|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Months after voting to approve an ambitious housing project that garnered controversy from neighboring residents and the school district, the Dublin City Council has reversed course on the East Ranch development while raising concerns about how alternative paths for the applicant might further limit the discretion of the city.
A group of Dublin residents submitted a referendum petition in January on the council’s decision to approve the Stage 2 Development Plan for the proposed 573-unit housing development, which received the required number of signatures (at least 10% of registered voters).
“I know a lot of residents when they signed, they probably think if they get enough signatures this project will not be developed, but … the result will be actually the opposite,” Councilmember Sherry Hu said, referring to the possibility of the developer pursuing approval through new state law instead of the city-endorsed project. “We did our best. We worked with the process with city staff, we tried to make this with additional community benefits, which is the dedication of Sunflower (Hill) to build affordable homes for disabled people.”
“We want to make that clear to the residents, because when they signed their signatures they probably expected different results,” Hu added.
The council voted on March 1 to certify the sufficiency of the referendum petition and repeal the Stage 2 Development Plan ordinance they’d previously introduced on Dec. 7 and adopted on Dec. 21 for the East Ranch project.
Shortly after the council’s final December vote, the city clerk’s office received a proposed summary referendum against the ordinance, with the city attorney issuing an approved summary on Dec. 28. The petition was submitted by the proponent on Jan. 27, within the 30 days allotted following approval of the summary.
The threshold established for the minimum number of signatures on a referendum from Dublin voters is set at 3,439, based on the latest official report of voter registration to the secretary of state. The petition garnered 4,635 signatures.
Reaching the threshold of signatures meant certification of the petition by the city clerk’s office, which was one part of the measure on the table for the council on March 1. The other portion was a decision on whether to repeal the ordinance approving the project or to instead put the issue on a ballot either in a special election or in the upcoming November general election.
Community development director Jeff Baker noted that while costs would be minimal for adding the measure to November’s ballot, a special election would likely cost more than $100,000.
Cost aside, however, Baker noted that even if the council were to leave the decision up to city voters, the applicant, Trumark Homes, would still be able to pursue approval of the project through other channels. In a letter to the city, officials from Trumark encouraged the council to vote on repealing the ordinance approving the project, and said that they would take another route regardless.
“To be honest, we don’t know what exactly the applicant might submit,” Baker said.
Although Trumark had not indicated what their new route would be, councilmembers and staff discussed the potential of the project to go through the state’s Housing Accountability Act process, which would not require the Stage 2 Development Plan to be approved by the council.
While councilmembers ultimately voted unanimously to repeal the ordinance approving the Stage 2 Development Plan on March 1, many expressed frustration at how little discretion the two choices on the table that evening offered, as well as concerns about having even less discretion in the planning and approval process of the East Ranch housing project, if Trumark pursues the project according to state rather than city requirements.
“The fact of the matter is that this council is bound by the legal constraints that are put in place by the state,” Councilmember Shawn Kumagai said. “And whether it’s me or anyone else sitting up here, we have to follow the law. If they bring a Housing Accountability Act application, we have very little discretion which means we don’t get to ask for the perks and the bells and the whistles.”
In particular, Kumagai said he was concerned about whatever alternative route pursued by Trumark might mean for a proposed portion of the East Ranch project negotiated by the council with Trumark, which would provide affordable housing to adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities.
“I sit in meetings often with individuals in the intellectually and developmentally disabled communities, and they are hurting,” Kumagai said. “There’s insufficient funds to provide services for them, they’re disproportionately taken care of by their aging caregivers and they’re aging out. Those elderly caregivers of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities tell me, ‘I’m worried that my child is not going to have a place to live, that they are going to be displaced, or worse, they might be homeless when I pass away.'”
Kumagai and other councilmembers also noted that moving to repeal the ordinance might not have the outcome expected by petitioners, with housing still being planned for the East Ranch area under the city’s general plan.
Although councilmembers agreed with staff’s recommendation to repeal the ordinance rather than sending it to the ballot, they emphasized their disappointment with the further limits on their input on housing at the East Ranch site, and said that this would not have the outcome residents had intended when they signed on to the referendum.
If Trumark Homes submits an application bound by the Housing Accountability Act, they would be required by state law to make 4% of the project’s units affordable housing or pay an in-lieu fee, but would not be required to proceed with the project as it had been negotiated with the city.
Although Kumagai and other council members said they remained hopeful that Trumark would still seek to proceed with the Sunflower Hill project aimed at housing intellectually and developmentally disabled adults, they emphasized that Trumark would not be required to do so by state law.
“The irony isn’t lost on me tonight that we passed a proclamation in the consent calendar today for Developmental Disability Awareness Month on the same night that we’re repealing this ordinance that will probably effectively kill the Sunflower Hill project on this site, and that makes me very sad,” Vice Mayor Jean Josey said.
