HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Anderson Property GP
SUBJECT:
A TT ACHMENTS:
CITY CLERK
File # D~[I]~-[3J[{l]
L/-IO,55
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 17,2007
Initiation of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study for the Anderson property located at 3457 Croak Road.
Report Prepared by: Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
5)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Resolution approving initiation of a General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study.
Resolution denying initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study.
Vicinity Map.
Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing Proposal - October 18
2005.
City Council Staff Report (w/out Attachments) of October 18,2005.
City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18,2005.
City Council Staff Report (w/out Attachments) of June 5, 2007
City Council Meeting Minutes of June 5, 2007
Project proposal and letter from the Applicant dated March 19,
2007.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map.
Receive Staff presentation;
Receive presentation from Applicant;
Receive public comment; and
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving initiation of a General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study; or
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying initiation of a General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study.
The cost to prepare the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment shall be borne by the affected property owner who
has requested this amendment.
COPIES TO:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant
Property Owner
Page 1 of 4
ITEMNO.i.l
G:\PA#\2005\05-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\Anderson\ccsr 7.17.07 gpa spa request.doc
o
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Anderson property is located north of Interstate 580 and east of Croak Road in Fallon Village
(formerly EDPO) and included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 3).
In December 2005, a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution
No. 223-05), and Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance No. 32-05) was adopted by the City
Council for Fallon Village which includes the Anderson property. The following General Plan and
Specific Plan land use designations were adopted at that time for the Anderson property:
Table 1
ecific Plan land Use
us Office
Acrea e
7 ac
34.2 ac
9.1 ac
50.3 ac
Positano Affordable Housing Obligation
Braddock & Logan's Positano development is located east of Fallon Road within the northern portion of
Fallon Village (Attachment 3) and consists of 1,043 single-family detached residential units. In
accordance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.68), the Positano
development has a requirement to provide 130 affordable units.
Total Inclusionary Inclusionary
Units Requirement Units
1,043 12.5% 130
Table 2
Braddock & Logan prepared an Affordable Housing Proposal (Attachment 4) to address the affordable
housing obligation for the Positano development which was reviewed by the City Council on October 18,
2005. This Affordable Housing Proposal included:
. 88 off-site affordable apartments located on the Anderson property;
. 26 on-site affordable integrated units within the Positano development;
. 26 on-site secondary units within the Positano development; and
. $1,000,000 Community Benefit Payment.
Please refer to Table 3 for a summary of the affordable units proposed for construction as part of the
Affordable Housing Proposal for the Positano development.
a e : or a e ousmg roposa cto er ,
Unit Type Ownership Income Level Size of Units Affordability
/Rental Period
88 Apartments* 50% moderate All
Rental 20% low 2 bedroom! In perpetuity
30% very low 2 bath
26 Single-family For sale 50% moderate Same mix of In perpetuity
detached Units 20% low bedroom size as
T bl 3 Af~ d bl H
P
lOb 18 2005
Page 2 of 4
Unit Type Ownership Income Level Size of Units Affordability
/Rental Period
30% very low market rate units
50% moderate All
26 Secondary Units Rental 20% low 1 bedroom! In perpetuity
30% very low 1 bath
130 Total Units
* Includes 9 units to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning requirements for the Anderson property & 1
manager's unit as defined in the Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal.
Staff presented Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal to the City Council on October 18,
2005, and requested direction from the City Council on how to proceed with the proposal. The City
Council reviewed the proposal and directed Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal
(Attachment 5) as follows:
1) Study the feasibility of integrating the 88 affordable apartment units into a larger project on the
Anderson property;
2) Work on timing issues and obtain the necessary security to ensure completion of the project on the
Anderson property;
3) Include landscaping for the rear yards of the affordable units and use energy-efficient measures in
the homes to reduce the cost of housing; and
4) Incorporate green building principles, as practical.
At that meeting, the City Council described that the integration of the 88 affordable apartments units
proposed for the Anderson parcel should be developed as a mixed-income project with market-rate units.
Since the October 18, 2005 City Council meeting, Staff and Braddock & Logan have worked to refine the
proposal in accordance with the direction from the City Council. Due to uncertainties about the off-site
affordable units on the Anderson property, Braddock & Logan proposed a phased approach to the
affordable obligation to allow the initial phases of Po sita no to move forward.
On June 5, 2007, the City Council approved an Affordable Housing Agreement (Attachments 7 and 8) for
the first phase of Positano which consists of 247 lots. The agreement requires Braddock & Logan to
provide 31 on-site affordable units in this first phase. The Affordable Housing obligation for the 31
affordable housing units will be satisfied with a combination of both integrated units, secondary units and
the payment of in-lieu fees.
In order to address the affordable obligation for subsequent phases of Positano, Braddock and Logan has
submitted a request to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the
Anderson property (Attachment 9). The Applicant proposes to amend the General Plan and Specific Plan
land use designation of the Anderson property from Medium Density to Medium-High Density in order to
address the direction from the City Council to integrate market rate units with the proposed affordable
units.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment
Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal includes 88 units (87 affordable units and 1 manager's
unit) to be constructed on the Anderson property to satisfy the remaining affordable housing obligation
for the Positano development. As noted above, the City Council directed Staff to work with the Applicant
Page 3 of4
to study the feasibility of incorporating market rate units into the proposed project on the Anderson
property.
The current General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designation for the Anderson
property is Medium Density. The Medium Density land use designation permits a maximum of 98
residential units on the Anderson property as shown in Table 4 below:
General Plan/Specific Plan land Use Acreage Density Range Min-Max
Density
Medium Density (current designation) 7 ac 6.1-14.0 units/ac 42-98 units
Medium-High Density (proposed designation) 7ac 14.1-25.0 units/ac 99-175 units
Table 4
Braddock & Logan proposes to study the feasibility of a 108-unit apartment project on the Anderson
property to address the direction of the City Council to incorporate market rate units with the 88
affordable units. However, the 108 residential units exceed the allowable maximum density for the site.
Therefore, Braddock & Logan is requesting Initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment
Study to change the land use designation from Medium Density to Medium-High Density (Table 4) to
allow 108 residential units on the Anderson property (Attachment 9).
The request to initiate General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study includes a conceptual Site Plan
and Building Elevations (Attachment 9). If the City Council initiates the General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study, the conceptual Site Plan and Building Elevations would be subject to a Planned
Development Rezone with Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. The Planned
Development Rezone and Site Development Review Permit would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the City Council at a later date. Therefore, no action by the City Council regarding the
conceptual Site Plan and Elevations is required at this time.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council directed Staff to work with the Applicant to study the feasibility of incorporating market
rate units into the proposed 88 unit affordable project on the Anderson property. The existing General
Plan and Specific Plan land use designation allows a maximum of 98 units on the Anderson property.
The proposed GP AlSP A Study would allow Staff and the Applicant to explore the feasibility of
incorporating additional units on the Anderson property.
If the City Council authorizes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the
Anderson property, Staffwill:
. Determine the appropriate environmental review;
. Examine the proposed alternative density and determine if the density is appropriate based
on City policies and standards; and
. Prepare a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and Site
Development Review for the proposed residential development on the Anderson property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive presentation from
Applicant; 3) Receive public comment; and 4) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the request to
Initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study; or 5) Adopt Resolution
(Attachment 2) denying initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study.
Page 4 of 4
1141
RESOLUTION NO. - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE ANDERSON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3457 CROAK ROAD (APN 905-0001-006)
WHEREAS, Mr. Jeff Lawrence, on behalf of Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., has submitted a
request to consider a 108-unit residential apartment project on a 7-acre portion of the Anderson
property located at 3457 Croak Road; and
WHEREAS, the Anderson property has a current General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designation of Medium Density which allows a maximum of98 dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 108-unit development exceeds the maximum density permitted in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in order to consider the additional residential units on the Anderson property, an
amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is required that would change
the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations from Medium Density to Medium-High
Densi ty; and
WHEREAS, additional entitlements including a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement would need to
be processed; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under
Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines for basic data collection, research, and resource
evaluation activities; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby
approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to
modify the land use designation from Medium Density to Medium-High Density for a residential
property located at 3457 Croak Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant shall pay for all processing costs involved
with the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the Dublin City Council on this 1 ih day of July
2007 by the following votes:
--r-temtf 3.~ 7/, 'I/O l rv4
Attachment 1 0
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2005\05-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\Anderson\CC Resos Anderson GPASPA initiation.doc
dJ';f
L;Cj
I I
;3 ,~JP If- c;
-1
RESOLUTION NO. - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE ANDERSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3457
CROAK ROAD (APN 905-0001-006)
WHEREAS, Mr. Jeff Lawrence, on behalf of Braddock & Logan Services, Inc, has submitted a
request to consider a 108-unit residential apartment project on a 7-acre portion of the Anderson
property located at 3457 Croak Road; and
WHEREAS, the Anderson property has a current General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designation of Medium Density which allows a maximum of98 dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 108-unit development exceeds the maximum density permitted in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in order to consider the additional residential units on the Anderson property, an
amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is required that would change
the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations from Medium Density to Medium-High
Densi ty; and
WHEREAS, additional entitlements including a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement would need to
be processed; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under
Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines for basic data collection, research, and resource
evaluation activities; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby deny
the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to modify the
land use designation from Medium Density to Medium-High Density for a residential property located
at 3457 Croak Road.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the Dublin City Council on this 1 ih day of July
2007 by the following votes:
Attachment 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\P A#\2005\05-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\Anderson\CC Resos Anderson GP ASP A initiation.doc
Mayor
4141
I
! ~
I ~
I :
_-_-_-_-_-_-L_-_--= !
I
~
"
I
T
ANDERSON PROPERTY - FALLON VILLAGE
VICINITY MAP
193 I 3-0 MARCH 2007
-r--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENGINEERS
PI..EASMlTON, rA.
PlANNfP<;
mACKAY &: som,s
SURVEYORS
(915) 125-0690
51 i;1
Attachment 3
....,,~ ....... ---- -_..-- ..-
,
I
I ,
'-
, 1.;1
Braddock & Logan's
Alfo rda b Ie Ho using Proposa 1
The following is Braddoclc and Logan's affordable housing proposal for meeting. the
InclusioDill'Y Zoning requirett1ents set forth in Chapter 8.68. Braddock and Logan is
proposing 10 bundle the following four proposals in order provide the highest number of
units in the most logical place and to meet housing needs not currently being provided for
in the City. Specially the four proposed programs are as follows:
(1) 26Inte1!rated Units. This proposal would provide 26 units on the Bankhead property
(at 30010 for Very Low; 20% Low, and 50% Moderate). These units would be integrated
within the 4,000 square foot lots of Fallon Village and would be in identical in
appearance, materials, and bedroom count and would be consistent with. every portion of
the requirements of Chapter 8.68.
. Timing
Braddock and Logan would be agreeable to a condition of project approval that requires
the developer to begin constructing the Intergraded mdu at no Later than the 17Sdt
building pennit. with completion of these .affordable units at a ratio of 1 affordable unit
completion to every 20 market ~ units being completed. This would result in the
Intergraded affordable units beiDg completed prior to the entire project being 2/3
complete. In additiont Braddock and Logan would be agreeable placing 8. security bond,
guaranteeing the on-time completion of the affordable units.
(2): 26 Secondary DweUinf! Unit. This propo52ll would provide 26 Secondary Dwelling
Units spread throughout the project on lots which are 6,000 square feet or latger (at 3001D
fot Very LoW; 20% Low, and 50"/0 Moderate). These units would be one-bedroom and
would be attached to the primaty unit. These units would appear integrated into the
design of the primary unit; however the seCond unit would be completely self contained.
These units would be designed to accommodate housing needs that are currently not
being met. such as college/career age children living at home; multi..gencra.tional
fiunilies; and or older parents living with children.
nmlng
The Secondary Affordable units would be completed concurrent with units fol' "the lots
that are 6.000 square feet or lager. In addition, Braddock and Logan would be agreeable
placing a security bond. guaranteeing the on-time completion of the Secondary Units.
(3): 87 Medium-Hi~h DeTJSi.ty Affordable Units. This proposal would provide 87
affordable units (and one manager's unit) to be placed upon the Anderson property.
These units wo"U!d be located on property designated medium density residential (at 30%
for Very LoW; 20% Low, and 500J'o Moderate). The Anderson Property is looated to the
east of Central PlU'kway and Croak Road, immediately east of the proposed Village
Center to be located on the Jordon Property. The property is ideally suited in tlmt it is
{D - l '5 -oG"' . S, \.
ATTACHMENT I
Attachment 4
~U/V~I~UUO ~o;u~ rAA
..... ________-.:r-
7@f.l;-9
, I
-,
'.
both located in close proximity to existing and proposed transportation infras1lUCture.
existing and proposed job centers and retail development as well as open space. parks.
schools, and semi public uses.
The affordable units proposed on the Anderson property would contain 2 bedroomS and 2
"hathrooIIlS. Section 8.68.030(E) states the affordable units should reflect the range of
bedrooms provided in the project However. the unit configuration and bedroom count
on the Anderson property is constrained by the natUre of the higher density product and
as a result Braddock and Logan is,requesting a waiver from this requirement of Chapter
8.68..
Timing .
Braddock and Logan would be agreeable to a condition ~f project approval that requires
the developer to begin constructing the Medium~High Density Affordable Units no later
than the no later than 5 yeaTS from the date of the approval of the Tentative Map for the
BJRddock and LoganlBaDkhead properties. In addition, Braddock and Logan would be
agreeable placing a security bood, guaranteeing the on-time completion of the Meclium-
High Density Affordable Units affordable uDits_
(4) Community Benefit Provision. In addition to the other aforementioned affordable
units B:radd.ock and Log[tJl is proposing to provide a million dollars ($1.000,000) to the
City. The City Council can determine the best use of the funds. The monies. could be
placed into the mordable housing in~lieu fee program, or could be utilized for capital
improvements such as reconstruction of Shannon Center or other City Park or facility.
Braddock and Logan is proposing to provide the City all of the aforementioned proposals
in meeting its affordable housing obligation. The combined approach would provide a
total of 139 affordable units. which is 56 units more tlum required by Chapter 8.68.
Additionally. these units would contain rent.and resale restrictions that ensured the unit's
affordability as proposed, indefinitely (as opposed to the required S5 year requirement set
by Section 8.68.030E).
Braddock and Logan feels this combination of proposals will further the City's goat of
providing housing and providing units to households that are not currently served by the
JPmetplace. These affordable units would integrated throughout the 480 acre project
area and would designed, constnlcted, and managed in a way to ensure healthy and
vibrant neighborhoods for years to come.
AU'U~'~VVd ~U~V~ rAA
~
(\!) ,
J
("''-'
!;-1
lO/03/~UUb ~n:ua ~AA
.Dl.oI&UUVt..O.I\~UE,.GLI.
r ?
., lft.
,.......-. n..'-.--..----~--.-. _..... --..-. -.. J-' u._ ...~.-.- .~.-...-.,-...-'~~
__ .-_ _..._-". __--.- __1_ ___.....n-..---.........
~:~
ljI.,.:;
~~.
~~~":,.
..,,; ,
..
"
~:.'
ft-:
j::"'"
~ji'
Ef.: .
l':tr .
~j~:
~t:.
111'>:
~~-
~..{":
::,11....
If::" "
~;'..
ii;~-.
",i'.
t:~
~:;:..
ti.';
~.. .
...,.
~...
~.:;':'
~~~~.;
. .<~.
. ..
~,
~:.
1.1-";:.
Fii.'
:;-~. "
.,,,.
kj;';:
i:;
a,.. .-
it;-:
~. .
~:::.
~!i:~:. .
.;-
,... .
.:~~:
~."., ,
f....
~:
~:
~L....
i.i:io.
,"~fl
~~}~;: .
'.'
.1~,. .
~..
,t
. !~:i<
._--~_..~~..
::',.,~'('~~~~~~T~~'~~....,,-.,#;,.,.
~Jdh-
hit "1I~,.'MlIt~.~Jt .~..-(;Ml1'"liJlllll'lM
..
~
....... r.
........HGuIinI~
1ft 2OCJ4." M~ ...._:...1 o.I- Gf~ ClllIIarito,.wJ" ..
...... ......1v/J.1l~ at......... ~ (H8NC)tIIpII.... fA
corw.....,........lrdJ.-,...... it 1bI_~ 1InCIu"-' hc:lCIIiaI
"........ f1f.....'~ ...,............a --.
~~..ot-- .<1......... and maQlfIIMt..... ~...
~ GUl'CllGlrtIIIUlnIldlI........ utiI" ....".,.." i"-'
. ert........ t.A ~ ..l........... ...........- hallftDa.-
... ...... hauIInI...--1M..
NPH'" JoIBANC 1nTII....... b4-" 1M ...........,11 aMaI ~
lWil4.._..........c:IiIII-'-O----..~......
....._ __ r.n.-. NPM..e. f8ANC~"'" k.......nwah
~~ ......~.........ID.......,.....
...IIdut*..... ...._ .......1ftaIID& FtIJMJ. fJl-'.....
....... _....... ",......."'... .up l~ ~.......
...,d.... ~hdU8inCI _cu., _J_ift .an*t?- ~to....
-~
Atla.... ..JDInl ~.........,............ blWlhIi-'" aD
IrUI J .......... ........... ~...nn "'w.--- .a.4IbJa
1101 lrlg.1n..-- ....-r hGUIIng. .. ........ ....diIIIotMl.,tllmp..
_"III.- ~lIaIIIn..the ....~ m~..IftlIII.....- II
.......... ~ ".... u..I_'" ..~Wt,,~...........
....... tD.... ....andUl~'~.....DIt_tA_.I.
III NPH"" tlWtCrbI........- "*~\pIP...1-"'ALJdm'..
~ taIIIInI ~..aa fDf ....."'~.......,....
....._..... __"" p..... of.,...pokf.
~...... ...HBI'IC.......... .~..... beIII,....-
~........... ........,..s....--- -,...............
......... .-L.....""-O .It. QI.IDInIl_.......... ~
.......,.
~~
r.
~--'i' ~. j ,r:'
_..;....lofoI. t _........."~.L
. e ~ t'
.....-
~_ ceo....,..c
a.n_J. s,.-.
~ Dnd&.NPM
2
~U/U~/~UU~ LU.U~. rAA
Ua U'W.""V"'~."''''''-O''''''''
KEY PRINCIPLES OF INCWSIONARY HOUSING
In its most basic terms. incluslonaf)' housing requires or encourages market-rate
hOLlSing developmen1ls to include a percentage (usually 10 to 20 percent) 01
homes aftordable to lower- and moderate-Income households. lnclu&ionary polI-
cies ta)(e trle form of either a local ordinance, a G.neral Plan policy, or a permit
apprcwals PfOC8S& that requlre9 or rewards affordable houelng projects. While
NPH and HBANC hold cmfering views on the mertts of illClosionary housing, the
foUow1ng are key principle6 upon whiCh our organizations agree:
. Provtding an adequate suppty of housing is B societal responsibility.
. local Cl)mmunlties with indusionary noosing prograrT1$ Mve a respoosibllity to
contribute tangible and lSublStantiill resources 80 that the cost of providing
affordable l'lousi'lJ is spread fairly acrOS$1he community.
Affordable housing poIlc1e$ that maximIZe resources bV providing more hous-
Ing opportunities or deeper levels or affordability at the same or less 006t
$I'lould be encouraged.
. Traditional incluslonary hou$lng policies tI'lat r~uire the development Of 'like-
for-Uke" units dlstrlbuted unifonnly throughout the market-rate development are
often not the mO$t effective or efficient way of providing affordable housing.
. To Increase effectiveness and efficiency, incluslonary h<Jusing programs
shoUld provide nexibility and allow a range of altemative methods of providing
affordable units.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JURISDICTIONS WITH INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING PROGRAMS
Market-rate builders shOUld be provided with a choice of several options tor producing
the affordable homes. The builder should not be required to demonstrate the financial
infeasibility of traditional inclusionary requirements in order to use one of these options
and. 50 long as the relevant criteria for a particular option are met, the builder shoulcl
not be required to obtain approval by the local jurisdiction on a case-by-case bIllsis.
HOUSING TYPE AND DESIGH FLElOIIILI"TY
Market-rate builders shOUld be able to satisfy an inclusionary requirement by prcwlding
alternative for~le hOualng types. such as duets, toINnhouse'S, ot (:Ondomlniums.
Builders should have the option of clustering the units onslte or building gffsIte (see
Offsite Construction, page 4).
r
, ~1
...J
>: if1
J
3
LU/U~/~UUO ~~;u~ ~AA
uJ.a"''\Av",~~e.IUII&.I.
I.
!
'q
l
Market-rate builders should be able to satisfy an lnclusionary requirement by providing rental
hoU$log, provided that the project meets the incluBlonary percentage and income targets
applicable to rental projects. Again, the builder should have the option of clustering the unit3
on the project site or Pfo\i'ldlng for the unl13 offsite (see Off6ite ConstnJction, below).
LAND DmtCATION
Market-rate builders stlould be able to satililfy an IndU$lonary requirement by donating land to
the local government or a non-profit housing developer, subject to the following:
. The buIlder and city $~uld ensure that through an upzoning or density bonus the dedicat-
ed site will accommodate mQre affordable units or units at a deeper affordablllty level than
the inclusionaty . requirement VtOuld have provided:
. Whare rental housing Is to be constructed on the dedicated site, the site should accommo-
date at least 40 affordable units;
. If tl'1e dedicated site is such that it requires 'extra"
construction CO$t&--6uch . me need to (10 podium
development or steel construQtlon-in order to accom-
moc:lme the required number of units, the market..J1rte
builder should bear the extr. cost, includ~ any off$lte
. Improvements, environmental remediation Of' provision
of utilities. In most other situations, the land dedication
itself will satisfy the incluslonary requirement;
lJ.>;l)D~.IIJi~'~:;
AI C"O'llDI1 RolK'fI 01 ~~ CA, rJ,.. Mrwllel'fflf.: ldrk, ptl.ll'ided land :
u EdoN HousIIlf ~ <J( /haly ~'" the ~"11 homet, j
m~ l! j;ouJIIk II> Q;!<Ife 74 aj)l~ 1lff00.:/Qhlc ID f-1IiM ~~ ~
~. 60 /)':fWIl II(/lIW mcdIPn ~o /J28.00l)..$5J,OOOJ.o~
fl'1Itl r/lllflnf (Rut1 1+27 bt $861 p.t Illotttll (i.~.
OfRITJ! CoNsTRUCTloN
. The dedicated site is located within the same jurilrodic-
tion 8$ the project or Within a defined subregion;
The dedicated site should have allland..use entitle-
mel"lt9 secured prior to oornpletion of the market-tale
unIts. If the Ieall jurisdiction unreasonably
refusK to approve the neoessary entiUe~
ments, the b\.Iikier should be able to pay
in-lieu fSDB.
Market-rate builders should be able to choose
to satisfy an inclusionary reqIJrement by pro.
viding for the units to be conwucted outside
the project lOCation. subject to the following:
4
~'" ,,~~ .V\hJ ....U. U.... 1.'n..A.
. The offsite location is either comparable
to the pTl)ject site or will result in either
greater levels of affordablrlty ot III greater
number of affordable uni\$ than the inc1u-
aionary requirement would hri'le provided;
· The affordable units should be developed
concurrently with the nUilri(et-rQte homes.
POOUNG AND CRECrT TlIANS~&RS
: r'f
I'"' ~II+Cj
. TWo or more mar1<e~rate builders should
be able to pool res~rCti to satisfy their
Incluslonsry requirement through a single
affordable houslr~ project;
. Market-rate builders that build "extra"
affordable housing units (I.e., more than
required by the inclusionary ordinance)
should be able to use the adcfltlonal units
as credits for meeting future il'lclusionary
requirements in the jurisaidion or a
defined subregion;
. Markel.rate builders that buIld "extra" affordable housing unItS should be able to sell the
additional units as credlbi to other builders in the $8fl\$ jur1sdlctlon or a defined subregion:
QIn!'/'t CO/-lrrIoL'T/CJN 4T Wz
VJlcI LooM ~ lItlo!llS '''''' nxroJ.. PtlStotlt bf.ox,lft' f1M CIty gf CarId>...( ell
da-d the I~ III ~ I>itIr rh~ notJofttUfit S/llrx;E HDUIJIIf UJ
dIw~ tile ~ IIomes ofP'iI-. bur neClr 1M _~ 110mII'". .
.rurx:E HDt/SIfl, (ft:tllM I. Z. 3 ood of ~ ~ (iIt']ofof llauie . I
IioIdJ IMl'lIitt crt Of l>IIItiw.so -J 61) 1-<""1 oftlle ~ m.drnl iIIa>m.. ;
. The "extra" units should be built before'they can be treated as credits;
. Non-profit builders should alee be able to sell credits to market-rate tJlIUd&1'$ for projects
and/or units that are not being funded by the local govemment The affordable homes
should be entitled before or cohOUfTently with the mar1<et-rate development acquiring
the credits;
. Non-profit builders should be able to aoquire and improve existing m8f'ket-rate devel~
mants and restrict Mure tents to very-low' incorne households and sell the units as cred~
10 other bullden; in the sliIme jurisdiction or a defined subregion. This option should only
be allowed if: a) households served are at or below 50 percent of median income;
b) the property undergoes extensive renovations; 0) number of units acquired and renovat-
ed is at least double that of the standard inclusionlilry requirement; d) affordability is
guaranteed for a period of at least 55 years; and e) tenant relocation is appropriately
addressed.
5
~...., ...... ,.,.......... ......... - ...........
1w-l~)J FmAi'W~
"laid Elm ~.lb4. ClIt' Qr~o1uma
~ ~~lt!UJbank l-IlMm,
~....,t CGtporalllln wlIh /iMlW1n!
,114<!. ~Ie hi lHNI ~ ,DllNnd
iivm VP.lI' mCll......~lIIc! ~/I~
It '~d h.kepl1f aff~fMn .
"'~ fly r.he 4>ft;/inanl;e.OIJ Elm V. ;
plll~ 87 ~ h_ RIflE~ .
from stiJd,.. lb ~rum -dJ_ple_ IlWn .
'-to:.- fb, d "'1II 0( 1.,,,,,,.i>>1dI. ~
10.40. SO. 60. Pl'(/ 10 pom"'" of
Q/'C<I m~n iolciome;. rrfrOrclabla UIo
sII~ />bINnr ...iIlI ~ 0 .bP
"* S/3.DOO aM tfIe """Y up IQ
/Gm~ "'.... ..ilII ~P"";111(
~ l5!t.Dr>O. !11IItcrp1ll'll!ef 11
belt of UlIl'Im~rU4ll/XXe dIId twII-
rhInJ< fIf tile '1'''.e it ~ yo <f
~ rl1lltl ""'" ftx;mr, so,... .
Iftf f~m/iu. f/llm Old Elm <<HI ~
....,.",ndItlr ~hf>ot/Jtllld.
IN-WU Ftt5
MarkEtt-rate builderS Of proJecbo with SO units or fewer 5hould be able to Choose to satisfy an
inclusionary requirement by peving a fee in lieu of directly developing the units. This option
shDuld be available to the developer without having to demorl$tratB that other options are
infeasible..
Rf;c;aMM~DED LoCAL eo,","'IJNfTY CoNTRIBUTIONS
Local gevemmenis fulflU a crucIal role in the creation of affordable housing. Below are sorne
key actions that local governments should take to demonstrate iii broader commitment to
addressing the affordable hOusing ahortage.
1. Funding
. Make con61stent efforts to pa99 looal af'tordable housing ~stance bonds or other mea&-
ures to meet the exi$ting oommunity's fair share of the burden of providing affordable
housing.
. Either waive development Impact fees and processing fees for inclusfonEilry units 0( pay for
them through discretionary local futlds such as redevelopment funds or the general fund.
.. HMHC """ NI'H do not ~ . ((IIII1lIOII /*l6Ht ltIr ... "'" ~ 1M pmjem IoOflI\ /fIOrt 1IIOII5tJ UIlItJ.
6
,'.
, .)
-;1
...-
/1 1+1
Where a redevelopment agency exists, increase to at least SO percent the tax inaement
davoted to affordable housing programs. (Currenllaw requlr98 a 20 percent low. to moder-
at~ncome set~aslde for housing.)
2. Zoning
. provide at least one density bonus for each unit of affordable housing required.
. ExemFt Inch.JSionary units from bulld~ permit caps and grOlNth allocation processes.
. Proactlvely 'pre-entitle" (!;Ienetal plan and zoning) the altes Identified in the housing ele-
ment as affordable hoUEling $Ite$.
. Make appropriate surplus publicly owned land available for affordable housing.
3. Program Administration
. Local governments should provide a. dedicated staff and budget to administer the program
or contract with a competent tlntlty to do $0.
. This responsibility includes up-front assistanoe to homebuilclers and prospective
buyers/renters in the sales/rental prooe&6 as well as long-term rnOl'1itorlng cfthe incluslon-
ary homes.
. In the ease (If fOr-sale Inctuslonary units. In which the developsr makes a good faith effort
to sell the unit but it remains unsold after 90 days, the local government should either. a)
purchase the una atthe restricted ptic:e and take over marketing; or b) giVe permi&slon to
sell the unit at market.rate and capture the di1f8rElnce. For option A. the local government
must close on the unit within 120 clara from completion. For option B, the program should
be structured so that there will be an incentive to obtain true market value for ttle unit
. The cost of program administration $hould not come from fees or other exactions imposed
on builders.
CONCLUSION
Throughout CalifQmiQ, pUblic officials and private citizens are struggling to flnd ways to
address the affordable housing crisi$. Together, NPH and HBANC want to ensure that the
dialogue about GOlutlons Is being Informed by a Bet of principles effective and et1ic:l8nt at .
shaping public policies that win work for builders, cities and residents. CSllifomia has long letf
the nation in innovative approaches to addressing thelllffordable hOU$ill9 Cfisls, and, by
workil'l9 together, NPH and HBANC believe that we cml find common ground to help solve
the problem in the near Mure.
7
~v~vv,~v~~ .v.~~ &~-
I."'.
/,-",,'
,
(i; !f '1
C I T Y C L E/~ tff47
File # D~ceJ[Q]-~~
x L.l~O-'8l)
)( L.f~-~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 18, 2005
SUB.JECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:./ 1.
V'" i:
4.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
Braddock and Logan Affordable Housing Proposal to Comply with
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the Braddock and Logan
development at Fallon Village
Report Prepared by Julia Abdala/Housing Specialist.
1.
2.
3.
Braddock and Logan Affordable Housing Proposal
Proposed Stage 1 Development Map
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations)
Receive Staff Presentation
Hear Publie Testimony
Deli berate
Direct Staff to:
(a) Inform Braddock & Logan that the Council will not
waive the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations required by the proposal; OR
(b) By consensus, direct Staff to work with Braddock &
Logan to refine the proposal including, in particular, the
timing of construction of: and security for, the proposed
affordable units.
No fiscal impact at this time.
The eleven property owners of the Fallon Village area have submitted a request for a Stage 1
Development Plan. At the same time Braddock and Logan has submitted a request for a Stage 2
Development Plan and a Vesting Tentative Map for the Braddock and Logan property, consisting of the
northernmost 486 acres of Fallon Village. (See Attachment 2) The Stage 2 submittal is for the creation of
1,043 single-family units at this site.
COPY TO:
__M.__________________________________________M______________________________________________________________
Page I of7
ITEM NO. S'J
Attachment 5
-,
G:\PAiI\200:;\05-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\CCSR 10-1-05 B&L Housing t>roposa1.!.lOC
/7 ~ 1.;-1
Approval ora Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map will trigger the requirements of tHe
City of Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 4).
Chapter 8.68's stated purpose is to enhance the public welfare and assure further housing development
contributes to the attainment ofthe City's housing goals by increasing production of affordable units. and
to assure that the limited remaining developable land is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's
housing policies and needs. (Section 8.68.010.)
The ordinance requires developers constructing residential units in the City to provide 12.5% of the
development as affordable housing. The mclusionary Zoning Regulations break down the affordable
requirements to production of 50% of the afibrdable units for moderate-income households, 20% of the
units for low-income households, and 30% of the units for very low-income households as defined for the
County of Alameda by the State of California Housing and Community Development Department. The
Tnclusionary Regulations further treat the development of "for saleu housing and rental housing similarly,
with the same affordable unit requirement and the same income level breakdown.
The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations provide that the affordable units - both rentals and "for sale" units --
reflect the range of the number of bedrooms as the market rate development and not be distinguished by
exterior design or materials. The affordable units may, however, be smaller in size and may have fewer
amenities. Finally, the affordable units are to be dispersed throughout the development (Section
8.68.030.E).
The Zoning Regulations state that an applicant may fulfill the Inc1usionary affordable housing requirement
by constructing the affordable units off-site ifthe City Council makes the following five findings:
1. 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 arc consistent with Section 8.68.030.E (same range and
number of bedrooms as provided in the project as a whole. consistent in design, constroction
and material and are reasonably dispersed throughout the project).
3. that it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site.
4. that conditions of approval for the project requite 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.
5. that 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 ofthe off-site affordable units
concurrently with the completion ofthe construction ofthe residential development or within a
reasonable period (not to exceed 5 years). ·
The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations provide the City Council the option to waive the requirements of
the regulations. Section 8.68.040.E states HThe City Council. at its discretion, may waive, wholly or
partially, the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this
Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternative methods meet
the purpose of this Chapter."
Page 2 of7
ANAL YSJS:
le'1q.j
Braddock and Logan has presented a proposal to provide the number of allordable units required for
the construction of 1043 single-family units at the 486-acre property they currently own (See
Attachment 1). Per the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations a development of 1043 units would require
130 affordable units. The ordinance allows a developer to pay fees in lieu of constructing 40% of the
required affordable units, which equates to 5% of the total units. Braddock & Logan could, thus, pay
fees for 52 units which are currently $84,198 for each unit not constructed. This would produce an in
lieu fee total of $4,390,925.70. Braddock and Logan's proposal is to build all 130 affordable units
required for the 486-acre property they currently own.
The proposal is not consistent with the requirements of the Inc1usionary Zoning Regulations in several
ways. Because of these differences Staff is presenting the proposal and requesting direction from the
City COlmcil.
Summary of Proposal:
The proposal presented by Braddock and Logan involves two parcels. The fust is the 486-acre
property which is the subject of the Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and would
include 1043 units. The second property is the Anderson Property (See Attachment 2), which is
proposed to be designated multi-family medium density. Braddock & Logan does not own the
Anderson property at this time.
The proposal is to construct 88 units on the Anderson Property; 78 would be off-site affordable units
for the 486-acre Fallon Villages property, 9 would satisfy the Inclusionary ordinance requirement for
the 78 units on the Anderson property and one would be a manager's unit. The total number of
affordable units Braddock and Logan proposes to construct would be 139 units between the two sites.
The proposal is as follows:
I. 26 Integrated Units. 26 affordable units for sale would be built on 4,000 square foot lots of Fallon
Village. These would be identical in appearance, materials and bedroom count to the market rate
homes and would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 8.68. The units would be affordable in
perpetuity.
2. 26 Secondary Units. 26 affordable units would be secondary dwelling units, attached to 26 ofthe
homes on 6,000 square foot lots. All units would be rentals and would be attached to the main
dwelling. They would be one-bedroom units. The units would be affordable in perpetuity.
3. 88 Multi-family Units. These would be constructed off-site on the Anderson property as part of an
apartment complex with two-bedroom, two-bathroom units. There would also be 9 affordable
units to satisfy the Inclusionary requirements for the Anderson property and one manager's unit,
that would be market rate. The 87 units would be affordable in perpetuity.
4. Braddock & Logan would make a payment of $1 million to the City for affordable housing or
community benefit.
The following Table represents a summary of Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal:
Page 3 of7
",......._. --
TVDe of Ownership Income mix Size of units AffordaJJiJi~ Period
Unit IRental
26 For sale 50% mod-income Same mix of In perpetuity
Integrated units 20% low-income bedroom size as
Units 30% very low inc. market rate dev.
26 Rental units 50% mod-income All In perpetuity
Secondary 20% low-income 1 bedroom
Units 30% very low inc. 1 bath
78 Rental units 50% mod-income All In perpetuity
Apartments 20% low-income 2 bedroom
plus the 9 30% very low inc. 2 bath
units fOT
the
Anderson
property
(Cj;{4t1
Timing of Construction and Security
The timing of construction in the proposal is different for the 26 integrated units, the 26 secondary units
and the 88 off-site units. Staff believes that the timing included in the proposal, and the security
proposed, do not meet the purpose or requirements of the ordinance in that construction of the affordable
units would not be guaranteed concurrent with construction of market rate units. Staff is prepared to work
with the applicant; however, to modify the timing and security proposed if the Council is interested in
considering thc proposal. For example, some security measures would need to be in place, until Braddock
and Logan obtains ownership of the Anderson property and then pulls building permits to construct the
multifamily complex. A regulatory agreement would need to be in place tying the issuance of building
pennit for the market rate units to the number of Inclusionary units under construction. The conditions
and regulatory agreement would also need to explicitly indicate that should the developer be unsuccessful
in obtaining the Anderson property and obtaining the required approvals and financing, the requirements
of the Inc1usionary Zoning Regulations would apply; that is, all Tnclusionary Units are to be built
throughout the subject site, of the same bedroom mix as the whole development and would be evenly
dispersed. throughout the development.
Waivers Requested
Braddock and Logan is requesting waivers from the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, Waivers would be
required from:
. The bedroom mix of the 26 secondary and 78 off-site Inc1usionary Units because they would not
mirror what is being constructed at the market rate homes.
. The requirement that the units be dispersed throughout the project because the 88 units would be
concentrated on the Anderson property.
. The requirement that all ofInclusionary lUlits be built concurrent with the remainder of the
development.
Two factors that the Council could consider in granting waivers are that the developer is offering to
provide $1 million to the City's Mfordable Housing Fund or other Community Benefit Fund in addition
to providing the 12.5% required units and that the units would remain affordable in perpetuity, rather than
for 55 years. .
Page 4 of7
Issues Relating to the Three Types of Affordable Units Being Proposed:
~:I!;-1
1. 26 Integrated Units
Providing units along with the market rate units at the site of the development is conslstent with the
lnclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The developer is further indicating that thc units would be marketed to
the income-range mix that is specified in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
The issues that arise with tins part of the proposal are subtle. The homes to be built are large homes and
the markct rate homes will be expensive to purchase. All of the homes will be expensivc to maintain.
Along with the purchase of the largc homc arc expenses such as landscaping, maintenance, heating, etc.
The policy issue is whether it is the Council's desire and the intent of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
to provide homes ofthls size to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. If the intent of the
lnc1usionary Zoning Regulations is, rather, to provide entry-level homes for lower-income households to
enter the homeownershjp market then perhaps this is not an ideal solution being proposed.
2. 26 Secondary Units
The secondary units, sometimes referred to as "granny flats," may be of several types. They could be over
the garage as in the Bernal development in Pleasanton or they could be attached to the main home and
have a separate entrance. The proposal that Braddock and Logan is presenting indicates that these would
be one-bedroom, one-bath units and they would be attached to the house.
The Council would have to grant the applicant a waiver from the requirement of the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations that the affordable writs reflect the same number of bedrooms as the market rate units. A
waiver can be granted pursuant to section 8.68.040.E.
The main issue with granny units is that it is not feasible to require the individual single-family
homeowners to rent out the granny units. lfthe units are not rented out to the specified income category
household, then the required number of Inclusionary Units is not being provided. The owners of these
units would be able to rent out the unit to lower-income households, keep them unoccupied and for their .
personal use. or allow for family members to occupy the units. If the property owners decide not to rent
the units out, then the required 26 units that are required, per the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, would
not be available and the number of units available for lower-income households would be less than the
139 proposed.
Staff believes there are other issues tied to secondary units that the Council should consider. Providing
one-bedroom units will limit the slze ofthe households that could occupy the units to one or two person
households. These units may not be able to be administered in any meaningful way by City Housing
Staff. Currently, and per the Inclusionary Ordinance and the "Layperson's Guide to the Inc1usionary
Zoning Ordinance Regulations", Housing Staffmonitors all rental units that are restricted to lower-income
households annually. So far all of these are apartment complexes with professional management staffs.
Nonetheless, it sometimes requires several attempts to have the management staffs provide the required
infonnation on the lower.income tenants. If City Housing Staff is going to be contacting each private
single-family home owner and requesting information on 1) whether they are renting our their units, and
2) the income ofthc tenant, it may be substantially more difficult to secure the required information. If
Staff does not receive the information needed within a reasonable amount oftime and after repeated
efforts, Staff may involve the City Attorney's office and Council in seeking compliance with the
regulatory agreement.
Page 5 of7
3.
d/cot '1
88 Apartments (78 off-site inclusionary units and 9 on-site inclusionary units, plus a ..f Lf
manager's unit)
The proposal is for the off-site development of 87 units to house moderate-, low- and very low-income
households, in the same ratio required by the Tnclusionary Ordinance.
For the Council to allow the applicant to satisfy the Inclusionary requirements by constructing units ofT-
site, it would have to make the five findings discussed above. Staff does not believe the proposal. as
presented, allows the Council to lllake all five findings. Tfthe Council is interested in considering the
proposal for off-site construction of units and believes the five findings can be made with revisions to the
proposal, Starr can work with the applicant t~ refine the proposal. One refinement that Staffwould
recommend is a trigger point for construction of the 88 units or construction of the units on-site, given the
fact that the applicant does not own the Anderson property.
In order to make the five fmdings, the Council would need to grant a waiver from the bedroom count
requirement ofthe (lrdinance and a waiver from the dispersal requirement or the ordinance.
The construction of apartments off-site to satlsfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
has been allowed before in the City of Dublin. Staffknows how to work with both the developers and the
management entity to enforce the provisions of the executed Affordable Housing Agreement. Before any
building permits are allowed for an affordable development such as an apartment complex. Staff assures
that the appropriate Affordable Housing Agreement is executed and that the developer has provided a
management plan, indicating the method of marketing the development to the households intended, the
procedures that will be in place to veri fy the income of the income restricted tenants, and the manner in
which the City of Dublin occupancy preferences will be administered in the selection of tenants. The
apartment complex proposed by Braddock and Logan would be required to provide the same items.
Braddock and Logan has further indicated to Staff that the construction of this apartment complex would
be fully funded by Braddock and Logan proceeds. The developer does not intend to apply for tax credits
or tax exempt bonds or other fimds available to lower-income rental developments. As such, the
developer would not request any gap funding nom the City of Dublin. This is not part of the formal
proposal~ however.
OPTIONS:
Braddock and Logan has indicated that if the above described proposal is not satisfactory to the City
Council that the firm would provide 78 Inc1usionary Units (7.5%) on the Fallon Vil1ages site~ mixed in
with the market-rate for sale units and pay the required in lieu fee for the other 5%. While this may seem
similar in approach to all other "for sale" developments with Inclusionary Units the City has approved
there arc some differences. First, the homes being considered in this development are larger than any
other homes so far developed with affordable units. As noted above, to provide a 4000 or 6000 square
foot lots to a lower-income household may present a household with a home that they CaIUlot afford to
maintain. Along with the restricted sale price will come a number of expenses, including property taxes,
homeowners' insurance, landscaping, heating and cooling and general long-term maintenance. The
additional housing costs may exceed what the lower-income household may be able to pay. The results
may be a well-intended mismatch of ownership to for sate product.
Other options can be explored to provide Inclusionary Units on-site, but any variation from the
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations would require waivers. Most ofthe other developers of "for sale"
housing have found innovative ways to accommodate the Inclusionary requirements of the City of Dublin.
Page 6 of7
Pinn Brothers will be offering eight of the smaller "Manor" cluster homcs to moderate-income cJ r:Y (:t' Cf'j
households, with the low- and very low-income households offered homes in the condominiums.
Greenbriar developed town homes in the rnjdst ofthe larger single-family homes specifically for the
Inclusionary Units. Duplexes and Triplcxes may also be incorporated into single-family neighborhoods
without changing the character of the tracts.
Ifthc City Council dctermines that Braddock and Logan's Proposal should be modified in somc way, it
would be beneficial to provide that direction to both Staff and Braddock and Logan at this meeting.
Thcre would be no guarantee that Braddock and Logan's offer to construct 130 units rather than paying in
lieu fees for 52 units, to make all units affordable in petpetuity and to donate $1 million to the City would
be part of any other proposal that required the City Council to waive requirements of the ordinance.
However, Staff and Braddock and Logan could explore these other options that would be more consistent
with the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council I) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Hear public testimony; 3)
Deliberate and; 4) Direct Staff to: (a) Inform Braddock & Logan that the Council will not waive the
requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations required by the proposal; or (b) By consensus, direct
Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal including, in particular, the timing of
construction of the proposed affordable Wlits.
Page 7 of7
0/314-1
MINUTES OF THE ern" COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., rezardins:
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED l1TIGA110N
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9,
subdivision c (2 potential cases).
II. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSHL -AN11CIPATED LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision (h)(1) Facts and
Circumstances: Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision (b)(3)(B)-
CIP Project tf 96920
.~
A regular meeting of the Dublin. City Council was held on Tuesday, October 18,2005, in
the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at
7: I 4 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz and Zika, and Mayor
Lockhart.
ABSENT: None
..
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
October 18, 2005
PAGE 376
www.ci.dublin.ca.us
Attachment 6
d4r:{ L;~
NEW BUSINESS
Braddock and Logan
Affordable Housing Proposal to Comply with Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations for the Braddock and Lpgan Development at Fallon Village
10:34 p.m. 8.1 (430-80/450-20)
Housing Specialist Julia Abdala presented the Staff Report and advised that the 11
property owners of the Fallon Village area have submitted a request for a Stage 1
Development Plan. At the same time, Braddock and Logan has submitted a request for a
Stage 2 Development Plan and a Vesting Tentative Map for the Braddock and Logan
property, consisting of the northernmost 486 acres of Fallon Village. The Stage Z
submittal is for the creation of 1,043 single-family units. Approval of a Stage Z
Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map will trigger the requirements of the City's
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. Staff is asking the Council to provide direction as to
whether the City should: 1) Inform Braddock & Logan that the Council will not waive the
requirements of the Inelusionary Zoning Regulations required by the proposal; or 2) By
consensus, direct Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal including,
in particular, the timing of construction of the proposed affordable units.
Ms. Abdala noted that the Staff Report stated that Braddock & Logan did not own the
Anderson property; however, she would like to clarify that they had an option on the
property .
Mayor Lockhart confirmed that the 26 integrated units would be single-family, and
asked how many bedrooms and baths each unit would have.
Ms. Abdala advised that they would be 3...4 bedrooms because the ordinance required
that affordable units be built similarly to the market rate.
Vm. Zika asked how the Developer intended to insure that the 26 secondary units, or
granny flats, were rented out to low income people, and could not envision that someone
payil1$ $600,000-$800,000 for a home and then rent out a granny unit to a low-income
pal'tici pan t.
Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, advised they did not envision that that would actually
be the case. The size of the unit would dictate what could be charged for rent. In
addition, the secondary granny flat unit was envisioned to be a product that did not exist
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
October 18, 2005
PAGE 398
www.ci.dublin.ca.us
0/5 ~4.~
. J
today in Dublin. It was envisioned to be something to provide an opportunity to the
young people, a family member that wanted to stay in the City, to be home but have their
own space as they got on their financial feet. Or, it would be available to a senior family
member. The unit itself could not command a huge rent and, therefore, provided. itself to
a low~ and very..low opportunity for those people.
Mayor Lockhart stated that. whether it was replacing somebody else's need for low
income housing or a family member's needs for low income housing, it was still taking a
senior out of the mix of needing senior housing or one young person out of the mix of
going in with two or three other people to rent.
Mr. Lawrence advised that the project was developed to provide three different product
types to allow affordability. There were items brought up in the presentation that talked
about landscaping and energy expenses, etc. Braddock & Logan has decided that it would
be a good idea to complete the landscaping in the rear yards and provide some energy-
saving appliances to cut costs, specifically in those units. Instead of feeing their way out
of it, they would provide an opportunity to build out 12.5% of the total units in a
different, diverse product type that met different social needs.
Vm. Zika disagreed, stating that it was an interesting plan but very far away from what
Dublin's Housins Ordinance for workforce housing was designed and intended. to do.
em. Hildenbrand asked is Vm. Zika was referrinz to granny flats only.
Vm. Zi1m stated yes, and advised that he was willing to work with the other ideas, but the
granny units did not work for him. He would rather have the money so the City could
build some adequate housing.
Mayor Lockhart stated that she was always hearing complaints from constituents whose
adult children could not afford to live in Dublin. 11Iis plan added a different element. It
would allow parents to help their children get on their financial feet, as well as allow
handicap and seniors citizens some independent living. Different alternatives for living
in our community need to be offered.
em. Hildenbrand concurred and stated that a variety of options, other than multi-unit,
needed to be provided. The granny unit proposal almost addressed the controversial
condominium conversion issue as an alternative option. She asked if the 88 unit
apartment complex would be a mix of market rate and affordable.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
October J 8, 2005
PAGE 399
www.ci.dublin.ca.lIs
~~ % {;~:1
Mr. Lawrence advised that all of the units were proposed to be affordable. Braddock &
Logan would own and operate the complex without state or local assistance.
em. Hildenbrand objected to that plan, stating that it went against the Council's plan not
to have an area where all of the affordable apartments could be identified.
Mr. Lawrence advised that there was additional area on that property in order to
accommodate more units, but it was not included as part of this proposal because it was
on the Anderson property and part of the Stage 2 plan. In preliminary desiztt, they had
the opportunity to build closer to 120- 125 units at market rate. It was not part of the
affordable proposal for tonight.
Cm. Hildenbrand reiterated her concern about the apartment complex being grouped
together and having residents stigmatized ir,t that manner. She hoped that the second
phase would have market rate around it to make it mixed in.
Mr. Lawrence stated that there was additional area to accommodate additional units as
market rate. The 88 units would be integrated within the 120-125 units.
em. McCormick stated. that the granny flats would meet a need.
Vm. Zika reiterated his concern that the gl'anny unit idea did not meet the needs of the
Inelusionary Housing Ordinance.
em. Oravetz noted that the Affordable Housing Ordinance purposely included the
flexibility for a Developer to present different alternatives to meet the 12.5%
requirement. This was a good plan that provided opportunities for many needs.
City Manager Ambrose advised that the practical problem at hand was timing. As Staff
went through the Toll projects, market rate units were not allowed to be released until
the affordable units were secured because they were not affordable until they were built
and the City had the security it needed. If the majority of the Council were in support of
the proposal, Staff would still need to work on the "belt and suspenders" with the
Applicant to work something that satisfied the City's concerns and worked for the
property owner.
Mayor Lockhart suggested that Staff work with the Applicant to include the landscaping
and energy-saving options on the 26 integrated units, which might set a precedent for
other affordable projects. There would be opportunities for Staff to work with the
:- =-: -:. ~:-: ~ :
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
October 18, 2005
PAGE 400
www.ci.dublill.ca.us
eX 7 ~. 1f1
Applicant regarding ti~ing issues, knowing that it was important to the Council to get
those affordable units built as soon as possible. It was also important to enlarge the
apartment prexiuct into a larger complex that dealt with people of all income levels.
Cm. McCormick suggested that Green Building principles be used.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded Cm. McCormick and by majority vote (Vrn. Zika
opposed), the Council directed Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to: 1) refine their
proposal to include landscaping the rear yards and using energy-efficient measures in
the homes to bring down the cost of living; 2) work on timing issues and obtain
necessary security; 3) study the feasibility of integrating the 88. affordable apartment
units into a lar.ger project; and 4) incorporate green building principles, as practical.
..
After Action Report on July 4, Z005 Public Safety Activities
11 :07 p.m. 8.2 (650-60)
Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that the City
Council would receive an informational report on the Public Safety Activities associated
with the past July 4, 2005 holiday. There was a reduction in calls of service in 2005
compared to 2004.
The Council commended Fire and Police Services for their attention to the safety of
Dublin citizens during the holiday season.
.
Consideration of a Commemorative
Inscription in Recognition of Cot. James Doty, Camp Parks Commander
11:12 p.m. 8.3 (610-50)
City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff Report and advised that Mayor
Lockhart requested that the City Council consider commissioning a commemorative
inscription in recognition of outgoing Camp Parks Commander, Col. James Doty. The
inscription, which would cost $100, would be engraved on a concrete bench leading up
to the Public Safety Memorial located in the courtyard of the Civic Center.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
October 18, 2005
PAGE 401
www.ci.duhlid.ca.us
:l2 q '-/1
CITY CLERK
File # D~[3]~-IiJ~
"oo-~o
4 50- 30
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 5, 2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION: /J..IV 1)
(,(/V" 2)
(~ 3)
~ 4)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase of the
Positano development (247 Residential Lots) located in Fallon
Village
Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
1)
Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement
between the City of Dublin and Dublin RE Investors, LLC
for the First Phase of the Positano development and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement, with
the Affordable Housing Agreement attached as Exhibit A.
Vicinity Map.
City Council Staff Report dated October 18,2005, with
attachments.
City Council Meeting Minutes dated October 18,2005.
Applicant's Refined Affordable Housing Proposal.
Parking Exhibit.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Receive Staff presentation;
Receive testimony from the Applicant and the public;
Deliberate; and
Adopt Resolution Approving Affordable Housing Agreement
between the City of Dublin and Dublin RE Investors, LLC
for the First Phase of the Positano development and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement
(Attachment I), with the Affordable Housing Agreement
attached as Exhibit A); and
Direct Staff to prepare a minor administrative amendment to
the Fallon Village Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD to allow secondary
units on the 3,200 lots within the Positano development.
The costs of administering the Affordable Housing Agreement are
included in the administration fees that are charged with the sale of
each affordable unit.
COpy TO: Applicant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of6
G:\PA#\2005\05-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\AITordable Housing Agreemenl\ccsr 6.5.07 AHA.DOC
~
Attachment 7
D61~ !f1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
Positano (aka Braddock & Logan Fallon Village) is a residential development consisting of 1,043 single-
family homes on a 488-acre project site. The project site is located within the northern portion of the
larger Fallon Village project area (formerly Eastern Dublin Property Owner's Annexation Area or EDPO),
east of Fallon Road and the Dublin Ranch project, west and southwest of the City Limits boundary with
Alameda County and Doolan Canyon (Attachment 2).
Existing Approvals
The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Map 7586 (VTM) to create 1,043 residential lots
for the Positano development on November 8, 2005 (Resolution No. 05-61). On December 6,2005, the
City Council approved General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (Resolution No. 223-05), and a Stage
1 Development Plan (Ordinance No. 32-05) for Fallon Village including the Positano development. The
City Council also approved a Stage 2 Development Plan (Ordinance No. 33-05), and a Development
Agreement (Ordinance No. 34-05) for the Positano project area. Condition No.2 of the VTM for
Positano requires the project proponent to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) prior to
approval of a Site Development Review Permit (SDR) or recordation of the first phased Final Map.
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) contains
affordable housing requirements for all new developments of20 or more units. Residential developments
consisting of20 or more units are required to provide 12.5% of the units as affordable to households with
very-low, low, and moderate income levels as determined by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development for Alameda County. These affordable units are required to be constructed on-
site and integrated with the market rate units. The affordable units are required to be evenly distributed
throughout the project, include a range of bedrooms consistent with the overall project, and be
indistinguishable in exterior appearance from the market rate units. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
also provide the City Council with the ability to make exceptions to the regulations contained in the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, including alternative methods of compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations such as the development of off-site affordable units.
Braddock & Logan October 2005 Affordable Housing Proposal
In accordance with the Inc1usionary Zoning Regulations, the Positano development has a requirement to
provide 130 affordable units.
Total
Units
1,043
Inclusionary
Requirement
12.5%
Inclusionary
Units
130
Braddock & Logan prepared an affordable housing proposal to address the affordable obligation for the
Positano development which was reviewed by the City Council on October 18, 2005. This affordable
housing proposal included a combination of on-site integrated units with a bedroom count that is
consistent with the overall project, secondary units, off-site apartments, and a $1,000,000 Community
Benefit Payment <Attachment 3). Please refer to Table 1 for a summary of the affordable units proposed
for construction as part of the affordable housing proposal.
Page 2 of6
~
a e . or a e OUSID2 roposa cto er
. ,
Unit Type Ownership Income Level Size of Units Affordability
!Rental Period
26 Single-family 50% moderate Same mix of
For sale 20% low bedroom size as In perpetuity
detached Units 30% very low market rate units
50% moderate All
26 Secondary Units Rental 20% low 1 bedrooin/ In perpetuity
30% very low 1 bath
78 Apartments* 50% moderate All
Rental 20% low 2 bedroom! In perpetuity
30% very low 2 bath
130 Total Units
T bl 1 Afti d bl H
P
lOb 18 2005
00 ::f ~9
,;
* Plus 9 units to satisfy the Inc1usionary Zoning requirements for the Anderson property & 1 manager's unit as defined in the Braddock
& Logan's affordable housing proposal.
Staff presented Braddock & Logan's affordable housing proposal to the City Council on October 18,
2005, and requested direction from the City Council on how to proceed with the proposal. The City
Council reviewed the proposal and directed Staff to work with ~raddock & Logan to refine the proposal
(Attachment 4) as follows:
1) Include landscaping for the rear yards of the affordable units and use energy-efficient measures in
the homes to reduce the cost of housing;
2) Work on timing issues and obtain the necessary security to ensure completion of the project on the
Anderson property;
3) Study the feasibility of integrating the 88 affordable apartment units into a larger project; and
4) Incorporate green building principles, as practical.
Since the October 18, 2005 City Council meeting, Staff and Braddock & Logan have been working to
prepare an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) for the entire 1,043 unit project. Due to uncertainties
about the off-site affordable units on the Anderson property, an AHA cannot be prepared for the entire
development at this time. Therefore, in order to allow the initial phases of the project to move forward,
the Applicant has proposed that the City initially enter into an AHA for the first phase of the project which
consists of 247 lots. As additional information becomes available, Staff will continue to work with the
Applicant to negotiate an AHA for the balance of the project. The additional AHA will be reviewed by
the City Council at a future date.
ANALYSIS:
Refined Mfordable Housing Proposal
Braddock & Logan has further refined the affordable housing proposal for Positano since it was presented
to the City Council in October 2005 (Attachment 5). In addition to the proposal to separate the affordable
housing agreement for the initial phase from the later phase (which would include the off-site project), the
refinements to the 2005 proposal include the following changes as further discussed below:
1) The bedroom count for the affordable single-family detached units;
2) The location of the affordable single-family detached units; and
3) The location of a portion of the proposed secondary units.
Page 3 of6
c5/ 1 lfCf
Design & Location of Single-family Detached Affordable Units
The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Section 8.68.030.E) require the design of the affordable units to
reflect the range of number of bedrooms as provided in the project. Braddock & Logan's original
affordable housing proposal was consistent with the Ordinance and included 26 single-family detached
homes with the same mix of bedrooms as the market rate units. The refined proposal states that all 26
single-family detached units will have 4 bedrooms. The proposed market rate homes within the first
phase of the project include a mix of 3 and 4 bedroom single-family detached homes. In addition, the
proposed affordable single-family detached units will be affordable in perpetuity rather than 55 years as
the Ordinance provides.
The 26 affordable single-family detached homes were originally proposed on 4,000 square foot lots.
Braddock & Logan's refined proposal designates 13 affordable single-family detached homes in the first
phase on 3,200 square foot lots. As discussed in the City Council Staff Report dated October 18, 2005
(Attachment 3), Staff is concerned with the size and the burden of upkeep associated with these detached
affordable units. Smaller homes on smaller lots will help to reduce the burden of ownership and
maintenance associated with these homes. The other 13 single-family detached homes will be a part of a
future phase.
Location of Secondary Units
Braddock & Logan further proposes to modify the location of the proposed secondary units. The original
affordable housing proposal that was presented to the City Council in 2005 included 26 secondary units
on 6,000 square foot lots in neighborhood C located in the northern portion of the overall project.
Braddock & Logan is currently proposing to construct 13 secondary units on 3,200 square foot lots within
the first phase of the project and 13 secondary units on 6,000 square foot lots in Neighborhood C. The 13
secondary units proposed as a part of neighborhood C would be part of a future phase.
The proposed secondary units would be located over the garage of the primary unit. Off-street parking for
the 13 secondary units in the first phase of the project will be provided in the driveway of the primary unit
as shown on the Parking Exhibit (Attachment 6).
The Positano development is subject to a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District. The proposal to
develop secondary units on 3,200 square foot lots instead of 6,000 square foot lots requires a minor
amendment to the Planned Development Zoning (PD). The PD amendment can be processed.
administratively, if so directed by the City Council.
Affordable Housing Agreement
The proposed draft AHA addresses the affordable housing obligation for the first 247 homes within the
Positano Development. A subsequent AHA would be required for the balance of the Positano
development and would address the remainder of the proposed on-site and off-site affordable housing to
satisfy. the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The subsequent AHA would be reviewed by the City
Council at a later date.
Braddock & Logan has a requirement to provide 31 affordable units in the first phase of construction.
Total
Units
247
Inclusionary
Reauirement
12.5%
Inclusionary
Units
31
Page 4 of6
c.5~ :!f Lf1
The Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance permits the developer to pay in-lieu fees for 40% of the affordable
requirement or 12 units. Braddock & Logan has a must build requirement of 19 units to satisfy the
requirement to provide 31 affordable units for the first 247 homes.
Braddock & Logan proposes to satisfy the obligation to provide 31 affordable units in the first phase of
construction by providing 13 single-family detached homes and 13 secondary units to be affordable in
perpetuity, payment of in-lieu fees for the remaining 5 units, and payment of a prorated share of the
$1,000,000 Community Benefit Payment on a per unit basis (i.e. $958.77 per unit) prior to issuance of
each building permit (for a total of $236,816 for 247 units). Details regarding the proposed affordable
units can be found in Table 2 below.
Unit Type
Table 2: Affordable HousID2 for Phase 1
Ownership
/Rental
Income Level
Size of Units
Affordability
Period
Rental
50% moderate
20% low
30% very low
50% moderate
20% low
30% Very low
All 4 bedroom
In perpetuity
13 Single-family
Detached Units
For sale
13 Secondary Units
All
1 bedroom!
1 bath
In perpetuity
26 Total Affordable
Units
Rear Yard Landscaping
The City Council directed Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to provide rear yard landscaping for the
affordable single-family detached units. The AHA for the first phase ofthe project requires the Developer
to provide rear yard landscaping for the detached affordable units as directed by the City Council (AHA
Section 6.C) (including turf, shrubs, trees, irrigation, and a usable rear yard area). The Developer is
required to submit conceptual rear yard Landscape Plans for review as part of the SDR application for the
design of the homes.
Energy Efficiency and Green Building Principles
The AHA (Section 6.D) also obligates the developer to incorporate energy efficient measures and green
building practices for the detached affordable units. Braddock & Logan has submitted a checklist
outlining the measures that are proposed to address the City Council's direction. This checklist is
included as Exhibit 5 of Attachment 1 to the Staff Report.
Braddock & Logan has also submitted a "Single-Family GreenPoint Checklist" that identifies the energy
efficiency and green building measures that will be incorporated into the affordable units. This checklist
has been incorporated into the AHA (Section 6.0) and the agreement requires Braddock & Logan to meet
the minimum standards established by the checklist.
Anderson Property - 88 Off-site Affordable Units
The 88 off-site affordable units to be constructed on the Anderson property is not part of the current AHA.
Staff will continue to work with the Applicant to study the feasibility of incorporating market rate units
into the project on the Anderson property and address construction timing and obtain the necessary
security as we negotiate an AHA for the balance of the project. The additional AHA will be reviewed by
the City Council at a future date.
Page 5 of6
&.s ~~1
CONCLUSION:
Because the secondary units and the affordable single-family detached units are not strictly consistent with
the requirements in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that states the affordable units should "reflect the
range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole" and because the secondary units do not
satisfy the requirement that the units "not be distinguished by exterior design, construction, or materials,"
the City Council must find that Braddock & Logan's alternate, proposal meets the purposes of the
Inc1usionary Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes this finding can be made based on the affordability
characteristics of 4 bedroom homes (as opposed to 3 or 4-bedroom homes), the fact that the units will be
affordable in perpetuity rather than for 55 years, the addition of the Community Benefit Payment, and the
Developer's commitment to provide fully landscaped rear yards and energy efficiency measures which
reduce housing costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive testimony from the
Applicant and the public; 3) Deliberate; and 4) Adopt Resolution Approving Affordable Housing
Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin RE Investors, LLC for the First Phase of the Positano
development and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement (Attachment 1), with the
Affordable Housing Agreement attached as Exhibit A); and Direct Staff to prepare a minor administrative
amendment to the Fallon Village Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD to allow secondary units on the 3,200 lots within
the Positano development.
Page 60f6
Minutes of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
REGULAR MEETING - June 5. 2007
CLOSED SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding:
~4- ~ Lit
I. PERSONNEL - Government Code Section 54957.6(a) - Conference with Agency
Labor Negotiator Richard Ambrose, City Manager - Unrepresented City
Employees:
Assistant City Manager City Engineer
Administrative Analyst II Administrative Aide
Assistant Civil Engineer Administrative Analyst I
Associate Civil Engineer Administrative Technician
Associate Planner Assistant Planner
Recreation Supervisor Community Safety Assistant
Senior Administrative Analyst Public Works Technician I
Senior Civil Engineer Public Works Technician II
Senior Planner Finance Technician I
Administrative Services Director Finance Technician II
Assistant to the City Manager Heritage Center Director
Building Official Permit Technician
City Clerk Office Assistant I
Community Development Director Office Assistant II
Economic Development Director Preschool Instructor
Finance Manager Public Works Inspector
Information Systems Manager Recreation Coordinator
Parks & Community Services Director Recreation Technician
Parks & Facilities Development Manager Secretary
Planning Manager Secretary to the City ManagerlDeputy City Clerk
Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer Senior Finance Technician
Housing Specialist Senior Office Assistant
Parks & Community Services Manager Senior Building Inspector
Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor
Geographic Information System Coordinator Information Systems Technician I
Code Enforcement Officer Information Systems Technician II
Senior Plan Checker
..
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
June 5,2007
PAGE 198
.
Attachment 8
35 '1 t;-'1
RESOLUTION NO. 78 - 07
AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF SERVICE RATES
FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE SERVICES
and
RESOLUTION NO. 79 ~ 07
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING THE COLLECTION OF MINIMUM
RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AND RECYCLING SERVICE FEES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
and directed Staff to work with A VI for the next 6 months to review the commercial
recycle bundled rate in the contract and also address incentives and measured benchmarks
that would help to increase commercial recycling.
..
9:20 p.m.
Mayor Lockhart called for a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase of the Positano
Development (247 Lots) Located in Fallon Villaee
9:30 p.m. 7.1 (430-80/600-30/450/30)
Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that The City Council
would review the revised affordable housing proposal by Braddock & Logan to address
the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the 1,043 units, Positano development in Fallon
Village, and reviewed the proposed Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase of
the Positano development which consists of 247 units.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
June 5, 2007
PAGE 207
.
3b ~i;1
r-'.
Mayor Lockhart asked if parking would be a concern on the smaller lots with the second
units.
Mr. Baker explained that parking would be provided by a sufficient-sized driveway.
The City Council entered into a brief discussion regarding the interior standards of these
units.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the
City Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 07
APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR THE FIRST
PHASE
OF THE POSITANO PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
and direct Staff to prepare a minor administrative amendment to the Fallon Village Stage
1 and Stage 2 PD to allow secondary units on the 3,200 lots within the Positano
development.
.
NEW BUSINESS
Request to Initiate a West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment Study to Increase
the Residential Density at 6600 Golden Gate Drive, Commonly Referred to as the
Windstar Proiect (APN 941-1500-046)
9:51 p.m. 8.1 (410-55)
Senior Planner Erika Frasier presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider the initiation of a West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for the
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
June 5,2007
PAGE 208
~.
~
~7 %. L;1
Jll~
BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERVICES. INC.
BUILDERS - DEVELOPERS
ESTABLISHED 1947
P. O. BOX 5300
DANVILLE. CA 1 ~FORNIA 94526-1076
TELEPHONE (925) 736-4000
FACSIMILE (925) 648-5700
March 19,2007 (Revised March 20,2007)
Jeff Baker
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Anderson Property
Dear Jeff:
Please accept this letter as Braddock & Logan's formal request to amend the
General Plan and the Specific Plan from medium density to medium high density on the
residential portion of the Anderson property. I am including another copy of the revised
site plan and architectural drawings (which were sent to you yesterday) for the proposed
project for 108 apartment units. With this letter I am also enclosing the vicinity map.
If you have any questions, please call me.
~~erelY,
f. '"--
\ -_....~
JLln
Enclosures
Attachment 9
\.....
1
.~1.
"
1::\ '
i;~~
<::::()
( '.J'
~
~
0690-SU (SZ6) ~J 'N01NVSV31d
SilOAWJnS ',dNNVld Sil33NI9N3
SclUlOS , AOOIW
1
-r
r
f
~
i
L002 I-lJ~\ll^J O-f I f6 I
dVV\J AlINI:JIA
d9VllIA NOllVd - Al2Jdd02Jd NOS2JdONV
:-.
~:
i~
~
!<'
~,
:;1
~,
g
~
,L .'~ ! ,..
", ! . ri~(IJ'. "', ,; . ~v, ..
r .'.;' ,'. . I .
;, ~ _: ;~ ;~ -L, J>-Yh /'- "'-
,i! -j. '.':.' \....' I,. '1 . -
'rrL. ~1 . ".
I ,..::::: n~ L~\'L:?l ..:.....
l~,\ :~ I ~.~">;
'-',
~
I
I
I
I
J
/
/
/
/
/
/
_.1-
_...... n~._......,......"
,';,.......
}~
[1::;
lL]
[L,
D
L'C
[1_
.... .,'"
.. ..
/
/
~~ .
<'(
D
0"-';
U
,
,
!
, .
i'
,- ,
,.
.,
"~ ""~,,~"
........-
:":>"'<{
"
".1
.J'.....,
.L)0-i)..:?~_~:...
/
,
I
\
\
"
,
,
/
/
'\ "
\ \\ "
\ ......
" ,,\,.,.,....._~:~.:~~:.:.~:~-~:~_..-
...~:~:~~.~~
.~ .. .
..",
...
".
"" '. ~" .,.
,.
:_~.:.;---
.' ..'
eno
."r.t:m
.." 0 0
.. ~~
I;fil;
lie
CII
dll
S
u~
ern!
St.
28
::Sru
O-J:
~
~~
to
~
u.J
0-
~
0-
:z
o
~o
u.J I
o~
:z~
<(-
r
!
f
g
f
'I'
'<1'
C!;V\.t!3s:al-" ~."F:'U ,'V . 811111 ~~
9Sn.-lll~ ['''-Ill xv"'" .CU:'1o.9Iel'"
... I 9 ~ 'I 'I I Ii H 0 ::I , , Y:) '3 HI,. ~'
H~nO& ',3HO.LIN 1:".
P"'N'iNN~- 3~nJ.:)3J.IU~_ .,
."N' 'dnOelf) ADJ.>i
,~~
~~
<:: ~r" -.
',) ,
:2)
--f--
~,
~!UJOJ!le8 'U!lqno I
tiJ,fJ({o.Jd UOS.JfJpUV
Q)
0.
o
<D
>
<D
"0
E
CO
Q)
I-
......
o
'"
.l!l
"5
(/)
tV
'0
i5~
m~
0:",
~'Egg
~~~C:i
~racdcd
~u_~;1;
m~..nui
LO.S; '" N
~le"''''
~O 0._
.......,
c...:>
Q)
- ---,
o
'--
(L
c
CQ
0)
o
--'
o<:S
..l:<:
U
o
'0
'0
CQ
....
CD
+-
o
Q)
..c.
o
o
ci
.s
c:
::::J
o
....
C!J
>-
~
'"'"
:5<0
2lS4
(/)",<")co
=moc ~ ~
.c15"!~
B=~.,....
'-7a~U")
~U~~
<'I -"''''
~ .~ ~ tl;
~~ 0-_
~
C/)
a..
E
o
CI)
"t:I
c::
CQ
~
U
CQ
:2:
a:l
.l!l
03 co
.CO
CPLO
.~ tl; 0 co
ace"''''
.5u88
:S2 - Lti ui
leg"'N
.riij~~
",In",,,,
:!1!!"'0>
Lt')o... c.._
Loff/; :3ltJa
(-;to-900l :ON.Le)J..)f
~'l
:ON laal./S
<D
0.
o
o
U)
"0
C
.Q
t/)
Cl)
rti
'(3
o
t/)
~
o<:S
t/)
.m
CQ
C!J
"'co
~fiico~
ro C1; ~ ,.-
"~<~~
~u..~~
~ QJ . .
'--=Lt')Lt')
O"-"'N
:;~mO)
NO 0._
(/)
.....
Z
::>w <0
-I ..... 0
<e;j;
I-
OZ
>- .....0
I-
~ Z0 "-
LLI <err: In 1"'4'
"<;T
-IQJ <0
0.. a..(/) 0-
0 UJ
a..
> 0
..... .0
~ Z N
--
<e "0
0.. -I .0
a.. N
Z <!5
LL
Zz
0 <(0 0
-I
a..U a:
C/) X >-
~ :2 0
E
LLI ..... E
Z :l
0 ::> In Z
+-
W <e
..... c -I
Z (/) :l a..
<(
~
.~~ \-
....@..""""'.
CJ<VJJ"'''-' ":U~lY TlY ttIZ'IQS (ste) ......a
:;11:""/0' ,~;r~INxltv~ ~., 't;. 'J! N I ^ tt' ~., ~llII
09 "JH:I.1IW ...1.1 ~
~~I~NV'.i' ::alln.1:J2~IH:lYV 6~
.:>N' 'dnOW8 A gJ.}f ~.-....
LO/;/; '~/t:>~
ffrJO-900Z :ON A9.ci I
::}
B!UJOJIIB8 'ullqna I
tCj]Jc!o.Jd UOS.JJpUf7
liD
:ON ~99lfS
"0\1 '11../~eH J9MOl .)(0.... .Z.
wal~ Joo~ ~ .9t
c
o
c
(.)
o
>
0>
0>
+-
o
>
0>
0>
+-
....
{J)
cEo>
o 0 CI)
OCCE-
-CE 0:::0 0>
.~~ 0> o.2-e
0::3 i=0>00
o 0> Q.UU
-g 0-8 o,+- Q.-C-C
(I) 0 C C 0> <(.!!l.!!l
0).2 5 :=0 U 0> .f; .f;
(l)u>> COLLLL CI)
-1.....00:::0-00$
"B.g u oU~u 0 uut::
.- 0> U +- +- :t= :J
CD1<.2~Os.2.2-c
1;1.1.IU>...c.~>~~~
:!""':N"""'" LO-Q"
+-
C
o
....
'I-
o
0>
....
'.
0
<( (/)
C f'I
ttl
(J) 0
Z +-
- \0
0 -
a
>
.... 00
- Q) ..,.
::> - 0
a3 Q)
0
1-'..
C
C 0
0 +-
r +- I I 0
0 >
[~J' > 0>
0>
0>
0> +-
+- -c
'I- {J)
0> U V -;::
~
LoH If :a;tJG
ffrtO-900l :oN A:)J)l
<:"..,
\ """"',"," '"HO", ,'v ..., @ .6"""l1'1!r.
'-4.. "~aHQ9 (e.-e) xv.:! CEI3-IG8 Is...1 ~.
-'.J' .1....Y,~~~~~'~y,;. .'.N~::: li:r~1
c:,--\ ::I~:V'd 3I1nJ.:J;I.1IH~"V ~6
\) ., .ON. 'dnO~8 A f)~}f ~.A.'"
BIUJOJIIB8 'Ullqna I
t!18c!o.Jd UOS.J8PUf/
G10
<'I'
"
...,\-.
-,J
:ON IBB4S
.S. .SE
c
c 0
c 0
0 - 0..
0. Q. '-
'-
'- 0
0 0
0
"-
"-
U U
c
'- "- en
0
.r: 0 " C
+- <D
en ~ 0 0
<(
N
" 0. ,...
~ ~
Z <D
-f-
- '0
II -
II 0 en
ij .... 0 00
- 0.. ...
b 1/ ::)
~
VI 1/ E
- a3
~ 0
0
" 0
"
'J ~
"
~
II
.....
\
.~
Clrj -
t;!'
C\~
-'-1--
-.J
al^"C3..~tI &1JIDltl "y ..,..1 Q .~.
8120Z-IA8 rfttBI XY,", Bela-lire ....81 1rF~~
t' l i "1'I ." N l:I a .:I I 1 Y;) '3 N I ^ at I I" ~~
H.tnOf. "3H:)..l11't ~II." S
;".jlltN-V'--,d :;UOJ.::l.J.I....:>YV ..~
00" 'dnO~E) Ag~)f ~.-...
B1UJ01!lBa 'UlIqna
"T' I
tC!1f}[/O.Jd UOS.JJpuv
c
o
of-
''"I 'I~OI9H .18"'01 lCOVII.6t
o
>
<1>
<1>
UJalsAs JOOM ~ .9t
of-
C
o
'-
\I-
( -
,
~~{~:ml .'NA;~I
810
:ON 1994S
c
o
+-
o
>
<1>
<1>
0>
.!; <1>
O()~
iSE ~aE(J)
'c 'C ", (; :J .Q
.-1-- \U 00
LL3: 1=<1>
,,00 II) (J) 0.00
c ()"O 0> +- <(0. 1: 1:
CD () c c (J) .!!2 .!!2
:J.-='- CC
0) +- :> -0- () (J)._ .-
CD(/):> C+-LLLL en
-''-00:::0000,-
C.g () 00(/) () () <1>
'E: (J) () ~ +- :E () () =s
CDt2\UOs:221:
OW(/)~LL:>(/)(/)(/)
~"":NCV)~ u:>..or'
'-
o
(J)
'-
-.
0
a3 (I)
C M
l"l
Q) 0
Z
- +-
\0
C 0 .....
.... > 00
I - Q)
I~j 'It
:::::> - 0
a3 Q)
0
C C
0 0
+-
+-
'0 0
IJ I > >
<1> <1>
- (J)
~~ <1>
+-
+- .c
\I- 0>
<1> 'C
W
[:.
~
(~i'
~"i>... C1",.,.as:;y '9'J.H!'lIt:I "v etll!ll 0 ~~.a...
-"J- DRua.1S& lot-e) xv.:! eCIJ'.,a8Ia..,,1 _ ~
,.. , II E 6 Y I N U 0 ~ I , Y:) '3 N , ^ 1:1 I IF ~
U J n 0 9 , , 3 H :) L I " I . · L I ~ ~3
<'::.~h -. DNIUNV,c1 3Vn.lo:tJ.IHOUV ~~
,) .",,, 'dnO~8 ADJ..>I ~........
- ::i-
-:::t
Lolf If :3jtJa
ffrJO-900l :ON A9.DI
~IUJ01!le8 'u!lqna I
tCj]al!o.Jd uos.Japuv
1710
:ON 1991/S
c
c 0
c 0 -
0 0..
- 0..
0.. ~
~ 0
~ 0 0
0 0 .S",SE
0 -
- +-
-
D (/)
D L...
C
L... -
0
.c ()
+- <D
en
(/)
C
0 0
a3
('II
Q. 1'\
<D
II Z ill
II
~ - -f-
\D
-
0 (/)
. II
c
~ II .... 0 00
-
~ -
0- "'"
::> C)
a3 E
0
Q 0
()
1
,-,-,-
~~r.. -
"' '" 031\b:lS3lf 8~Hpll::l "v eaOl Q .~.
UIHG-IIlB Cs"sl ')('11.:1 celli-iliA 1...., __
C'.~ .. I 9 t' fJ 'I I N U 0 '" I 1 v 3 "]I N I ^ HI... ..~
..... l-I..L nos , , ~ ': '.1 I ... il Ilf . " I ~
(~~. OH'NHV'J ~. '.'l"J.:).~IH::)UV 6~
.ONI 'dnO~t) A D~)I ~AL'"
1.J
~:J
.
q
So
ftl
C~
B!UJ01!lBO 'Ullqna
tCjJaCfo.Jd uos.Japuf7
..9'.6~
o
"
",
X
....
~ <(
"'0 ~
o ~~
.... N
...
08 .. \f0-
G: I- ~ en
-'0
.... "~ - 0 ~
.c
+- Z CO
.... '0 0 0'
Cl)8 => ~
...'0 Q
c
._ 0
(j W
~ Q)
en ~
'-'
N
L'~.l'
Lois- If :3/IJa
(ptD-900Z :ON A:JJ.)f
9.0
:ON ~aa4S
o
\0
-
00
~
C'4
o
o
WGlsJiS JOO~ U!Dt'l ,Q I
C
C 0
0
-
- 0
-0 >
> (])
(]) -
(])
(])
- 0
c (])
0 ~
~
'I-
'I'
~"'i... (E^,t:C=ffl:illl B1.HOll:l onv EEL..IA:e:fCl8'''~ .~....
'J 8.'.-'.. ,..., XV, .. ~
~ \ ~1J.9nl:o"sVI;i~~~'J."'I;' ''3.t~:~.I)ii1 ~!
(1~ "NI N N V'd . Ynl0.l1HO Y V ~M
\,\ ."NI 'dno~~ Af)J..}I ~........
"-9
:::r-
/
(
\
"-
'~
~IUJOJ!le8 'ullqna I
tjJr)(!O.Jd uos.Japuv
c
c O.
0 -
- 0
0 >
> (])
-
(]) (])
-
(]) -
.c.
- 0>
'I-
(]) ~
LOis- It :olva
tpto-900Z :oN .J...91.)[
910
:ON lBBLlS
0>
r~ . (])
..- .0 en
gcc_
-tiE o::oE(])
.c~ (])o:J.Q
U:3 i=(])OO
- 0 0 en (]) 0.00
C 0 "0 0> +- <(o..c. .c.
CD 0 C C (]) .!!2 _!:!1
., ._~ cc
~t5~.o g2u:u: en
.....~oo::oooo~
"B.Q 0 oO(/) 0 o:m
'C <D o-_:S 0 O:J
.!~.2~0>.2.2.c.
OW(/)~~;>~~~
::!:",,:('j('l'j",," 10-0'"
<D
z
.
..
-
a 0
..... (/)
- N
~ C t'l
'" 0
>- +-
0 \0
.....
I-
- >
00
Z <D v
~ - 0
:E <D.
0
:E
0
()
,;-
~:)---
~.
\i:\
t'.~
..:::\-
C13^,,(;l~-f3U 9.LtlVltt TlY eGel ~ ~."....
g~l;:'1~9 (et-e) x-v"" ect~..glll Ca"tIIJ P.JI~
r I 9 ! 8 Y I N If 0 ..t I 1 Y:) '3 N I ^ l:I I I'" "I~
H.1nos "SHOLIW .".,. ~
ONINHV'd 3HnJ.OI.1IH:lHY ~~
.ONI 'dno~~ A D~}f ~.......
F-
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ltl---
Lolf /( :3/tJG
ffrlO-900t :ON .x:JDI
~!UJOl!le8 'u!lqno I
t;1JJqO.Jd UOS.J(JPUf/
L.O
I !
lCr--Cf
I
I
I
n:n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pr
I
I
I
t1dt
~~
~O
b
w,
u....
0:0;
LLi;>
o!:!
a
D
9
1rl
x
o
r.q
-l'
:((
~
~
z~:r
=>0-
~ x
~Ol;<
0D!:q
U
aa
;
w'J
U:!
iCx
LL~
o!:!
-------~
-------~---
~Il!~
iilW-
zz';:
l:::W"-
LLU~
..17',117
:ON 1994S
(D
0 Z
0 '.
0. /' -
0 Q
4- 0
.....
- \0
:::> ....
a3 \I-
U)
>- 0 00
I- ex:>
C'f)
- ..
('.J ..
Z M
:) 0
~ 0
~
0
U
...l
U
I 4'
\\'
....::l " .... 0 ~~.
...J' ~1!3'S'3H elHDIU v 81:111-'_8 t...., ..
QGIG-IR$ fllt'O) XV;!
19~1!!l VINt:lO"I''':J '3NI^t:l1 I :i
(~r ~.ln~OS ,,:;aW:JJ.IW Ze.LI ..~~
~ -" oN"INNV1cJ JYn~OJJ.1IHOHY ~~
" .ONI 'dnO~8 Ag~).I ~........
~>O
-:t-
" " "
" "
,. "
',':-=
F"'=
,
c
o
--
....
o
>
CD
-
CD
CD
-0
--
en
.....
...
o
a.
...
c
o
elUJOllle8 'ullqna
tC/1ac{oJd UOSJapuv
-
\
,
c
o
--
....
o
>
CD
-
<D
:r-----------~~~----------;1r ~
I' ---____Js!l{ 1 0-
1 ~=====-=----r.1f' 1
I II' /' J
1 , " I I-
1 II " / 1 0
I, ",
I II', /" I I 0
1 , / I 1
1 II " // , __
J ,/ I I 0-
I II " / I
1 , / I '
ill T :>
I II J I I ....
I 1 I I
'" J I....
I I I 1 ...
: " : I : 0
I II : I : 0-
1 II I ,
I I ~ 1 ...
1 ~ J . 10
I . I I
I 1
i" /I: 0
! " /I -_)
I " " I
: " " :
: " II :
: II l II :
: " ,,/ ", /I :
:" ,/ ", /I:
: II /. ", II:
I" , II J
'II // ',I
I / , II I
: 11/ ____' I
1 ~=====-=----. :
1/ _________~,
;----------------
....
C
o
...
~
....
...
o
0-
...
o
o
~
c;
~
LO j{ / [ :a/va
atD-900l :ON ;(9DI.
S.O
:ON lBBLlS
en
w
Or!
::)
I-
o
::)
Or!
l-
(/)
>
~
<(
-I
-I 0
o
10
0-1
00
'lit
('If
-
u
z
<(
a.
co
~
QJ
en
:::>
I-"'Ci
::J c
.~ co
u..-I
l
t ~ j
j i H
... t'O '0
~ ~ 55
n onU'l
t; U
i ~
::;) .-K
...J ~:. i
c: : J I ~ ~
.!!"~~!J.l
tL ~ pi!
1 nmill I
:c~..;
"fi~
Ij~ ~
I a~~
-,1"
;$IHi~
l>. Il.~6
.. W!.~
~ :~ t n
in >u..l~ I!
.~ HIH
z
w < >-
U ..J ex:
z c.. <
W U C
::;) u: Z
..J U =>
u.. 0
~ UJ '"
l>.
u.. Vl
0
W
ct:
w
J:
0-
Ul
ltl
Q)
l-
e:{
0'1
C
C
ltl_
I- VI
1-.::,(.
VI I-
Q) ltl
uo..
o
I..L..E
Q) ltl
>U
I- .........
Q)
VI
Q)
a::
VI
.::,(.
I-
ltl
0..
'-+ OJ 0;:/ 4- '1
If ~
~ n i
~;~ p j
IH!H Hl
I-~ .~~ J1'
lit ~Hd!j
III Jill I
J
il
. U & ~j
! . H~:g i!
~i '~i 0 ..
hi U~ i III
g t~t' Hi g ~H
~ -l ~.~ ~l!
'" n ~6-
J:.21 3~! jti
~r ]"'
J~i ~H ~
.
~
g.f ,i
M ",::!;
ci
..
0 ci
8
oj M
ci
8 N
ci
.0
~ @
ci
0
~
~ ~ "0
~ ~ ~ ,g
~ '8 '8 ~ ~
'~.e€~E
g .8 .8 ~ ::
E .c. .c. 0 ~
g .; .~ "g. ~
u z Z eX W
~~[E~~~~
ml
~B
z
< >-
...J '0::::
c.. <
U C
- z
::!: =>
u 0
UJ '"
c..
Vl
c:
<ll
E<ll
~.~
..~
Q.'"
<ll~
c~
.0
Vl
~
n
r-.
>-
~
~~
aJ
j~
~
\S
Attachment 10