HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 AndersonProperty Afford House
CITY CLERK
File # D~[rlJ[l2]-G2][l2J
'f..~dO-'GO
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 4,2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
\
GF-
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing Proposal to address the
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the Anderson Property.
Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal
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:
City Council Staff Report (w/out Attachments) of July 17,2007.
City Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2007.
Receive Staff presentation;
Receive testimony from the Applicant;
Receive public comment;
Deliberate; and
Direct Staff to prepare an Affordable Housing Agreement for the
proposed 108-unit project on the Anderson property with the
following:
a) A requirement to provide a total of 88 affordable units
consistent with the Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing
Proposal dated October 18,2005; ill:
b) A requirement to provide 88 affordable units consistent with
the Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing Proposal dated
October 18, 2005 and a requirement to provide 2 additional
affordable units to satisfy the affordable obligation for the
proposed 20 market rate units.
None. The cost to prepare the Affordable Housing Agreement will
be borne by Braddock & Logan.
COPIES TO:
----------~-_._---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant
File
Page 1 of5
7./
ITEM NO.
G:\PA#\200S\OS-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Villagc\Affordable Housing Agreement\ccsr 12.04.07 Positano Affordable.doc
Vf"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Anderson property is located north of Interstate 580 and east of Croak Road in Fallon Village and
included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
~~
i);>:i
ill
Braddock & Logan's Positano development is located east of Fallon Road within the northern portion of
Fallon Village 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 as described below.
Table 1: Affordable Housin Obli ation
Total Inclusionary Inclusionary
Units Re uirement Units
1,043 12.5% 130
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 of 20 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. 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.
October 2005 Affordable Housing Proposal
Braddock & Logan prepared an Affordable Housing Proposal (Attachment 1) 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;
Page 2 of5
· 26 on-site secondary units within the Positano development; and
· $1,000,000 Community Benefit Payment.
Please refer to Table 2 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 OUSID2 roposa coer. ,
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 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 bedroom! In perpetuity
30% very low I bath
130 Total Units
T bl 2 Aft d bl H
P
lOt b 18 2005
* Includes 10 units to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning requirements for the Anderson property (Note:
the original Affordable Housing Proposal incorrectly identified 9 affordable units to satisfy the
lnclusionary requirement for the Anderson property which Braddock & Logan has corrected).
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 (Attachment 2).
The City Council reviewed the proposal and directed Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the
proposal (Attachment 3) 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 tpe 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 ofPositano to move fOlWard.
Refined Affordable Housing Proposal
Braddock & Logan further refined the affordable housing proposal for the Positano development since it
was presented to the City Council in October 2005 (Attachment 4). In. addition to separating the
Affordable Housing Agreement into multiple phases, the refinements to the 2005 proposal included the
following changes:
Page 3 of5
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 ofthe proposed secondary units.
On June 5, 2007, the City Council approved an Affordable Housing Agreement (Attachments 4 and 5) 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 on the Positano site. 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 if a subsequent Affordable Housing Agreement is not
completed.
Braddock & Logan has proposed a 108-unit project on the Anderson property to address the direction by
the City Council to construct a mixed income project. The proposed project exceeds the maximum
density permitted for the site by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). Therefore,
the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and EDSP Amendment (SPA) Study for the
Anderson property as requested by Braddock & Logan on July 17, 2007 (Attachment 6 and 7). 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 allow 108 units on the site. Under
the current proposal, the 108-unit project would consist of 88 affordable units, 19 market rate units, and 1
manager's unit. The proposed project requires approval of a GPA, SPA, Planned Development Rezone
with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review,
Development Agreement, and Affordable Housing Agreement. The proposed project is currently under
review and will be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration at a later
date.
Staff is currently working with the Applicant to prepare an Affordable Housing Agreement for the future
phases of Positano and the expanded Anderson project. However, the direction from the City Council on
October 18, 2005 (Attachment 3) did not specifically address the affordable obligation for the additional
market rate units on the Anderson property. Therefore, Staff is requesting the City Council provide Staff
and the Applicant with direction regarding the affordable obligation for the proposed market rate units on
the Anderson property.
ANAL YSIS:
On October 18, 2005, the City Council directed Staff to work with the Applicant to incorporate market
rate units into the proposed 88-unit affordable project on the Anderson property in order to create a mixed
income project. In response, Braddock & Logan submitted a proposal for a. 108-unit project with the
following unit mix as described in Table 3.
Table 3: Proposed Unit Mix
Number
of Units
Unit Type
Affordable Units 88
Market Rate Units 19
Manager's Unit 1
Total 108
However, in accordance with the Inelusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68), the additional 20 units
ineluded in the current Anderson proposal would generate a requirement to provide 2 affordable units (20
Page 4 of5
units x 12.5% = 2 units). The two additional affordable units would reduce the number of market rate
units within the project. Table 4 provides a break down of the unit mix if the 12.5% affordable obligation
is applied to these additional 20 units:
Table 4: Unit Mix wI Affordable Obligation
Number
of Units
Unit Type
Affordable Units 90
Market Rate Units 17
Manager's Unit 1
Total 108
The City Council has the ability to grant exceptions to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, including
alternative methods of compliance. Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal includes a number
of unique elements including: 1) the $1,000,000 Community Benefit Payment; 2) maintaining the
affordability of the units in perpetuity (rather than the 55 years prescribed by the Ordinance); and 3) a
commitment to construct the 12.5% affordable obligation for the Positano development (rather than pay
in-lieu fees). Therefore, the City Council could find that the Affordable Housing Proposal presented by
Braddock & Logan, which includes the unique elements discussed above, satisfies the intent of the
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations without providing the 2 affordable units to satisfy the 12.5% affordable
obligation for proposed 20 market rate units.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council directed Staff to work with the Applicant to incorporate market rate units into the
proposed 88-unit affordable project on the Anderson property in order to create a mixed income
development. However, the City Council did not specify how to address the affordable obligation for
these market rate units. The Applicant has proposed a 108-unit project consisting of 88 affordable units,
19 market rate units, and 1 manager's unit to address the direction from the City Council. The additional
20 units create an obligation to provide 2 affordable units in accordance with the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations, thus reducing the number of market rate units. However, the Applicant's Affordable
Housing Proposal includes a number of unique elements that the City Council could consider to satisfy
the affordable obligation for the additional 20 units. If the City Council's intent is to make this project
more of a mixed income project, Staff would recommend that the Applicant not be required to provide the
two additional affordable units given the other aspects of the Applicant's Affordable Housing Proposal
described above. Staff is requesting that the City Council provide Staff with direction regarding the
affordable obligation for the proposed 20 additional units on the Anderson property. Staff will use this
direction to prepare a draft Affordable Housing Agreement for review and consideration by the City
Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive testimony from the
Applicant; 3) Receive public comment; 4) Deliberate; and 5) Direct Staff to prepare an Affordable
Housing Agreement for the proposed 108-unit project on the Anderson property with the following: a) A
requirement to provide a total of 88 affordable units consistent with the Braddock & Logan Affordable
Housing Proposal dated October 18, 2005; or b) A requirement to provide 88 affordable units consistent
with the Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing Proposal dated October 18, 2005 and a requirement to
provide 2 additional affordable units to satisfy the affordable obligation for the proposed 20 market rate
units.
Page 5 of5
--~ -.... ---- ----- -.-
,
-
, \ _(;J J3~
Braddock & Logan's
Affordable Hou.s'ing Proposal
The following is B:taddock and Logan1s affordable housing proposal for meeting.the
InclusioIWY Zoning requirements set forth in Chapter 8.68. Braddock and Logan is
ptoposing to 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
io the City. Specially the four proposed programs are as follows:
(1) 26lnttgated Unils. This proposal would provide 26 units on the Bankhead. property
(at 30010 for Very Low; 200/<1 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 bedtoom count and would be consistent with evt:r./ portion of
the requirements of Chapter 8.68.
, Timing
Braddock and Logan ,,",ould be agreeable to a condition of proj ec:t approval that requires
the developer to begin. constructing the Intergraded units at no later than the 175th
building permit, with completion of these ,affordable units at a ratio of 1 affordable unit
completion to every 20 market rate units being completed. This would result in the
Intergraded affordable units being completed prior to 1he entire project being 2/3
coInplete. In addition1 Braddock and Logan would be agreeable placing a security bond,
guaranteeing the on-time completion of the affordable units.
(2): 26 Secondant DweUin~ Unit. This proposal would provicle 26 SecoDdary Dwelling
Units spread throughout the project on lots which are 6,000 square feet or latger' (at 30%
fot Very Lo~ 20% Low, and 50% Moderate). These units would be one-bedroom and
would be attached to the primary 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..generational
families; and or older parents living with children..
Timing
The Secondary Affordable units would be completed concurrent with units foJ.' 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 De1JS.ity Affordable Units. This proposal would provide 87
affordable units (and one manager's unit) to be placed upon the Anderson property.
These units wollld be 1~ on property desig:nated medium density residential (at 30%
for Very Low; 20% Low, and :50% Moderate). The Anderson Property is located to the
cast of Central Packway and Croak Road, immediately east of the proposed Village
Center to be located on the Jordon Property. The property is ideally suited in that it is
~TIAc1~EJiori
ATTACHMENT 1
~~,U~,~UUD ~o.yw rAA
'.
c<, vpco
both located :in close proximity to existing and proposed transportation infrastructure:,
existing and proposed job centers and retail development as well as open space. parks,
schools, and semi public uses.
The affordBhle units proposed on the ADderson. property would contain 2 bedrooms and 2
~ooms. 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
8.6&.'.
Timing .
Braddock and Logan would be agreeable to a condition o.f project approval that requires
the developer to begin constructing the Medium-High Density Affordable Units no later
than the no later than 5 years from the date of the approval of~ Tentative Map for the
Braddock and LoganlBankhead properties. In addition. Braddock and Logan would be
agreeable placing a security bond, guaranteeing the on-time completion of the Medium-
High Density Affordable Units tdfordable units,
(4) CommuniflJ lJenefit Provision. In addition to the other aforeu:lentioned affordable
units Braddock and Logan is proposing to provide a million dollars ($1,000,000) to the
City. The City Council can detenuine the best use of the funds. The monies. could be
placed into the mordable hOU$ing in...lieu fee program. or could be utilized. for capital
improvement:;; such as reconstruction of Shannon Center or other City Park Or facility.
Braddock and Logan is proposmg to provide the City all of the aforementioned proposals
in meeting its affordable housing obligation. The combined approlKili would provide a
total of 139 affordable wUts, which is 56 units Illore than required by Cbptet 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 5S year requirc:ment set
by Section 8.68.030E).
Braddock and Logan feels this combination of proposals will further the City's goal of
providing hOUsing and providing units to households thai are not currently served by the
marketplace. These affordable units would integrated throughout the 480 acre project
area and would designed, constnlcted, and managed in a way to ens1,1l'e healthy and
vibrant neighborhoods for years to come.
~u,u~,~vu~ ~u.v~ r~
lU/O:S/2UOb .1tI: U;1 l'A'\
.D.l.tiuuv-..:M....,a.,Ufil,GU
Lt (' I:..
~~
,._......__.~_.___..__.._._.. ._' .._ ...___._..........-...-- __ _ _....._' _'''''_ _... .__...._n......
b:~
~...
r,.';:';
I~I'?:;;' ,
..
;:.
.' '
, ii,
ft.-,
~;..'"
~;i'
:[",.
~f' .
~j:;,
~~:i'
~~~
~i:::: . .
~f.
il'"
~',i;;
~.,.
is~i.
~~..:. .
t,./;
,;.. .
...,.
~."I
~~:~:=
I~i:i
. . J~:~'
"
.:.:'.
~.,
~~.'
t.'"";..
Fa'
..,.~. .
t..~.
tik:
I:;
I!!,,'. .'
it;.;
..-' .
'/t,' .
="'
ki,;;, .
~!l:~:. .
..
f.:.',
.r:'.:
!ir.'
i:--i
F.
<''1-.
1,''-''
~,.:..
~~~:. ..
~~~.~. .
f;;i:i'
'::'.C'.
~ 0" .
~~>'.,
i,~."
!::'. .
. ~~'.
'P''''-
~.;t.;~~~~~-'''j''~;'''';f~~:'F''n1~!'f~',\"~~,,,~:'~H''
..... .
~]db..
,..,t ~,'t~~Jk CIf*Vm-c:(;Jo1l~4
~
(Dl\..
0...... MGUIirlI .............
1ft 2004. _M...r..aIl ....~~ImCln~ll*" CII" (tIItIJ-'"
Honw 1IIIIdG~ af)ttll'lwft ~. (tt&NC)~..... ri
_.n~__I_..,hclllhilJi'lthI-~ ~~
~.... fIt.....-JI....NJU*&-.~. \0 lJduM.
. ;.-...JlOupdrbDnW&",J L"-'-~""'.,..s ...~CQP~
\ *~ aut argIrDIIIiIIIldd _.~D8 .-hl_the"...." jncUIono
i . rI.......\W__..l............~....-...tD--
I .....~ haulInG...... ,.....
I
\
!
i
!
......_ l"IBANC....~.. ,_-.. 1M ........... dai iP
."M. _~""_.......... .............,.yanIlCIft ~......
___to yoiIl'IG r.n.. MPH.- tBANC ~4lilMI"'''''''. nu:t'
llt........". ....,ac;.,.......IID.....~......
_.~... .....,...DtOdMt....... ~ (AI......
D\.lf...... _....qh. W. _FiIItD ...lD.~ it--M ba6....
..,.t:llll... rlhaUIiIG UldculnvA.ain .,.,,"" ~......
-~
At...... ..." JDlnt pdkII..... __....... ~-_..... ill
II' . .......................... ~ ...~.... .........
bo........In__clld~...,...... ......... kllf..,...,t4Imp'"
E_... _ JC*Wlaalllln _.. .........In 1ftlIIPI*'I1le.... ~ "
....~ ~.,......., WId .t-~~tD_..........
.... bfI m........- ..a=urf'~."" an .,,_...
llalr4PH" JoIWtCvllfMS""'- ..nr-~'" ~",,~'GII
__lIMY hDuIInII rw.-"'- tDr aftid...-~......,....
~ __..... thIl..,," pc""- 0I~.~
~."""'" HBANC IDoktlfWUS ........... ball'" pilbIIl-
PTtu* .............. "1..~.._IftiI- - .........
........ .wo_....tklO aiIlIlD CIItiMI'A-.......... ceunI'J.
SiDaIIWY.
~~
r. ,/.
........'i l' Y' r ~ .
"_~....*'.j.. ~~~.L
i' t'
QlnrwJ. __.-.
~~'*'"
........
,.,..._ ceo...,.c
2
~V/V~/'UU~ ~u;v~. r4&
u. .....'\A...v'-"....u....U&'-W.&.
'KEY PrUNelPLSS QF INCWSlONARY Housu..c;
In its most basic tenml, inclusion",')' housing requires or enc~ragel!l market-rate
hOlJ5ing dlWeloprnents to include a peroentage (uSU$lIy 10 to 20 percent) 01
homes affordable to lower- and moderate-lnoome nou&ehold&. Incluliionary poll-
oles tal<e tl"tE! form of either a local ordin2lnce, a Ganeral Plan policy, or a perl1'llt
apprcwal8 pr0C886 that reql.llree or rewards affordable h0U9lng prQjectl!i, While
NPH and HBANC hold dlffeTing vle'MI on the merits of irJCllJl!lionary housing, the
followins are key principl~ upon which our organizliiltions agree:
. F'rovlding an adequate supply of housing is B societal responsibility.
. Local communities with inclusionary hou$liflg programs have a responsibility to
contribute tangible and Iybe!;anti&tl resources eo that the cost of providing
affordable hOusil'lJ i5 spread fairly across the community,
A.l'fQrdable housing poIlcle$ that maximIZe resourcft by prOViding more hOY8-
Ing opportunities or deeper Ievela of artordabUlty at the same Of leGS oost
should be encouraged.
. Traditional illolusionary housing policies that require the development of "like-
for.Oke" units dlstrlbuted uniformly throughout th~ market-rate development are
often not the m()$t e1feettve or efficient way of providing affordable hou81ng.
to To Increase effeGtiveness and efficiency, ineluslonary housing programs
shoulr;t provide nexibillty ana allow a llInge of alternative method$ of providing
affordable units.
RECOMMENDAl"ONS FOR JURI5t)U::TIONS WITH INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING PROGRAMS
Market-rate builders should be provided wtth lil choi~ Clf $tilVeral options for producing
the affordable homes. The builder should not be rB:!ulred to demon_ate the financial
infeasibility oftraditiQfloal inl;:lusionary requiremenl!; in order to use one of theM options
and, so long a81h~ relevant eritelia fQl' a p$rticular option are met, the builder $h.ould
not be ~ulred to obtain approval by the local jurisdiction on a ca5e-bY-<:a$e bIlsis.
HOUSING TVM AND Di'$IGH FLEXIBIUTY
MarKet-rate builders should be able to satiety an inclusignary requirement by IJrovlding
alternative for~l. 1'lOl>>ll'Ig types. $uch <lie dUets, to\M'Ihous8$. or condominiums.
Builders should have the option of ClUstering the unlb onslle or building off8lte (see
Otf$ite CorIstructJon, page 4).
6 -t9-;f c)D
-
3
lU/V~/~VVO ~Q;U~ rfiA
J.I.l.a."''-AV",",AQr.a.,.u~u.&.L
..... -..... ""--
~) Df 39
"1
Market-rate builders should be able to satisfy an Incluilonary requirement by providing rental
housing, provided that the proJeet meets tne: incluGlomuy percentage and income targets
applicable to rental projecW;. Again, the builder should have ttu~ option of clustering the units
on the project site or proViding for the unlt9 off8ite (see Off$ittl Construction, below).
LAND DrolCAT'ON
Market-rate bu;lden;, stJould be able to satisfy an Inclll$lonary reql,lirE!:ment by donating land to
the local government or a non-prom hoooins developer, subject to tl1e following:
.. The buIlder and city should em.~re that through an upzoning or density bonus the dedicat-
ed site will accommodate mOre affordable units or units at a det;!per affordablllty levet than
the inclusiQnatyrequirement would have provided;
_ Whllre rental hOU$ing Is to be oonstructed on the dedicatl;!d site, the site should aocommo--
date at leaet 40 affordable uniW;
.. If ttle dedicated site is 61.1ch that it req...n-e. 'extra.
wnstruetlon CO$f&--Guch . tt\e neecl to do podium
development or s~eel /XIn$l:ructlon-ln order to accom-
modate the required number of unit$, tlJe market-rate
build~r should bear the ~xtra cost, including any offslte
, lmprovemlilnts, environmental remediation 01' provision
of utilities. In most other situations, the land dediClittion
i\l;;eIf 'Mil satisfy the induslonary requirement;
u,i'AJ OEMlJli.l'/A1'~ :
AI 'aroao RIlMh ill'etllluml~ I; A, rbr ....t.l-tllfll huiIJe. Pflll'idttJ fmId :
tQ E<AIH /-fIlu!:I1If ...-.:1 c( IllnKIly ~11I IN ~d/Y 110m..., !
mlJkilt" I/. posslblr ~ /te<<t 74 /lj)<l\"1IIN!m.ll#fordllb.lt IIJ fomiIieJ eamil1l
"..r"",,- 60 pwtllllJ 0( (JIM r!K"dIm jncOlllO /J28,OOo. $5:1, 0001. o~
n'lIIllrMJAIt fRurt 1+27 b 1861 p.r nlllntlr (ii~l.
OfF51Tl! CoNSTIt.UCT1oN
. The dedicated site is located within the same j....i$dic-
tion 411$ tl'Ie project or Within III defined subregion;
. The dedicated site shoYkl hlllve allland...ose entitle-
ments l5eoured prior to oompl$tl(ltl of the market.rale
unl18. If the Icoal jurisdiction unreasonably
reM_ to approve the necessary entiUe.
ments, the builder should be able to pay
in-lieu fees.
Market-rate bulldef5 should be able to chooGe
to satisfy an lnclusionary reql,.llrement by pro.
viding for the unillll to be constr'ucted out5ide
the project location, subject to the following:
4
.1.11'1' "~I ~uv., -4U. U.... '&'.n..a.
. The oft$ite location is either comparable
to the prr;)jeot $ite Qt Will result in either
gre~$f levels of affordabllfty or liil greater
number of affornliilble ~nit$ than the inclu-
slion8ry requiremont would have provided;
. The affordable units should be developed
concurrently with tlllil tnlilrie;el-f~e homes.
POOL.1NG AND CRGIT TRANSFIiR$
71 ~1J ~3~
....
. TWo or more mar1cet-rate builde1'8 should
be able to pool res~rces to satisfy their
IndUilonary requirement through a single
affordable housing project;
· Market-rste bullder6 that build 'exti'i~
affordable housing uniw (I.e., more than
required by the inclusionary ordinance)
should be able to use the addttlonal unim
as credits for meeting future inc;;lusionaty
requirements in the jurisdiction or a
defined subregion;
. Market~rate bvildel'$ that build "extra. affordable housing unlt& shOtJld be able to sell the
additional units as credits to other buildElI'8 in the same Jur1tlCletlon or a defined subregion;
QI'H.!1! CC1N;rto J,"TIOIv 4T wQl!!i.:
'1110 l.M1n ~ toIleIl~ .,,'" ma'" p<IS:ltJlt knx... 11M CIty ~ 'ar/lbad ell
v/Ia-d the h_~/Jd!r tD pon!lllf' I>ith Ih~ IIQ",/""fiI MIDGE HlIUlllIf TlJ
~ tJ.~ jr.~1lI111lMt)' """'"'" ofP'_ bill' ""01 1M _~ 1Nml'S- ,
BRrDGl f.iouml (feillM I, 2. 3 ood of bMTHlm .....nm.IIU (fir 3ofof Iiouie . I
~ Hmlilf <<01' billow jO NWJ 61) 1-='1 ..('lie /M!6 1Il.ddr. lna:>ra.. :
. The "extra' unlW. GhoUId be built be1or~they ean be treated as creditsi
. Non-prorrt bulldel'$ 8hould al$o De able to sell credits to market--rate tJUlld$J$ f(If' projects
and/or units that a.re not beJng funded by the local govemment The affordable homes
:iJhould be entitled before or concurrently with the market-rate development acquiring
the credits;
. Non-profit builcleni should be able to aoquire and improve existing market-rate develop..
I1'1Eint$ and r.trld M1.ItB tBn~ to very-low income households snd sell the units as credits
to other bullderll in the slme jurisdiction or a defined 8Ubregion. Thi$ Qptoo W1ol,lld only
be allowed if: iI} households served are at or below 50 percent of median income;
b) the property undergoes extensive renovations; e) number of units acquired and rencvat~
ed is allea&t double that of the standard indusionliltY requirement; d) 8ffordlibility is
guarantead tor a period of at least 55 years; liit'ld e) tenant relocation i5 appropriately
addressed.
5
~ IW~;-W~
~: O/J !:Im ViIap, lho, C';lIy a{/le101umll
prwlded nMilro'/it .IIuJb.:rnk j-IrlIMIf
~.."..m Cdtpo,arlon wlrh /iMflilnt
mdd. ,..,.,....I~ bv ....1tllII,lJ!karrJ
J"R1m 1'1If~,IF """...~.<rr~ ~,l1ImrrlJ.
It ,~uh.d III &.:.:t>'" trff~ Nil .
""",ill'd /I, u., CHdinanC<"_ 0"1 E.fm vllflltr ;
Jl"'~ 81 qffordu/>k h_ RIllEin!' '
"om sllld,.. III f-Wdnl<J/l'l ""'J;49~ Cw/l .
bouses ~, a milt of "'-<'Midi. KIIIInr
30, 40, jO, 60,IIIld 10 ,.,....., of
Ett'Cd j'Il~1I .......... "11'.,,,1,,1118 t<>
l'IIl.l.~ /H>II1l1lll ",itJI "'_ /ISo 1w
~f/~ODOGlltflcn'''Yllp 10
JQm~ '" .iI: ..il!. im;1""1;'J ~
~ J$~,DliO_l1 M""'JlOl'C!teS 11
"'=It of l:MIM~rtlo1/l/)OC" dIId 0I'll-
tiwt$l'ftl.. .pEt<!:' it ~..,,,
~ r111!q <nR 'fn<;UIII ""'" '
Inf f~mtM.~ f~1I'I (lid Elm omI die
.1N7'<IUJ'ldmr rrqll/.ofllDild.
IN.Llfu FEn
Mark~-tate bYlIdtn ~f proJ&et$ with SO yniw Of feww ~hol,lld be able to <:I'1(11)*B to Mtlsfy ah
inclu8ianary requirement by paying a fee in lieu ofdirec:tly developing the units. This option
should be available to the de~loFW'r withO\.lt having to demon~tratB thlElt other' optlon$ are
infeasible,"
~M"'IiNDED -..ocAI. CoI'CI"'IJNfTY CoNTRIBUTICtNS
Localgovemmen1s fulflU 8 alJclal role in the creation of affordable housing, Below are some
key ~d;iorl$ tnat' local governments should take to demonstnne a broader commitment to
addressing the affordable I'IOUSllhg shorUge,
1, Funding
. Make cons.l~ent efforts to pass 10081 affordable housing assistance bonds or other meas-
ures to meet the e;ll;i$ting community'$ fair share ofth~ burclen of providing affordable
housing,
. ~ittJer waive development Impact fee15 and processing fees for inclusfonary units or pay for
them through discretionary local funds such as redevelopment funds or the general fund,
.. HBANC amf NI'H lit rrllt n...e . """11IM p.dlDII fI.Ir it. "" ~ fot fWitl2t ... II*t ,,*,.$G V'l1IJ.
6
(,) l'
( ./-,;-:1
<'2:9
jL,
q ~- ,3S
. Where... I'edaveloprnent agency elCists, increase to at least 50 percent the tax increment
d$\lotl!lli to affordable houling progran'l&, (Currenllaw requlrea a 20 percent low- to moder.
ate-income set~aslde for housing.)
2. Zoning
. FT(l\fI<le at least one density bonus for each unit of affordable housing required.
. Exempt Inelusionary units from bulldiflij permit caps and gro'Nth allocatiol'1 processes.
. Proactlvely .pre-entitle" (genel1ll plan an~ zoning) the $ltE!S identified In the hQ~1iJ ele-
ment 85 affordable housing sites.
. Make appropriate surplus publicly owned land available for affordable housing.
3. Program Admlnlstrat/Qn
. I..,.oeal governments should provide Q'dedicated staff and budget to admlnl&ter the program
or contract with a competent c:!ntlty to do $0,
. Thi$ responsibility includes up-front assistance to tlomebuildel'5 and prospective
buyers/renters in the ssleslrenbll prooes& 25 well as long~term monitoring of the inclusion-
ary homes.
. 11'1 the e$$~ of fOr-sale IMClusJonary units, In which the developsI' makes iI good faith effort
to sell the unit but it remaIns unsold after 90 days. the local govefTImetJt should either: a)
purchan the unit atthe restJlcted price and take over marketing; or b) giVe permission to
sell the unit at market~l'8te and capture the dihl'$nee. For option A, the looaJ government
rm.I5t c;:lose on the unit within 120 days from completion. For option e. the program should
be &tn.lctl.lred $Q that there will be W} illcentlve to obtain true market value far the unit.
. The cost of program administration should not tome from fees or other exaction$ im~
on builders
CONCLUSION
Throughout CallforTlie, public o1ficilills and private citl%ens ere struggling to find ways to
addre$$ the affordable housing crisis. Together, NPH and HBANC want to ensure that the
dialogue about solutIons Is being Informed by a Bet of principles effective and effielent at '
shaping publk: JlOliciw th~ wiR work for bulldertl, cities and residents. California has long led
the nation in Innovative approaches to addressing the IlIffordilble h~l,J$ir'lg CI1sls, and, by
working together, NPH and HBANC believe that we can find common ground to help $olve
the problem in the near future.
7
CITY CLE\~fJ~
File # D~ceJ[Q]-~~
X L.l~O- '8V
)(' Li~-~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 18, 2005
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:.,/'" 1.
~Y{ ;:
4.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
Braddock and Logan Affordable Housing Proposal to Comply with
IncIusionary Zoning Regulations for the Braddock and Logan
development at Fallon Village
Report Prepared by Julia AbdalalHousing 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 Public Testimony
Deliberate
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 refme the proposal including, in particular, the
timing of construction ot~ 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 singleafamily units at this site.
COPY TO:
_.~..____________________a_______"___________M"~.~_________________________________________________________
Page I of7
-
AITACHMENT2
G:\PAII\200S\05-038 B&:L Stage 2 Fallon ViUage\CCSR 10-1-05 B&:J. Housing Proposal.1X>C'
-.
A~proval or~ Stage ~ Devel,op~ent Plan an.d Vesting Tenta~ive Map will. trigger.the requirementl~~3B
Clty ofDubhn TncluslOuary Zomng RegulatIOns, Chapter 8.68 ofthe Zon1ng Ord1nance (Attachment 4).
Chapter 8.68's stated purpose is to enhance the public welfare and assure further housing development
contributes to the attainment of the 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% ofthe
development as affordable housing. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations break down the affordable
requirements to production of 50% of the affordable 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
Inclusionary Regulations further treat the development ofufor sale" housing and rental housing similarly,
with the same affordable unit requirement and the same income level breakdovm.
The Inelusionary Zoning Regulations provide that the affordable units - both rentals and "for sale" wits --
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 Inclusionary affordable housing requirement
by constructing the affordable units off-site ifthe City Council makes the fonowing 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~sitc 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, constnIction
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 tenns 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 of the 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 "The 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 ofthis Chapter."
Page 2 of7
ANALYSIS;
13 0;\' :2/6
Braddock and Logan has presented a proposal to provide the number of allbrdablc 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% ofthe total units. Braddock & Logan could, thus, pay
fces 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 Council.
Summary of Proposal:
The proposal presented by Braddock and Logan involves two parcels. The fIrst is the 486-acre
property which is the subject of the Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and would
include 1043 unili;. 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 propcrty~ 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:
1. 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
writs 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
"'....,..-. ~.,'.-
Tv De of Ownership Income mix Size of units Affordabilitv 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 I bedroom
Units 30% very low inc. I 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
ILf ~ 3f;
Timing of Construction and Securi~v
The timing of construction in the proposal is different for the 26 integrated units, the 26 secondary units
and the 88 off-site units. StaffbeHeves 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. Staffis prepared to work
with the applicant; however. to modify the timing and security proposed ifthe 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 munber offuclusionary 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 Inclusionary Zoning Regulations would apply; that is, all Inclusionary 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 Inclusionary Units because they would not
mirror what is being constructed at the market rate homes.
. The requirement that the WIits be dispersed throughout the project because the 88 units would be
concentrated on the Anderson property.
. The requirement that all ofInclusionary units 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 Affordable 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 Aff()rdable Units Being Proposed:
15 ~j9
1. 26 Integrated Units
Providing units along with the market rate units at the site of the development is consistent with the
lnc1usionary 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 this part ofthe 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 expensive 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 Inc1usionary Zoning Regulations
to provide homes ofth1s size to very low-.low- and moderate-income households. If the intent of the
lnclusionary 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 llgranny 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 lnclusionary Zoning
Regulations that the affordable units 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. If the units are not rented out to the specified income category
household, then the required nwnber of Inclusionary Units is not being provided. The owners of these
units would be able to rent out the unit to 10wer~incomc 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 lnclusionary 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 COWlcil should consider. Providing
one-bedroom units will limit the s1ze of the 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
Starr. Currently, and per the Inelusionary Ordinance and the "Layperson's Guide to the Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance Regulations", Housing Staffrn.onitors 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
singJe- family home owner and requesting information on I) whether they are renting our their units~ and
2) the incomc of the tenant, it may be SUbstantially more difficult to secure the required infonnation. If
Staff does not receive the infonnation 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. 88 Apartments (78 off-site inclusionary units and 9 on-site inclusionary units, plus a 1(; ~' 39
manager's unit)
The proposal is for the off-site development of 87 units to house moderale-~ low- and very low-income
households, in the same ratio required by the Tnclusionary Ord1nance.
For the Council to allow the applicant to satisfy the Inclusionary requirements by constructing units off-
site, it would have to make the five findings discussed above. Staff does not believe the proposal, as
presented, allows the Council to make all five findings. Tfthe Council is interested in considering the
proposal for off-site COJ1structlon 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 Staff would
recommend is a trigger point for construction of the 88 units OJ' construction of the units on-site, given the
fact that the apphcant does not own the Anderson property.
In order to make the five findings, the Council would need to grant a waiver from the bedroom count
requirement of the ordinance and a waiver from the dispersal requirement or the ordinance.
The construction of apartments off-site to sat1sfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
has been allowed before in the City of Dublin. Staff knows how to work with both the developers and the
management entity to enforce the provisions of the executed Affordable Housing Agreement. Before any
building permHs 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 verify 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 Inclusionary Units (7.5%) on the Fallon Villages 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 cannot 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 sale product.
Other options can he explored to provide Inclusionary Units on-site, but any variation from the
lnc1usionary Zoning Regulations would require waivers. Most of the other developers of "for sale"
housing have found innovative ways to accommodate the Inclusionary requirements of the City of Dublin.
Page 60f7
Pinn Brothers will be offering eight of the smaller "Manor" cluster homes to moderate-income \1 ~ ~
households, with the low- and vet)' low-income households offered homes in the condominiums.
Greenbriar developed town homes in the midst ofthe larger single-family homes specifically for the
Inclusionary Units. Duplexes and Triplexes may also be incorporated into single-family neighborhoods
without changing the character of the tracts.
If the City Council determines that Braddock and Logan's Proposal should be modified in some way, it
would be beneficial to provide that direction to both Staff and Braddock and Logan at this meeting.
There 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 perpetuity 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:
8taffrecommends that the City Councill) Receive Staff presentation; 2) HearpubHc 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
\~ ~33
MINUTES OF THE ern' COUNCIL
CWSED SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED l1TIGA110N
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9.
subdivision C (2 potential cases).
II. CONFERENCE WITH U;GAL COUNSHL -AN11C1PATED LITlGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9, ~.ubdjvjsion (b)(J) Facts and
Circumstances: Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision (b)(3)(B) -
CIP Project # 96920
.
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held ort Tuesday, October 18, 2005, in
the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. lhe meeting was called to order at
7:14 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.dublill.Cll.l1S
ATTACHMENT 3
,q ~3S
NEW BUSINESS
Braddock and Logan
Mfordable Housing Proposal to Comply with lnclusionary
Zoning Regulations for the Braddock and ~an 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 wgan has submitted a request for a
Stage 2 Development Plan and a Vesting Tentative Map for the Braddock and Logan
property, consisti~ 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 2
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 Inclusionary Zoning Regulations required by the proposal; or 2) By
consensus, direct Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to l'efille the proposal incIudin,g,
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
payin,g $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
Jo ~ 3~
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 affordabiIity. 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 Housing Ordinance for workforce housing was designed and intended to do.
em. Hildenbrand asked is Vrn. Zika was referring to granny flats only.
Vm. Zika 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. This plan added a different element. It
would allow parents to help their children get on theil' 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.
DlIBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 14
REGULAR MEETING
October ,18, 1005
PAGE 399
www.ci.dublin.ca.us
~( ~i 39
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 design, they had
the opportunity to build closer to ] 20-125 units at market rate. It was not part of the
affordable proposal for tonight.
em. Hildenbrand reiterated her concern abou.t the apartment complex being grouped
together and having residents stigmatized it,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.
Vrn. Zika reiterated his concern that the gt'anny unit idea did not meet the needs of the
Inclusionary 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 oppo1'tunities for Staff to work with the
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
October 18, 2005
PAGE 400
www.ci.duhlill.ca..us
rJd ox ~
Applicant l'egarding ti~ittg 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 product into a larger complex that dealt with people of all income levels.
em. McCormick suggested that Green Building principles be used.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded Cm. McCormick and by majority vote (Vm. 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. Caron 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.Cfi.llS
CITY CLERK'
File # D~[3][C2].[i]~
{,oo- aO;J2O-fS
450-30 l'
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 5, 2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION: /J..tY" 1)
f~" 2)
(~ 3)
~ 4)
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 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.
The costs of administering the Affordable Housing Agreement are
included in the administration fees that are charged with the sale of
each affordable unit.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
COpy TO: Applicant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of6
ITEM NO. _.
Attachment 4
G:\PA#\200S\05-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon ViIlage\Affordab1e Housing Agreement\ccsr 6.5.07 AHA, DOC
C-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
J4OX3f2;
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 residentiallots
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 ofthe 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 of 20 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 Inclusionary 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
Table 1: Affordable Housin Pro osal October 18, 2005 ~3%
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% ve low market rate units
50% moderate All
26 Secondary Units Rental 20% low 1 bedroom; fu perpetuity
30% ve low 1 bath
78 Apartments* 50% moderate All
Rental 20% low 2 bedroom! fu perpetuity
30% ve low 2 bath
130 Total Units
* Plus 9 units to satisfy the Inc1usionary Zoning requirements for the Anderson property & I 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) fuclude 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 Affordable 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 ofthe affordable single-family detached units; and
3) The location of a portion of the proposed secondary units.
Page 3 of6
Design & Location of Single-family Detached Affordable Units Jip 138
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
ReQuirement
12.5%
Inc:luslonary
Units
31
Page 4 of6
The Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance permits the developer to pay in-lieu fees for 40% of the affo~:lf?X.2~
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 Housine for Phase 1
Ownership
/Rental
Income Level
Size of Units
Affordability
Period
13 Single-family
Detached Units
50% moderate
For sale 20% low
30% very low
50% moderate
Rental 20% low
30% very low
All 4 bedroom
In perpetuity
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 ofthe 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.D) 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
CONCLUSION:
cJg 4I;f J B
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
lnc1usionary 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 reconunends 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:
~q ~ 32
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 S
Jo ~ 3g
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
recyele 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 (~7 Lots) Located in Fallon Villae:e
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 Inelusionary 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
.
31 ~2>~
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 mE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TOEXECUTETBEAGREEMENT
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
.
:!;) at' 6~
CITY CLERK
File # D~[I][Q]-[3][Q]
lflO--56
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 17, 2007
SUBJECT:
ATT ACHMENTS:
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) Resolution approving initiation of a General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study.
2) Resolution denying initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study.
3) Vicinity Map.
4) Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing Proposal- October 18
2005.
5) City Council Staff Report (w/out Attachments) of October 18,2005.
6) City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18,2005.
7) City Council Staff Report (w/out Attachments) of June 5, 2007
8) City Council Meeting Minutes of June 5, 2007
9) Project proposal and letter from the Applicant dated March 19,
2007.
10) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
5)
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
bas requested this amendment.
COPIES TO:
-----------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant
Property Owner
Page 1 of 4
ITEM NO*
G:\PA#\200S\OS-Q38 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\Anderson\ccsr 7.17,07 gpa spa request. doc
Attachment 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
lJ~ ~ 3Q;
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
General Pian/Specific Plan Land Use
Medium Densitv
General Commercial/Camous Office
Ooen Soace
Total
Acreage
7 ae
34.2 ae
9.1 ae
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
Units
1,043
Table 2
Inclusionary Inclusionary
Requirement Units
12.5% 130
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.
Unit Type
Table 3: Affordable Housinl! Proposal October 18, 2005
Ownership Income Level Size of Units Affordability
/Rental Period
88 Apartments*
Rental
50% moderate
20% low
30% very low
50% moderate
20% low
All
2 bedroom!
2 bath
Same mix of
bedroom size as
In perpetuity
26 Single-family
detached Units
For sale
In perpetuity
Page 2 of4
Rental
Income Level
30% very low
50% moderate
20% low
30% very low
Size of Units
market rate units
All
1 bedroom!
1 bath
Afford.bn~Lf ~ 39
Period
Unit Type
Ownership
/Rental
26 Secondary Units
In perpetuity
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 ofthe 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 ofPositano 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 of 4
d h .t'. .b.l. f . . k .. h d' h jA~d~ ~ 36
to stu Y t e .leas1 11ty 0 mcorporatmg mar et rate umts mto t e propose prOject on ten erson
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:
Table 4
Medium Density (current designation)
Medium-High Density (proposed designation)
7 ac 6.1-14.0 units/ac
7ac 14.1-25.0 units/ac
Min.Max
Density
42.98 units
99-175 units
General Pian/Specific Plan land Use
Acreage Density Range
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 NSP 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
30 tJ, J/6
Minutes of the City Council
of the City of Dublin
REGULAR MEETING-JULY 17.2007
CLOSED SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding:
I. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957, Title: City Manager
Items Added to Agenda:
Mayor Lockhart announced that City Staff learned on July 13, 2007, after the agenda was
posted, that Jody Rhone, doing business as Len's Barber Shop, proposed to amend her
lease with the City to vacate by July 31, 2007. Because the Council does not meet again
urztil August 7, 2007, it would be too late to consider the proposed lease amendment on
August 7, 2007.
Mayor Lockhart stated pursuant to Government Code section 54954.2, subdivision (b)(2)
that the Council find there is a need to discuss the proposed lease amendment with the
City Manager in closed session and to consider giving the City Manager authority to
enter into the lease agreement; that the need to take such actions came to the attention of
the City after the agenda was posted and cannot be deferred until the August 7, 2007
meeting; and that two items be added to the agendafor tonight's meeting, asfollows:
(1) A ClosedSession pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 to read as
follows:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: APN 941-1560-007-01
City Negotiator: City Manager Richard Ambrose
Negotiating parties: Len's Barber Shop and other tenants
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
July 17, 2007
PAGE 267
.
Attachment 7
31 ~ 2B
AND VARIOUS CITIES LOCATED WITHIN THOSE COUNTIES FORMING
THE EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
._,. .
RECESS
9:41 p.m.
Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the
meeting reconvened at 9:49 p.m.
.
SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC ART
9:50 p.m. 8.1 (900-50)
Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor presented the Staff Report and advised that the City
Council will receive a proposal for an art mural by local artist Gary Winter to be installed
at the San Ramon Village Plaza Development. In June, the Heritage & Cultural Arts
Commission reviewed the artwork and location and unanimously recommended approval
by the Council.
Mr. Winter has proposed a large 12 ft. wide x 16 ft. high mural entitled "Home" that will
be painted on the outside wall on the northeast comer of the development.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the City
Council approved the artwork.
.-.--- '. ..
INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
FOR THE ANDERSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3457 CROAK ROAD
9:56 p.m. 8.2 (420-30/410-55)
Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the Anderson
property is located north of 1-580 and east of Croak Road in Fallon Village (formerly
EDPO) and included within the East Dublin Specific Plan. Staff was previously directed
to work with the Applicant to study the feasibility of incorporating market rate units into
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
July 17., 2007
PAGE 287
.
J8~~
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
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.
Cm. Sbranti asked about secondary unit.
Mr. Baker clarified this is a granny unit such as secondary unit over a garage.
Cm. Scholz clarified if they approve this it gives an opportunity for up to 108 units.
Cm. Sbranti stated the applicant is asking for 20 additional units. The Council will
determine whether to approve the study for mixed units.
Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, talked about their request. Their intent is not to build
175 units, but they have submitted a plan for 108 units to incorporate the market rate
units.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand, and by unanimous vote, the
City Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 138 - 07
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)
. ....
PARTICIPATION IN THE CLIMATE
PROTECTION PROJECT FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
10:09 p.m. 8.3 (530-50)
Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that in an
effort to improve environmental practices, Stopwaste.org has partnered with the
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and initiated an effort to
understand, quantify and reduce the activities that may contribute to the release of green
house gases within Alameda County. The City Council will consider approving the City's
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
July 17,2007
PAGE 288
.