HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 IncluZonInLieuFeeChang CITY CLERK
File #450-20 & 430-80
II"'/IL IOI' I
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002
SUBJECT:
Review of Proposed Changes to Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
and In-Lieu Fees
Report Prepared by Eddie Peabody, Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 132-01 Expressing the City's Intent to Increase
Percentage of Affordable Units and Related Changes to the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
2. Resolution 131-01 Amending Resolution No. 57-97 Establishing
the Method for Determining the Amount of Housing In Lieu
Fees
3. Minutes of July 17, 2001 and October 16, 2001 City Council
Meetings Regarding Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
Amendments
4. Draft Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Amendments February 25,
2002
5. Draft New Housing In-Lieu Fees
6. List of Inclusionary Ordinance Work Group Members and
Minutes of Meetings.from November 2001 through January
2002.
7. Chart comparing Livermore and Pleasanton Affordable Housing
requirements with Proposed Dublin requirements
RECOMMENDATION: 1
3.
Review and comment on proposed Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance Amendments
Review and comment on proposed in-lieu fee changes
Instruct Staff to set public hearings before the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance changes
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this time
DESCRIPTION:
At the June 5, July 17 and October 16, 2001 City Council meetings, Staff was instructed to review the
present Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance regulations and the General Plan as they relate to affordable
housing requirements. The City Council adopted Resolution No.'132-01 on July 17, 2001 expressing the
COPIES TO:
Inclusionary Work Group
In House Distribution
ITEM NO~
City's intent to increase the percentage of affordable units and related changes to the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance in an amount not to exceed 15% of all new housing units and to prohibit in lieu fees for more
than one-half of the affordable inclusionary units. Such changes will require amendments to both the
General Plan Housing Element and the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Since August 2001, Staff has
been working with an Inclusionary Work Group that included representatives from the home building
community, non-profit housing industry and community activists. City Council members Oravetz and
McCormick were added to the Work Group in November 2001 to ensure City Council review. This report
describes the proposed new Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance changes and in-lieu fee amendments.
BACKGROUND:
The present Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is as follows:
1. All new residential projects of 20 or more units must set aside 5% of the units as affordable
units for 30 years. (Sections 8.68.050; 8.68.060.)
2. The 5% requirement is broken down as follows: 2% for very low-income households, 2% for
low-income households and 1% for moderate-income households. (Section 8.68.050.)
3. The Ordinance applies to both ownership and rental projects. (Section 8.68.050.)
4. Affordability must be ensured by agreements recorded against the property. (Section
8.68.070.)
5. A developer may meet the obligation in ways other than on-site construction of affordable
units. (Section 8.68.80.) The options include (a) off-site construction (Section 8.68.080(A));
(b) payment of an "in lieu" fee, which the Council set as $2 square foot for single family and
$1.50/square foot for multifamily (Section 8.68.080(A), Resolution No. 131-01; (c) land
dedication (Section 8.68.080(C)); (d) other creative ways if approved by the City Council
(Section 8.68.080(D)); and (e) purchase of credits from another developer who constructed
more than its share of affordable units (Section 8.68.090).
6. Incentives can be offered to developers who construct inclusionary units on-site. (Section
8.68.110.) Incentives include (a) deferral of both processing fees and development impact fees
if deferral will increase the project's feasibility (8.68.110(C)(1 )); (b) design modifications
(Section 8.68.110(C)(2)); and (c) priority processing (Section 8.68.110(C)(3)).
7. Affordable units may be smaller and may have fewer amenities (e.g., fireplaces, garbage
disposals, dishwashers, cabinet and storage space, and more than one bathroom) than market
rate units. (Section 8.68.060(C).)
In addition, on July 17, 2001 the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment Study to determine
General Plan changes that may set goals for affordable housing in various geographic areas of the City.
This item will be presented along with any proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance changes at the public
hearings later before the Planning Commission and City Council.
Since August 2001, staff has worked with the Inclusionary Ordinance Work Group to explore various
alternative changes to the Ordinance in line with the City Council directives of last summer and fall.
Issues discussed included:
1. Determination of the percentage of very low, low and moderate housing required as a part of
required affordable housing.
2. Which future projects would be subject to new Inclusionary requirements
3. Other options if on-site affordable housing cannot be built (off-site construction, land and
other possibilities)
In-lieu fee requirements and methods of detemining fair methOds of evaluating market versus
affordable costs; fixed fee approach and differential fees based on higher fees for very low and
low income units versus moderate income units.
Additional discussions regarding new ordinance changes focused on:
1. What role requirements on new housing would have in relationship to possible non-residential
housing fees (commercial linkage) that were being studied at this time
2. The experience of Inclusionary Zoning requirements of nearby cities (Livermore, Pleasanton,
Union City, etc.) in requiring new affordable units and the level of their in-lieu requirements.
3. At what point would the required affordable housing construction costs and in-lieu fee
payments make new projects economically infeasible
4. Various proposals for reasonable in-lieu fees that might address the difference between the
market cost to build a certain size unit and the costs to build the same size unit to meet
affordable housing requirements.
Draft Ordinance
With the assistance of the City Attorney, a draft new Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and proposed in-lieu
fee structure was developed and reviewed by the Inclusionary Ordinance Work Group on January 22,
2002. The features of this ordinance and fee resolution are as follows:
1. All new residential projects of 20 or more units must construct 15% of the total number of
dwelling units as affordable for 30 years.
2. Affordable units shall be provided as follows:
· 30%
· 20%
· 50%
very low income households
low income households
moderate income households
3. A fee in lieu of building one-half of the required affordable units may be paid.
4. If affordable units cannot be built on-site, the City Council may allow:
· Land dedication to the City or City designated local non-profit housing developer large
enough to accommodate the numbers of required affordable units;
· Construction of the affordable units off-site in a City Council approved site;
· Waive requirements or approve alternative methods of compliance;
5. Affordable units should be made available to qualified persons based on the City's Affordable
Housing Program (see page 4 of draft ordinance)
6. Incentives to encourage on-site construction of affordable units in excess of 7.5% of the total
units may be offered and approved by the City Council (deferred fees, design modifications,
priority processing).
Proposed In-Lieu Fee
The present Resolution No. 131-01 adopted by the City Council in July 2001 is based on a square foot
charge as follows:
· $2.00 per square foot for a single family unit not affordable
· $1.50 per square foot for a multi-family unit not affordable.
This in-lieu fee allows developers to pay a fee rather than build affordable units. These fees have been
collected but no housing has been produced.
The premise for the proposed new in-lieu fee was based on these conclusions:
The new ordinance will mandate 7.5% of the units as affordable. A substantial cost will be paid
by the developer to build these units and subsidize the difference between market and affordable
price (3 bedrooms).
· Example of 1,200 square foot for sale unit
Total cost to build
Potential sale prices to
affordable families based on
weighted average of moderate
(50%), low (20%), very low
(30%) maximum sales prices
Subsidy per unit by developer
$277,468
$2O5,292
$ 72,176
In addition to the required 7.5% affordable unit, the developer will have to pay an in-lieu fee for
the remainder of the 7.5% required units. The 7.5% subsidy for built units and the proposed in-
lieu fee should not be so high as to eliminate the ability of the developer to construct the project.
The City should adopt an in-lieu fee that is simple to explain and administer now. More detailed
evaluations of in-lieu fee changes can be made in the future when more experience with
market/affordable construction costs can be obtained.
The Work Group concluded that a simple computation for the in-lieu fee be based on an approach
patterned by several cities, including Livermore, be used. It would be based on the following:
1. The difference between market costs to construct a unit for sale of 1,200 square feet and the price
needed for an affordable moderate-income family of four to purchase that unit.
Based on the difference between this market cost for the 1,200 square foot unit and the affordable
moderate-income purchase price, the developer could not pay the total difference (estimated at
26% of the total cost of the unit) for all remaining market units.
The differences between market cost/affordable purchase price for the remaining required 7.5%
affordable units would be more appropriate; so the figure of $72,176 per unit for the remaining
7.5% of inclusionary required Units is recommended.
A detailed comparison of the proposed in-lieu fee coupled with the required 7.5% mandatory affordable
units is shown in Attachment 7. A large scale comparison of the present and proposed inclusionary
zoning ordinance affordable unit/in-lieu fee calculations is as follows:
2,000 total single-family new units to be built in the future, with an average square footage 2,000
per unit.
Present Ordinance
5% required, but in lieu fee allowed
No affordable units built
2,000 square foot unit multiplied by $2.00 a
square foot at 2,000 units
= $8,000,000 in lieu fees
Proposed Ordinance
7.5% required units
= 150 new affordable units
(50% moderate, 20% low, 30% very Iow)
In-lieu fee: 7.5% of required units
150 x 72,176 per unit
= $10,826,400
The advantage of the proposed new in'lieu fee coupled with the new 7.5% required new affordable units
is:
· The 7.5% of new units will be built
· In-lieu fees will approximate present in lieu-fees.
· Developers can avoid in lieu fees if they build the full 15% of total units.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and, 1) review and comment on the
proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Amendments, 2) review and comment on proposed in-lieu fee
changes, and 3) instruct Staff to set public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to
consider General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance changes.
g:housing/inclusionary/ccsr amendl.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 132 - 01
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNC~
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
EXPRESSING TItE CITY'S INTENT TO INCREASE PERCENTAGE
OF AFFORDABLE UNITS AND RELATED C}tANGES TO
INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE
RECITALS
WItEREAS, the City's.Inclusionary zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal
Code) requires developers of residential development projects in excess of 20 residential units to set aside
5% of the units for housing for moderate-income, low-income, and very low-income households
(''Affordable Housing Set-Aside");
WHEREAS, the inclusionary zoning ordinance permits developers to pay fees in lieu of
complying with the Affordable Housing Set-Aside; and
WHEREAS, the Council has expressed its iment:
A. to establish a Citywide affordable housing goal of 15%; and
B. to prohibit In-Lieu Fees from being used for a portion of the Affordable Housing Set-
ASide, which would not exceed one, half of the Affordable Housing Set-Aside; and
WItEREAS, the City intends that the subsequently adopted revisions to the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance be applicable to applications betWeen the date of the adoption of this resolution and the
effective date of the revisions.
NOW, TitE~REI*ORE, be it resolved that the City intends to amend the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance:
a) to establish a Citywide affordable housing goal in an amount not to exceed 15% of
new housing units; and
b) to prohibit In-Lieu Fees from being used for more than one-half of the Inclusionary
units.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of Iuly, 2001.
AYES: Councilmembers Lockhart, McCormick, Oravetz and Zika
NOES: Mayor Houston
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
~ ~ity (Jlei~lc~
K2/G/7-17-01/reso-¢hg-izoregs.do¢ (Item 6.4 #2)
G:agendas/2001/cc 7-17 reso fee incr
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 131 - 01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 57-97 ESTABI,LqHING TltE METHOD
FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING IN-LIEU FEES (PA 01-014)
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance 14-96, the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 8.24.080 (t5) of the proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance provided the
option of paying a fee in-lieu of constructing Inclusionary Units ("In-Lieu Fee"), and stated that the City
Council shall establish the mount of the In-Lieu Fee by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on June 11, 1996, adopted Resolution 80-96 establishing a method
for determining the amount of the In-Lieu Fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on January 21, 1997, directed Staff'to prepare a revised method for
determining the amount of the In-Lien Fee whereby the fee will be charged only for habitable areas of
residences, specifically excluding garages and that the in-lieu fee be paid for each dwelling unit at the time
the building permit is issued for that dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 1997, the City Council approved an amendment to the Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance revising the methodology for determining the amount of the In-Lieu Fee for each
residential development project (City Council Resolution No. 57-97); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prePared pursuant.to the California
Enviromental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines, and ·
was adopted for the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance on June 11, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration adopted on June. 11, 1996, addressed all impacts of the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which includes the in-lieu fee option, and the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance amendments of May 20, 1997, addressing the in-lieu fee methodology revisions; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2001, the City Council approved the Afford~le Housing
Implementation Plan (AHIP) that sets forth policy guidelines and programs for funding and developing
affordable housing in Dublin; and
WlTEREAS, the AHIP includes a funding option of doubling the City's current housing in-lieu fee
amount to $2.00 per square foot for single family detached units, and $1.50 per square foot for multi-
family attached units; and
W~REAS, at the February 6,, 2001 City Council meeting, the.City. Council dire~e~..staf~ to
amend Resolution No. 57-97 establishing the methodology for determining the amount ofm-l~eu tees
wherebY the existing fee ($.75 cents per square foot for each multi-family unit and $1.00 per square foot
for each single family unit) would be doubled; and
WI:IEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is within the
scope ofthe certified Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Negative Declaration dated June 11, 1996. The Negative
Declaration covered the parameters of the Inelusionary Zoning Ordinance, including the fee option in lieu of
constructing the housing and annual fee adjustment criteria.
ATTACHMEN &
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby amend Resolution
'No. 57-97 establishing the methodology for determining the amount of the In-Lieu Fee for each residential
development project subject to the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
1. The In-Lieu Fee shall be based upon a charge of $1.50 per habitable square foot for multi-family (attached
unit) developments, and $2.00 per habitable square foot for single family (detached unit) developments.
2. The In-Lieu Fee shall be calculated based on the habitable square feet of each dwelling unit, excluding
garages.
3. There shall be no per-unit maximum fOr the In-Lieu Fee.
4. The In-Lieu Fee per habitable square foot shall be adjusted annually on July 1~ to reflect the greater of the
percentage change either in a.) the Bay Area Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) as of March of each year, or b.)
the United States DePartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Rent Limits for the
Oakland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) that are in effect at the time. The In-Lieu Fee may also
be adjusted as necessary for changing conditions in the City.'
5. The In-Lieu Fee shall be paid for each dWelling unit at the time the building permit is issued for that dwelling
unit.
The above methodology for determining the amount of the In-Lieu Fee for each development project
subject to the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations shall take effect as of July 17, 2001.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17~ day of July, 2001.
AYES:
Councilmembers Lockhart, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~ ~/~ity~lerk'~
K2/G/7-17-01/reso-~lo~ublefees.doc (Item 6.4 #1)
g;kpa 01-014 cc reso - doubling in-lieu fees
This Agreement will vest the project approvals recently granted by the City Council and
provide for additional DA's at the time of the development of the individual parcels
within the project area.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this isSUe.
Mayor Houston closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm, McCormick, seconded by Vice Mayor Lockhart, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 6- 01
APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR PA 01-004 TOLL BROTHERS (TOLL CA II, LP) FOR
NEIGHBORHOODS A-6 & A-7 OF DUBLIN RANCH AREA A
Mayor Houston announced that Item 8.1 would be considered next on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDING RESOLUTION CHANGING THE AMOUNTS OF IN-LIEU FEES;
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING INTENT TO INCREASE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE
UNITS AND RELATED CHANGES TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE; AND
DISCUSSION OF LONG RANGE INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES
8:33 p.m. 6.4 (450-20/430-80)
Mayor Houston opened the public hearing.
Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised
that in June, the City Council asked Staff to return at this meeting with a discussion of
timing for possible changes to the present InclusiOnary Zoning regulations related to
required percentages of affordable housing, in-lieu fees and constructing affordable
units. In addition, Staff was asked to identify priority areas for affordable housing in new
developments throughout the City.
Mr. Peabody advised that this report proposes adoption of a resolution doubling the
amount of the Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee, adoption of a resolution expressing the
Council's intent to increase the percentage of required affordable units and related
changes to the IZO, identifies a possible schedule for review of any IZO changes and how
these issues can be resolved.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2001
PAGE 305
AT'TACFIMENT
Mr. Peabody gave a general summary of the provisions of the City's IZO.
Mr. Peabody stated Staff recommended that the City Council: 1) Resolve whether in-lieu
fees should be doubled for the present and if so, adopt Resolution; 2) confirm Council
direction to establish priority areas for affordable housing in new developments
throughout the City; 3) confirm Council direction to create a mandatory 15% (7.5%
construction & 7.5% fee) IZO change and evaluate any other desired changes to the IZO;
4) adopt Resolution notifying developers of pending changes to inclusionary housing
regulations; 5) authorize a General Plan Amendment Study to determine GP changes that
may set goals for affordable housing in various geographic areas of the City; 6) instruct
Staff to schedule a study session in September or October, g001, regarding specific
potential IZO amendments; and 7) instruct Staff to complete any GP and Zoning
Ordinance amendments regarding affordable housing issues as they relate to
Inclusionary Zoning and final Ordinance changes by November, g00I for appropriate
public hearings.
Don Babbitt, Regio Court, stated at the last meeting, he passed out his business cards, but
none of the City Council took the time to give him a call. We need to get out of the box
and start creating some study sessions and bring in all the people and look at how we
address this issue. He discussed what has happened to prices in the last 23 years. He
asked if the City has done any AB1 ¢00 nexus to increase these fees. He expressed
surprise that we are not enacting fees on commercial development tonight. He
encouraged the City Council to put this ordinance off and get the non-profits involved.
We should be able to leverage our $5 million with bonds. Get the rest of the community
and the builders involved.
Cm. Oravetz talked about our entire valley that is overpriced. As a builder if he came to
us and the City said we have a goal of 15% for affordable units, is he willing to deal with
us and have give and take between the two of us?
Mr. Babbitt stated yes, this is why we need to get everyone in a room to talk about this.
Cm. Zika stated the City Council has authorized and under state law, we have approved a
commercial fee study. This will be about $1 per foot. We authorized in the budget $1
million from the General Fund into the housing fund.
Kevin Peters with Shea Homes stated the affordable housing crisis is a real problem and it
should not be entirely put on the backs of people who don't live in the community yet.
Builders do need to be part of the solution. Any solution needs to be equitable and
flexible and the problem he has with the resolution deals with passing through costs to
only new homes. He referenced a study done in another community that was looking at
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
July '17, 200'!
PAGE 306
increasing their fee to 15%. This added $50,000 to each home. This could potentially
make the problem worse. There needs to be more dialogue and more refinement on how
a receiver zone works. We could reexamine formation of a redevelopment district of
underutilized business properties. We could ask the state legislature through various
forms of tax reform to produce affordable housing. He encouraged the City Council to
adopt a broader resolution than what's before them tonight.
Mayor Houston asked about the project on Dougherty Road and the tax credit Program
and requested that he describe how this worked. He asked if it can becopied.
Mr.: Peters responded that this was a 4% tax bond and they have to compete for these
through the State of CA. This is a good tool, and a good example of ways to deal with
affordable housing.
Cm. Oravetz asked him about the 15% figure.
Mr. Peters stated he felt 15% is an admirable goal and this is broader than what's in the
resolution.
Cm. Zika stated fight now we have a goal of 5% and it has encouraged nobody to do
anything. We've got money, but no units. What can we do to encourage the actual
units?
Mr. Peters stated affordable sites can be feathered out a little more to set up receiver
zones for units and have a target of where they will go. The more built out the City gets,
the tougher it will be. Higher density units is one way to solve the problem. There are
plenty of projects around the Bay Area where you can't distinguish affordable from
market rate units.
Jennifer Mosel, Tri~Valley Coordinator for Community Resources for Independent Living
and Dublin resident stated she has expressed concerns to former City Staff who have now
left. What concerns her is we have an implementation plan but no element. This is like
putting the cart before the horse. All of the things could be looked at at once rather than
piecemeal. That is what's happening now and it is creating controversy and more
concerns. She stated she understood a consultant is close to being hired. We should use
this consultant to the best use by having them look at the big picture. No one seems to
think doubling the fee is the only solution. She thanked the City Council for moving
forward with the 15% fee. People are watching and people notice and the City Council is
to be congratulated. In~lieu fees need to be high enough to encourage builders to build
affordable units. Other cities in the valley have higher fees and they have not had a
problem attracting developers to their communities. Banks and landlords look at and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2001
PAGE 307
prefer that a ratio of only $0% of a family's income go toward housing costs. Many
people commute ali the way from Modesto and Sacramento because the number of
affordable units available is so low that the wait lists are a minimum of two years. She
stated she looks forWard to participating in the solution.
Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Pleasanton, stated he was here on behalf of the Lin
Family and Marry Inderbitzen, developers of Dublin Ranch. They do not oppose an
increase in 'the fee. When you get into the math for very low income housing, it becomes
virtually impossible to work this out. They are Opposed to attachment 3, because it
implements the policy before we've done the study. It's like ready, shoot, aim. We
should talk about a 15% goal and then everyone sit down and talk about how we get this
done. If you make bad decisions in the middle of a disaster, you make things far worse.
The Bay Area housing market is a disaster. Set asides are probably the least efficient to
the point of being counter productive as a way of promoting housing affordability. One
of the first victims is redevelopment. As long as 98% of our consumers are using market
rate housing, we need to look at ways to make them affordable by design and by supply.
Dublin has been doing more than its share of market rate housing.
Adolph Martinelli, Manager of the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, stated
they will have 1500 residential units before the City Council in the transit area. They
support this increase in fees. Dublin's current fees are the lowest of any jurisdiction he is
familiar with. This would be a good start. As part of their application they would
propose to have a site available to accept 15% low income development and it would
require resources to be directed to the site as well as their land. This would be much
more effective than some small inclusionary units. He applauded the City Council for
looking at the issue and stated there is a study to be done on the broader issues.
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated she appreciates'the County's offer of 15% affordable housing.
There are some areas where it should be higher such as the transit area where she will be
looking at closer to 30% overall. She would expect to see a higher percentage in that
particular area.
Mr. Martinelli stated they are proposing 15% moderate and not to burden the market
rate project and in addition they propose to set aside a site to be a receiver for mixed
family or senior housing, or in conjunction with private developers, and this would be
about 200 units. They are designing the entire transit center as a unit.
Cm. Zika stated he would not want the low income units to be segregated from everyone
else. He doesn't want to create another Arroyo Vista.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2001
PAGE 308
Mr. Marfinelli stated the site they would make available would have various units of
affordability as well as market rate units. They will have to forsake some economic
opportunities in Order to compete.
Mr. Ambrose discussed tax incentives and bond programs, which make some of these
programs possible. The percentage of the units makes you competitive for these funds.
As we get into this~ we will have to look at it carefully.
Bruce Fiedler, a 15 year resident of Dublin, stated for the last 16 years he has directed an
affordable program in a neighboring community. He supports revisions to the policies
and guidelines for the IZO being considered'. He talked about the district where he has
worked since 1985. Diversity in the buildings is reflected also in the diversity of the
income and family composition among residents. The spirit of inclusion is critical to the
well-being of our City's economy and to the vigor of the spirit and soul of Dublin.
Guy Bjerke, with Home Builders of California, stated they desire to see a more broadly
based solution. Establish a goal and fold this discussion into a broader view and consider
all the options. Setting numbers is a mistake. Set a goal and with additional work, you
may come to different conclusions during this process. They are greatly concerned about
the attachment 3 resoluti°n as this is putting the cart before the horse. It implies that
anyone who comes in to make an application tomorrow, they will be subject to the
regulations, no matter what they may be. People have to comply with the rules as they
exist. They find this troubling.
Cm. Zika stated we have a 5% goal now and we are not achieving this. What can we do'/
Putting the goal higher is a meaningless figure. If we put a mandatory clause in, then
you have to meet it.
Mr. Bjerke stated the question will be what is the new homebuyer's share? In the scheme
of things, it may be a different figure. Staff will have to explain why Dublin hasn't met
its housing goals. He's concerned about the 7 ½%/7 ½% as hard numbers. The
resolution doesn't change the program, it just doubles the fee.
Cm. Zika asked if they object to any mandatory number or to the 15%.
Mr. Bierke stated they don't know right now what makes the most sense for the build out
of Dublin.
Cm. Oravetz stated as a Planning Commissioner they approved many projects, The goal
is now 15%, but they're asking for flexibility in getting to that 15%.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2001
PAGE 309
Cm. Zika stated he is looking for something with a little more teeth. We've tried the
carrot and it hasn't worked. He stated he wants units, so if we do inclusionary, we get
units.
Tim Sbranti stated he agreed with Bruce Fiedler about the healthiest and most vibrant
communities being those with a mix of high end and very low. Inclusionary zoning can
help with the goal that we share.
Mayor Houston closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated since suggesting this 15% figure, she has had a lot of
opportunities to discuss this with the development community and appreciates the -
feedback she has gotten. Dublin is not currently accomplishing its goals and it's time to
start doing something about it. Make builders and developers partners and work
together. She stated she agreed that we cannot put the responsibility for affordable
housing on one group or element in our community. It is the responsibility of the entire
community. She applauded Mayor Houston's suggestion of putting in the $1 million.
This will keep affordable housing as a priority in our community. In trying to have a
mix, we may lose some very good projects. Fifty percent will be in the moderate range
and she stated she doesn't want to see us sacrifice this group because it can't support low
and 'very low. Land banking, fund pooling, etc., can be looked at to help us accomplish
needed housing. It will take some work to get the tool box together and figure out ways
of doing this. She would like to see us go with a 15% affordable goal tonight and put
together workshops to come up with ideas of getting us to where we want to go. She
would like to see us make changes in the resolution that establishes Citywide goal of 15%
and works toward making all of Dublin an affordable and wonderful place to live.
Cm. McCormick stated she wanted to talk about doubling the in-lieu fees. We've been
the lowest in the area. for years. She proposed that the Council approve doubling the
fees.
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the
Council agreed to double the in-lieu fees and adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 131 -01
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. $7-97
ESTABLISHING THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF
HOUSING IN-LIEU FEES PA 01-0'!4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2001
PAGE 310
With regard to the resolution stating the City's intent to increase the percentage of
affordable units, Cm. Oravetz suggested changing the third whereas to add "goal".
Mayor HouSton stated he felt the important thing is to do the study first. We have no
idea what the ramifications are and what this really means. If you waive fees, it's really
more than 15%, because you have to add in infrastructure costs. We are somewhat like a
giant homeowners association. Every unit built has to pay for certain fees for services.
Until we know what the ramifications are, we should wait until the consultant looks at
this. Throwing out any number right now doesn't make any sense.
Cm. McCormick stated this is a notice of intention, bur it actually won't take effect until
after a study is done. What is the purpose of changing anything in this now?. It is
academic, so what is the purpose of tweaking it?
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated we are making it quite clear that our goal is 15%, and this
stimulates the discussion in this area.
Mayor Houston stated he felt the message has been heard. He doesn't see any reason for
this resolution at all. There is no teeth in it, but there is not meant to be anyway.
Mr. Peabody stated this is not a requirement. We have done this before when we have
contemplated an increase in fees, It puts it on record that we are considering changes.
Mayor Houston stated since we annexed the transit area we've known that high density
projects are coming along. This gives us an opportunity to really sink our teeth into
something. He discussed our numbers with neighboring community's numbers. We
have a long way to go, but to say we haven't done anything is simply not true. He
applauded the Council for saying this is a Citywide problem and putting General Fund
money in. He again stated he did not feel we even need this resolution at this time.
Cm. Zika clarified that all this has to be put together by the end of the year.
Mr. Peabody stated we are already working on the housing element right now.
Cm. Zika discussed looking at a fee based on selling price of a new home. By the end of
the year, we will hopefully have our act together.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt we need this goal and we need this number.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 2O
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2001
PAGE 311
ViCe Mayor Lockhart stated she is not willing to back away from the goal of 15%
Citywide at this point. The infrastructure is probably the biggest thing. It costs the same
to build a road in front of this house as that house.
Vice Mayor Lockhart referenced the third "whereas" of the resolution, which currently
reads:
'kVI-~REAS~ the Council h~ expressed its intent:
A. to incr~ the City's Affordable Housing S~t Aside~ to I$%~ and
B. to prohibit In-Lieu Fees from being used for a pordon of the Affordable Housing
Set-Aside, which would not exceed one-half of the Affordable Housing Set-Aside; and
NO V~ THEREFORE~ be it resolved that the CiD intends to amend the Inclusionary Zoning
Orch'nance:
a) to increase the amount of the Affordable Housing Set-Aside to an amount that ~vould
not exceed 15% with corresponding amendments to the percentages of moderate~ logy
and very Io~v income units~ and
b) to prohibit In-Lieu Fees from being used for more than one-half of the Inclusionaty
units."
Vice Mayor Lockhart suggested changing it to read:
A. to establish a Citywide affordable housing goal of 15% and the second a) would
read:
a) to establish a City-wide affordable housing goal of 15% and leave out amount that
would not exceed one-half...
The Council next discussed potential wording: A. to establish a Citywide affordable
housing goal in an amount not to exceed 15% of new housing units and to leave in both
B. and b) as they currently read.
Mayor Houston stated he felt at some point you have to do the study.
Vice Mayor Lockhart suggested, after additional discussion, that they remove both B. and
b) sections.
Following further discussion, Vice Mayor Lockhart stated she did not mind leaving B. and
b) in. We don't want everybody copping out to the fee. We want to close this loophole.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME gO
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 200'1
PAGE 312
The final agreed upon language was:
WHEREAS, the Council has expressed its intent:
A. to establish a Citywide affordable housing goal of 15%; and
B. to prohibit In-Lieu Fees from being used for a portion of the Affordable Housing
Set-Aside, which would not exceed one-half of the Affordable Housing Set~Aside;
and
WHEREAS, the City intends...
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City intends to amend the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance:
a) to establish a Citywide affordable housing goal in an amount of 15% of new
housing units; and
b) to prohibit In~Lieu Fees from being used for more than one-half of the Inclusionary
units.
On motion of Vice Mayor Locldaart, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by majority vote,
with the changes discussed, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 132 - 01
EXPRESSING THE CITY'S INTENT TO INCREASE PERCENTAGE
OF AFFORDABLE UNITS AND RELATED CHANGES TO THE
INCLUSlONARY ZONING ORDINANCE
Mayor Houston voted in opposition to the motion.
Mayor Houston asked if the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments regarding
affordable housing issues as they relate to Inclusionary Zoning and final Ordinance
changes would be done with all the other studies?
Mr. Peabody stated they could change the General Plan and look at changing the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
On motion of Vice Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted Staff recommendations as follows: #Z Confirmed Council direction to
establish priority areas for affordable housing in new developments throughout the City.
#5 Authorized a GPA Study to determine GP changes that may set goals for affordable
housing in various geographic areas of the City. #6 Instructed Staff to schedule a City
Council study session in September or October, Z001, regarding specific potential
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance amendments. #7 Instructed Staff to complete any GP
and Zoning Ordinance amendments regarding affordable housing issues as they relate to
Inclusionary Zoning and final Ordinance changes by November, 2001 for appropriate
public hearings.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2001
PAGE 313
On motion of Vice Mayor Lockhart, Seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted (4.7 600~40/515~60)
RESOLUTION NO. 180 -01
AUTHORIZING FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 FUNDING FOR THE
COMPUTERS FOR OUR SCHOOLS PROJECT
MATCHING MONEY AGREEMENT
and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement with DUSD for funding
computer technical support.
Vice Mayor Lockhart pulled Item 4.11 regarding the Fire Stations proposed prototype.
She stated she is so pleased to see this and the Green Building Guidelines are especially
noteworthy. Recent newspaper editorials indicate no one is doing their fair share with
environmental issues. She commented she is glad we are taking advantage of Waste
Management's expertise.
On motion of Vice Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous
vote, the Council approved (4.11 600~30) and authorized the Mayor to execute a
Consultant Services Agreement with BSA Architects for Fire Stations ;gl 7 and #18.
The next 3 items (7.2, 8.2 and 8.3) were taken out of order for consideration by the
Council.
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CITY'S INTENT
TO AMEND THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ON THE AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
8:52 p.m. 6.1 (430-20)
Mayor Houston opened the public hearing.
Community Development-Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised
that on July 17, 2001, the City Council adopted a Resolution expressing the City's intent
to increase the percentage of affordable units and related changes to the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance. This Resolution will put developers on notice that the City Council
intends to adopt an Ordinance imposing a fee. By notifying developers, applications for
CITY COUNCIL MINU'r~S
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2001
PAGE 440
discretionary approvals submitted after the adoption of this Resolution, but before
adoption of the fee, will be subject to the changes to the Inclusionary Housing fee.
Notices of this hearing have been sent out to developers with potential future residential
projects.
Bruce Fiedler stated in the earlier joint Study Session the 1999-2006 numbers indicated
about 25% of our population is low and very low~income households. He stated he
supports an inclusionary housing plan and feels this can be done. There is value in
having a mix ofhousing in the City. He also supports later item for change and
additional fees.
Mayor Houston closed the public hearing.
On motion of Vice Mayor Lockhart, seconded byCm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 182 - 0t
EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENT TO AMEND
THE CITY OF DUBLIN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE
AS CURRENTLY CODIFIED IN
CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
(Intent is to establish a Citywide affordable housing goal in an amount not to exceed 15%
of new housing units and to prohibit in-lieu fees from being used for more than Y2 of the
affordable/inclusionary units.)
NOT~: An e-mail (pserna_~hbanc. o _rg) was mccived late in the afternoon from Phillip I~ Sern~
Vice President of Re$ional Gove~ental Affaim, Home Buildem Association of Noz~hern
Cah'fo~rd~ stadn$~ aAs I can not be present at tonishFs heatfn& please clatf(y for the reco~t
that should the CiOr Council adopt the resolution of intent~ such acC'on will in no way prohibit
entitiea with vested development ~f~,hts~ as d¢~ncd in the Subdi~'sion Map Act~ from meeting
the requirements of the cun~nt inclusionmy o~'nance (Chapter $. 68 of the Municipal Code as
of October I ~ 200 0 and acquirin$ buildinE pennits or other subsequent entitlements. '
PUBLIC HEARING ~ WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR CROWN CHEVROLET AND ENEA/HHH PROPERTIES PA 01-024
8:57 p.m. 6.2 (410~55).
Mayor Houston opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that this item is for
the City Council to consider an amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan for the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUMII 20
REGULAR MEETING
October 16, 2001
PAGE 441
ORDINANCE NO. - 02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF
THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING
REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings: The City of Dublin finds that:
A. The citizens of Dublin are experiencing a housing shortage for very low-,
low- and moderate-income households.
B. A goal of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan is to achieve a
balanced community with housing available for households of a range of income levels.
C. Persons with very low, low, and moderate incomes'that currently live
and/or work in the City are increasingly unable to locate housing at prices they can
afford, and often become excluded from living in the City.
D. Federal and State housing subsidy programs are insufficient by themselves
to satisfy the housing needs of very low-, low- and moderate-income households.
E. The high cost of newly constructed housing does not, to any appreciable
extent, provide housing affordable by very low-, low-, and moderate-income households,
and continued new development that does not include affordable housing will serve to
further aggravate the current housing shortage by reducing the supply of developable
land.
F. It is a public purpose of the City, and a public policy of the State as
mandated by the requirements for a housing element of the City's General Plan, to make
available an adequate supply of housing for persons 'of all economic segments of the
community.
Section 2. Amendment of Chapter 8.68: Chapter 8.68, entitled "Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations," of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA "): The
City Council declares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following
findings: This ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the
environment, directly or ultimately. This ordinance does not, in itself, allow the
construction of any building or structure. This ordinance, therefore, has no potential for
resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.
q A .,FiM ENT
Section 4. Severability: In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be
determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable
and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5: Savings Clause: All code'provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances
in conflict with the provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter,
insofar as they are substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same
subject matter shall be construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as
new enactments. With respect, however, to violations, rights accrued, liabilities accrued,
or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, under any chapter,
ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose
of sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such
violation, right, liability or appeal.
Section 6. Effective Date and Posting Of Ordinance: This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the
City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in
the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
__day of ,2002, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
Exhibit A
CHAPTER 8.68 INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS
8.68.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment
of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households
of very low, low, and moderate income.
Bo
assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner
consistent with the City's housing policies and needs.
8.68.020. Definitions. As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows:
A. "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental-housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to
households with very-low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this chapter.
Rental units are deemed affordable units if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of maximum
income level for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household
size and as defined below.
Owner-occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in annual
mortgage payments that do not exceed 30% of maximum income level for very-low-, low-,
and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below.
Bo
"Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any
entitY or combination of entities that seeks city real property development permits or approvals.
"Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household.
"Very-low-, low-, and moderate-income levels" means those income and eligibility levels
determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
based on Alameda County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be
calculated on the basis of gross annual household income .considering household size and number of
dependents, income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of
household income and will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and state and federal housing
law.
',Very-low income" means 50% or less of the median income, adjusted for actual household
size.
"Low income" means more than 50% to 80% of the median income, adjusted for actual
household size.
o
"Moderate income" means more than 80% to 120% of the median income, adjusted for actual
household size.
1
Eo
"Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall
be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very-low-, low-, or moderate-income
households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 30 years. With respect to rental units, such
rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable
property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale
restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property.
Fo
"Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multiple-
dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium
conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and
residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public.
8.68.030. General Requirements
mo
15% Affordability Requirement. All new residential development projects of 20 units or more
designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 15% of the total number of dwelling
units within the develoPment as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this chapter. The
foregoing requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development (and generally
at the tentative map stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the
development, provided the total number of units does not change. In applying and calculating the
affordability requirement, any decimal fraction less than or equal to 0.50 may be disregarded, and any
decimal fraction greater than 0.50 shall be construed as one unit.
Allocation of Units to Income Levels. Affordable units provided pursuant to this section shall be
allocated to households with very-low, low-, and moderate-income levels as follows:
Very-low-income households
30%
Low-income households
20%
Moderate-income households
50%
Where the calculation of the allocation results in fewer units that would otherwise be required
pursuant to subdivision A above, one additional unit should be allocated to the income level with a
decimal fraction closest to 0.50.
Co
Do
Conditions of Approval: Any tentative map, conditional use permit, or site development review
approving residential development projects subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient
to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of
affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the
applicant's manner of compliance with this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement
imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units.
Concurrent Construction. All affordable units in a project or phase of a project shall be constructed
concurrently with market-rate units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that extenuating
circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or.impractical.
2
Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of
numbers 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.
8.68.040. Exceptions to 15% Affordability Requirement. Exceptions requiring City Council approval
shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for the project.
Ao
Payment of Fees In-Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon request of the applicant, the City
Manager shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to half of the affordable
units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to section 8.68.030.A. 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
shall be paid at issuance of the building perraits for each market-rate unit in the project, and the
amount of the fee shall be as set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of issuance of
the building permit.
Bo
Off-Site Projects. An applicant may construct the affordable units not physically within the
development in lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the development, with
the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds:
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.
2. that the units to be constructed off site are consistent with section 8.68.030.E above
3. that it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site.
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.
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 5 years).
Co
Land Dedication. An applicant may dedicate land to the City or. city-designated local non-profit
housing developer in lieu of construction of some of all of the required affordable units, if the council
finds that:
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.
Do
2. that the dedicated land is large enough and appropriately zoned to accommodate the number
of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 8.68.030.A, 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 and has a value that equals the
costs of constructing the required affordable units that would otherwise be required pursuant
to Section 8.68.020.A.
Credi~ transfers. An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of section 8.68.030.A
through the use of transfer credits created pursuant to section 8.68.060. Credit certificates shall be
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 the requirements for
Inclusionary Units for the income category (i.e, very low, loW, or moderate) and number of
bedrooms for which they are issued.
E. Waiver of Requirements. The City Council, at its discretiOn, may waive the requirements of this
ordinance, as to some or all of the affordable units otherwise required to be constructed pursuant to
this chapter, and approve alternate methOds of complianCewith this chapter if the applicant
demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this
chapter°
8.68.050. General Procedures for Implementing Inclusionary Zoning Requirements
A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or
rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement between the City and
the developer, in a form consistent with the City Council,adopted form agreement, which agreement
shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable units. The agreement shall be
executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall rUn with the land and bind the applicant's
successors.
Bo Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units shall require the owner of the affordable units to
submit an annual report to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall
include, but not be limited to the following information: an identification of the affordable units
within the project; the monthly rents charged and propOsed to'be charged; vac .ancy information for
the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year.
City's Right of First Refusal on Ownership Units. The reSale restrictions shall provide that in the
event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall haVe the right to purchase any affordable owner-
occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible houSehold.
Do
Selection Criteria. No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this
chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has approved the household's eligibility°
Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income,
the median combined household income statistics published periodically by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development, 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 shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance
with the terms of this chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children.
Selection of qualified person should be based on priorities established in the City's Affordable
Housing Program as notes below:
1. Dublin residents that are seniors
Dublin residents that are permanently disabled
Dublin residents and non-residents who are members of Dublin's workforce
4. Dublin residents with children
5. Other Dublin residents
6. Non-residents that are seniors
7, Non-residents that are permanently disabled
8. Other non-residents.
To qualify as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Dublin for at
least a one-year period prior to the eligibility determination.
8.68.060. Affordable Unit Credits.
Creation. Affordable unit credits may be created by the City Council. One affordable unit credit
certificate shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable
units required to be constructed for the project by Section 8.68.030.A. The certificate shall designate
a specific income category (i.e., very-low, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for
which they are issued.
Ownership and use of credits. Affordable unit credit certificates are issued to and become the
possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this chapter
for another project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall
first obtain the consent of the Community Development Director, who will document the transfer by
certificate number.
8.68.070.
Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units. The City may, but shall
not be required to, offer incentives or financial assistance to encourage the on-site construction of
affordable units in excess of 15% of the total number of units in the project to the extent resources
for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City Council or City Manager.
Such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
A. Fee Deferral.
Development Processing Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City
processing fees applicable to the review and processing of the project. The terms and
payment schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager.
Development Impact Fees. The City Council may authorize the deferred payment of
development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive
requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility.
The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees.
Design Modifications. The City Council may approve design modifications to affordable units that
increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units, including but not limited to, the
following:
1. .Reduced lot size.
2. Reduced setback requirements.
3. Reduced open space requirements.
4. Reduced landscaping requirements.
5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities.
6. Reduction in parking requirements.
7. Height restriction waivers.
8,68.080. Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Fund. In-lieu Fees shall be deposited into a fund known as
the "Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fees Fund" ("Fund").
Ao
Use. All monies in the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable
administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing
very-low, low-, and moderate-income ownership or rental housing in the City of Dublin.
Annual report. The City Manager shall prepare an annual report to the City Council identifying the
balance of monies in the Fund and the affordable units provided and any monies committed to
providing very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. The annual report shall also include a
review of administrative charges.
8.68.090.
Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity that
is subject to this ordinance pursuant to section 8.68.030.A to violate any provision or to fail to
comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. A violation of any of the provisions or
failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor;
except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, any such violation constituting a
misdemeanor under this chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and
prosecuted as an infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of this
Code shall be punishable as proVided by the Government Code of the State of California.
8.68.100. Enforcement.
General. The City Manager shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all
agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City Manager may suspend or revoke any
building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this chapter. No land-use
approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residential development
unless exempt from or in compliance with this chapter. The City may institute any appropriate legal
actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions
to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.
Be
Excessive rents/legal action. If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those allowed
by operation of this chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may
take appropriate legal action to recover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant,
or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged.
8.68.110. Appeals. Decisions of the City Manager under this Chapter may be appealed as provided in
Chapter 8.136.
g: plalming/housing/inclusionary/inclusionary zoning ordinance 011701
7
March 19, 2002
Proposed New Inclusionary In Lieu Fee
Construction costs
Land, Site Dev., Admin.~
Plan Check/Building Permits
City/Subregional Impact Fees2
School Impact Fee3
Total Cost
Max Purchase Price4
Difference (Total Cost- Max. Purchase Price)
IIn-Lieu Fee per Market Rate Unit (Difference *7.5%)
In-Lieu Fee per unit for 7.$% of Affordable units not built
$ 96,000
$ 126,900
$ 2,075
$ 45,868
$ 6,625.
$ 277,468
$ 205,292
$ 72,176
$ $,413 I
$ 72,176
General Model Assumptions
2001
Alameda county Medium Income
Very low income (family of four)
Low income (family of four)
Moderate income (family of four)
$ 35,800 ~ 50%
$ 57,280 ~ 80%
$ 85,920 ~ 120%
Inclusionary requirement (percent of project at BMR)
Dedication obligation
Max In-Lieu fee option
Sales price for-sale unit, family of four5
Construction costs per square foot
Size of unit (habitable area in fi2 )6
Land, Site Dev. & Admin. as a percent of fair market sales price
of.
of
of
71,600
15.0%
7.5%
7.5%
$ 277,468
$ 80.00
1,200
45±%
Distribution of BMR needs?
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
30%
20%
50%
Home Loan and Payment Assumptions
Percentage of gross income dedicated to housing costs
Term
Interest rate
Down Payment
Annual Property tax
Monthly homeowners insurance premium ($500/yr.)
Monthly utility costs (HUD standard?)
30.0%
30-year fixed
7.00%
5.0%
1.0%
$ 42
$ 100
NOTES:
Equals 45_+% of fair market sales price ~ $277,468
Source: City of Dublin, "Permit and Impact Fee Schedule for New RESIDENTIAL Developments EFFECTIVE October 10, 2001"
B~ed on "Medium Density Residential" SFD unit on 3,500 Ra lot.
Weighted average value based on ABAG BMR dis~ibution and maximum purchase price for Vet Low, Low and Moderate income
households.
Source: "Dublin Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee" calculation distributed at 9/28/01 meeting.
Source: "Dublin Affordable Housingln-Lieu Fee" calculation distributed at 9/28/01 meeting.
One bedroom ~ 144 ft2; two bedrooms ea. ~ 100 ft2; one bathroom ~ 100 ft2; one bathroom ~ 60 ft2; kitchen ~ 100 ft2; one
dining area ~ I00 ft2; living area ~ 100 fle; living area ~ 256 ft2; hallways, closets~ utility @ 240 ft2
Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Housing Needs Determination 1999-2006
gShousing\inclusionary\inclhsngin-lieu feetbl2
Inclusionary Ordinance Work Group
1)
Maurine Behrend
Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty
P.O. Box 1652
San Ramon, CA 94583
Office: 820-0758
Fax: 925-838-2483
mbehrend~home.com
6)
Marty Inderbitzen
7077 Koll Center Parkway #120
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Office: 925-485-1060
Fax: 925-485-1065
ndrbtzn~hotmail.com
2)
3)
David Bonn
Northern California Land Trust
3126 Shattuck Ave.
Berkely, CA 94750
Office: 510-548-7878 ext. 343
Fax: 510-548-7562
david.jay bonn(~_~nclt.org
Kevin Peters
Shea Homes
2580 Shea Center Dr.
Livermore, CA 94550
Office: 925-245-3604
Fax: 925-245-8833
kevin.peters(~_~sheahomes.com
7)
8)
Cm. Claudia McCormick
7170 Emerald Ave.
Dublin, CA 94568
Home: 925-828-1672
Fax: 925-828-6148
chindidub~aol.com
Cm. Tony Oravetz
7748 Squirrel Creek Circle
Dublin, CA 94568
Home: 925-829-7139
Work: 925-423-6974
Tony. Oravetz ~ci. dublin, ca. us
4)
Phil Serna
Home Builders Assoc.
P.O. Box 5160
San Ramon, CA 94583
Office: 925-820-7626 ext. 209
Fax: 925-820-7296
psema~hbanc.org
5)
Linda Mandolini
Eden Housing
409 Jackson St.
Hayward, CA 94544
Office: 510-247-8117
Fax: 510-582-6523
lmandolini@edenhousing.org
ATTACHMEN'T ~
Members present: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Cm. Claudia McCormick;
Cm. Tony Oravetz; Phil Serna, HBA; Marty Inderbitzen, Kevin Peters, Shea Homes; Maureen
Behrend, Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty; Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary
Eddie Peabody Called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. He introduced Julia Abdala, the new
Housing Specialist with the City of Dublin.
Mr. Peabody explained Phil Serna created an assumption sheet to determine construction costs
on a 1,200 sq. ft. affordable unit for a family of four.
Cm. McCormick asked if the unit was two bedrooms.
Mr. Peabody responded three bedrooms. There are income caps for each category; for example,
a family of four ranges from 35,800 for very low to $85,000 for moderate. They used an average
based on the percentages at 50% for moderate, 20% low and 30% very low, and ended up with
$205,000 for an affordable unit.
Cm. McCormick asked if there is a low-end number or a range.
Mr. Peabody said yes; the low end is $139,000.
Mr. Serna stated the figures.
Mr. Peabody explained that the new ordinance will have a 15% affordability requirement; 7-*A%
of the total units to be built as affordable on top of a 7-V2% fee. As an example, a subdivision
with 107 units, eight units would be the requirement for affordable housing. The remaining 99
units will be subject to a 7-~/~% fee totaling $535,000.
Mr. Serna stated there are additional costs and fees to build market rate units. The final cost
would be higher than $535,000.
ATTAOHMEN? (o
Mr. Peabody said the difference to subsidize the eight units is approximately $500,000.
Mr. Inderbitzen asked why the builder is required to build the units and pay a fee. What if the
units can't be built.
Mr. Peabody stated there are other options such as land dedication.
Mr. Serna said Livermore's Ordinance has an option that allows the City Council to wane the
dedication requirements if the units can't be built.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated 4,000 units are left for Dublin Ranch. Based on this proposal they would
have to pay $40 million in fees or build 300 units and $20 million in fees. That is a huge hit.
Mr. Peabody stated 15% is the goal. It is a fair and reasonable approach.
Mr. Inderbitzen said the fee approach is just about right but 15% is too large of a jump.
Ms. McCormick Said the Council is feeling the pressure to catch up and provide affordable
housing units.
Mr. Serna suggested waiting until the Commercial Linkage fee is established.
Ms. Behrand stated 7.5% is assuming the developer is going to build.
Kevin Peters stated he has series concerns with the program. What are the deed restrictions?
Ms. Abdala said there could be equity share restrictions.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated the City could share the unit appreciation 50/50. He asked if a builder
could build 15% of the units and not a fee.
Mr. Peabody responded yes.
Mr. Serna stated he would like to reconvene after the commercial linkage fee is underway.
Mr. Peters suggested to meet after the commercial linkage fee is adopted.
Mr. Serna stated a huge chunk is missing without knowing what other resources are on
commercial linkage.
Ms. Abdala stated sometimes the cost to build affordable units is higher and more complex
than market rate units.
Mr. Peters said they did not create the problem and are part of the solution.
Cm. McCormick agreed with Mr. Peters.
Mr. Peabody stated the approach is on the table. Staff will put together the draft ordinance and
have one more meeting to discuss it.
The meeting was set for Tuesday January 22na at 3:30 p.m. and adjourned the meeting.
Members present: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; John Bakker, Assistant
City Attorney; Phil Serna, HBA; Marty Inderbitzen, Kevin Peters, Shea Homes; Maureen
Behrend, Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty; Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing; Maria Carrasco,
Recording Secretary
Eddie Peabody called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and stated the group will review 'the
Draft Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and discuss in-lieu fees. The February 5, 2002 City
Council meeting is the target date for a study session on the amendments. He explained the
present ordinance requires 5% affordable units for a 20 unit subdivision or larger. The
developer has the option to pay in lieu fees at $2.00 per square foot for single family and $1.75
per square foot for multi family.
The new ordinance requires 15% affordable units for all projects of 20 units or more; 7.5%
constructed units and 7.5% in fees. If the units cannot be built the City Council may allow
dedication of land.
Mr. Inderbitzen asked what page in the ordinance explains in lieu fee options.
Mr. Bakker stated page 3 explains in-lieu fees. There is a minor change to the text changing the
word will to shall in section 8.68.040 Exceptions to Affordability Requirement Section A - Payment of
Fees In-Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon request of the applicant, the City Manager shall
permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to half of the affordable units that the
developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to section.
Mr. Peabody explained that page 4 has new selection criteria for qualified persons on priorities
established in the City's Affordable Housing Program.
Mr. Serna suggested checking the legality on the selection process.
MS. Mandolini stated there are fair housing laws that should be reviewed.
Mr. Peabody suggested rewording that section of the ordinance.
Mr. Peters said to add a sentence stating not to conflict with discrimination laws.
Ms. Mandolini stated that they should change the word select to reference.
Mr. Peabody stated that the City is putting funds into affordable housing and Dublin residents
should have preference.
Ms. Mandolini stated it is legal to have preference pools. The City could keep the waiting list
rather that the developer.
Mr. Peabody stated the City Attorney would review the ordinance and make the necessary
changes to the selection process section.
Mr. Peabody discussed in lieu fee funds. In lieu fees shall be deposited into a fund for
affordable housing and the City shall commit to using the funds to provide affordable housing.
Mr. Serna suggested giving the funds to a non-profit organization if the City can't use the funds
within 7 years.
Mr. Peabody said the City Council has the authority to waive or modify the requirements based
on the project. For example, Toll Brothers is building million dollar homes, where it isn't
economically feasible to construct affordable housing for that project.
Mr. Peters said the ordinance should include or refer to Commercial Linkage. Inclusionary
shouldn't have to stand-alone.
There was discussion on Commercial Linkage/Non Residential fee issue.
Mr. Peters asked if a project is exempt from affordable housing requirements if it is less than 20
units.
Mr. Peabody stated yes.
Mr. Peters suggested wording that addresses compatibility of affordable units and non-
affordable units. Four and 5 bedroom homes would be difficult to construct for affordability.
Mr. Serna asked why the City Manager has so much authority under Section C. Priority
Processing.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated it gives the City Manager discretion without going to City Council.
Mr. Peabody suggested wrapping up the meeting.. The critical issue that still needs to be
addressed is the in lieu fees. He stated he would be meeting with the City Manager on the
methodology of determining the fee. Using Phil Serna'S assumption sheet, the present $5,400
fee looks in goOd shape. The target date for City Council is February 5th for a study session.
Staff reports will be sent to everyone on the task force.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE COMPARISIONS
CITIES Percentage of Development Required to Length of Restriction In-Lieu Fee Required
be Below Market Rate (BMR)
PLEASANTON 15% for multi family development 30 years, each resale $1,054 per multi family unit*
20% for single family development starts another 30 years $3,160 per single family unit*
LIVERMORE 10% of development' 55 years 10% of the,difference between the cost for a market rate unit and the
** maximum price for BMR unit. Example single family unit market
rate value $250,223; maximum low income price for BMR $130,492
= fee is $11,973 per unit. No multi family rate was established.
DUBLIN 15% of development - 7.5% must be built 30years $72,176per required affordable unit not built.
PROPOSED
PLEASANTON LIVERMORE (other provisions)
City Council has ability to modify very low, Iow
and moderate income breakdown
1. Very low, low and moderate-income
breakdown is handled on a case by case basis
agreed to in an Affordable Housing
Agreement.
2. *In lieu fees are waived for the following:
)~ If multi unit development has all BMR
units for low and very low income,
fees are waived for entire project
> If single family and multi family
development with moderate income
BMR, fees are waived for the BMF
units ONLY
Alternatives to BMR units on site or fees
Off site development of affordable housing
Land dedication to City or non profit
developer, land to be ready for
development
** All residential development to date has provided
units instead of asking to pay fees because of the
quota-like system for allowing development. Due to
this growth management plan, developers try to
provide proposals the City will view favorably.
Producing affordable units is viewed more in line
with their policy than paying a in lieu fee
If units are built, in lieu fees are waived
Alternatives to BMR units on site or fees
1. Provision of secondary units on a lot (up to
20% of requirement) is allowed for BMR
units
2. Off site construction of affordable housing
3. Land dedication in development ready
condition
Alternatives to BMR units on site or fees
1. BMR units on site or fees
2. Land dedication at value of affordable
units required (City Council approved)
3. Off site construction of affordable housing
(City Council approved)
4. In lieu fees (City CounCil approved)
ATTACHMENT 7