings 297 0 297 594
SCS Property 100 0 0 100
Additional Rezone Capacity 720 0 619 1,339
Sites Inventory Total
Total Units (All Categories)
DRAFT
1,710 560 2,789 5,059
1339
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-3
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

1. Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate RHNA
Availability of Water, Sewer, and Dry Utilities
The City has existing or planned water, sewer, and dry utilities that have been designed and located to accommodate potential residential development identified for the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides sanitary sewer service. DSRSD operates two wastewater treatment plants, one in Pleasanton, which has a capacity of 17 million gallons per day (MGD), and the other in Livermore, which has a capacity of eight MGD. Regional wastewater disposal matters are handled by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers authority formed in June 1974 between DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. LAVWMA is responsible for maintaining the pipeline that transports treated wastewater from the two treatment plants to San Lorenzo. It is then discharged into San Francisco Bay by the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA), another joint powers authority made up of the City of San Leandro, Oro Loma Sanitary District, Castro Valley Sanitary District, the City of Hayward, and Union Sanitary District and provides contract services to LAVWMA, DSRSD, and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. EBDA operates and maintains a large outfall system to the Bay.

DSRSD is the water retailer for residents in Dublin and the Dougherty Valley portion of San Ramon. DSRSD buys wholesale potable water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (also referred to as the Zone 7 Water Agency, or Zone 7). Zone 7 obtains most of its water supply from the State Water Project (SWP), with additional supplies derived from the local watershed and the Byron Bethany Irrigation District. Zone 7 uses the main groundwater aquifers in the Tri-Valley area to store imported water. Approximately 80 percent of Zone 7’s water comes from the SWP, traveling from the Sierra Nevada mountains through Lake Oroville and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The water is then pumped into the South Bay Aqueduct near Tracy, where it enters the Tri-Valley. Zone 7 also pumps DSRSD’s groundwater quota for delivery to DSRSD customers.

According to the General Plan Water Resources Element, potable and recycled water use in Dublin has generally increased since 2002 with much of the increased water usage resulting from planned growth.

The Water Resources Element identifies residential users, specifically single-family residential users, as the largest consumer of water in the City. Although total water demand has increased for the single-family residential category, the total number of single-family residences has increased at a greater rate than the total water demand rate reported. Therefore, the average annual water consumption per single-family residence has decreased due to installation of water-efficient fixtures, planting water-efficient and drought-tolerant landscapes, use of recycled water for landscape irrigation, and increased public education regarding the importance of water conservation.

The City’s electric power is supplied by a combination of private suppliers which sell power to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for resale. PG&E’s distribution system provides electricity directly to residential and commercial customers. Most electric power is brought to electric substations in the region via transmission lines connected to the statewide grid system. Electric power capacity is looked at on a DRAFT
1340
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-4
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
subregional (rather than citywide) basis. Local electrical capacity is a function of transmission network capacity to bring this power to the subregion, capacity of the local substations to lower the voltages (or step down the power) to deliverable suitable voltage, and the ability of the local distribution network to deliver adequate power to customers. Additionally, the City receives renewable energy from East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). EBCE supplies energy received from clean sources such as hydropower, wind, and solar.

Natural gas is supplied directly to residential and commercial customers by PG&E. Natural gas is pumped from underground reservoirs into large transmission pipelines, which transport the gas to local distribution pipelines. Some local distribution systems lead to underground storage. These natural gas storage areas are utilized during seasonal peaks.

The General Plan Energy Conservation Element establishes policy programs which promote energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing buildings throughout the City.

Each site in the Sites Inventory has been evaluated to ensure there is adequate access to utility services and connections, including water, sewer, and dry utilities. Each site is situated with a direct connection to a public street that has the appropriate water and sewer mains and other infrastructure services.

2. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units In addition to primary dwelling units, there is capacity for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs on existing and future single-family properties. It is anticipated an additional 248 ADUs can be accommodated throughout the community during the 2023-2031 planning period.

The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has supported a strategy for estimating future development of ADUs in the City based on the average number of ADUs from past performance (2018 to 2021).

Table D-2 displays the City’s past performance in permitting ADUs from 2018 through 2021. The data shows that in total, the City nearly doubled ADU production between 2020 and 2021. The City has taken actions to incentivize ADUs, such as streamlining the review process, modified the development standards, developed prototype plans, prepared an ADU Manual, and waived permit fees for certain ADUs, which are anticipated to further increase ADU production. Using a conservative method of doubling the average number of ADUs permitted from 2018 to 2021, the City estimates 31 ADUs will be permitted per year for a total of 248 ADUs from 2023 to 2031. The estimates are consistent with the City’s most recent ADU trends and are reflective of the changes in State law and the City’s ability to streamline review and approval of applications.

DRAFT
1341
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-5
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table D-2: Accessory Dwelling Units Past Performance and Future Projections Year ADU Permitted and Projected
2018 19
2019 11
2020 11
2021 20
Annual Projection (2023-2030) 31 per year*
2023 31
2024 31
2025 31
2026 31
2027 31
2028 31
2029 31
2030 31
Projection Period Total 248
*Estimate based on double the average of ADUs permitted between 2018 and 2021.

Note: Data for 2018 through 2021 is based on the total number of building permits issued for ADUs and reported in the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports.

To support the assumptions above, the City can demonstrate the appropriate amount of land and market opportunity for ADU development. The City has a total of 4,268 parcels zoned for residential use, totaling 993 acres. In accordance with State law, ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow single-family or multiplefamily residences. Junior ADUs are permitted on parcels with an existing or proposed single-family residence in the A, R-1, R-2, R-M, and Planned Development zoning districts. As such, the City has potential to permit at least 4,268 ADUs and 4,268 Junior ADUs, totaling 8,536 units. Combined with a market appetite based on past performance (Table D-2), 248 ADUs represent an appropriate assumption.

Additionally, to facilitate the development of ADUs available for lower-income households, Program B.7 is included in the Housing Plan. For the purposes of Sites Inventory, the City assumes a percentage of ADUs will be affordable based on the draft Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG’s analysis consisted of the following steps:
 Calculated maximum rent limits for RHNA income categories for one-person and two person households by county
 Surveyed rents for ADUs in the ABAG region
 Used survey data to determine proportion of ADUs within each income category  Created assumption of how many persons will occupy each ADU, finalize proportions Using ABAG’s analysis, Table D-3 shows estimated ADU projections for Dublin by income category.

Table D-3: Accessory Dwelling Unit Projections by Income Category Income Category Percentage Units
Low- and Very Low-Income 60% 149 units
Moderate-Income 30% 74 units
Above Moderate-Income 10% 25 units
DRAFT
Total 248 units
1342
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-6
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

3. Projects in the Pipeline
HCD guidance states that residential projects that are approved, permitted, or receive a certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA based on the affordability and unit count of the development. Table D-4 shows nine projects in the pipeline totaling 2,100 units, including the following:
 266 very low-income units
 78 low-income units
 184 moderate-income units
 1,572 above moderate-income units
Table D-4: Projects in the Pipeline1
Project Name
Project Status
(as of April
2022)
Map ID
Projected Units
Extremely
Low-/ Very
Low-Income
Low -
Income
Moderate
-Income
Above
ModerateIncome Total
Eden Housing / Regional
Street Senior Affordable
Housing
Planning
Application
Approved
1 112 0 0 1 113
BRIDGE Housing /
Amador Station
Planning
Application
Approved
2, 3 56 78 162 4 300
Ashton at Dublin Station Under
Construction 6 0 0 22 198 220
Boulevard (Phases 2 + 3) Under
Construction 5, 8 0 0 0 225 225
Boulevard (Phases 4 + 5) Under
Construction 9, 10 0 0 0 451 451
Avalon Bay
Communities (Saint
Patrick Way)
Under
Construction 7 0 0 0 499 499
Eastern
Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station (Site D-1)
Planning
Application
Filed
13 98 0 0 1 99
Branaugh
Planning
Application
Filed
14 0 0 0 97 97
Righetti
Planning
Application
Filed
15 0 0 0 96 96
Total Projected Units 266 78 184 1,572 2,100

1 Project unit projections are planning-level assumptions and are subject to change. Table is based upon available data at the time the draft document was prepared.

DRAFT
1343
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-7
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Very Low- and Low-Income Sites Inventory
This Section contains a description and listing of the sites identified to meet the City’s very low- and lowincome allocation.

1. Strategy for Accommodating Very Low- and Low-Income RHNA Existing Zoning and Land Use
HCD has identified 30 dwelling units per acre as the default density, or feasible density to accommodate very low- and low-income housing. The City has four zoning districts that can accommodate residential development at this density, including Residential Multiple (R-M), Downtown Dublin, Public/Semi-Public, and certain Planned Developments. Parcels within these zoning districts were analyzed for compliance with Assembly Bill 1397 (AB 1397) requirements and analyzed for vacancies or opportunity for redevelopment.

Existing residentially zoned parcels can accommodate 505 very low- and low-income units. Utilizing the City’s existing residentially zoned land, ADU assumptions, and projects in the pipeline, the City can accommodate approximately 60 percent of the very low- and low-income allocation.

Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan establishes development standards and design guidelines to create a mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents. Downtown Dublin consists of 284 acres and the Specific Plan designates three districts: Village Parkway, Transit-Oriented, and Retail. Although all three districts allow residential development, only the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts allow development at a density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre.
 Transit Oriented District. The Transit Oriented District is zoned to allow a minimum residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 85 dwelling units per acre. The district has seen multiple residential projects constructed with at least 60 dwelling units per acre (see Table D-5 for recent multi-family residential development in Downtown Dublin).  Retail District. The Residential District is zoned to allow a minimum residential density of 22 dwelling units per acre and has no maximum density. The district has seen two residential projects constructed with at least 30 dwelling units per acre (see Table D-5).

Residential development within the Specific Plan is also governed by a Development Pool with 2,500 units, which has a projected remaining balance of 828 units. Based on previous development within the Specific Plan and an analysis of sites within the Downtown feasible for residential development during the planning period, 413 units are projected to develop affordably. To facilitate the development of these 413 projected affordable units, Program B.9 in the Housing Plan specifies they will not be subject to the Development Pool, nor a Community Benefit Program Agreement.

DRAFT
1344
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-8
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table D-5: Evidence of Multi-Family Residential Development in Downtown Dublin Project Name GPLU Zoning Lot Size Estimated
Density Total
Aster (Bay West),
6775 Golden Gate Drive DDTOD DDZD 4.97 acres 63 du/acre 313 Avesta Development,
7601 Amador Valley Blvd. DDRD DDZD 0.98 acres 34 du/acre 35 Connelly Station,
7550 Saint Patrick Way DDTOD DDZD 3.68 acres 84 du/acre 309 The Perch / Trumark,
7144 Regional Street DDRD DDZD 2.72 acres 22 du/acre 60 Valor Crossing,
7500 Saint Patrick Way DDTOD DDZD 1.37 acres 48 du/acre 66 Wicklow Square Senior Apartments,
7606 Amador Valley Blvd. DDRD DDZD 0.59 acres 32 du/acre 54 Rezoning
After utilizing existing residentially zoned land, pipeline projects, and ADU assumptions, the City has a remaining unmet housing need of 720 very low- and low-income units. To accommodate the remaining need, the City has identified a total of 24.4 acres to be rezoned in the following areas:
 Alameda County Surplus Property
 Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center
 SCS Property
The City’s complete rezone strategy and analysis is detailed below in Section 5: Rezone Strategy to Accommodate Remaining Very Low- and Low-Income RHNA.

2. Calculation of Unit Capacity
Site-by-Site Calculation
The City has identified unit capacity on sites considering existing development and the feasibility of adding housing, development standards for the respective zone, and the feasible buildable acreage of the site.

Then unit capacity was calculated by multiplying the net acreage of the site (considering existing environmental issues and existing structures) by the assumed density. A sample site calculation for a site is shown below in Table D-6.

Table D-6: Sample Sites Calculation
Site Descriptor Data
Unique ID S-86
APN 986-0034-012-00
Zone Rezone of Alameda County Surplus Properties
Assumed Density 66 du/acre
Existing Use Vacant Lot
Existing Structures 0
Acreage Approximately 7.5 acres
Net Units 493
Affordability Assumptions 50 percent
DRAFT
Total Affordable Unit Yield 247
1345
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-9
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Affordability Assumptions
Sites identified for rezoning to accommodate the remaining RHNA are assumed to develop with 50 percent of units affordable to very low- and low-income households and 50 percent of units affordable to above moderate-income households. The goal of the 2023-2031 Housing Element is to create more opportunities for affordable housing and to work with the affordable housing development community to bring additional very low- and low-income housing opportunities to Dublin.

PAST PERFORMANCE
The City can demonstrate a past performance in approving residential projects that include at least 50 percent affordable units. Table D-7 below displays example completed housing projects in the City with at least 50 percent affordable units.

Table D-7: Projects with at least 50 Percent Affordable Units Name Address APN Year
Completed
Total
Units
Total
Affordable
Units
Camellia Place 5450 DeMarcus
Boulevard, A1 986-0034-008-00 2007 112 111
Carlow Court
at Emerald
Vista
6880 Mariposa Circle 941-2839-013-00 2013 50 49
Oak Grove at
Dublin Ranch 4161 Keegan Street 985-0048-004-00 2007 304 243 Pine Grove at
Dublin Ranch 3115 Finnian Way 985-0048-003-00 2007 322 292 Valor Crossing 7500 Saint Patrick Way 941-1500-032-02 2017 66 65 Wexford Way
at Emerald
Vista
6900 Mariposa Circle 941-2839-014-04 2013 130 129
Wicklow
Square
7606 Amador Valley
Boulevard 941-0305-042-00 2005 54 53
Source: City of Dublin, March 11, 2022.

The City has identified sufficient land, including land identified for rezoning, to accommodate the 2023- 2031 RHNA. To support the assumption that projects will develop with affordable units, the City has identified programs and policies encouraging affordable developer interest and feasibility. These programs are detailed in Chapter 2: Housing Plan.

3. Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate Very Low- and Low-Income Housing Selection of Sites
Sites identified to meet the City’s very low- and low-income RHNA were selected based on AB 1397 parcel size requirements of at least half an acre but not greater than 10 acres. Each site identified in the City’s Sites Inventory meets the minimum default density of 30 dwelling units per acre or will be rezoned to comply with the minimum density requirement as outlined in Section 5 below. The City has a DRAFT
1346
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-10
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
demonstrated history of approving residential projects, specifically affordable units at this density. This supports the viability of these sites for affordable housing development.

Vacant Parcels
The City has identified sufficient land to accommodate 44.8 percent of the RHNA for very low- and lowincome units on currently vacant parcels. Of the 14 parcels identified as having potential to accommodate lower-income units, seven parcels (20.4 acres) are currently vacant and have a propensity to accommodate 767 very low- and low-income units.

Therefore, the existing uses on the remaining 50 percent of sites identified to accommodate very lowand low-income units are not presumed to impede additional residential development. Existing uses on the non-vacant sites have also been evaluated for potential to accommodate future residential uses.

Replacement Analysis
The Sites Inventory includes three sites with existing residential units. This includes one pipeline project (Site 14, the Branaugh project site) and two 5th Cycle Sites in East Dublin (Sites 12 and 23). As such, Program B.15 is included in the Housing Plan to ensure demolished residential units occupied by lowerincome households, or households subject to affordability requirements within the last five years, are replaced in compliance with Government Code Section 65915.

Public/Semi-Public Sites
The City identified two Public/Semi-Public sites in the Sites Inventory, totaling 4.5 acres, on portions of large, master-planned developments occurring in east Dublin that can accommodate 134 lower income units. The Public/Semi Public land use designation allows a broad range of uses, including the potential for affordable housing developed by a non-profit entity. The two sites in the inventory total 4.5 acres and are planned for affordable housing at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.

Alameda County Surplus Property
The City is in coordination with the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority to support housing development on two surplus properties at the Dublin Transit Center. The two surplus properties include 645 total units, of which 323 units would be affordable to lower-income households, on 9.5 buildable acres. More details are provided in Section 5.

Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center
The City is in coordination with the Hacienda Crossings shopping center to support permitting a residential mixed-use development to help revitalize the shopping center, which is currently underutilized, has vacant tenant spaces, and could benefit from introduction of residential development. The two properties include 594 total units, of which 297 units would be affordable to lower-income households, on 12.4 buildable acres. More details are provided in Section 5.

SCS Property
On February 15, 2022, the City Council approved a Preferred Plan for the SCS Property, which is a vacant

76.9-acre property located north of Interstate 580 between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street and DRAFT
1347
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-11
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
extending to the north of Gleason Drive. The Preferred Plan includes a 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public site for affordable housing, which is envisioned to include high-density affordable housing at a density of 40 dwelling units per acre and can accommodate 100 units affordable to lower-income households. More details are provided in Section 5.

Identification of Small or Large Sites
AB 1397 identifies parcels measuring between half an acre and 10 acres to be appropriate for the development of affordable housing units. Parcels that are less than half an acre (“smaller”) or above 10 acres (“larger”) are not deemed adequate to accommodate lower-income housing needs unless past performance shows a tendency for affordable housing projects to develop on smaller or larger sites.

The City’s Sites Inventory does not include affordable units on sites that fall outside the size requirements of AB 1397. The Sites Inventory includes a total of 14 parcels ranging from 1.2 to 10 buildable acres to accommodate lower-income units.

4. Non-Vacant Sites
For non-vacant sites, State law requires that the City analyze:
 The extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to the future residential development within the planning period
 Past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential uses  Current market demand for the existing use
 Analysis of leases that would prevent redevelopment of the site  Development trends
 Market conditions
 Regulations or incentives to encourage redevelopment
Lease Analysis
Existing lease agreements on infill and non-vacant properties present a potential impediment that may prevent residential development within the planning period. State law requires the City to consider lease terms in evaluating the use of non-vacant sites. The City made diligent efforts to review existing lease agreements; however, the City does not have access to private party lease agreements or other contractual agreements amongst private parties. While the City does not have access to lease structures, as these are private documents, Staff conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period, including the following:
 Past performance redeveloping non-vacant sites
 Analysis of existing use
 Market analysis of land costs and redevelopment opportunities In addition, the City has met with the property owners of existing non-vacant sites at Hacienda Crossings shopping center and in Downtown Dublin. Property owners expressed interest and support in the City’s Sites Inventory rezone strategy to allow for residential uses on these non-vacant parcels. Furthermore, the Hacienda Crossings shopping center has a large, underutilized parking lot, which could be redeveloped with housing should the existing buildings need to remain.

DRAFT
1348
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-12
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Past Performance Developing Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Table D-8 lists previously approved projects developed on non-vacant sites. As shown, the City has been successful in not only approving residential housing developments on non-vacant sites, but also in approving the development of affordable units on non-vacant sites. Alameda County Housing Collaborative’s Non-Vacant Site Database also provides additional residential projects that were approved in neighboring jurisdictions – showing a regional tendency and further supporting Dublin’s use of nonvacant sites in the Sites Inventory as a way of meeting the City’s RHNA.

Table D-8: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project and Address Acreage Economic
Band
Previous
Use Zoning
Year
Completed
Total
Unit
Count
Affordable
Unit Count
The Perch
7144 Regional Street 2.72 Medium/Low Rent Levels Distributor DDZD 2018 60 0 Aster
6775 Golden Gate Drive 4.97 Medium/Low Rent Levels
Car
Dealership DDZD 2017 313 313
Valor Crossing
7500 Saint Patrick Way 1.37 Medium/Low Rent Levels
Car
Dealership DDZD 2017 66 65
Avesta Senior Care
Facility
7601 Amador Valley Blvd.

0.98 Medium/Low
Rent Levels
Vacant
Commercial
Building
DDZD 2021 35 0
Tralee Village - Condos
6670 Dublin Blvd. 3.87 Medium/Low Rent Levels
K-Mart Strip
Mall PD 2012 130 16
Tralee Village -
Townhomes
6656 Adare Street

6.15 Medium/Low
Rent Levels
K-Mart Strip
Mall PD 2014 103 2
Source: Alameda County Housing Collaborative – Non-Vacant Site Database and City of Dublin

5. Rezone Strategy to Accommodate Remaining Very Low- and Low-Income RHNA
After utilizing pipeline projects, projected ADU assumptions, and existing residentially zoned land (including 5th Cycle Housing Element sites, Public/Semi-Public Sites, and Downtown Dublin), there is a remaining need of 720 lower-income units. Below is the strategy for rezoning sites to meet the City’s remaining RHNA.

Part 1: Rezoning Opportunities Utilizing Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Sites
The City has identified two parcels owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority for rezoning to accommodate a portion of the remaining lower-income RHNA. The County is supportive of amending the General Plan and rezoning these sites to accommodate future residential development. The two vacant parcels total 19.7 acres, of which 13.82 acres are buildable due to the approval of the Westin Hotel on the southern 5.88 acres of Site 28. Within the Sites Inventory 9.4 acres are identified for future residential development to allow the remaining four acres to be developed with a compatible use. The average density of 66 dwelling units per acre proposed for these sites is comparable to the average DRAFT
1349
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-13
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
residential density within the Transit Center and is based on existing development trends, proximity to high-capacity transit, and coordination with the property owner. Utilizing the unit capacity outlined above, the City assumes a density of 66 dwelling units per acre with a 50 percent affordability factor. In total, the proposed rezoned parcels can accommodate 645 units, of which 323 are estimated to be affordable to lower-income households.

Part 2: Rezoning Opportunities Utilizing Hacienda Crossings The City has identified two parcels at the Hacienda Crossings shopping center for rezoning to accommodate a portion of the remaining lower-income RHNA. The property owners are supportive of permitting a residential mixed-use development to help revitalize the shopping center, which is currently underutilized, has vacant tenant spaces, and could benefit from introduction of residential development.

The two parcels total 21.2 acres, but only 12.4 acres are identified as buildable acreage for future residential development. The two parcels are envisioned to develop with residential units at an average density of 48 dwelling units per acre, similar to the nearby Waterford Place Shopping Center and Apartments. This density is also based on existing development trends, proximity to high-capacity transit, and coordination with the property owners. Utilizing the unit capacity calculations outlined above, the City assumes a density of 48 dwelling units per acre with a 50 percent affordability factor. In total, the proposed rezoned parcels can accommodate 594 units, of which 297 are estimated to be affordable to lower-income households.

Part 3: Rezoning Opportunities Using SCS Property
On February 15, 2022, the City Council approved a Preferred Plan for the SCS Property, which is a vacant

76.9-acre property located north of Interstate 580 between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street and extending to the north of Gleason Drive. The Preferred Plan includes a 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public site for affordable housing that contemplates between 70 and 150 units. The City has identified this 2.5-acre site for rezoning to accommodate a portion of the remaining lower-income RHNA. The SCS Property has been included in several development proposals in recent years. However, under the current proposal, the 2.5- acre Public/Semi-Public site included in the Sites Inventory (Site S-82) is envisioned to include high-density affordable housing at a density of 40 dwelling units per acre. In total, the proposed rezoned parcel complies with the Preferred Plan and can accommodate 100 units affordable to lower-income households.

C. Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Sites Inventory
This Section contains a description and listing of the sites identified to meet Dublin’s moderate- and above moderate-income allocation.

1. Strategy for Accommodating Moderate-Income Allocation Utilizing pipeline projects, projected ADU assumptions, and existing residential zoning, the City can fully accommodate the 560 moderate-income RHNA utilizing the sources detailed below.

DRAFT
1350
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-14
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Projects in the Pipeline
As shown in Table D-4, there are two projects currently in the pipeline that are accommodating a total of 184 moderate-income units. The BRIDGE Housing/Amador Station project has received planning application approval for a total of 300 units, including 162 units affordable to moderate-income households. The Ashton at Dublin Station project is currently constructing 220 units, including 22 units affordable to moderate-income households.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Based on ABAG’s Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, the City estimates 30 percent of the 248 projected ADUs will develop at a moderate-income affordability, totaling 74 units. Table D-3 provides a breakdown of projected ADU development by affordability level. 5 th Cycle Sites
State law limits a jurisdiction’s ability to re-use sites from the prior RHNA cycle. Vacant sites identified in the last two Housing Elements and non-vacant sites identified in a prior Housing Element may not be counted towards the lower-income RHNA categories unless: 1) the sites are zoned at the “default” density of 30 dwelling units per acre; or 2) the sites allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. In October 2020, the City Council gave direction to allow housing by right rather than up zoning properties. A “use by right” is one in which the use does not require “a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval,” such as the Community Benefit Agreement, although it specifically allows for design review. The City may count units on the existing 5th Cycle Sites as either moderate- or above moderate-income units since they do not meet the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre required to count for lower-income categories. These sites can accommodate 825 total units, including 252 moderate-income units and 573 above moderate-income units.

Downtown Dublin
Of the 413 units projected in Downtown Dublin, 50 units are projected to develop as moderate-income units. This assumption is made based on existing trends of affordable housing development throughout the City.

2. Strategy for Accommodating Above Moderate-Income Allocation Utilizing pipeline projects alone, the City can fully accommodate the above moderate-income RHNA of 1,449 units, with a surplus of units from the projected ADU assumptions, existing residential zoning, and rezone strategies, utilizing the following sources.

Projects in the Pipeline
As shown in Table D-4, there are nine projects currently in the pipeline that are accommodating a total of 1,572 above moderate-income units. Five of the nine projects have received planning application approval and some are currently under construction.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Based on ABAG’s draft Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, the City estimates that 10 percent of the 248 projected ADUs will develop at an above moderate-income affordability, totaling 30 units.

Table D-3 provides a breakdown of projected ADU development by affordability level.

DRAFT
1351
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-15
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
5 th Cycle Sites
As noted above, the City may count units on existing 5th Cycle Sites as either moderate- or above moderate-income units since they do not meet the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre required to count for lower-income categories. These sites can accommodate 825 total units, including 573 above moderate-income units.

Rezone Strategies
As discussed in Section B.5 of this Appendix, the rezone strategies are anticipated to accommodate residential development at an affordability of 50 percent. The other 50 percent of units (619 units) are anticipated to develop at an above moderate-income level.

Selection of Sites
The Sites Inventory contains a selection of sites that are most likely to be developed for moderate- and above moderate-income housing. For the purpose of identifying sites with the potential to be developed within the planning period, this analysis considered existing zoned parcels that permit residential as a primary use.

For the purposes of this analysis, projected ADU assumptions were calculated separately as outlined within Section A.2 above. ADUs represent additional potential units to meet the City’s RHNA.

D. Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory
The City has reviewed all sites for environmental concerns and considerations as well as development and land use restrictions. Additionally, each site has been reviewed for existing use; access to infrastructure, water, utilities; and additional development constraints. Where the analysis showed increased barriers to development related to environmental concerned, infrastructure concerns or existing conditions and development concerns (such as slope and grading, hazardous surrounding uses, restrictive development standards) the sites were removed. The result is a list and analysis of sites that are most ripe for development or redevelopment for housing. A summary of the City’s ability to meet the RHNA obligation for 2023-2031 is shown in Table D-1.

E. Sites Identified to Accommodate RHNA and Maps
Figures D-1 through D-3 below map all sites identified to accommodate the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA. Table D-9 is the Sites Inventory sorted by Unique ID for reference in the maps.

DRAFT
1352
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-16
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure D-1: 2023-2031 RHNA Sites Inventory Map
DRAFT
1353
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-17
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure D-2: 2023-2031 RHNA Sites Inventory Map
DRAFT
1354
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-18
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure D-3: 2023-2031 RHNA Sites Inventory Map
DRAFT
1355
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-19
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Unique
ID
Map
Category APN Vacancy Existing Units
Street
Address
Gross
Acreage
Buildable
Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
5 th
Cycle? ZONING GPLU Expected Density
Rezone
Expected
Density
Net
Potential
Units
Net Units by Income
Category Assumed
Income
Category
Pipeline
Projects Rezone
Existing Use and Additional
Information
Low Mod. Above
Mod.
1 Pipeline 941-1500-
025-00 Yes 5
6543
Regional
Street,
Dublin, CA
94568

1.3 1.3 Yes Yes DDZD DDTOD 73 - 113 112 0 1 Low and
Very Low Yes No
This site is a project in the pipeline
and will be an affordable housing
development by Eden Housing. The
project will include 112 units of
affordable housing.
2 Pipeline 941-2842-
002-00 No 0
6501 Golden
Gate Drive,
Dublin, CA
94568

2.6 2.6 Yes No DDZD DDTOD 73 - 136 134 0 2 Low and
Very Low Yes No
This site (1/2) is a project in the
pipeline and will be an affordable
housing development by BRIDGE
Housing. The project will include
134 units of lower-income housing
and 162 units of moderate-income
housing.
3 Pipeline 941-2842-
004-00 No 0
6501 Golden
Gate Drive,
Dublin, CA
94568

1.1 1.1 Yes No DDZD DDTOD 73 - 164 0 162 2 Low and
Very Low Yes No
This site (2/2) is a project in the
pipeline and will be an affordable
housing development by BRIDGE
Housing. The project will include
134 units of lower-income housing
and 162 units of moderate-income
housing.
4 Downtown 941-0305-
028-00 No 2
7590
Amador
Valley Blvd.,
Dublin, CA
94568

2.9 2.9 Yes No DDZD DDRD 85 - 80 80 0 0 Low and
Very Low No Yes
The City has a memorandum of
understanding with an affordable
housing developer to develop on
this property, the site of a former
Grocery Outlet.
5 Pipeline 986-0073-
001-00 Yes 0
790
5 thStreet,
Dublin, CA
94568

10.3 10.3 No No DCZD DC N/A - 112 0 0 112 Above
Moderate Yes No
This parcel is a project in the
pipeline as part of the Boulevard
project, a development of 1,995
units.
6 Pipeline 986-0034-
009-00 Yes 0
5421
Campbell
Lane, Dublin,
CA 94568

2.4 2.4 Yes No PD HDR N/A - 220 0 22 198 Above
Moderate Yes No
This parcel is a project in the
pipeline as part of the Ashton at
Dublin Station project, a
development of 220 units, 22 of
which will be moderate income.
7 Pipeline 941-1500-
047-07 Yes 0
6700 Golden
Gate Drive,
Dublin, CA
94568

8.6 8.6 Yes No DDZD DDTOD N/A - 499 0 0 499 Above
Moderate Yes No
This parcel is a project in the
pipeline by developer Avalon Bay
Communities and is a development
of 499 units.
8 Pipeline 986-0072-
001-00 Yes 0
150 Adams
Avenue,
Dublin, CA
94568

17.3 17.3 No No DCZD DC N/A - 113 0 0 113 Above
Moderate Yes No
This parcel is a project in the
pipeline as part of the Boulevard
project, a development of 1,995
units.
9 Pipeline 986-0068-
001-00 Yes 0 Unaddressed Parcel 7.7 7.7 Yes No DCZD DC N/A - 225 0 0 225 Above Moderate Yes No This parcel is a project in the
pipeline as part of the Boulevard
project, a development of 1,995
units.
10 Pipeline 986-0064-
002-00 Yes 0
180 5th
Street,
Dublin, CA
94568

5.5 5.5 Yes No DCZD DC N/A - 226 0 0 226 Above
Moderate Yes No
This parcel is a project in the
pipeline as part of the Boulevard
project, a development of 1,995
units.
11 5th Cycle
Sites
905-0002-
002-00 Yes 0
4038 Croak
Road,
Dublin, CA
94588
129.0 129.0 No Yes PD NP 3 - 286 0 0 286 Above
Moderate Yes No
This parcel is a vacant candidate site
in east Dublin. Similar projects
within the vicinity at comparable
DRAFT
densities, such as Jordan Ranch and
1356
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-20
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Unique
ID
Map
Category APN Vacancy Existing Units
Street
Address
Gross
Acreage
Buildable
Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
5 th
Cycle? ZONING GPLU Expected Density
Rezone
Expected
Density
Net
Potential
Units
Net Units by Income
Category Assumed
Income
Category
Pipeline
Projects Rezone
Existing Use and Additional
Information
Low Mod. Above
Mod.

Positano, were also recently
developed, further indicating the
potential for above moderateincome development.
12 5th Cycle
Sites
905-0002-
001-01 No 1 Unaddressed Parcel 34.1 34.1 No Yes PD NP 10 - 287 0 0 287 Above Moderate Yes No This parcel is a vacant candidate site
in east Dublin. Similar projects
within the vicinity at comparable
densities, such as Jordan Ranch and
Positano, were also recently
developed, further indicating the
potential for above moderateincome development.
13 Pipeline 986-0034-
013-01 Yes 0
5201
Ironhorse
Parkway,
Dublin, CA
94568

2.5 2.5 Yes No PD CO 80 - 99 98 0 1 Low and
Very Low Yes No
This parcel is a project in the
pipeline at the Dublin Transit Center
including 98 units of affordable
housing.
14 Pipeline 905-0001-
004-04 No 3
1881 Collier
Canyon
Road,
Dublin, CA
94568

40.1 9.9 Yes No PD IP 8 - 97 0 0 97 Above
Moderate Yes No
This parcel is a project in the
pipeline as part of the Branaugh
project, a development of 97 units.
15 Pipeline 905-0001-
005-02 Yes 0 Unaddressed Parcel 49.7 9.8 Yes No PD IP 8 - 96 0 0 96 Above Moderate Yes No This parcel is a project in the
pipeline as part of the Righetti
project, a development of 97 units.
16 Public/
Semi-Public
985-0027-
002-00 Yes 0 Unaddressed Parcel 136.6 2.0 Yes No PD P/SP 30 - 60 60 0 0 Low and Very Low No No This parcel has the Public/SemiPublic designation, which allows a broad range of uses including
affordable housing developed by a
non-profit entity. This parcel is in
east Dublin and is currently vacant.
17 Public/
Semi-Public
905-0002-
001-01 Yes 1 Unaddressed Parcel 34.1 2.5 Yes No PD NP 30 - 74 74 0 0 Low and Very Low Yes No This portion of the parcel has the
Public/Semi-Public designation,
which allows a broad range of uses
including affordable housing
developed by a non-profit entity.

This parcel is in east Dublin and is
currently vacant.
18 Hacienda
Crossings
986-0008-
009-00 No 10
4820 Dublin
Blvd.,
Dublin, CA
94568

18.8 10.0 Yes No PD GC - 48 478 239 0 239 Low and
Very Low No Yes
This parcel is one of two parcels at
Hacienda Crossings shopping center
to be rezoned (see Section 5, Part
2). This parcel contains a large
parking lot serving existing "big box"
department stores, several of which
are currently vacant. This parcel has
a significant opportunity for
redevelopment based on economic
trends and existing housing
development to the north across
Dublin Blvd. Notably, the site is less
than one mile from the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

DRAFT
The City is also proactively
1357
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-21
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Unique
ID
Map
Category APN Vacancy Existing Units
Street
Address
Gross
Acreage
Buildable
Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
5 th
Cycle? ZONING GPLU Expected Density
Rezone
Expected
Density
Net
Potential
Units
Net Units by Income
Category Assumed
Income
Category
Pipeline
Projects Rezone
Existing Use and Additional
Information
Low Mod. Above
Mod.
coordinating with the property
owners, who are considering
redeveloping the site to include
housing units. Although this site is
considered a large parcel as it is
over 10 acres, only 10 acres of the
site are considered "buildable"
based on AB 1397 and existing
trends in the development of
affordable housing.
19 Hacienda
Crossings
986-0008-
010-00 No 3
4980 Dublin
Blvd.,
Dublin, CA
94568

2.4 2.4 Yes No PD GC - 48 116 58 0 58 Low and
Very Low No Yes
This parcel is one of two parcels at
Hacienda Crossings shopping center
to be rezoned (see Section 5, Part
2). This parcel contains a large
parking lot serving existing "big box"
department stores, several of which
are currently vacant. This parcel has
a significant opportunity for
redevelopment based on economic
trends and existing housing
development to the north across
Dublin Blvd. Notably, the site is less
than one mile from the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

The City is also proactively
coordinating with the property
owners, who are considering
redeveloping the site to include
housing units.
20 Downtown 941-0305-
040-00 No 0
7050
Amador
Plaza Road,
Dublin, CA
94568

7.5 3.6 Yes No DDZD DDRD 85 - 307 127 33 0 Low and
Very Low No Yes
This parcel is in Downtown Dublin
and is part of the Retail District. The
existing uses include a large parking
lot and a "big box" style store,
Hobby Lobby. As part of the
Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision
(Preferred Vision), this site is
planned to include residential units.

Based on the existing uses on the
site and alignment with the
Preferred Vision, only about half of
the acreage of the parcel is
considered buildable in this
analysis.
21 Downtown 941-1500-
030-00 No 0
6513
Regional
Street,
Dublin, CA
94568

1.2 1.2 Yes Yes DDZD DDTOD 73 - 113 113 0 0 Low and
Very Low No No
This parcel is in Downtown Dublin
and is part of the Transit-Oriented
District. The existing uses include a
parking lot and a vacant one-story
commercial complex. The TransitOriented District allows residential development up to 85 du/ac to
maximize development proximate
to the West Dublin/Pleasanton
DRAFT
BART station, which is about a
1358
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-22
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Unique
ID
Map
Category APN Vacancy Existing Units
Street
Address
Gross
Acreage
Buildable
Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
5 th
Cycle? ZONING GPLU Expected Density
Rezone
Expected
Density
Net
Potential
Units
Net Units by Income
Category Assumed
Income
Category
Pipeline
Projects Rezone
Existing Use and Additional
Information
Low Mod. Above
Mod.
quarter mile away from this site.

Several recent developments and
projects in the pipeline in the
Transit Oriented District further
reinforce this site's propensity to
redevelop with high-density
housing.
22 Downtown 941-0305-
027-00 No 0
7300
Amador
Plaza Road,
Dublin, CA
94568

1.4 1.4 Yes No DDZD DDRD 85 - 119 43 17 0 Low and
Very Low No Yes
This parcel is in Downtown Dublin
and is part of the Retail District. The
existing uses include a large parking
lot and vacant commercial building
(former credit union). As part of the
Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision
(Preferred Vision), this site is
planned to include almost
exclusively residential units. Based
on the existing uses on the site and
alignment with the Preferred Vision,
the entirety of the acreage of the
parcel is considered buildable in this
analysis.
23 5th Cycle
Sites
986-0004-
001-00 No 1
7440
Tassajara
Road,
Dublin, CA
94568

11.6 11.6 No Yes PD MDR 10 - 114 0 114 0 Moderate No No This parcel is in east Dublin and is a
mostly vacant site adjacent to
existing townhome-style
development. The site includes one
residential unit on the west side of
the site. Based on surrounding
development and the existing
zoning and land use designation,
this site is anticipated to develop
moderate-income units.
24 5th Cycle
Sites
986-0003-
001-02 No 0
6060
Tassajara
Road,
Dublin, CA
94568

1.9 1.9 Yes Yes PD MHD
and OS 10 - 19 0 19 0 Moderate No No
This parcel is in east Dublin and is a
vacant site adjacent to existing
townhome-style development.

Based on surrounding development
and the existing zoning and land use
designation, this site is anticipated
to develop moderate-income units.
25 5th Cycle
Sites
986-0028-
002-00 No 1
5868
Tassajara
Road,
Dublin, CA
94568

1.0 1.0 Yes Yes PD SC 10 - 9 0 9 0 Moderate No No
This parcel is in east Dublin and is a
mostly vacant site adjacent to
existing townhome-style
development. The site includes one
residential unit on the west side of
the site. Based on surrounding
development and the existing
zoning and land use designation,
this site is anticipated to develop
moderate-income units.
26 5th Cycle
Sites
905-0001-
006-03 Yes 0
3457 Croak
Road,
Dublin, CA
94588

50.7 7.2 Yes Yes PD GCCO 15.4 110 0 110 0 Moderate No No This parcel is in east Dublin and is a
vacant site adjacent to existing
townhome-style development.

Based on surrounding development
DRAFT
and the existing zoning and land use
1359
Appendix D: Adequate Sites Analysis D-23
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Unique
ID
Map
Category APN Vacancy Existing Units
Street
Address
Gross
Acreage
Buildable
Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
5 th
Cycle? ZONING GPLU Expected Density
Rezone
Expected
Density
Net
Potential
Units
Net Units by Income
Category Assumed
Income
Category
Pipeline
Projects Rezone
Existing Use and Additional
Information
Low Mod. Above
Mod.
designation, this site is anticipated
to develop moderate-income units.
27 SCS Property 985-0051-
006-00 Yes 0
4441
Tassajara
Road,
Dublin, CA
94568

30.4 2.5 Yes No PD GC 40 - 100 100 0 0 Low and
Very Low No No
This site is a vacant parcel north of
Dublin Blvd. and east of Tassajara
Road. This parcel and those
adjacent have been included in
several development proposals in
recent years, the most recent of
which is known as the SCS Property.

Under the most recent proposal,
this portion of the site is envisioned
to include high-density affordable
housing. Although the site is more
than 30 acres, the Preferred Plan
and the proposed development
plans identify a 2.5-acre site
including 100 affordable units.
28 Alameda
County
Surplus
Property
986-0034-
014-00 Yes 0 Unaddressed Parcel 12.3 2.3 Yes No PD CO - 66 152 76 0 76 Low and Very Low No Yes This parcel is one of two parcels to
be rezoned as part of the Alameda
County Surplus Property (see
Section 5, Part 1). The County is
supportive of amending the General
Plan and rezoning these sites to
accommodate these units. Notably,
a third parcel of Alameda County
Surplus Property in the same area
(Site P-7) is currently an affordable
housing project in the pipeline.

Although this parcel is a large parcel
at 12.3 acres, only 2.3 acres are
buildable due to the approval of the
Westin Hotel on the southern 5.88
acres of the site. 2.3 acres are
identified for future residential
development to allow the
remaining four acres to be
developed with a compatible use.
29 Alameda
County
Surplus
Property
986-0034-
012-00 Yes 0 Unaddressed Parcel 7.5 7.5 Yes No PD CO - 66 493 247 0 246 Low and Very Low No Yes This parcel is one of two parcels to
be rezoned as part of the Alameda
County Surplus Property (see
Section 5, Part 1). The County is
supportive of amending the General
Plan and rezoning these sites to
accommodate these units. Notably,
a third parcel of Alameda County
Surplus Property in the same area
(Site P-7) is currently an affordable
DRAFT
housing project in the pipeline.
1360
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

DRAFT
1361
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary
E-1
Dublin 2023-2031 Housing Element
APPENDIX E:

HOUSING PLAN PROGRAMS SUMMARY
DRAFT
1362
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-2
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing Plan Programs Summary
This Appendix contains an outline of all the Policy Programs included within Chapter 2: Housing Plan. Table E-1 includes each program’s objectives, responsible agency, funding source, and timeline.

Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe A.1: Housing Rehabilitation
Assistance
Continue to support the Alameda County Community
DevelopmentAgency 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.

Alameda County
Community
Development
Agency; Community
Development
Department
CDBG; Alameda
County Measure A1 Bond Fund;
Dublin General
Fund
Review annually;
2023-2031
A.2: Housing Choice Voucher
Rental Assistance
Continue to support the assistance of 350 lowerincome households each year between 2023 and 2031. Housing Authority of Alameda County
HUD Section 8 Review annually;
2023-2031
Continue to refer interested households to the Housing
Authority of Alameda County.

A.3: Code Enforcement Continue to enforce local ordinances relating to property maintenance and substandard housing both
proactively and on a complaint basis.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund On a case-by-case
basis; Review
annually; 2023-
Conduct residential inspections to ensure property 2031 maintenance standards are met and to abate
substandard structures.

Perform annual reviews of City ordinances.

A.4: Condominium
Conversion Ordinance
Monitor conversion activities annually. Community
Development
Department
Permit Processing
Fees
Review annually;
2023-2031
A.5: Preserve and Monitor
Affordable Units At-Risk of
Converting to Market Rate
Maintain an inventory and establish an early warning
system for assisted housing units that have the
potential to convert to market-rate units.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Within three years
of adopting the
2023-2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
Outreach to and coordinate with property owners with
assisted housing units at-risk of converting to marketrate units to preserve affordability.

DRAFT
1363
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-3
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe B.1: Mixed-Use
Development
Facilitate the construction of 300 residential units
within mixed-use projects between 2023-2031.

Community
Development
Department
Affordable Housing
Fund; General Fund
Review annually;
2023-2031
Continue to incentivize mixed-use projects through
flexible development standards and other means.

B.2: Affordable Housing
Developers
Negotiate a specific incentives package for each
project, with increased incentives for projects that
include units for extremely low-income households,
seniors, and persons with disabilities.

Community
Development
Department
Affordable Housing
Fund; General Fund
On a case-by-case
basis; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
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 extremelylow-income households
and/or persons with special needs.

Contact developers to discuss affordable housing
opportunities.

B.3: Density Bonuses Review and, as necessary, revise the Density Bonus Ordinance to ensure compliance with State law.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Provide
information on a
case-by-case basis;
Revise as
necessary; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
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.

B.4: Inclusionary Zoning Review the Inclusionary Regulations. Community Development
Department
General Fund Review the
Inclusionary
Regulations and InLieu Fees within
two years of
adopting the 2023-
2031 Housing
Element
Prepare a nexus study reviewing the Affordable
Housing In-Lieu Fee.

Facilitate the construction of 100 affordable housing
units.

B.5: Commercial Linkage Fee Prepare a nexus study reviewing the Commercial Linkage Fee.

Affordable Housing
Fund; General Fund
Prepare a nexus
DRAFT
study reviewing
1364
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-4
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe Utilize funding to facilitate the construction of 100
affordable housing units.

Community
Development
Department
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
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.

B.6: Housing Type and Size
Variations
Require developers to provide a diversity of housing
type and size on a case-by-case basis to meet the City’s housing needs.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund On a case-by-case
basis; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
B.7: Accessory Dwelling
Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
Maintaining and updating, as necessary, permit-ready
ADU plans to minimize design costs, expedite permit
processing, and provide development certainty.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Create and update
public information
on ADUs within
three years of
adopting the 2023-
2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
Maintaining and updating, as necessary, an ADU
Manual guiding applicants through the construction of
an ADU.

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
DRAFT
years.
1365
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-5
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe B.8: Accessory Dwelling Unit
Monitoring Program
Maintain the ADU Monitoring Program. Community
Development
Department
General Fund Review annually;
2023-2031
B.9: Non-Vacant Adequate
Sites to Satisfy By-Right
Requirements of AB 1397
Amend the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to specify
the units on the four non-vacant lower-income 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.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Within three years
of adopting 2023-
2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
B.10: Objective Design
Standards and Streamlined
Ministerial Review
Review and, as necessary, revise the Citywide MultiFamily Objective DesignStandards to ensure compliance with State law in order to facilitate the
development of housing.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Review annually;
2023-2031; If
determined to be
necessary, the City
will make any
required changes
to the Objective
Design Standards
within 18 months
Continue to implement the Citywide Multi-Family
Objective Design Standards.

B.11: Transitional and
Supportive Housing
Collaborate with local organizations and agencies to
discuss the needs of persons experiencing
homelessness.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund On a case-by-case
basis; Review
annually; 2023-
Support and, when possible, fund local and regional 2031 efforts to address the housing needs of persons
experiencing homelessness.

B.12: Single-Room
Occupancy (SRO)
Collaborate with local organizations and agencies to
discuss the needs of persons who previously
experienced homelessness.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Review annually;
2023-2031
Support and, when possible, fund local and regional
efforts to address the housing needs of persons in
Dublin who previously experienced homelessness.

B.13: Universal Design
Ordinance
Maintain updated information about the Universal
Design Ordinance on the City’s website and at City Hall.

Community
Development
Department
Permit Processing
Fees
Update as
necessary; Review
annually; 2023- DRAFT
2031
1366
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-6
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe B.14: Residential Incentives 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 non-residential uses.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Review annually;
2023-2031
B.15 Replacement Housing Adopt a formal replacement housing program. Community Development
Department
General Fund Within three years
of adopting the
2023-2031 Housing
Element
C.1: Sites Inventory and
RHNA Monitoring
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.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund 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
Complete the rezoning strategies.

C.2: Safety Element and
Environmental Justice
Policies
Adopt an updated Safety Element, which identifies and
addresses flood and fire hazards.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Within one year of
adopting the 2023-
2031 Housing
Element
Amend portions of the General Plan to include
environmental justice policies.

D.1: Remove Development
Constraints
Review residential development standards for
potential constraints to the development of new units,
particularly affordable units.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund On a case-by-case
basis; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
D.2: Fee Deferment Continue to offer the deferment of Traffic Impact Fees, Public Facilities Fees, and Fire Facilities Fees for multifamily 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.

Community
Development
Department
Inclusionary Zoning
In-Lieu Fee Fund
On a case-by-case
basis; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
DRAFT
1367
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-7
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe Maintain updated information on the City’s affordable
housing incentives, such as density bonus and fee
deferment, on the City’s website.

D.3: Emergency Shelters Review and amend, if necessary, the Emergency Shelters Ordinance for consistency with Government
Code Section 65583(a)(4).

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Within two years of
adopting the 2023-
2031 Housing
Element
D.4: Monitoring of
Development Fees
The City will evaluate development fee impacts on
housing development and make appropriate
adjustments.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Review annually;
2023-2031
D.5: Maintain Zoning,
Development Standards,
and Fee Schedules Online
Maintain updated zoning, development standards, and
fee schedules on the City’s website.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Review annually;
2023-2031
E.1: Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing
Develop and adopt environmental justice policies in
the General Plan.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund; State
and Federal Grants
Within three years
of adopting the
2023-2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
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.

E.2: Equal Housing
Opportunity
Provide referrals to appropriate agencies for services. Community Development
Department; ECHO
Housing; Alameda
County Community
Development
Agency
CDBG; General
Fund
Review annually;
Distribute fair housing information in public locations. 2023-2031 Post information on the City’s website.

DRAFT
1368
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-8
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe E.3: Reasonable
Accommodations
Maintain updated information on reasonable
accommodations on the City’s website and at City Hall.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Review annually;
2023-2031; if
determined to be
necessary, the City
will amend its
procedures and/or
requirements
within six months
Review and, if necessary, update applicable procedures
and/or requirements to remove potential constraints.

E.4: Low-Barrier Navigation
Centers
Adopt and implement procedures and regulations to
process low-barrier navigation centers. Procedures
shall include establishing a ministerial approval
process.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Within three years
of adoption of the
2023-2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
Annually review, and if necessary, update regulations
and procedures to comply with State law.

E.5: Housing for Persons
with Developmental
Disabilities
Encourage construction and rehabilitation of housing
with supportive services for persons with
developmental disabilities.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Within three years
of adopting the
2023-2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
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.

E.6: Farmworker and
Employee Housing
Amend the Dublin Municipal Code to comply with the
Health and Safety Code; update as necessary
throughout the planning period.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Within three years
of adopting the
2023-2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
E.7: First-Time Homebuyer
Loan Program
Promote the FTHLP program online on the City’s
website and at the public counter.

Within three years
DRAFT
of adopting the
1369
Appendix E: Housing Plan Programs Summary E-9
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-1: Housing Plan Programs
Program Objectives Responsible Agency Funding Source Timeframe Provide FTHLP loans to households earning up to 120
percent AMI.

Community
Development
Department
Affordable Housing
Fund; State and
Federal Grants
2023-2031 Housing
Element; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
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.

E.8: Homeless Assistance Support and, when possible, fund local and regional efforts that seek to address and lessen homelessness.

Community
Development
Department; HCCC;
Tri-Valley Haven
CDBG; State and
Federal Grants;
General Fund
Review annually;
2023-2031
E.9: Water and Sewer
Service Providers
Deliver 2023-2031 Housing Element to DSRSD following
adoption.

Community
Development
Department
General Fund Immediately after
adopting the 2023-
2031 Housing
Element
Coordinate with DSRSD when reviewing proposed
residential projects.

F.1: Green Building
Guidelines
Continue to implement the provisions of the Green
Building Ordinance and State Standards and Codes.

Community
Development
Department
Permit Processing
Fees; General Fund
Update as
necessary; Review
annually; 2023-
2031
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.

F.2: Energy Conservation Implement applicable Waste Management and Building Code regulations, provide Green Building training to
Staff, and distribute energy conservation information
to the public.

Community
Development
Department
Permit Processing
Fees; General Fund
Review annually;
2023-2031
DRAFT
1370
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

DRAFT
1371
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-1
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
APPENDIX F:

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DRAFT
1372
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-2
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Community Engagement Summary
Section 65583 of the Government Code states, "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). As such, a summary of community participation is provided within this Appendix.

As part of the 2023-2031Housing Element Update process, the City conducted a variety of outreach and engagement efforts beginning in Winter 2020. These include virtual community workshops, study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council, check-in meetings with the City Council, an online survey in English and Mandarin, social media outreach, news articles, direct mailings, an informational webpage, one-on-one meetings with property owners, and public meetings. Project materials, including meeting and workshop recordings, flyers, and draft public review documents are available on the City’s website:
dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update.

A summary of community engagement and outreach for the 2023-2031 Housing Element is outlined below:
• Housing Element Update Webpage: A Housing Element Update webpage was created on the City’s website to provide relevant information and guide the public to outreach events and resources throughout the course of the update process. The website provides information about the update process, key features of the housing element, recorded meetings, a project timeline, surveys and forms, and contact information. The website also provided a link to the community survey tool as well as the contact information of the City for residents and community members to send additional comments or request additional information. The website is available at:
https://dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update.
• City Council Meeting #1: On February 18, 2020, Staff presented to City Council and members of the public during a regular City Council meeting. The presentation provided the Council with introductory information on the Housing Element Update process, details on the City’s RHNA allocation, and key milestones. The agenda item was organized to solicit input and recommendations from the City Council.
• City Council Meeting #2: On October 6, 2020, Staff presented to City Council and members of the public during a regular City Council meeting. The presentation provided the Council with an update on the update process and preliminary information on the strategies to meet the RHNA allocation. The agenda item was organized to solicit input and recommendations from the City Council.
• City Council Meeting #3: On June 15, 2021, Staff presented to City Council and members of the public during a regular City Council meeting. The presentation provided the Council with an update on the update process and background on the RHNA appeals procedures. The agenda item was organized to solicit input and recommendations from the City Council.

DRAFT
1373
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-3
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
• City Council Meeting #4: On November 2, 2021, Staff presented to City Council and members of the public during a regular City Council meeting. The presentation revolved around the strategies to meet the RHNA allocation and particular candidate sites. The agenda item was organized to solicit input and recommendations from the City Council. • Community Survey: From December 20, 2021 through February 28, 2022, the City released an online community survey to solicit feedback and input on potential locations for housing and possible housing policies. The survey was made available in English and Mandarin and was linked on the Housing Element Update webpage. There was a total of 205 respondents that participated in the survey.
• Community Workshop #1: On January 19, 2022, the City conducted a virtual community workshop to inform the community of the Housing Element Update process, the RHNA allocation, and upcoming engagement opportunities. The workshop also solicited feedback and input from participants through live polling and a Q&A session.
• Community Workshop #2: On February 17, 2022, the City held a second virtual community workshop. This workshop provided participants with information on the City’s engagement efforts and proposed strategies to meet the RHNA allocation. The workshop also solicited feedback and input from participantsthrough live polling and a Q&A session. • Planning Commission Meeting #1: On March 8, 2022, Staff presented the Planning Commission with background information on the Housing Element Update process and a status update. The presentation included community engagement efforts to-date and consideration of strategy options to address the City’s RHNA. The agenda was organized to be informative and solicit feedback from the Commission.
• City Council Meeting #5:On March 15, 2022, Staff presented the City Council with a status update on the Housing Element Update and sought a decision from the Council on which RHNA strategy to move forward with in preparation for the Public Review Draft Housing Element.

This Appendix contains a summary of all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City at scheduled public meetings. 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.

DRAFT
1374
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-4
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E.1 Community Workshop #1
This Section contains all available materials created for the virtual community workshop. Public comments for the workshop were received verbally and through the Zoom chat function. The recorded workshop is available on the City’s YouTube channel.

DRAFT
1375

100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568

IMPORTANT NOTICE
«NAME»
«AGENCY»
«ADDRESS»
«CITYSTATEZIP»
Housing Element Update Workshop
January 19, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.

The workshop will be held via teleconference. A Zoom Meeting link is available below and on the City’s Housing Element Update webpage:
https://dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update
The City of Dublin is conducting a workshop to receive community feedback on the Housing Element Update to help create policies and programs that appropriately address the housing needs of current and future Dublin residents.

The Housing Element is one of seven mandated elements of the General Plan and must be updated every eight years to address existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments. The City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Additional information about the Housing Element Update can be found on the City’s website at the link provided above.

Zoom Meeting link:
https://dublinca.zoom.us/j/83461588853?pwd=QjdDMHVTWjVab1ErdzRqblN2Vllld z09
Passcode: ES0vdg89
We Want to Hear from You!!
In addition to the workshop, the City is
conducting a survey for the Housing Element
Update to receive community feedback. The
survey is available at the following link
https://forms.office.com/r/3C7vkiLsY0 and
will be open through February 28, 2022.

Questions? Contact:

Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
(925) 833-6610
DRAFT
[email protected]
1376
3/1/2022
1 City of Dublin
Community Workshop #1
Time: 6 PM
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Location: Virtual - Zoom
Agenda
• Overview of Housing
Element • Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
(RHNA) • Outreach Efforts ToDate
• Workshop Discussion
• Next Steps
Overview of Housing
Element
What is a Housing Element? • One of the seven mandated elements of the General Plan
• Addresses the housing needs of
residents
• Identifies existing and projected housing
needs by income category
• Establishes Citywide goals, policies,
programs, and objectives to guide future
housing
• Requires certification by the California
Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) Dublin General Plan
Land Use Parks and Open Space
Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Water Resources and Energy Conservation Economic Development Community Design and Sustainability Noise Seismic and Safety Conservation Housing Circulation and Scenic Highways Housing Element Requirements Housing
Element
Population and housing profile
Evaluation of housing constraints and resources Evaluation of existing housing programs and policies
Analysis of sites to accommodate the City’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Policies, programs, and quantified objectives
to achieve the City’s housing goals
Why are Housing Elements Updated? • Ensures the City complies with State housing laws • Demonstrates Dublin’s ability to meet existing and
projected housing needs
• Allows the City to become eligible for Statesponsored assistance programs, grants, and funding sources • Allows the community to engage in planning
process
• Prevents the State from penalizing the City
1 2
3 4
5 DRAFT
6 1377
3/1/2022
2 What is included in the Update
Process?
Community Workshops
Online Community Survey
Update of the City’s demographic conditions, and policies, programs, and objectives
Analysis of adequate sites to meet RHNA
CEQA Review
HCD Review and Certification
Planning Commission/City Council Meetings
Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
(RHNA)
What is RHNA? • Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) • Quantifies the need for housing within each City/County in California • Based on future growth in population, employment, transportation, and households
How is RHNA determined?
City of Dublin
RHNA 2023-2031
3,719 Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG developed methodology to determine “fair share” distribution of the region’s housing need to local jurisdictions Department of Housing and
Community
Development HCD determined and distributed the State’s housing need to Regional Planning Agencies (MPOs) RHNA Allocation: 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Income Category % of Median Family Income Income Range* RHNA Allocation (Housing Units) Min. Max. Very Low Income 0 - 50% MFI -- $68,500 1,085 Low Income 51 – 80% MFI $68,501 $109,600 625
Moderate Income 81 – 120% MFI $109,601 $150,700 560 Above Moderate Income >120% MFI $150,701 -- 1,449 Total: 3,719
*Based on the 2021 median family income for a family of 4 in Alameda County - $125,600 Outreach Efforts
To-Date
7 8
9 10
11 DRAFT
12 1378
3/1/2022
3 Project Efforts To-Date • City Council Check-Ins – October 2020 – November 2021 • Sites Analysis: – City Council advised on strategies to meet City’s RHNA
– City Council advised a selection of sites dispersed
throughout the City
Workshop Discussion
Discussion Questions
• In a few words, tell us about your housing
experience in Dublin. • What are some housing challenges or needs in Dublin?
• What are some housing opportunities in
Dublin?
• What is your vision for housing in Dublin?
Open Discussion
• If you have a question or comment, please click
on the “raise hand” function and we will unmute
you to speak. • You may also type in questions or comments in the chat or Q&A functions.

Next Steps
Tentative Housing Element Update
Schedule Virtual Community Workshop # 1 January 19, 2022 Community Survey Winter 2021/2022 Virtual Community Workshop # 2 February 17, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session March 2022 City Council Study Session March 2022 Public Review Draft April 2022 City Council Review May 2022 13 14
15 16
17 DRAFT
18 1379
3/1/2022
4 We Want Your Input! • Provide your input and comments by taking a quick survey
• Available in English and Mandarin
• Got to: https://forms.office.com/r/3C7vkiLsY0
Also available on the Housing Element webpage:
https://dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update
Your participation is important!
The survey and other engagement opportunities
provide the City with important community feedback
to help shape:
Goals
Policies, and
Programs
Within the Housing Element.

The City of Dublin wants to hear your ideas about
Housing. Your input is very important!
Thank you!
Questions?
Michael Cass, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 833-6610
Or visit: https://dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update Subscribe for e-notifications on the Housing Element webpage. 19 20
21 DRAFT
1380
DRAFT
1381
DRAFT
1382
DRAFT
1383
DRAFT
1384
DRAFT
1385
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-5
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E.2 Community Workshop #2
This Section contains all available materials created for the virtual community workshop. Public comments for the workshop were received verbally and through the Zoom chat function. The recorded workshop is available for viewing on the Housing Element Update webpage.

DRAFT
1386

100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568

IMPORTANT NOTICE
«NAME»
«AGENCY»
«ADDRESS»
«CITYSTATEZIP»
Housing Element Update Workshop #2
February 17, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.

The workshop will be held via teleconference. A Zoom Meeting link is available below and on the City’s Housing Element Update webpage:
https://dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update
The City of Dublin is conducting the second of two workshopsto receive community feedback on the Housing Element Update to help create policies and programs that appropriately address the housing needs of current and future Dublin residents.

The Housing Element is one of seven mandated elements of the General Plan and must be updated every eight years to address existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments. The City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Additional information about the Housing Element Update can be found on the City’s website at the link provided above.

Zoom Meeting link:
https://dublinca.zoom.us/j/82382805239?pwd=c2taeG41WlhydEVGaEN4c1lKanNxZz 09 Passcode: ES0vdg89
We Want to Hear from You!!
In addition to the workshop, the City is
conducting a survey for the Housing Element
Update to receive community feedback. The
survey is available at the following link
https://forms.office.com/r/3C7vkiLsY0 and
will be open through February 28, 2022.

Questions? Contact:

Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
(925) 833-6610
DRAFT
[email protected]
1387
1 City of Dublin
Community Workshop #2
Time: 6 PM
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2022
Location: Virtual - Zoom
Agenda
• Overview of Housing
Element • Outreach Efforts ToDate
• Candidate Sites Strategies
• Policies and Programs
• Next Steps
Overview of Housing
Element
What is a Housing Element? • One of the seven mandated elements of the General Plan
• Addresses the housing needs of
residents
• Identifies existing and projected housing
needs by income category
• Establishes Citywide goals, policies,
programs, and objectives to guide future
housing
• Requires certification by the California
Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) Dublin General Plan
Land Use Parks and Open Space
Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Water Resources and Energy Conservation Economic Development Community Design and Sustainability Noise Seismic and Safety Conservation Housing Circulation and Scenic Highways Why are Housing Elements Updated? • Ensures City complies with State housing laws • Demonstrates Dublin’s ability to meet existing
and projected housing needs
• Allows City to become eligible for Statesponsored assistance programs, grants, and funding sources
• Allows the community to engage in planning
process
• Prevents the State from penalizing City
What is included in the Update
Process?
Community Workshops
Online Community Survey
Update of the City’s demographic conditions, and policies, programs, and objectives
Analysis of adequate sites to meet RHNA
CEQA Review
Planning Commission/City Council Meetings HCD Review and Certification 1 2
3 4
5 DRAFT
6 1388
2 Community
Engagement Efforts
To-Date
Engagement Efforts To-Date • City Council Check-Ins – October 2020 – November 2021 • Community Workshops – January 19, 2022 – February 17, 2022 • Ongoing Online Survey – December 2021-February 2022
Preliminary Survey Findings
• Missing housing types:

1. Affordable housing

2. Senior housing
• Recommended locations of future housing:

1. Near transit hubs (such as BART)

2. Regional shopping centers (such as Hacienda
Crossings) • 72% report need for both for sale and rental units • 22% report need for more for sale units
We Want Your Input! • Survey is open through end of February • Available in English and Mandarin
• Go to: https://forms.office.com/r/3C7vkiLsY0
Also available on the Housing Element webpage:
https://dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update
Candidate Sites
Strategies
RHNA Allocation: 6th Cycle (2023-2031)
Income Category % of Median Family Income Income Range* RHNA Allocation (Housing Units) Min. Max. Very Low Income 0 - 50% MFI -- $68,500 1,085 Low Income 51 – 80% MFI $68,501 $109,600 625
Moderate Income 81 – 120% MFI $109,601 $150,700 560 Above Moderate Income >120% MFI $150,701 -- 1,449 Total: 3,719
*Based on the 2021 median family income for a family of 4 in Alameda County - $125,600 7 8
9 10
11 DRAFT
12 1389
3 Candidates Sites Strategies
• Housing Element must identify candidate sites
to accommodate 2023-2031 RHNA need of
3,719 total units • Candidate sites must consider: – Access to community resources and services – Infrastructure – Environmental barriers – Access to transportation City Council Approved Strategies
• Projected ADU
development • “Pipeline” projects
• Existing Housing Element
sites • Public/Semi-Public Sites
• Downtown
Strategies for Remaining RHNA
• Hacienda Crossings
• Alameda County Surplus Properties
Participant Activity
• Open aerial map of the City’s candidate sites
and request feedback/comments. • Specify Council direction not to concentrate affordable housing.

Policies and
Programs
Existing Housing Goals
• Goal A: Expand housing choice and multi-modal transportation opportunities for existing and future Dublin residents. • Goal B: Expand housing opportunities for all segments of Dublin’s population. • Goal C: Use public and private resources to maintain and enhance existing residential neighborhood characteristics. • Goal D: Provide housing opportunities for all Dublin residents, regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, age, gender, marital status, familial status, disability, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor. • Goal E: Promote energy efficiency and conservation throughout Dublin.
13 14
15 16
17 DRAFT
18 1390
4 Existing Program Example New 6th Cycle Programs Required • Fair Housing
• Promotion of Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
(JADU) Development • Objective Development
Standards
• SB 35 Streamlining
• Emergency Shelters,
Transitional and Supportive
Housing, and Lower Barrier
Navigation Centers
New 6th Cycle Programs (continued) • Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities
• Farmworker and Employee
Housing
• Funding and Rental
Assistance Programs
• Housing Voucher Program
• Density Bonus
• Removal of Development
Constraints
Participant Activity
• (Open Ended) Tell us about your experience with housing in the City. • Fair Housing – what fair housing issues does the City need to address? (ex: discrimination, etc.) • (Open Ended) Have you recently gone through the entitlement process? If so, do you have any feedback on your experience?
• (Multiple Choice) Are there any particular housing types you would like to see more of in Dublin?
• Single-family
• Apartments
• Condos
• Townhomes
• ADUs
• Senior Housing
• Affordable Housing • Transitional/Supportive
Housing
• Emergency Shelter • Other Next Steps
Housing Element Update Schedule Virtual Workshop #1
January 19, 2022 Virtual Workshop #2
February 17, 2022
End of Online Survey February 28, 2022 Planning Commission Study Session March 8, 2022 City Council Check-In March 15, 2022 Public Review Draft April 7- May 7, 2022 Planning Commission April 26, 2022 City Council Review May 17, 2022 19 20
21 22
23 DRAFT
24 1391
5 Public Comments and Questions
• If you have a question or comment, please click
on “raise hand” function and we will unmute
you to speak. • You may also type in questions or comments in the chat or Q&A functions.

Thank you!
Questions?
Michael Cass, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 833-6610
Or visit: https://dublin.ca.gov/2241/Housing-Element-Update Subscribe for e-notifications on the Housing Element webpage. 25 26
DRAFT
1392
DRAFT
1393
DRAFT
1394
DRAFT
1395
DRAFT
1396
DRAFT
1397
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-6
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E.3 Community Survey
This Section contains a survey summary of all collected data.

DRAFT
1398
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Housing Element Update Community Survey
From December 20, 2021 through February 28, 2022, the City of Dublin launched an online community survey to gather input and feedback regarding the Housing Element Update. Participants were asked to report on their housing experience in Dublin, consider potential policies and programs, and reflect on future housing opportunities in the City. A total of 205 surveys were completed and submitted. Below is a summary of the results.

Housing Types
What Types of housing do you think Dublin is missing? (Please select all that apply) Other:
• One-level
• Assisted living through memory/long-term care
• Housing for Dublin workers earning minimum wage
• Low income/senior and diverse housing on the east side of town • Middle income family housing
• Homes with yards
• Enough housing
• More schools
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Affordable Housing
Apartments/Condos
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Mixed-Income Housing
Multi-Generational Housing
Senior Housing
Single-Family Housing
Supportive or Transitional Housing
Other
DRAFT
1399
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
What type of housing, for rent or for sale, do you think is needed? Where do you think the City should locate future housing that is required to be planned for in the Housing Element update? (Please select all that apply)
12%
31% 57%
Rent
Sale
Both
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Existing neighborhoods (ADUs)
City-owned properties
In the downtown area
Regional shopping centers (Such as Hacienda Crossing)
Neighborhood/community shopping centers (Such as
Dublin Crossing)
Near transportation hubs (Such as BART)
DRAFT
1400
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Housing Program Opportunities
Community Assistance:

Please rate the following based on importance to the community. (1 being the least important and 5 being the most important)
Fair Housing:

Please rate the following based on importance to the community. (1 being the least important, 5 being the most important)

2.70 2.80

2.90 3.00

3.10 3.20

3.30 3.40
Homebuyers assistance
(Identify funding assistance
and resources for first time
home buyers)
Housing rental assistance
(Identify funding assistance
for renters)
Property maintenance
(Programs to provide
funding for home
maintenance rehabilitation
and upkeep)
Housing information
(Information on affordable
housing opportunities and
funding available to the
public)
Average Score
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
4 Promote fair housing
(Provide programs and
policies to address fair
housing issues)
Senior Housing Programs
(Encourage the
development of housing
that is accessible and
supportive for senior
citizens)
Persons with disabilities
(Encourage the
development of housing
accessible to persons with
disabilities)
Supportive Housing
(Provide for emergency
short and long-term
housing needs)
Average Score
DRAFT
1401
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Vision for the Future
In 10 words or less, describe your vision for the future of housing in Dublin.

Infill and affordable housing
Affordable, quality housing for first time home buyers.

I don't to see over population nor do I want to have a lot of low income properties.

Equitable, affordable housing/good neighborhoods for all income levels.

Senior, stand-alone housing, single level.

Not growing.

No more honeycombs. 4-unit max groupings for apts, townhouses.

Town homes located in infill areas or underutilized retail. Leave open space open Less houses. BUILD MORE SCHOOLS TO SUPPORT NUMBER OF HOMES HERE! Need middle school and elementary school existing schools are overcrowded. don't screw up property values
Low and middle income housing desperately needed
Dublin needs to stop additional housing and focus on supporting infrastructure. The city has become a plague of development and homes. Traffic is ridiculous.

Dublin WILL continue to grow;supply needs to keep up.

I think future housing should be scaled way down.

Stop building
Dublin is pretty much built out. We need closerto home employment, not more housing inclusionary housing by private developers. no more huge apartment buildings.

NO MORE HOUSES PLEASE. The Dublin streets and corresponding freeways cannot handle more houses.

Where people from all incomes can find a home.

Just enough
Land in Dublin is already quite filled up and the school district can’t keep up. No more new housing Affordable housing for mixed demographic population with access to schools, utilities, and basic infrastructure
Stop adding more houses to an already overpopulated city. Keep Dublin small.

More spacious single family homes with bigger lot six having more space between two adjacent homes.

Plan for baby boomers to remain in Dublin to open up existing houses to new families.

Equitable, fair, and transparent community needs.

Please have a affordable housing for low income families For seniors.

Inclusive for all current and new residents
STOP the excessive overbuilding! Especially the dense housing of condos/townhomes. Dublin should not bear the sole responsibility for any housing shortage for the entire county/state. Schools are overcrowded, roads are overcrowded, great majority of residents agree we are overcrowded and also agree the explanation given to us that the City is required to continue building thousands of units is ridiculous. If this is the case, then push back and do something to change it. STOP allowing those outside our City to determine the well-being of our City based on reports and numbers read from afar. Those that live here and those that have taken positions responsible for our best interests have an obligation to fight for our best interests even when it’s hard and eve DRAFT
n when it’s directly against
1402
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
current established criteria/rules. Circumstances change and therefore rules and criteria may also require change. STOP the building! DEMAND CHANGE to the current criteria. DO WHAT’S BEST AND WANTED FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

Denser housing that makes Dublin more walkable
stop sprawl, start building up, and support mixed-use
Affordable housing for Next generation to stay in Dublin.

Housing Maintenance / mortgage programs for disabled and elderly persons.

Diverse
Dublin is the city of choice for East Bay area
Housing in Dublin should be easily affordable and publicly funded.

It MUST involve additional community infrastructure.

Dublin needs more housing but spread out, not near to existing congested areas.

Less high density housing due to water shortage, climate change, and full schools. More senior citizen housing or senior communities.
accessible to all
No more housing at all.

Add housing to shopping centers, similar to the Waterford Place Apartments which sit above and adjacent to the Shops at Waterford. These properties are generally located near major traffic arteries and transit lines and can support increased density. Adding housing will also support retail without increasing vehicular travel.

Housing for all
Stop building!
Walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented development
Provide help with SB 9 application
relentless development of large, trashy high-density eyesores A great place for everyone to live.

I feel the city is overbuilt and overcrowded. More focus on improving infrastructure is needed than housing.

Stopping growth is futile, we need to increase housing supply dense, accessible, affordable, inclusive, diverse, maintained, transit-oriented I wish housing didn't outpace schools, but homebuilders rule us.

Modern and mixed with commercial areas and near public transportation Affordable for housing for anyone to be able to live in this city.

Balanced housing with schools, commercial and SF/MF properties Nice, safe community close to everything with range of housing options Slow, steady growth that the schools can keep up with
affordable for those that grew up in this community, currently live and work here Transit oriented housing for all income levels
Do not construct or allow housing until new schools are built Smart growth does not burden residents
Dublin should invoke a 10-year moratorium on any new development and focus on failing infrastructure. Schools are overcrowded, there's a traffic nightmare on city roads, city services cannot support any new development. City council has turned Dublin into a concrete jungle and needs a break.

DRAFT
1403
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Dublin is overcrowded and there is no infrastructure to support any more homes. STOP Building new homes
Plenty of housing options for people
Dublin Boulevard should have a strong sense of place defined by 4 to 5 story apartments and condos.

Diverse, welcoming to all income levels and ages
We need more single family houses in Dublin
Less condos/stack n pac. Dublin Blvd/Bart areas so congested! Where housing is seen as a right not a privilege and there is greater understanding that housing is not primarily an investment but a necessity. I hope to see communities with mixed styles of housing,so neighborhoods aren’t separated into silos
Overcrowded high density housing is not recommended nor needed.

Less dense in fill housing
Have east Dublin get their share of more diverse housing types vs packing it all into west Dublin so it’s not in their fancy backyards & neighborhoods
More housing but not in small downtown area
Great families and affordable housing
Less density
More affordable housing
More housing for all income levels is needed
Pause on housing development to allow infrastructure and schools to catch up.

SCS planning need more open space and infrastructure than housing Don’t turn into Fremont, you’re starting to
Affordable
More supportive amenities and parks.

Quiet, safe, affluent, vibrant community
Stop the massive growth. More parks and open land.
no more housing! we are over capacity
More green, fewer new homes
No more dense neighborhoods. More infrastructure.

We need city rule for SB-9
More village like with higher core density areas and transit Provide more mid-size (1300 - 1600 sq) affordable single-family houses (600K - 800k), instead of building BIG million dollars houses.
low-income housing, affordable housing is still out of reach.

Have more parks and less traffic. It is getting really crowded One that has much less Mello Roos taxation
Sustainable environmentally conscious inclusive green spaces and community gardens We need more retail to keep the revenue here.

For young family
Single family homes. Affordable rentals
Sick of stack and pack. NO ADUs. Changes character of neighborhood.

Better living for all
Best housing in the bay area
Available and Affordable to all
DRAFT
1404
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Someone in middle single income household 130k could afford a house HERE new perf everything is 780k++
no more housing. it's already too much
A significant reduction in the future approval of an unsustainable number of profligate housing developments.

High density housing ruining character of Dublin please stop it.

Build schools, not houses.

More single family houses needed
Slow down the building. Provide infrastructure.

No more new homes in Dublin. Enough is enough.

Affordable and accessible housing for every income level Large single family homes with backyards
Please stop building!!! Dublin is full
Affordable single family houses for first time home buyers Less density
Less houses
More individual homes. No more townhomes!
Walkable (accessible), sustainable. and neighborhood friendly. needs based. not haphazard. Organized plans. not changed because business.

Develop without impacting already overcrowded schools, traffic, or community safety.

Semi-high-rise
Dublin used to be a great community existing primarily of single family homes. Now Dublin is known for apartments and townhomes. Outsiders don't think of Dublin as having traditional neighborhoods of single family homes. Dublin should work to get back to the neighborhoods which were integral in establishing a great community for families.

Keep the small town feel of the city.

Dublin doesn’t need any more condos or apartments
Smaller lot sizes. Build upwards. Don't neglect parks and traffic.

Single family detached homes with neighborhoods and yards are necessary.

Aesthetically pleasing, slow down planning, more schools More schools for houses.

AFFORDABLE single family homes mixed with apartments and townhomes More diversity inclusive neighborhoods
Affordable with supporting infrastructure such as schools and roads Slow Down. Think 100 year plan.

Housing available for all types of individuals and families less single-family, actually enough homes for those who want them It’s already doomed, between DUSD and the City of Dublin there is no hope.

Less density, affordable 55+ single family home community bousing that never exceeds infrastructure capacity - roads, water, transportation Inclusive housing that builds a wonderful safe community No need to construct new homes. Already too crowded
In need of single family homes with big backyards
Make it less crowded
DRAFT
1405
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Yards, community, trees
NO MORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS PLEASE! DUBLIN TOO OVERBUILT AND CROWDED.

More schools and parks. Less high density communities
More affordable housing to allow for opportunities for families Have homes with large lot sizes
Need affordable housing, many of us are leaving Dublin because of housing costs....

Stop building multi-level townhouse style expensive condo developments.

Housing accessible to a mix of socioeconomic backgrounds Balanced semi-urban open space town
Affordable, multigenerational, and senior housing especially on the eastern side.

Too many already, need community facilities
Housing needs are adequate, if you don preserve the nature and adjust only according to human needs, we will lose our way, let's not cramthe city.

A shining example for the region for YIMBY, especially near Transit No more housing, more libraries
Accessible for working class that works here
develop housing that creates prestige neighborhood to better the city Build more homes.

More schools, less houses. Dublin school ratings have dropped due to overcrowding Don't use up all the lands. Save some for future.

Please stop building these horrible tri-level homes with no front or backyards. We need single family 2-story homes with yards.

No further development, keep small town feel
Stop building homes!
More affordable housing and schools
I'm hoping that only single homes will be built in the future as there is enough high rise condos now.

It's beginning to look like downtown New York or Detroit with only concrete for the children to play on. Dublin was once a beautiful country setting that attracted residents that wanted to leave the City.

Now we are a Citywith not so many green space. Who is responsible for making all the decisions to compartmentalize people in square condos where your neighbor can hear you talking? Really, we’ve lived here for 50 plus years and are very disappointed in how Dublin has changed. More people, more accidents, more crime, more disagreements between neighbors, more litter etc. My vision is not a good one.

Fewer multi-family complexes; lower density
Stop building. Every piece of land does not have to have a structure on it. Nor are there the resources to support additional and continual building of homes. The population is declining for crying out loud.

Building up lots of, affordable, transit accessible, mixed-used units.

No more housing is my vision for Dublin's future.

STOP DESTROYING DUBLIN BY BUILDING ON EVERY SQUARE INCH! Provide housing that facilitates resident investment in Dublin's 5-star status.

Less housing, more infrastructure like schools and parks please! Turn existing buildings into housing. Toysrus, vacant buildings More affordable options for all types of dwellings including for rent and for sale - also for seniors.

Only low income condos in built areas. Open land undeveloped DRAFT
1406
City of Dublin
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Demographics
The following questions will help us understand who in the community is participating in the process. Your information will be kept private.

Do you live or work in Dublin?
Other:
• Live with parents
• Dependent of a homeowner
Are you a renter of homeowner? What is our age?
70%
2%
25%
2% 1%
I live in Dublin
I work in Dublin
Both
Neither
Other
16%
78%
1%
5%
Renter
Homeowner
I own property in Dublin that I rent to
others
Other
1%
11%
47%
31%
10%
Less than 18 years 18-34
35-49 50-64
DRAFT
65 years or older
1407
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-7
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E.4 City Council Meeting #1
This Section contains materials prepared for the City Council meeting on February 18, 2020.

DRAFT
1408

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 18, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Report on Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element Update
Prepared by: Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive information about the upcoming sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Housing Element Update.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
Since 1969, the State has mandated that all California cities and counties plan for their share of the region’s housing needs at all income levels. Every eight years, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the share of the state’s housing need for each region based on population projections prepared by the California Department of Finance. Councils of governments then distribute a share of a region’s housing need to each city and county within the region.

In the Bay Area, that group is called the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

This is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. While state law does not require an agency to build the housing units assigned through the RHNA process, it does require that land use planning regulations accommodate the units.

Each city and county must then update the Housing Element of its General Plan to provide locations where housing can be built and the goals and policies necessary to meet the community’s housing needs. The “No Net Loss” laws ensure that local governments do not downzone these “opportunity sites” after their Housing Element has been certified. Each jurisdiction mus
DRAFT
t also submit an annual report to HCD to
1409

demonstrate progress toward meeting the goals and policies of the Housing Element.

Table 1, below, shows the City of Dublin’s RHNA for the last three cycles.

Table 1: Regional Housing Need Allocation (from the Adopted Housing Elements) 1999-2006 2007-2014 2015-2023
Income Level # Units % of Total # Units % of Total # Units % of Total Extremely
Low/Very Low 796 15% 1,092 32.8% 796 34.8%
Low 531 9% 661 19.8% 446 19.5%
Moderate 1,441 26% 653 19.6% 425 18.6%
Above
Moderate 2,668 50% 924 27.7% 618 27%
Total 5,436 100% 3,330 100% 2,285 100%
Following the last RHNA process, the City updated the Housing Element and demonstrated how the RHNA could be achieved through a combination of approved projects and planned residential units. The City Council adopted the 2015 - 2023 General Plan Housing Element on November 18, 2014, and HCD certified that the updated Housing Element was compliant with State law. The City’s on-going implementation and annual reporting over the past five years have also met with HCD approval. Staff is currently preparing the Annual Progress Report for 2019 and will provide it to the City Council for review and approval at an upcoming City Council meeting.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ABAG kicked off the sixth RHNA cycle with the formation of a Housing Methodology Committee, which began meeting in October 2019. The Methodology Committee is comprised of nine elected officials (one from each Bay Area county), 12 housing or planning staff members (at least one from each county), 13 regional stakeholders representing diverse perspectives, and one partner from state government. The goals of the Housing Methodology Committee are as follows:
• Advise ABAG staff on the RHNA allocation methodology for the RHNA cycle. • Ensure the methodology and resulting allocation meet statutory requirements. • Ensure the methodology and resulting allocation are consistent with the forecasted development pattern included in Plan Bay Area 2050.

Staff anticipates that preparation of the City’s Housing Element Update for the sixth RHNA cycle will be more challenging than the last given the following:
• Higher expected total regional housing need.
• New requirements for identifying eligible sites in Housing Elements. • More factors to consider in allocations (i.e., overpayment of rent/mortgage, overcrowding in residential unit, greenhouse gas emissions, jobs-housing fit). • Expanded HCD oversight on methodology and allocations.

DRAFT
1410

• Greater emphasis on social equity.

Of particular concern is the higher expected total regional housing need, which ABAG has indicated is due in part to prior RHNA cycles where the total of number units assigned has gotten progressively smaller while the need for housing has increased.

Although the region often meets the needs for market-rate units, the region has consistently struggled to meet the goals for affordable units. Table 2 below shows the decline in the number of units assigned for the region over the last three RHNA cycles and progress toward meeting the RHNA.

Table 2: Bay Area RHNA Progress 1999-2017
RHNA Permitted Percent of RHNA Permitted
Cycle Assignment Total All Extremely
Low/Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
1999-2006 230,743 213,024 92% 44% 79% 38% 153%
2007-2014 214,500 123,098 57% 29% 26% 28% 99%
2015-2023 187,990 87,691 65% 15% 25% 25% 125%
For example, in southern California, HCD recently assigned 1.34 million new housing units through the RHNA process to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) compared to 412,137 units during the prior RHNA cycle. This represents an additional 932,603 units and a more than threefold increase over the prior RHNA cycle.

Although SCAG filed a formal objection, HCD did not alter SCAG’s RHNA. Using that metric, a similar increase in the Bay Area RHNA could result in a 6,855-unit allocation for Dublin.

The requirements for identifying eligible sites in the Housing Element is also an area of concern. Over the past three years, there has been additional scrutiny on sites identified in the Housing Element to meet the City’s RHNA. For example, HCD has indicated that sites smaller than 0.5 acres and larger than 10 acres will require supportive analysis to document the viability of a site for housing, and sites identified in the current Housing Element cannot be reused unless rezoned to allow by-right development. Thus, Staff anticipates that the City will need to rezone vacant and underutilized sites, and potentially commercial sites, to be able to accommodate our RHNA.

As shown in Table 3 below, ABAG expects that HCD will issue the Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND) for the nine-county Bay Area in April 2020. Between May and September 2020, ABAG will release the proposed methodology (i.e., how the RHND will be allocated to cities and counties), hold public hearings, and submit the draft methodology to HCD for review and approval. In January 2021, the final methodology should be adopted and ABAG will release the draft RHNA to jurisdictions.

Appeals can be submitted until March 2021, and decisions on appeals and the final RHNA will be issued by May 2021. The City will then have until December 2022 to adopt a Housing Element Update.

DRAFT
1411

Table 3: Key Milestones
Key Milestones Date
1 HCD issues Regional Housing Need Determination (RHDA) for the Bay Area
April 2020
2 ABAG releases proposed RHNA methodology May 2020
3 Public hearings on proposed RHNA methodology June 2020 4 ABAG releases draft RHNA methodology and submits to HCD for review September 2020 5 Final RHNA methodology adopted and draft RHNA released to jurisdictions
January 2021
6 Deadline for appeals March 2021
7 Decision on appeals and final RHNA issued to jurisdiction May 2021 8 Deadline to adopt Housing Element Update December 2022 Preparing for Housing Element Update
Senate Bill 2 established a permanent source of funding intended to increase affordable housing stock in California and directed HCD to use 50 percent of the revenue in the first year to establish a program that provides financial and technical assistance to local governments to update planning documents and zoning ordinances to streamline housing production. On October 15, 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for Senate Bill (SB) 2 grant funds.

On January 16, 2020, HCD approved the City’s SB 2 grant application totaling $310,000. The grant includes $55,000 to prepare an analysis of vacant and underutilized sites that could be used to accommodate the next RHNA allocation.

Staff will begin the site analysis described above later this year and develop a scope of work for the Housing Element Update. Staff anticipates the need to supplement staff resources with consultants to assist with preparation of the Housing Element Update and will be returning to the City Council later this year to select a consultant to begin this process.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

DRAFT
1412
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-8
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E.5 City Council Meeting #2
This Section contains materials prepared for the City Council meeting on October 6, 2020.

DRAFT
1413

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 6, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report and Status Update on the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive a report and status update on the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Each California city and county must update their General Plan Housing Element every eight years to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of 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.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report and provide feedback on the Housing Element Update.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

In July 2020, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving 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 City’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget sufficiently covers this cost, including $55,000 from an approved Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant. In addition, Staff anticipates the cost will be further offset by a pending, non-competitive $300,000 grant under the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant Program.

DESCRIPTION:

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, enacted in 1969, mandates 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
DRAFT
the Regional Housing Needs
1414

Allocation (RHNA) process.

The City’s current Housing Element covers the period of 2014-2022. The Housing Element must be updated and then certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by January 2023 for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Housing Element Update Planning Process
Following are the key phases of the Housing Element Update planning process, which Staff estimates will take approximately two years to complete:
▪ Baseline Analysis: Review current Housing Element policies and programs. ▪ Adequate Sites Identification: Evaluate current Housing Element sites and identify additional sites to meet RHNA.
▪ Community Engagement: Conduct online survey, stakeholder workshops, and Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
▪ Policy and Program Development: Develop policies and programs that constitute Housing Policy Plan.
▪ HCD Review: Prepare a Draft Housing Element and submit to HCD for an initial 60-day review.
▪ Public Hearings and Adoption: Hold public hearings with the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider adoption of the Housing Element Update and associated General Plan Amendments.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) is an advisory committee to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) composed of 35 members including elected officials, local jurisdiction staff members, and stakeholders, and is tasked with creating a methodology for distributing HCD’s Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) across the local jurisdictions in the nine-county Bay Area. Distribution of the RHND results in each jurisdiction’s RHNA, which is the total number of housing units that the jurisdiction must plan for in the next Housing Element update. State law provides a series of statutory objectives that must be met in the RHNA methodology, including increasing affordability in an equitable manner, improving the balance between low-wage jobs and lower-income housing (jobs-housing fit), and addressing equity and fair housing. The statute also requires “consistency” between the RHNA and regional plans, such as Plan Bay Area (PBA).

On June 10, 2020, HCD released the RHND for the Bay Area, which identified 441,176 units (2.35 times the 187,990 units required in the current RHNA cycle). 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 above-moderate income).

The HMC began meeting in October 2019 to prioritize different factors, consider weights for each factor, and develop a RHNA methodology. On September 14, 2020, the TriValley communities DRAFT
of Dublin, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon 1415

submitted joint letters to the HMC and ABAG Executive Board expressing concerns with the RHNA methodology under consideration and recommended a methodology that: 1) focuses housing allocations in areas with the highest concentrations of jobs; 2) takes account of geographic and other constraints to housing development; and 3) provides residents with access to viable transit and transportation options (refer to Attachments 1 and 2). On September 18, 2020, the HMC forwarded a recommendation to the ABAG Executive Committee to use Methodology Option 8A. This Option only partially addresses the concerns raised by the Tri-Valley communities. Although preliminary at this time, the recommended methodology would result in a RHNA of 3,630 total units for Dublin. Table 1 shows the City’s current and HMC’s recommended RHNA by income category.

Table 1: Current and Preliminary RHNA
Extremely /
Very Low
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
RHNA – Current 796 446 425 618 2,285
HMC
Recommendation
1,090 610 550 1,410 3,630
Percent Increase 136.93% 136.77% 129.41% 228.16% 158.86% As shown in Table 2 below, the ABAG Regional Planning Committee and ABAG Executive Board will review HMC’s recommendations in October 2020 and submit the draft methodology in winter 2021 to HCD for review and approval. In spring 2021, the final methodology should be adopted and ABAG will release the draft RHNA to jurisdictions. Appeals of the draft RHNA can be submitted until summer 2021, and decisions on appeals and the final RHNA will be issued by the end of 2021. The City will then have until January 2023 to adopt a Housing Element Update.

Table 2: Key Milestones
Key Milestones Date
1 ABAG Regional Planning Committee reviews proposed
RHNA Methodology
October 1, 2020
2 ABAG Executive Board reviews proposed RHNA
Methodology
October 15, 2020
3 ABAG submits draft RHNA Methodology to HCD for review Winter 2021 4 Final RHNA Methodology adopted and draft allocation
released to jurisdictions
Spring 2021
5 Deadline for appeals Summer 2021
6 Decision on appeals and final RHNA issued to jurisdiction End of 2021 7 Deadline to adopt Housing Element Update January 2023 Adequate Sites Identification
The Housing Element must include an inventory of specific sites or parcels that are available for residential development to meet the RHNA. Land suitable for residential development must be appropriate and available for residential use in the planning period. Characteristics to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of sites include physical features (e.g., susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development includes vacant sites that are zoned for residential development
DRAFT
, underutilized sites that are zoned for
1416

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 for, and/or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions).

Following is a summary of key considerations in identifying sites to meet the City’s RHNA:
▪ Density: Housing Element Law allows jurisdictions to assume that a site can be developed with housing affordable to low-income and very-low income households only if the site has the capacity to be developed at or above a certain default density. The default densities vary depending on the location and population of the jurisdiction. For Dublin, the default minimum density is 30 dwelling units per acre.
▪ Capacity: For all sites in the inventory, the jurisdiction must determine the number of units that can be realistically accommodated for all income categories.

Jurisdictions cannot assume development capacity for housing at a particular level of affordability based solely on land use controls and site development requirements. Jurisdictions must now also analyze: 1) realistic development capacity of the site; 2) typical densities of existing or approved developments at a similar affordability level; and 3) the current or planned availability and accessibility to sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities (e.g., gas and electricity). ▪ Use of Prior Housing Element Sites: Recent State law limits a jurisdiction’s ability to reuse sites from the prior RHNA cycle. Vacant sites identified in the last two housing elements and non-vacant sites identified in a prior housing element may not be counted towards RHNA unless: 1) the sites are zoned at the “default” density of 30 dwelling units per acre; or 2) the sites allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
▪ Use of Small and Large Sites: For a jurisdiction to count a site that is less than one-half acre or more than 10 acres towards its lower-income RHNA, the Housing Element must demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or provide other evidence that the site can be developed as lower-income housing.
▪ Use of Non-Vacant Sites: Prior to 2018, jurisdictions could rely on sites with existing uses to accommodate the RHNA to evaluate the sites development potential. Now, for non-vacant sites, jurisdictions must also: 1) demonstrate past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development; 2) analyze the current market demand for the existing use; and 3) assess any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site. When a jurisdiction relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent or more of its lower-income RHNA, HCD presumes the existing use will impede additional residential development, so the Housing Element must include site
DRAFT
-specific findings based
1417

on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
▪ Use of Vacant Non-Residential Sites: A jurisdiction may choose to identify vacant non-residential sites and rezone those sites to allow housing as part of the Housing Element Update or the Housing Element can include a program to accomplish the rezoning within the first three years of the planning period. The benefit of rezoning the sites as part of the Housing Element Update is that it ensures the Housing Element remains in compliance and allows environmental review of the rezoning to be accomplished as part of the Housing Element Update.
▪ Use of Sites with Current or Past Residential Uses: Sites that currently have, or in the past five years have had, deed restricted affordable housing for lowincome or very-low income households, rent-controlled housing, or housing occupied by low-income or very-low income households are subject to the replacement housing requirements described in Density Bonus Law. ▪ Adequate Sites Alternatives: A jurisdiction may receive credit for up to 25 percent of the RHNA obligation for any income category through the identification of sites for accessory dwelling units, substantial rehabilitation of housing units with committed assistance from the jurisdiction, conversion of market rate housing to affordable housing with assistance from the jurisdiction, and/or for units under construction between the beginning of the Housing Element projection period and the deadline for adopting the Housing Element (June 30, 2022 to January 31, 2023). Prioritizing land use policies to enable the City to accommodate a portion of RHNA through ADUs would align with the Tri-Valley Housing and Policy Framework.

No Net Loss
In addition to the key considerations in identifying sites to meet the City’s RHNA, the “No Net Loss” laws (including recently adopted AB 1397 and SB 166) ensure that jurisdictions do not downzone these “opportunity sites” after HCD certifies the Housing Element. Jurisdictions also cannot approve new housing at significantly lower densities or at different income categories than was projected in the Housing Element without making specific findings and identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability levels “lost” as a result of the approval. Similarly, jurisdictions cannot deny a project because it does not include units at the income categories identified in the Housing Element. In light of these requirements, it may be prudent to “overplan” RHNA sites so that the City has some flexibility in its future project approvals. Without such headroom, the City may often be forced to find additional sites each time it approves a residential project that does not meet the requirements at the lower income levels.

Preliminary Sites Inventory
Staff has done an initial review of sites that may be able to accommodate the potential RHNA under HMC’s recommended methodology where 3,630 units must be planned for in the next Housing Element update. A complete sites inventory and a more in-depth analysis will be completed as Staff delves further into the Housing Element Update and DRAFT
1418

reports back to the City Council. The following is initial information for illustrative purposes.

The current Housing Element includes 10 remaining vacant sites with a development capacity of 2,456 units. These residential sites are located predominantly in Eastern Dublin with a development capacity of 965 units, and Downtown Dublin with a capacity of 1,491 units. These sites may be reused in the Housing Element update if density is a minimum of 30 units per acre or if housing is permitted by right with a minimum of 20 percent lower-income affordable units. Only the Downtown Transit Oriented District (TOD) currently meets the minimum density requirement of 30 units per acre and has a capacity to provide 891 units. The current Housing Element sites can accommodate approximately 6,952 units (including the 891 units in the TOD) if all sites were “up zoned” to ensure a minimum density of 30 units per acre. Alternatively, if housing is permitted by right with a minimum of 20 percent lower-income affordable units provided, then the development capacity of current Housing Element sites is 2,456 units with no required modifications to existing permitted density. Refer to Attachment 3 for a map and table of existing Housing Element sites.

In addition to reusing prior Housing Element sites, the City could evaluate using other vacant residential sites, underutilized non-residential sites, and vacant non-residential sites. Vacant residential sites with existing residential land uses include a portion of At Dublin, and Dublin Transit Center Site D-1 which could accommodate 456 units, based upon current permitted density. Refer to Attachment 4 for a map and table of vacant residential sites.

The City could evaluate existing underutilized non-residential sites for redevelopment potential (i.e. sites with existing underutilized commercial and industrial uses). For example, based upon a preliminary analysis, approximately 13.59 acres on the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Dublin Court and Clark Avenue could be rezoned to accommodate housing and encourage redevelopment. Additionally, Hacienda Crossing could be rezoned to allow housing to supplement the existing commercial development within the shopping center.

Also, based upon preliminary analysis, Staff identified 10 vacant (i.e. undeveloped) nonresidential sites, totaling approximately 110.13 acres, that the City could consider rezoning to permit housing. Refer to Attachment 5 for a map and table of existing vacant non-residential sites.

Based upon this initial review, it appears likely that the City will not have enough undeveloped residential sites to accommodate the RHNA without having to reuse prior Housing Element sites and/or rezone non-residential sites to accommodate residential uses. Therefore, Staff is seeking feedback from the City Council to help guide this analysis and the identification of potential sites to accommodate the RHNA. Staff will return to the City Council to further discuss the sites inventory analysis once completed.

Questions for the City Council
Staff seeks preliminary feedback from the City Council on the following questions regarding the adequate sites
DRAFT
’ identification:
1419

▪ Prioritize Existing Sites or Study Non-Residential Sites: Prior Housing Element sites will not be able to be reused with the Housing Element Update unless they are rezoned to allow a minimum density of 30 units/acre or if housing is allowed by right with a minimum of 20 percent lower-income affordable units provided.

Should the City prioritize the reuse of prior Housing Element sites (Attachment 3) or convert non-residential sites to residential use?
▪ Prioritize Higher Densities or Housing-By-Right: If reusing prior Housing Element sites, should the City prioritize higher densities or by-right development? ▪ Prioritize Vacant or Underutilized Non-Residential Sites: If the City does not have an adequate supply of undeveloped sites or prior Housing Element sites to accommodate the RHNA, should the City prioritize the conversion of undeveloped non-residential sites or the conversion of developed but underutilized non-residential sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA? Prioritize ADUs: Up to 25 percent of the RHNA for each income category may be satisfied by ADUs under certain circumstances. These units would likely require a deed restriction to ensure they are rented to lower income households (which could require the City to offer programs such as financial incentives to encourage homeowners to deed restrict their ADUs). Should the City prioritize land use policies that would enable the City to accommodate a portion of the RHNA through ADUs? Identify Surplus Sites: Due to the “No Net Loss” laws, should the City identify more sites than are required to accommodate RHNA to maintain flexibility should properties be developed without the required number of deed restricted affordable units? The City Council will have more in-depth discussion about potential Housing Element sites with site-specific data in early 2021.

Next Steps
A tentative project schedule for the Housing Element Update is included as Attachment

6. Table 3 provides a summary of next steps:

Table 3: Next Steps
Next Steps Date
1 Launch Housing Element Update Webpage on the City’s
Website
Fall 2020
2 Evaluate Current Housing Element Fall 2020 - Winter 2021 3 Analyze/Identify Adequate Housing Sites Fall 2020 - Winter 2021 4 Check-In Meeting #2 – Review Adequate Sites Analysis Winter/Spring 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The informational report on the Housing Element Update is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing Opportunities.

DRAFT
1420

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:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Tri-Valley Cities Letter to Housing Methodology Committee, dated September 14, 2020

2. Tri-Valley Cities Letter to ABAG Executive Board, dated September 14, 2020

3. Map and Table of Existing Housing Element Sites

4. Map and Table of Vacant Residential Sites Not Identified in Current Housing Element

5. Map and Table of Vacant Non-Residential Sites

6. Housing Element Update Tentative Schedule
DRAFT
1421
Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON September 14, 2020
Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Chair
Housing Methodology Committee
Association of Bay Area Governments
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105-2066
Dear Chair Arreguín:

On behalf of the Tri-Valley cities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we are writing to express our concern about the methodology options that will be considered by the Housing Methodology Committee on September 18.

The Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) appreciate the urgency of the statewide housing crisis and the responsibility of local jurisdictions to address this important issue. Each of our five cities has taken significant steps over recent years to facilitate the construction of both market-rate and affordable housing – evidenced by the construction of more than 10,300 new housing units since the start of the last Housing Element cycle – these efforts have made the Tri-Valley one of the fastest-growing regions in the Bay Area and the State. Through dedicated affordable housing projects, application of inclusionary ordinances, and policies to encourage ADUs, we have also made progress towards fulfilling our affordable housing needs, although, as has been experienced by most cities, the lack of funding for lower-income housing continues to present a significant challenge.

We very much appreciate the efforts and dedication of the HMC in addressing the significant challenges presented by the upcoming 6th Cycle RHNA process. Although we commend the HMC’s prior decision to utilize the Plan Bay Area 2050 Households Baseline in the methodology, we would urge reconsideration of the currently proposed methodologies and factors, in order to more appropriately balance the RHNA Statutory Objectives identified in State Law including equity and fair housing goals, as well as those related to efficient growth patterns and GHG reductions.

Methodology options 5A and 6A that will be under consideration by the HMC on September 18, have significant flaws. In particular, both place a disproportionate emphasis on factors that allocate RHNA to high opportunity areas, without consideration of the negative consequences of the resultant land use patterns. The following points reflect our specific concerns regarding the proposed methodology options:
• The options do not adequately address factors related to transit and jobs proximity, and fail to take into account the lack of high-quality transit within the Tri-Valley, and distance from the major employment centers of the South Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco. The methodologies allocate growth in a manner that will promote auto dependency and longer commute times, exacerbate GHG impacts, and run counter to the goals and objectives well-formulated and strongly articulated in the recently released Plan Bay Attachment 1
DRAFT
1422
Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON Area Blueprint. This is also counter to RHNA Statutory Objective 2: Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns. • The options push significant housing allocations into the outer ring of Bay Area suburbs, including the Tri-Valley, exacerbating the jobs/housing imbalance, and compelling long commutes to distant jobs centers. Even in our relatively jobs-rich Tri-Valley cities, data shows that many of our residents, today, commute significant distances to work. This comes at a significant cost: not just in negative environmental consequences, but as time spent away from families, and a further strain on household finances, particularly for lower-income households.
• Our smaller cities have limited land area and sites that are candidates for re-zoning.

Significant RHNA allocations may have the unintended consequence of causing speculative increases in land values, and create pressure to develop agricultural and open space lands, areas subject to natural hazards, and other sensitive resources.

Given these concerns, we would urge the Committee to reject the current options 5A and 6A, and consider methodology options that emphasize factors and factor weightings that 1) focus housing allocations in areas most proximate to the highest concentrations of jobs, and particularly where jobs growth has outpaced recent housing production (e.g jobs proximity factors); 2) provide realistic allocations that take account of geographic and other constraints to housing development (e.g. urbanized land area factors); and 3) provide residents with access to viable transit and transportation options that do not add to regional congestion, commute times, and household transportation costs (e.g. transit proximity factors).

Thank you for your consideration of these important concerns.

Respectfully,
DRAFT
1423
Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON September 14, 2020
Mayor Jesse Arreguín, President
Association of Bay Area Governments, Executive Board
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105-2066
Dear Board President Arreguín:

On behalf of the Tri-Valley cities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we are writing to express our concern about the methodology options that will be considered by the Housing Methodology Committee on September 18.

The Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) appreciate the urgency of the statewide housing crisis and the responsibility of local jurisdictions to address this important issue. Each of our five cities has taken significant steps over recent years to facilitate the construction of both market-rate and affordable housing – evidenced by the construction of more than 10,300 new housing units since the start of the last Housing Element cycle – these efforts have made the Tri-Valley one of the fastest-growing regions in the Bay Area and the State. Through dedicated affordable housing projects, application of inclusionary ordinances, and policies to encourage ADUs, we have also made progress towards fulfilling our affordable housing needs, although, as has been experienced by most cities, the lack of funding for lower-income housing continues to present a significant challenge.

We very much appreciate the efforts and dedication of the HMC in addressing the significant challenges presented by the upcoming 6th Cycle RHNA process. Although we commend the HMC’s prior decision to utilize the Plan Bay Area 2050 Households Baseline in the methodology, we would urge reconsideration of the currently proposed methodologies and factors, in order to more appropriately balance the RHNA Statutory Objectives identified in State Law including equity and fair housing goals, as well as those related to efficient growth patterns and GHG reductions.

Methodology options 5A and 6A that will be under consideration by the HMC on September 18, have significant flaws. In particular, both place a disproportionate emphasis on factors that allocate RHNA to high opportunity areas, without consideration of the negative consequences of the resultant land use patterns. The following points reflect our specific concerns regarding the proposed methodology options:
• The options do not adequately address factors related to transit and jobs proximity, and fail to take into account the lack of high-quality transit within the Tri-Valley, and distance from the major employment centers of the South Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco. The methodologies allocate growth in a manner that will promote auto dependency and longer commute times, exacerbate GHG impacts, and run counter to the goals and objectives well-formulated and strongly articulated in the recently released Plan Bay Area Blueprint. This is also counter to RHNA Statutory Objective 2: Promoting infill Attachment 2
DRAFT
1424
Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns. • The options push significant housing allocations into the outer ring of Bay Area suburbs, including the Tri-Valley, exacerbating the jobs/housing imbalance, and compelling long commutes to distant jobs centers. Even in our relatively jobs-rich Tri-Valley cities, data shows that many of our residents, today, commute significant distances to work. This comes at a significant cost: not just in negative environmental consequences, but as time spent away from families, and a further strain on household finances, particularly for lower-income households.
• Our smaller cities have limited land area and sites that are candidates for re-zoning.

Significant RHNA allocations may have the unintended consequence of causing speculative increases in land values, and create pressure to develop agricultural and open space lands, areas subject to natural hazards, and other sensitive resources.

Given these concerns, we would urge the Executive Board to reject the current options 5A and 6A, and consider methodology options that emphasize factors and factor weightings that 1) focus housing allocations in areas most proximate to the highest concentrations of jobs, and particularly where jobs growth has outpaced recent housing production (e.g jobs proximity factors); 2) provide realistic allocations that take account of geographic and other constraints to housing development (e.g. urbanized land area factors); and 3) provide residents with access to viable transit and transportation options that do not add to regional congestion, commute times, and household transportation costs (e.g. transit proximity factors).

Thank you for your consideration of these important concerns.

Respectfully,
DRAFT
1425
(1) (1)
(6)
(8) (2) (3)
(10)
(5)
(9)
(4)
(7)
(12)
(13)
(11)

C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y

S A N R A M O N

P L E A S A N T O N

C A M P P A R K S
( P a r k s R F T A )

TASSAJARA RD TASSAJARA RD

DUBLIN BL

DUBLINBL

STAGECOACH RD

BRODER BL

DOUGHERTY RD

ARNOLD RD
VOMAC
RD

PEPPERTREE
RD

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BARNET BL

AMARILLORD

W VOMAC R D

FALLON RD

FA LLONRD

DUBLIN BL

DUBLINBL

SAN RAMON RD

CENTRAL PW

CENTRAL PW

I R ONHORSE PW

VILLAGE PW
AMADOR
PLAZA
RD

GLEASONDR

POSITANO PW

CROAK RD

MADIGAN RD
/
Ci t y o f D u blin
Camp Parks RFTA
City of Dublin
City of Dublin, Sphere of Influence
Right of Ways
Existing Housing Element Sites
2015-2023 Housing Element
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles
Existing Housing Element Sites
Attachment 3
DRAFT
1426
Table of Existing Housing Element Sites
No. Project Min.

Units
Max.

Units
Potential
Units
Potential
Affordability
GP Land
Use
APN Lot Size
(Acres)
Zoning Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Potential
Density
Existing Use
(1) Croak 104 692 346 Above
Moderate
Low
Density
905-0002-
002
905-0002-
001-01
115.4 PD 0.9 6.0 3.0 Vacant
(2) Righetti 59 134 77 Above
Moderate
Medium
Density
905-0001-
005-02

9.6 PD 6.1 14.0 8.0 Vacant
(3) Branaugh 59 136 78 Above
Moderate
Medium
Density
905-0001-
004-04

9.7 PD 6.1 14.0 8.0 Vacant
(4) Kobold 12 28 16 Above
Moderate
Medium
Density
985-0072-
002

2.0 PD 6.1 14.0 8.0 Rural
Homesite
(5) McCabe 6 14 10 Moderate Medium
Density
986-0028-
002

1.0 PD 6.1 14.0 10.0 SingleFamily Home
(6) Croak 63 146 104 Moderate Medium
Density
905-0002-
001-01

10.4 PD 6.1 14.0 10.0 Vacant
(7) Tipper 50 115 82 Moderate Medium
Density
986-0004-
01 8.2 PD 6.1 14.0 10.0 Agricultural
(8) Anderson 99 175 108 Moderate MediumHigh
Density
905-0001-
006-03

7.0 PD 14.1 25.0 15.4 Vacant
(9) Beltran /
Sperfslage
45 80 64 Moderate MediumHigh
Density
986-0003-
001-02

3.2 PD 14.1 25.0 20.0 Vacant
(10) Chen 56 100 80 Moderate MediumHigh
Density
985-0027-
002

4.0 PD 14.1 25.0 20.0 Vacant
(11) Village
Parkway
- - 200 Above
Moderate
Downtown
Dublin –
Village
Parkway
District
- - DDZD None 15.0 - Varies
(12) Retail - - 400 Lower
Income
Downtown
Dublin –
Retail
District
- - DDZD 22.0 - - Varies
(13) TransitOriented- - 891 Lower
Income
Downtown
Dublin –
TransitOriented
District
- - DDZD 30.0 85.0 - Varies
DRAFT
1427

C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y

S A N R A M O N

P L E A S A N T O N

C A M P P A R K S
( P a r k s R F T A )

DUBLIN BL

TASSAJARA RD

STAGECOACH RD

BRODER BL

DOUGHERTY RD

ARNOLD RD

A MADORVALLEY BL

BARNET BL

FALLON RD

DUBLINBL

CENTRAL PW

I RO NHORSE PW

VILLAGE PW
AMADOR

PLAZA RD

GLEASONDR

POSITANO PW

CROAKRD

MADIGAN RD

CROAK RD
/
Ci t y o f D u blin
Camp Parks RFTA
City of Dublin
City of Dublin, Sphere of Influence
Right of Ways
Vacant Residential Sites (Not Identified in Current Housing Element) 2015-2023 Housing Element
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles
Vacant Residential Sites (Not Identified in Current Housing Element) Attachment 4
DRAFT
1428
Table of Vacant Residential Sites (Not Identified in Current Housing Element) No. Address or Name APN Lot Size
(Acreage)
Potential Units GP Land Use Zoning
(1) At Dublin 985-0051-006-00
985-0052-024-00
985-0052-025-00

12.8 261 Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
PD
(2) Dublin Transit Center, Site D-1 986-0034-013-01 2.46 195 Campus Office PD DRAFT
1429

C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y

S A N R A M O N

P L E A S A N T O N

C A M P P A R K S
( P a r k s R F T A )

TASSAJARA RD

DUBLIN BL

STAGECOACH RD

BRODER BL

DOUGHERTY RD

ARNOLD RD

AMADOR VALLEY BL

BARNET BL

FALLON RD

DUBLIN BL

CENTRAL PW

I RO NHORSE PW

VILLAGE PW
AMADOR
PLAZA
RD

GLEASON DR

POSITANO PW

CROAKRD

MADIGAN RD

CROAK RD
/
Ci t y o f D u blin
Camp Parks RFTA
City of Dublin
City of Dublin, Sphere of Influence
Right of Ways
Vacant Non-Residential Sites
2015-2023 Housing Element
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles
Vacant Non-Residential Sites
Attachment 5
DRAFT
1430
Table of Vacant Non-Residential Sites
No. Address or Name APN Lot Size
(Acreage)
GP Land Use Zoning
(1) At Dublin 985-0051-005-00
985-0051-006-00
985-0052-024-00
985-0052-025-00

67.3 General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
PD
(2) Gleason Drive 986-0005-038-01 12.79 Public/Semi-Public Facility PD (3) Dublin Blvd. 985-0061-012-00 8.14 General Commercial PD (4) 4020 Grafton Street 985-0061-015-00 2.08 General Commercial PD (5) Dublin Transit Center, Site D-2 986-0034-014-00 6.43 Campus Office PD (6) Dublin Transit Center, Site E-2 986-0034-012-00 7.66 Campus Office PD (7) 5751 Arnold Road 986-0014-013-00 5.73 Campus Office PD DRAFT
1431
City of Dublin Housing Element Update
Project Schedule
TASK Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 PROJECT INITIATION
Kick-off Meeting
Contract Approval
On-going Project Coordination
2 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Document Review
Evaluate Current Housing Element
Housing Needs, Constraints, Resources and Profile
Housing Policy Plan
3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community Outreach Plan
Online Community Survey
Stakeholder Workshops (2)
Planning Commission Study Session
City Council Check-ins (4)
4 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Screencheck Draft
Public Review Draft
HCD Submittal Draft
Response to HCD Comments
Final Draft Housing Element
5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Land Use Element Revisions
Codes Amendments - Rezones
Safety Element Revisions
Environmental Justice Policies
6 PLAN ADOPTION
CEQA Compliance
Public Hearings
HCD Certification
General Plan Consistency Amendments
Kimley-Horn / City Staff
Public Meetings
2020 2021 2022
9/24/2020
Attachment 6
DRAFT
1432
City of Dublin Housing Element Update
Project Schedule
TASK Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 PROJECT INITIATION
2 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
4 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
6 PLAN ADOPTION
2020 2021 2022
9/24/2020 DRAFT
1433
Appendix F: Community Engagement Summary F-9
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E.6 City Council Meeting #3
This Section contains materials prepared for the City Council meeting on June 15, 2021.

DRAFT
1434

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL