10/25/2022 Dublin Planning Commission Meeting – HE Update

​

- Background

    - Michael Cass: HE components are:

        - Chapter 1: introduction

        - Chapter 2: housing plan

        - Appendix A: review of past performance

        - Appendix B: community profile

        - Appendix C: housing constraints, resources, and affirmatively furthering fair housing

        - Appendix D: adequate sites analysis

        - Appendix E: housing plan programs summary

        - Appendix F: community engagement summary

        - Appendix G: glossary of terms

    - MC: To accommodate 755 remaining low and very low income housing units not covered by currently existing sites inventory, sites ared

    - MC: Timeline:

        - Public review: 4/15 - 5/15, 2022

        - Planning Commission: 4/26

        - City Council: 5/17

        - HCD: 5/27 - 8/29

        - HE are now revised

    - MC: Changes are:

        - Transit center sites D-2 and E-2:

            - Campus office currently exists there, a proposal by HCD is to change it to campus office/high density residential

            - Also a proposal to update residential household size to 2.99 persons per unit based on the 2020 Census

            - SB 1035 requires HE addresses seismic safety elements such as flood hazards and fire hazards

            - AB 2140 is an optional provision that would make Dublin eligible for public assistance funding for environmental and emergency services – changes are to attachment 4 (seismic safety elements), page 14 and attachment 2, page 10

            - SB 1000 requires local governments to identify disadvantaged communities and incorporate environmental justice into their general plans – however, it’s been determined that Dublin does not have any communities that fit the definition, so the city is not required to make any changes

        - Downtown Dublin specific plan amendments:

            - Non-vacant sites identified in a prior HE must be zoned at minimum 30 du/ac and allow residential use by right for projects with at least 20% of units affordable to lower-income households – Dublin already meets the requirements

            - City is proposing to exempt something – didn’t quite catch what it was

        - Rezoning:

            - Proposed amendments for transit center sites: change land use designation, add 715 residential units, approve a stage 2 development plan, and specifying development must comply with citywide multifamily design standards

            - Proposed amendments for Hacienda Crossings: adding multi-family residential as a permitted use, establish development standards (E.g. parking, minimum sidewalk width, minimum density), specifying development must comply with citywide multifamily design standards, adding language so the shopping center is more mixed-used and pedestrian-friendly 

        - Environmental:

            - No major CEQA flags

    - MC: Staff recommendation is to adopt the initial study/negative declaration, approve HE, approve amendments, and do some other things

- Comments

    - Renata Tyler: How many units have been built to date during this cycle (5th)?

        - MC: As of December of last year, 5,022 units

    - Kashef Qaadri: What’s the impact of bumping the household size to 2.99?

        - MC: Impacts our population projections

        - KQ: But that doesn’t affect our rezoning?

        - MC: No

    - KQ: What is going on with the PD-zoning programs? What’s that about?

        - Kristie Wheeler: There are programs that help to mitigate the challenges that PD-zoning presents

    - KQ: What have we learned from this HE cycle to help guide us through the challenges of this upcoming HE?

        - MC: We have over 40 programs all designed to help with housing units, homeownership, etc. and there are other amendments and such. We can’t do everything, but there are other things that Dublin can look into.

    - Stephen Wright: The county owns the transit center sites?

        - MC: Yes

        - SW: What is their position on the changes?

        - MC: They are supportive

    - SW: What happens if we don’t meet the HE requirements? What is the penalty?

        - MC: A series of laws come into play that can potentially limit local control of land use (e.g. SB 35)

    - Janine Thalblum: Moderate vs low – we have a need for low income units. What is the point of having a 50% requirement of market rate housing for developments?

        - MC: The 50/50 affordable/market rate stipulation was intended to diversify the housing stock so that affordable housing isn’t concentrated

    - Matthew Aini: Where’s the AB 2097 eligibility for the Hacienda Crossings sites?

        - MC: We’re in the early stages of analyzing the legislation, but the sites are directly adjacent to the BART station, so they probably will be exempt from parking requirements

    - No public speakers

- Motion to approve everything passes 6-0 unanimously

​

Speakers:

- Michael Cass, Principal Planner for the City of Dublin

- Renata Tyler, Planning Commissioner for the City of Dublin

- Kashef Qaadri, Alternate Planning Commissioner for the City of Dublin

- Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director for the City of Dublin

- Stephen Wright, Planning Commissioner for the City of Dublin

- Janine Thalblum, Planning Commissioner for the City of Dublin

- Matthew Aini, Alternate Planning Commissioner for the City of Dublin

05/17/2022 Dublin City Council Housing Elements Meeting

​

- Presentation

    - Michael Cass, Dublin Principal Planner: Housing plan programs were developed from successful components of current HE as well as analysis throughout the current HE process including housing needs, available land and financial resources, new legislative requirements, etc.

    - MC: Adequate sites analysis includes inventory of specific parcels suitable for development and then categorized by income level

    - MC: Remaining need is 720 units. This number has changed due to some recent developments like the East Ranch project and guidance from ABAG.

        - Melissa Hernandez, Dublin Mayor: Can we change things in the draft HE at a later date?

        - MC: Once we submit to HCD, we will receive their feedback. We can also add in revisions if new info (such as new developments) comes into play.

    - MC: Planning Commission considered draft HE in April, and now we are waiting for the Council’s consideration tonight for submission to HCD. After that, we’ll work on an environmental review and review and eventual adoption of the HE.

    - MC: We received additional comments regarding the draft HE earlier today, but the recommendation is to adopt the draft HE tonight to submit to HCD

- Questions/Comments

    - Shawn Kumagai, Dublin Councilmember: What was the new info, and were we able to abide by all the recommendations and incorporate them into the draft HE?

        - MC: We did two things: first, ABAG published an analysis of 33 comment letters from jurisdictions before us. We were in line with the vast majority of the comments – this is one of the reasons why we hired Kimley-Horn as a consultant. We also participated in a county-wide housing collaborative, and we had our draft HE peer-reviewed by other housing experts in the areas.

        - SK: So prior to submitting to HCD, we will incorporate all of that feedback?

        - MC: Correct

    - SK: Can we add labor requirements into the draft HE?

        - John Bakker, Dublin City Attorney: I don’t think we can legally incorporate that, but I think we can do this outside the HE. We can look into it if the Council desires.

        - SK: There is legislation moving right now regarding union labor requirements. If the state can do it, we can probably incorporate those constraints using our legislative powers? It requires prevailing wage, medical benefits, etc.

        - JB: As the state is currently proposing it, it doesn’t need the union labor to be skilled labor. Some of the other legislation like SB 35 does require skilled labor or apprenticeships. We can do an analysis later this year before the draft HE is returned back to the city.

        - SK: Would we need to resubmit for another review if we added it later?

        - JB: We’re working on that and will do what’s lawful

    - Matthew Aini, Dublin Alternate Planning Commissioner: Draft HE is well done based on feasibility. Like the community engagement process, which is detailed in nearly a quarter of the draft HE. Adequate choice of sites, and especially happy to see the city is having the conversations on how to revitalize the Hacienda Crossing Center. Concerns moving forward include a firm commitment to lowering the amount of parking and emphasizing micro-mobility at heavy-density transit-oriented development areas. Concerns about the parcels at the Hacienda Crossing Center include why we chose the northeast corner of the shopping center. The Southwest corner would be much closer to BART in terms of mobility.

    - Daniel Gregg, Representative from the Carpenters NorCal Union Local 713: We’ve heard from people in the development community that labor is too expensive. The truth is there is a shortage of opportunity, not labor. Dublin needs to be especially focused on this, which will open pathways for labor opportunities, new technologies, and the expedition of new developments. We are asking Dublin to place local hires and general apprenticeship requirements for developments larger than ten units. We also would like health, insurance, and other benefits guaranteed. Local 713 is prepared to assist in closing the labor gap in Dublin and the Bay Area.

    - Jean Josey, Dublin Vice Mayor: Great job by staff, I support submission to HCD

    - MH: Agree with Jean Josey. I will also add that we’re trying to become more green, and we appreciate the effort to increase walkability and prioritize transit.

    - SK: From draft HEs that have already been submitted by other cities, have we seen other cities incorporate labor requirements?

        - Dave Barquist, Planning Practice Builder/Shareholder at Kimley-Horn & Associates: We’re seeing some stuff on that from cities in SoCal; some of those cities have been talking about this. Happy to share that info if the Council would like to see it.

- City Council motion to submit draft HE to HCD passes 5-0

03/15/2022 Dublin City Council Housing Elements Update

​

NOTE: The presentation tonight is the same as the one provided at the 03/08/2022 Dublin Planning Commission – which I provided notes for – so I will only be noting feedback/comments from tonight’s City Council meeting.

​

- Questions/Feedback

    - Melissa Hernandez: If a developer wants to build more than just housing on the Alameda County Surplus Properties, can they do that?

        - Linda Smith, Michael Cass: Yes, it’s currently got that land use designation and will keep that. But if the developer wants to build office campuses, that would need to go to other land.

        - Shawn Kumagai: So why wouldn’t we just propose mixed use land designation here? Is it because if less housing is built here, we would need to build housing elsewhere?

        - MC: Yes

    - SK: For SCS, we are not planning on allowing other uses besides housing for that land because we need all of it for the 150 units of affordable housing?

        - MC: Yes

        - SK: I would agree, we need it for housing

    - Michael McCorriston: I want to be clear that this is all about planning and looking forward. There’s no-net-loss – if we can’t build the sufficient number of units on a site, then we have to build that elsewhere.

        - MC: Yes

    - MM: If you’re putting a road through the downtown sites, how does that work in terms of where we would build housing?

        - MC: Clarification: we’re not responsible for determining where on the parcel we would build the housing. That’s up to the developer.

    - SK: Do the consultants have experience with HEs that have already been submitted by other cities and what the HCD feedback has been for those?

        - Bill Wiseman: There are some from SCAG. The HEs there are about what the infill potential of the sites proposed is. When you start to think about financing, developers, etc. then you’re going into more detail. In this current legislative environment, there’s going to be back-and-forth.

        - SK: So what is HCD looking for in terms of infill development? What’s the feedback like?

        - BW: General expectation based on historical projects and feasibility in terms of infrastructure constraint and environmental concerns. The biggest piece is historical development (i.e. “show us when this has been done before”).

    - Sherry Hu: Do we need to pay for the Alameda County Surplus Properties land?

        - LS: No

    - SH: For the SCS Property: has the 

        - LS: No, the Council has adopted the preferred plan for the property, which had an identified affordable housing site. We accommodated it in our RHNA because it seems like the Council wants to see that part of it through, and we believe there will be a developer who would be willing to take that up. That’s a 2.5 acre area, which we would calculate to 150 units, and that’s why we included the 150 units for that site in the third option.

        - SH: So we did not include this before?

        - LS: No

    - SH: I know we discussed a 50% buffer. What was the logic behind that? I forgot.

        - MC: Because of no-net-loss, we can afford to not have a 100% buffer

    - Jean Josey: If a site ended up developing more affordable units than originally envisioned, does that mean we can put less affordable units on another site?

        - MC: I don’t believe we can downzone a property, that might be part of the no-net-loss provision

        - JJ: I’m not talking about downzoning. I’m talking about if a property had overproduction, can a future developer on another site underproduce?

        - BW: We can’t do that in practice, and there may be legal hurdles. Also, we have to use affordability as a criterion along with density to evaluate on a site by site basis. 

        - JJ: But what I’m saying is that we can use no-net-loss in a situation where a developer doesn’t produce

    - SH: Can we count the East Ranch property’s affordable housing units?

        - MC: Unfortunately, we can’t anymore because of the recent referendum to repeal that site. This will just revert to the 5th HE cycle.

    - MM: I prefer option C because it gives us more flexibility

    - SK: I prefer option C with the caveat of exploring a better balance of affordability. On the Alameda County Surplus Properties, how would that work? We wouldn’t be changing the land use designations?

        - LS: We would be changing the land use designations

        - SK: Ah, ok – then we’re doing the county a favor

        - MM: Are you saying the 150 units are not doable?

        - SK: Yea, I don’t know how we’re going to get 150 units on that site on SCS

        - LS: In our preferred plan, it goes up to 200 units

        - SK: Yes, but I’m saying why can’t we bring over some of the moderate- and above moderate-income units over from the other sites if we’re already bringing over some low- and very low-income units?

        - MC: You would need to then reallocate some of the low- and very low-income units back to the other properties then

        - SK: Right, but otherwise it just doesn’t seem very realistic

        - JJ: But we don’t need to add moderate-income units to SCS, we already know a developer would develop the low- and very low-income units. And we don’t need to designate any additional moderate- and above-moderate units beyond what we already have allocated for the Alameda County Surplus Property and Hacienda Crossings. For the SCS Property, we’re not saying we will only build low- and very low-income units on that site, we just want to say that we can allocate those units to that site. So I’m for option C.

        - SK: So we’re rezoning that site? Because that site isn’t currently zoned for housing.

        - LS: We would be changing the land use designation to a public/semi-public usage

        - LS: So what SK would be asking for is an additional 150 moderate- and above moderate-units to SCS for an option C.1

        - JJ: I don’t see the point in that

        - MM: Is JJ saying she’s worried that any new moderate- and above moderate-income units would displace the 150 low- and very low-income units already allocated for SCS?

        - JJ: No, I just don’t see the point for us to go above our RHNA. And I know that the Alameda County Surplus Property and Hacienda Crossings need the allocated low- and very low-income units.

        - MM: I see that point, I’m just confused on why we are arguing for 150 low- and very low-income units to SCS?

        - MH, LS: Well, we can change that number. We would just move the numbers around to the other sites.

        - JJ: But if we take out 50 low- and very low-income units out of SCS, then we need to add 100 total units out to the other two sites combined.

    - SH: I prefer to go with option C. We’re just planning right now, and we can always make changes later.

    - MH: It looks like we all like option C, we’re just waiting for more info from the city staff on the numbers

    - MH: Weren’t we looking at a part of the downtown site for retail?

        - LS: That was the original intention, but the developer has its own vision for that site. We are trying to negotiate in good faith as we move forward as we bridge together the developer’s vision and the city’s vision.

        - MH: Yea, we were also thinking of putting senior housing in that area, so that site should have the retail and groceries for accessibility

    - LS: Everyone seems to be ok with the placement of the sites

​

Speakers/Presenters:

- Melissa Hernandez, Dublin Mayor

- Linda Smith, Dublin City Manager

- Michael Cass, Dublin Principal Planner

- Shawn Kumagai, Dublin City Councilmember

- Michael McCorriston, Dublin City Councilmember

- Bill Wiseman, Planning Practice Leader at Kimley-Horn

- Sherry Hu, Dublin City Councilmember

- Jean Josey, Dublin Vice Mayor

03/08/2022 Dublin Planning Commission Housing Elements Update

​

- Bill Wiseman: Overview of HE

    - One of the seven mandated elements (11 elements in total) of the General Plan

    - HE focused on housing needs + supply through income categories, includes goals, policies, + objectives

    - Involves HCD certification

- BW: Why are HE updated?

    - Compliance with state laws

    - Demonstration of the city’s ability to meet existing + projected housing needs

    - Eligibility for state-sponsored assistance programs

    - Engagement from community in planning

    - Prevents state from penalizing the city

- BW: Five HE requirements

    - Population + housing profile (demographics)

    - Evaluation of housing constraints + resources

    - Evaluation of existing housing programs + policies

    - Analysis of sites to accommodate the city’s RHNA

    - Policies, programs, + quantified objectives to achieve the city’s housing goals

- BW: Outreach to date

    - City Council check-ins October 2020 + November 2021

    - Community workshops 1/19/22 + 2/17/22

    - Online community survey from December 2021 - February 2022

    - One-on-one property owner meetings

- BW: What is a RHNA?

    - Quantifies the need for housing within each city/county in CA

    - Really looks at future growth in population, employment, etc.

    - HCD → ABAG → Dublin (3,719 for 2023-2031 cycle)

    - 1,085 very low income; 625 low income; 560 moderate income; 1,449 above moderate income

        - 2021 AMI for a family of four in Alameda County is $125,600

- Ines Galmiche: Candidate sites

    - Dublin doesn’t actually have to commit to building these units, it just needs to show that it can accommodate them through zoning

    - Candidate sites must consider access to resources, barriers, transportation, etc.

    - Sources of RHNA units

        - Pipeline projects (currently in review with the city): 2,723 total units

        - ADUs: 248 units (city estimates 26 units/year)

        - 5th Cycle: 252 units (transferred over)

        - Public/Semi-public sites: 134 units

        - Downtown Dublin: 414 units

        - Remaining need: moderate- + above-moderate units requirement met; remaining 644 units, all low- + very low-income units

    - Additional proposed sites: Alameda County surplus properties, Hacienda Crossings, SCS Property (only included in option C out of three options)

        - Option A leans heavy on Alameda County surplus properties for the low- + very low-income units

        - Option B splits the units between the Alameda County surplus properties + Hacienda Crossings

        - Option C leans heavy on the Alameda County surplus properties + Hacienda Crossings, with less units on the SCS Property

- IG: New policy program requirements

    - Existing HE goals

        - Expand housing choice + multi-modal transportation opportunities

        - Expand housing opportunities for all segments of the population

        - Use public + private resources to maintain + enhance existing residential neighborhood characteristics

        - Provide housing opportunities for all Dublin residents

        - Promote energy efficiency + conservation

    - New policy program topics

        - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

        - Promotion of ADU + JADU development*

        - Objective development standards*

        - SB 35 streamlining

        - Emergency shelters, transitional + supportive housing, + lower barrier navigation centers*

        - Housing for persons with developmental disabilities*

        - Farmworker + employee housing*

        - Density bonus + removal of development constraints*

        - * = Addressed in current HE, but modifications required

- IG: Next steps

    - Already done two virtual community workshops + done a community survey

    - Currently doing a Planning Commission study tonight, seeking feedback on the HE update

    - City Council study next week

    - Planning Commission review on 4/26

    - City Council review on 5/17

- Questions + Comments from the Planning Commission

    - Steven Wright: Where does 205 respondents rank for the community survey based on our population?

        - IG: 205 is a good number, we got more later on due to the city’s outreach efforts

        - SW: How does your firm feel about a survey vs a poll?

        - IG: We like surveys to get more feedback + give more options to share

        - SW: Any language accessibility?

        - IG: Yes, we had the survey online translated in Mandarin

    - SW: How many residents actually attended the workshops?

        - IG: Not sure

        - Michael Cass: A little less than a dozen at the first, 15-20 at the second

    - SW: When residents find out what RHNA means, they often wonder if this is state-mandated or if this is a concerted city effort? What happens if the city doesn’t meet the RHNA?

        - IG: RHNA is state-mandated + the city must show it is compliant. In a no-net-loss situation: the city needs to identify new sites to accommodate those lost units, but the city does not need to re-update the General Plan.

        - SW: How does the state penalize non-compliant cities?

        - IG: Loss of program access, loss of access to funds, etc. 

        - MC: To clarify: the city is required to plan for the RHNA number, but not required to actually build those units. We just need to make sure our zoning allows for it.

    - SW: I know the city is trying to increase its low- + very low-income housing units. Is that separate from this process? I haven’t heard the state punishing us about it.

        - Kristie Wheeler: Like Michael said, we’re not penalized if we don’t build the units, we just need to make sure we can accommodate them. That said, we have projects in the pipeline that will help us grow our number of low- + very-low income units. The city is also doing adequately in providing funding + land for these projects.

        - SW: It seems like these plans are market-driven – is that accurate? Or the city has to use other ways to encourage builders to diversify our housing.

        - IG: There are also things like the rezone strategy or affordable housing programs that the city can do to make sure we are accommodating those units

    - SW: Why do we have three options + why SCS is only included in the third option?

        - MC: Through City Council direction. The Council prioritized the Alameda County surplus properties + Hacienda Crossings sites in a previous meeting. We don’t know why. In addition, there have been other discussions on how the SCS Property can be developed. The Council recently approved a preferred site vision + we realized we could use it to help us for our RHNA. The Council next week will give some direction on those alternatives + what they would like to see.

    - SW: I personally would favor Option C because it’s important to have SCS shared + included in the responsibilities for low- + very low-income housing

    - Janine Thalblum: Appreciate the city’s effort to push back/appeal those RHNA numbers – unfortunately it didn’t work out. I believe one of our neighboring cities has gotten in trouble with consistent non-compliance?

        - KW: Yes, Pleasanton – it’s been a couple of years, but it has happened. I think we’ll also see HCD be more aggressive this time with punishing non-compliant cities.

        - JT: Thanks, just wanted to point out to the public that we can’t just not do this

    - JT: Hacienda Crossings would need zoning adjustments because it’s not currently zoned for housing, correct?

        - MC: Correct

        - JT: I can see that getting public backlash if we rezoned

    - JT: These plans all make sense to me in terms of traffic + transportation concerns. I have no negatives on any of these. My concern is that if we can’t physically build it out, what happens?

        - IG: We make sure that there are enough infrastructure services, emergency services, etc. – we would need to find the capacity to build those out

    - Renata Tyler: What’s the status of the IKEA site behind Hacienda Crossings?

        - MC: My understanding is that the developer is rethinking their plan + planning on resubmitting in the future

        - RT: That would’ve been an ideal site

        - MC: I will note that the IKEA site was a site that was brought forth to the Council, but they chose not to prioritize it

    - RT: Can you tell me about the Hacienda Crossings site?

        - MC: We’ve identified two parcels (R40 + R48) where there are big box retailers + significant parking. So we can move things around.

        - RT: So this is intended to be mixed use?

        - MC: Correct

        - RT: I like that

    - RT: Downtown sites – how will those work since they surround a big building?

        - MC: It’s to help bring the preferred vision of the downtown to reality

        - KW: The city’s been working with the property owners to realize the downtown vision. This is just one area, but there will likely be other market rate housing around the town square.

        - RT: We have a higher concentration of lower income units in downtown. I’m just concerned what the image of that is – we don’t want to segregate people into one area.

        - KW: We’re concerned about that, too, but it is close to transit. We also have market rate units planned around but outside of those sites.

    - Dawn Benson: I like Option C, I like putting housing on SCS Property. However, if we’re looking at density, we’re still putting all housing on that one corner of SCS – is that correct? We’re just going with 150 units for that property?

        - MC: Right now, we’re just thinking 150 units for SCS. We’re not including the entire SCS Property, but there is an opportunity for our IZO  to have additional affordable housing units spread across the site, which will accommodate even more of our low- + very low-income units.

    - DB: How does SB 9 fit into this?

        - MC: SB 9 is very new, so the state has not given explicit directions on how SB 9 units can actually be incorporated. Perhaps it will be something similar to how ADUs + JADUs are incorporated now. However, if we end up building ADUs + JADUs, we would have that in our annual report + they would count for our unit count even if we didn’t initially plan for them.

    - Kashef Qaadri: I like the idea of reusing a vacant lot for Hacienda Crossings for mixed use – super appealing to me.

    - KQ: Are there any requirements regarding units for people with disabilities?

        - IG: The city must be compliant with existing state laws

    - KQ: Can we do anything to remove restraints for affordable housing development?

        - IG: We’re still working on the HE, but we will review the city’s fees, analyses, + other constraints that may hinder the development of affordable housing. We will then likely use programs to counter them. There will likely be an annual review process also to continuously search for constraints.

    - KQ: Regarding no-net-loss: is there any way the city can push more of the IZO onto the developer for more accountability?

        - IG: The city can provide incentives, but that’s pretty much it

        - KQ: Has the city done that before?

        - MC: We have an affordable housing fund to build more affordable units. We also have a land dedication program for affordable units.

    - KQ: Looking at the ABAG RHNA appeal, how is the city planning on addressing the infrastructure constraints around water and sewage?

        - IG: We do look at this + will programmatically address those issues during the HE process

        - MC: The city meets regularly with the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) so we are prepared. There are ongoing conversations + we have representatives come to our workshops + community meetings to stay engaged + involved.

    - Catheryn Grier: Was the survey from the 205 respondents used to inform your thoughts on the HE process? How was that data used?

        - IG: There will be an appendix C in the HE, which will include public engagement data + table of comments as well as how they’ve been addressed

        - CG: We learn so much sitting here as the Planning Commission, but there’s a disconnect when we read the feedback because the public doesn’t know/learn as much. I wish there was a way the city can reach out to educate + engage with the public more on the city’s efforts + constraints.

        - IG: We do have the HE website where we put all the info for the HE process, workshops, resources, etc. so there’s transparency for the community

        - DB: It’s really important for folks to understand the process, particularly with our infrastructure

    - SW: The draft HE you will work on will include the actual numbers as well as the programs you will propose to reach those numbers, correct?

        - IG: Correct

​

Speakers/Presenters:

- Bill Wiseman, Planning Practice Leader at Kimley-Horn

- Ines Galmiche, Urban Planner at Kimley-Horn

- Stephen Wright, Dublin Planning Commissioner

- Michael Cass, Dublin Principal Planner

- Janine Thalblum, Dublin Planning Commissioner

- Renata Tyler, Dublin Planning Commissioner

- Dawn Benson, Dublin Planning Commissioner

- Kashef Qaadri, Dublin Alternate Planning Commissioner

- Catheryn Grier, Dublin Planning Commissioner

02/17/2022 Dublin HE Community Workshop

​

- Agenda

    - Overview of HE

    - Outreach efforts to-date

    - Candidates sites strategies

    - Policies and programs

    - Next steps

- Dave Barquist: What is a HE?

    - Housing is just one element of the City’s overarching General Plan – needs to co-exist with other elements

    - The City looks at the entire spectrum of affordability to determine need

    - Requires HCD certification

    - A legally compliant and certified HE opens the door for state grants, funding, and programs of assistance

    - Opportunity for public to contribute to the fabric of the community

- DB: What is included in the HE process?

    - Community workshops

    - Community surveys

    - Update of the City’s demographic conditions, policies, programs, and objectives

    - Analysis of adequate sites

    - CEQA review

    - Planning Commission and City Council meetings

        - Public will have many opportunities to provide comment and input before a decision is made here

    - HCD review and certification

- Ines Galmiche: Community engagement efforts to-date

    - Two City Council check-ins in October 2020 and November 2021 updating on the HE process and discussing sites

    - Two community workshops on 01/19/22 and 02/17/22 – these are both recorded and online

    - Ongoing online survey from December 2021 - February 2022

- IG: Preliminary survey findings

    - Missing housing types including affordable and senior housing

    - Community recommendations for locations of future housing include near transit hubs like BART and regional shopping centers like Hacienda Crossings

    - 72% of survey respondents would like to see both for sale and rental units added to the housing stock

    - 22% of survey respondents would like to see for sale units only added to the housing stock

- IG: Candidate sites strategies

    - RHNA allocation is 3,719 units

    - The City is not the developer for these housing units, but it needs to show through the HE that is will reasonably allow those units to be build

    - Income categories are based on the 2021 median family income for a family of four in Alameda County of $125,600

    - Candidate sites must consider access to community resources and services, infrastructure constraints, environmental barriers, and access to transportation

    - Five City Council-approved strategies include (would count for around 60% of the City’s RHNA):

        - Projected ADU developments

        - “Pipeline” projects – In review projects or projects already approved by the City, but not yet constructed

        - Existing HE sites from the 4th and 5th cycles

        - Public/Semi-public sites

        - Remaining capacity in the Downtown area

    - Strategies for remaining RHNA

        - The Boulevard project – Multi-phased, large-scale development currently under construction

        - Ashton at Dublin Station – Will include some affordable components

        - Hacienda Crossings – Housing site is a portion of the shopping center there

        - Two Alameda County surplus property sites near Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station – these are vacant lots that do not have a developer yet, but the City is considering rezoning these to accommodate for RHNA

            - Tom Evans, Dublin resident: The two Alameda County surplus property sites seem the most appropriate. With the concern over retail, the Hacienda Crossings site also seems appropriate.

        - East Ranch property – Public/semi-public site

        - Bernal and Getty developments – These are also in the pipeline and are public/semi-public sites

        - Eden project in West Dublin

        - Avalon Bay – will include market rate housing

        - East Lansing and Amador Station

    - TE: I heard we already have enough existing zoned sites for the RHNA – is that true?

        - Michael Cass: Almost enough – we still have around 600 units left in the low and very low income categories. The City Council also wants us to identify enough sites to double that (around 1,200) so we have a buffer and because of no net loss.

    - TE: How do the public/semi-public housing sites work? Would the City have to purchase those lots?

        - MC: A private developer would have to come forward and propose a project for those properties. One site is one acre, one is two and a half acres. One site has already been designated for a developer’s specific vision (and approved by the City Council), the other does not have a designation yet. The public/semi-public designations just mean they could be used for any public/semi-public use (e.g. a school, fire department, or affordable housing).

    - TE: Is there a preference for what the City Council wants to do here?

        - MC: The Council is looking at all opportunities

        - Kristie Wheeler: One of the sites has been designated to be donated to an affordable housing developer for affordable housing

    - Brandon M, Dublin resident: There is a referendum going around to rescind the East Ranch proposal. What is the City going to do if that happens?

        - KW: It’s too premature to say what the Council is going to do at this stage if that happens

        - Jeff Baker: The City is aware that there is a referendum, +1 to KW

    - Davis Nelson, Dublin resident: What density is wanted for each site on the map?

        - MC: For the purpose of today’s meeting, we’re not looking to talk about density, just big picture of the sites inventory. We will be talking about the details further in March.

        - KW: We need to provide at least 30 du/ac, so that’s the minimum and then we may need to go above depending on our housing need

    - Richard Thornbury, Dublin resident: For the rezoned sites from retail: what is the likelihood that we will actually get something built and accomplished for these rezoned sites?

        - IG: We would need to make sure there is reasonable probability, otherwise we would need to find other sites

        - RT: And these would all be privately owned, yes?

        - IG: Correct

    - RT: I’m really supportive of some of these locations especially near the BART stations and grocery stores and amenities. I enjoy the walkability elements. Let’s make it easier to travel and not with cars.

        - JB: The City already has a preferred plan/vision for how the Downtown will be developed – this is on the website

- DB: Policies and programs

    - Our goals include expanding housing choice and multi-modal transportation, providing and expanding housing opportunities for everyone, maintaining residential neighborhood characteristics, and promoting energy efficiency and conservation

    - Our policies need to change over time

    - New 6th cycle programs required:

        - Fair housing (AB 686)

        - Promotion of ADUs and JADUs (SBs 9 and 10)

        - Objective development standards

        - Streamlining of affordable housing units (SB 35)

        - Emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, and lower barrier navigation centers

        - Housing for persons with developmental disabilities

        - Redefining farmworker and employee housing in the zoning code

        - Funding and rental assistance programs

        - Housing voucher program

        - Density bonus (SB 330)

        - Removal of development constraints

- IG: Mentimeter questions

    - What are your experiences with housing in the City?

        - Answers: market rate is too high, would like more units near transit, more affordable units

    - Do you have any fair housing concerns the City should address?

        - Answers: inclusionary housing has been mainly moderate, we need more low income, people don’t want to see affordable housing units spread out, we should want more veteran housing and transitional housing, we need more options for people with disabilities

    - Have you recently gone through the entitlement process? Do you have any feedback based on your experience?

    - Are there particular housing types you would like to see more of?

        - Answers: affordable housing, townhomes, transitional/supportive housing, apartments, senior housing

- IG: Next steps

    - 02/28/22 – End of online survey

    - 03/08/22 – Planning Commission study session

    - 03/15/22 – City Council check-in (open to the public)

    - 04/07/22 – Public review draft published, will be available for a month

    - 04/26/22 – Planning Commission review

    - 05/17/22 – City Council review

​

Speakers/Presenters:

- Dave Barquist, Planning Practice Builder/Shareholder at Kimley-Horn

- Ines Galmiche, Land Planning Analyst at Kimley-Horn

- Michael Cass, Dublin Principal Planner

- Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director

- Jeff Baker, Community Development Director

01/19/2022 Dublin Housing Elements Community Workshop #1

​

1. Dave Barquist: Housing elements process

    a. One of the seven mandated elements of the general plan

    b. “[The housing element] addresses housing needs for all economic segments of the community”

        i. HE is really a direction-setting document that highlights priorities and specific actions that the City will take to reach the community’s desires/how to get there

    c. Housing element requirements include:

        i. Population and housing profile

        ii. Evaluation of housing constraints and resources

        iii. Evaluation of existing housing programs and policies

            1. Some of the existing programs today will no longer exist, and we may also need to create new programs

        iv. Analysis of sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA

            1. We have to review the past, but we also need to keep in mind housing needs in the future

        v. Policies, programs, and quantified objectives to achieve the City’s housing goals

2. DB: Why are housing elements updated?

    a. Housing is a very hot topic on the state-level right now

    b. The HE allows us to demonstrate Dublin’s ability to meet its projected housing needs

    c. We need to do this so the City is eligible for state-sponsored assistance programs, grants, and funding sources

    d. Community feedback and engagement is really needed and appreciated

    e. State can penalize the City if we don’t follow through – “we want to do what we say we want to do, and the state is compelling us to do that”

3. DB: What is included in the update process?

    a. Community workshops

    b. Online community survey

    c. Update of the City’s demographic conditions, and policies, program, and objectives

    d. Analysis of adequate sites to meet RHNA

    e. CEQA review – environmental analysis

    f. HCD review and certification – making sure we are in compliance

    g. Planning Commission/City Council meetings

4. DB: What is RHNA?

    a. A quantification of our need for housing in Dublin

    b. Looks at growth in population, employment, transportation, and households

        i. State takes all of this and spits out a methodology and how we need to do housing planning

    c. Process: HCD determines the state’s housing needs → HCD distributes those needs to the regional planning agencies like ABAG → ABAG gets allocation of growth needs for the entire Bay Area region → ABAG needs to slice up the distribution to the different jurisdictions → City of Dublin gets one slice of the pie (3,719 for the 2023-2031 HE cycle)

    d. RHNA allocation for Dublin:

        i. Very low income (0% - 50% median family of four income of $125,600 for 2021 (<$68,500)): 1,085

        ii. Low income (51% - 80% MFI ($68,501 - $109,600)): 625

        iii. Moderate income (81% - 120% ($109,601 - $150,700)): 560

        iv. Above moderate income (>120% MFI (>$150,701)): 1,449

        v. Total: 3,719

        vi. Moderate/Above moderate income can be single family homes (i.e. market rate homes)

5. DB: Project efforts to-date

    a. City Council check-ins October 2020 and November 2021

        i. Presented sites analysis during those meetings – City Council advised on strategies to meet City’s RHNA and a selection of sites dispersed throughout the City

    b. That’s where we are today, and now we are looking forward to the community participation portion of this process

6. DB: Workshop discussion

    a. Mentimeter questions:

        i. In a few words, tell us about your housing experience in Dublin?

            1. Answers: expensive/costly, sprawling/low density, competitive, fast growing

        ii. What are some housing opportunities in Dublin?

            1. Answers: ADUs, limited affordable housing, transit-oriented development, upzoning

        iii. What are some housing challenges or needs in Dublin?

            1. Public transit, walkability, affordability, environmental concerns, impact to schools/infrastructure, traffic, bureaucratic red tape

        iv. What is your vision for housing in Dublin?

            1. Answers: transit-oriented districts, reduce miles driven/mixed use, affordable units, mixed income housing

    b. Open discussion:

        i. Maria Gomez, meeting participant (did not speak, over chat): How many units have been built in the last cycle? How many of these units are low income or for rent? How many are for sale?

            1. DB: We’re doing an analysis in the HE that would answer those questions

        ii. Shirley Lewandowski, meeting participant: What is the balance on the number of housing units in the 5th cycle?

            1. Michael Cass: We issued permits for 777 units in 2021, 500 units in 2020, 241 units in 2019, 787 units in 2018

            2. MC: According to data up to and including 2020: we have 1,165 units still remaining from the 2,285 total units required from us in the current cycle. We have more than satisfied moderate and above moderate housing requirements, but still have low income and very low income housing requirements remaining.

        iii. Tom Evans, meeting participant: What are we trying to accomplish at the workshop tonight? What kind of input are you looking for?

            1. DB: We are giving an intro to the process and want you to express what you feel are needs for the community. What are the things we need to think about/consider? What are you concerned about? What are you hoping for? We’ll also provide a link at the end of the meeting for a survey that is more specific.

            2. TE: I’ve seen developers use Mello-Roos in Dublin recently and frequently, that is something we hadn’t seen before and would like to stop that.

            3. TE: Would like for the City to have more control over the housing needs such as through inclusionary housing policy.

        iv. SL: We are very high on market rate housing, but we’re not doing well on affordable housing. Dublin’s at 12.5% on inclusionary housing, while other cities are at 15% or 20%. I’d like to see Dublin match that or go even higher. Worse is that developers only need to meet 40% of the inclusionary housing rate and then pay in-lieu fees. Developers take that up because it’s cheaper to pay in-lieu fees than build those affordable units. This is a big problem, especially when you think that the typical essential worker is not even able to afford what is considered “affordable housing.” They can’t afford to live here and have to drive a long way here to work. I know the City appealed the RHNA numbers but got rejected. One misconception is that Dublin residents are against housing – they’re not, they just want a balance and to have our housing planned out more efficiently.

        v. TE: If we’re talking about balance, not sure why we have so much housing near the BART stations. We should have more commercial – I want to see people commute to Dublin to work, not the other way around.

        vi. Richard Li, meeting participant: To respond to Tom, I’m not sure that makes sense. I agree with Shirley that we have people who work here – especially educators – who cannot afford to live here. We need more housing and affordable housing especially, so not sure what more commercial near the transit stations would do to solve that.

        vii. SL: School overcrowding is also a big issue. The people who are in charge of the new upcoming Emerald Glen High School have already said enrollment is pretty full. This is a big issue for Dublin residents.

7. DB: Tentative housing elements update schedule

    a. Virtual community workshop #1 on 1/19/22

    b. Community survey during winter 2021/2022

    c. Virtual community workshop #2 on 2/17/22

    d. Planning Commission study session in March 2022

    e. City Council study session in March 2022

    f. Public review draft in April 2022

    g. City Council review in May 2022

8. Michael Cass’ contact: michael.cass@dublin.ca.gov, (925) 833-6610

​

Speakers/Presenters:

- Dave Barquist, Planning Practice Builder/Shareholder @ Kimley-Horn & Associates

- Michael Cass, Principal Planner @ the City of Dublin

11/2 Dublin Special City Council Meeting -- HE Update

​

KEY:

Melissa Hernandez = Mayor

Shawn Kumagai = Vice Mayor

Jean Josey = Councilmember

Sherry Hu = Councilmember

Michael McCorriston = Councilmember

Linda Smith = City Manager

​

- Consultants: Plan is to fill remaining need with draft allocation, pipeline projects, ADUs, 5th Cycle sites, public/semi-public sites, Downtown Dublin, Alameda County surplus properties, Hacienda Crossings

- Consultants: Reviewing affordability scenarios:

    - Consultants: If remaining need with downtown Dublin is 100% affordable, remaining need = 247 units

        - Jean Josey: This relies heavily on Downtown to absorb a lot of the housing needs

    - Consultants: If remaining need with downtown Dublin is 50% affordable, remaining need = 644 units

- Consultants: Questions for the City Council:

    - What % of planned units should be assumed as affordable on opportunity sites? Should staff assume 100%, 50%, or a different % of affordable units?

    - Based on the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing, should an emphasis be placed on providing lower income affordable units in the Downtown or should they be dispersed throughout the City?

- City Council comments

    - Linda Smith: Since 2010 Census → 2020 Census, population change in the city = +7,200, persons per household = +0.2% (from 2.7% → 2.9%)

    - Linda Smith: Transit-oriented development, identifying future development areas, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan

    - Consultants: ABAG preliminarily approved a couple of appeals, but should not affect Dublin

    - Consultants: Waterford would be able to provide 129 units from market rate housing to moderate income units (rent reduction of 10% assured by CALCHA) = Cannot be counted as planning, must be counted as production

        - Consultants: Caveats: the units must be converted first before they are counted as part of the RHNA allocations + units must be deed-restricted for 55 years (this would be a City Council decision)

            - Consultants: For residents, the units would be more affordable for a longer period of time

- Consultants: Affirmatively furthering fair housing -- AB686

    - Consultants: Continuation of federal laws + mandates re: additional work that has to be done

    - Consultants: Combats discrimination, patterns of segregation → creating equal opportunities for housing

    - Consultants: For City’s purposes: must look @ racial areas in local neighborhoods, access to schools, income areas, etc.

        - Consultants: Must do an analysis to make sure the city is doing AFFH when identifying sites

        - Sherry Hu: How do we ensure that we get these approved? If we push towards a higher affordability %, will HCD ask for more evidence?

            - Consultants: The closer the City chooses to push towards 100%, the likelier HCD is going to want to see proof that that is supportable

        - Consultants: AFFH is a consideration, not a requirement when HCD is reviewing these proposals -- this is subjective + there is no definitive answer on how much evidence needs to be provided for what % of regional housing allocated

            - Consultants: However, HCD also looks @ previous performance -- Dublin has done a good job of this

- Linda Smith: Upcoming units planned for upcoming Cycle: 66 @ Fallon Crossing, 115 planned @ Eden, 300 @ BRIDGE

    - Melissa Hernandez: This was years’ worth of work -- these projects take time to gain approval

    - Linda Smith: Connelly Station (2011) was the only project that did not end up including any affordable housing -- approved through affordability by design instead

    - Linda Smith: We’re close to running out of money for affordable housing -- City’s Affordable Housing Fund is almost out, and we have very limited Measure A1 money

        - Shawn Kumagai: Should we be concerned about our funds running out?

            - Melissa Hernandez: We’re hoping the Alameda County voters will approve additional Measure A1 money soon

            - Linda Smith: There are very few cities who have had the amount of affordable housing funds Dublin had before they were spent -- we’ve done a good job here

            - Consultants: We’re hoping to get more in lieu fees as well -- over the course of time, we will continue to build it. It’s not out of the question that the City will get more affordable housing funds in the future. We also recently acquired two additional sites that the state would help out on + City would not need to financially support: D1 site @ transit center + the donated East Ranch property with Eden (has not happened yet).

- Linda Smith: How does the Council feel about each of the affordability options? Additional affordability scenarios:

    - 12.5%: remaining need = 981, total units would be added = 7,323

    - 20%: remaining need = 909, total units would be added = 4,705

    - 30%: remaining need = 826, total units would be added = 2,972

    - 50%: remaining need = 644, total units would be added = 1,288

    - 100%: remaining need = 247, total units would be added = 247

    - Consultants: We’re assuming here (for these #s) that whatever affordability % we choose for Downtown, we will apply to the rest of the sites (but in reality, we can switch up the % for each site)

    - Melissa Hernandez: We should be careful with going really high on affordability % on 

    - Jean Josey: We’re not trying to create a vision of Downtown taking up all our affordable unit allocations, we need Downtown to have some market rate housing to help us with other infrastructure projects there, etc. -- anything >50% for our remaining units in Downtown is not feasible to me

    - Shawn Kumagai: We should aim for an earnest + realistic planning exercise here -- I don’t just want it to be defendable, I want it to be actionable

        - Shawn Kumagai: Looking @ Downtown + some of these similar sites, I’m not sure >50% affordability is realistic

        - Shawn Kumagai: We have to look @ underutilized commercial spaces

    - Sherry Hu: Agree with Melissa Hernandez and Jean Josey -- we need to disperse affordable homes across the city

        - Sherry Hu: There’s a lot of uncertainty, there’s no way to predict anything -- we just have to start somewhere + work towards the result

        - Sherry Hu: The planners + consultants have done a great job

    - Michael McCorriston: I wasn’t sure why we were focusing on specifically the West side, so I am relieved to hear + echo other councilmembers on dispersing the units throughout the city

        - Michael McCorriston: I am also gravitating towards 50%

- Looking @ additional sites

    - Linda Smith: Sherry Hu has a property near the SCS Property (that we’re planning to include for our allocations), Shawn Kumagai has a conflict of interest with one of the Alameda County surplus property sites (they both must be excused from the room)

    - Do we have any favorites for additional affordable units? Any we don’t like?

        - Jean Josey: My top two favorite sites are the two Alameda County surplus property sites, my third favorite site is the IKEA site

            - Jean Josey: Three approved projects to make the IKEA site strictly commercial have failed to materialize with previous councils

            - Jean Josey: I don’t want to prioritize Downtown because we’re going to have to do this again in eight years -- that’s @ the bottom of my list

        - No one is interested in the Hexcel corporation site as an additional housing site

        - Michael McCorriston: My favorites in order are Hacienda Crossing, the Alameda County surplus properties, the North side of Dublin Boulevard, and then the IKEA site (but mostly the first three)

            - Linda Smith: Hacienda Crossing needs investing -- the big box retail scene is very much dying

            - Michael McCorriston: One concern about the Hacienda Crossing site is that it will take time

            - Jean Josey: Well, if the owner is eager to sell, then it doesn’t really matter

        - Melissa Hernandez: I really think we’re going to get more units developed than we’re asking for

        - Consultants: The order of preference for the Council seems to be in order: Hacienda Crossing, Alameda County surplus properties, IKEA site, SCS property, North side of Dublin Boulevard

- Consultants: Next steps

    - Public outreach process = November 2021 - February 2022

    - City Council approve draft HE + submit to HCD for review = May 2022

    - Environmental review = June 2022 - November 2022

    - Revise HE in response to HCD comments = August - November 2022

    - Adopt HE update = December 2022 - January 2023