Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7.5 AffordHouse Agmt Positano Attch 1-2
ti~~ \ -~ 1 ~~ /~ ~/~ CITY CLERK File # ^~,~„~, ~© -~,LIFOxI~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16, 2009 SUBJECT: Positano Affordable Housing Agreement -Amendment No. 3 to the Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase of Positano. Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated October 18, 2005, with attachments. 2) City Council Meeting Minutes dated October 18, 2005. 3) Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase of Positano. 4) Amendment No. 1 to the Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase of Positano. 5) Amendment No. 2 to the Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase of Positano. 6) Subsequent Phase Affordable Housing Agreement. 7) Resolution approving Amendment No. 3 to the Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase (416 units) of Positano to modify the unit mix and income affordability level of the Inclusionary units and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Amendment, with the Amendment attached as Exhibit A. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; Q~j 2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; V° ~~,~ 3) Deliberate; and 4) Adopt the Resolution approving Amendment No. 3 to the Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase (416 units) of Positano to modify the unit mix and income affordability level of the Inclusionary units and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Amendment. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The costs to administer these Affordable Housing Agreements are included in the administration fees that are charged with the sale of each affordable unit. DESCRIPTION: Background Braddock & Logan's Positano development is a residential development consisting of 1,043 single-family homes on approximately 488-acres. The project site is located within the Map l: Positano Vicinity Map ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO: Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan File PA OS-038 Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. G:\PA#\2005\OS-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\Affordable Housing Agreement\AHA Phase I Amend #3\CCSR AHA Amd 3.doc r, northern portion of the larger Fallon Village project area, east of Fallon Road and the Dublin Ranch development, west and southwest of the City Limits boundary with Alameda County and Doolan Canyon (see Map 1 above). Braddock & Logan has received approval of Site Development Review (SDR) to construct the first phase of the development consisting of 247 homes in the Salerno and Cantara neighborhoods. Construction of the homes in the first phase is currently underway. Affordable Housing Agreement 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 of 20 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. In the case of the Positano development, the City Council has granted exceptions to the method of compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance as discussed below. Affordable Housing Proposal In accordance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, the Positano development has a requirement to provide 130 affordable units. Table 1: Positano Inclusionarv Zoning Requirements Total Units Inclusionary Re uirement Inclusionary Units 1,043 12.5% 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 (Attachment 1). The 2005 affordable housing proposal included a combination of on-site integrated units, secondary units, off- site apartments on the Anderson property, and a $1,000,000 Community Benefit Payment on a per unit basis (i.e. $958.77 per unit) prior to issuance of each building permit in Positano. The City Council reviewed the proposal and directed Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal (Attachment 2) to include: 1) rear yard landscaping, energy efficient measures, and green building principles into affordable units; 2) study feasibility of integrating market rate units into the proposed off- site affordable apartment project; and 3) address the timing and security necessary to ensure completion of the off-site apartments. Staff worked with Braddock & Logan to prepare an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) to address the direction from the City Council. As requested by the Applicant, the affordable requirement is addressed through a phased approach and consists of a First Phase AHA and a Subsequent Phase AHA as described below. Please refer to Map 2 (below) for the location of the various phases of the Affordable Housing Agreements. This phased approach allowed Braddock & Logan to proceed with the initial phases of development while the terms of the AHA were finalized for the remaining portions of Positano. 2 of 6 -i ,' i - Pori ma P ...: ei Fi:~,; Phase t,y- L a> Fc ~ m. Pnr•y of Fi--., Phase i Fr 3a; u'~rq~arct Phase ®?83'.ots Fviai P'..a _.r ~ - ~ J[' ,\ ~-----~Z.~ ~ ~ •~ (~~ ~ ~ ~, /• { ~ - , ,, .. Map 2: Affordable Housing Agreement Phases of Positano First Phase Affordable Housing Agreement.• The First Phase consists of 416 lots and is broken down into two parts. Part One consists of 247 lots in the Salerno and Cantara neighborhoods. Part Two consists of the remaining 169 lots within the First Phase. Please refer to Map 2 (above) for the location of the Part One and Two of the First Phase AHA. The First Phase AHA was approved by the City Council on June 5, 2007 (Attachment 3). Since that time, two Amendments have been approved which modified the unit mix and affordability of the Inclusionary Units. Amendment No. 1 was approved on June 17, 2008 (Attachment 4) and Amendment No. 2 was approved on November 4, 2008 (Attachment 5). Braddock & Logan is currently requesting approval of Amendment No. 3 to this Agreement as discussed below. Subsequent Phase Affordable Housing Agreement.' This Agreement addresses the inclusionary requirements for the remaining 627 lots in Positano (Attachment 6). This Agreement consists of two phases, a Subsequent Phase and a Final Phase. Please refer to Map 2 (above) for the location of the Subsequent and Final Phases. The developer will satisfy the inclusionary zoning requirements for the 627 lots by constructing 78 off-site affordable apartments (2 bedroom/2 bathroom units) on the Anderson property. The Anderson property is generally located north of Interstate 580 and east of Croak Road near the eastern City limits in Fallon Village (see Map 3 to the right). Map 3: Anderson Vicinity Map Table 2 below illustrates the unit mix and affordability level under the current Affordable Housing Agreement for Positano (First Phase Agreement Amendment No. 2 and Subsequent Phase Agreement). 3 of 6 Tahle 2: Annroved Affordahle Housinu iJnit Mix Unit Type Ownership Income Level Size of Units Affordability /Rental period 18 Single-family For sale /o moderate (15 units) 83 4 bedroom units In perpetuity detached Units ~ 17 /o low (3 units) 34 Secondary Units Rental 26°x/0 low (9 units) 1 bedroom/ ~ perpetuity 74 /o very low (25 units) 1 bath 50% moderate (39 units) 2 bedroom/ 78 Apartments* Rental 20% low (16 units) 2 bath ~ Perpetuity 30% very low (23 units) 130 Total Units * Plus 4 units to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning requirements for the Anderson property. Current Request Braddock & Logan is currently requesting approval of Amendment No. 3 to the First Phase Affordable Housing Agreement for Positano (Attachment 7) to modify the unit mix and income affordability of the Inclusionary units as discussed below. ANALYSIS: Part One of the First Phase AHA includes a total of 247 lots within two neighborhoods (Cantara and Salerno). These 247 lots generate an inclusionary zoning requirement to provide 31 affordable units. Part Two includes a total of 169 lots. These lots generate an Inclusionary Zoning Requirement to provide 21 affordable units (please refer to Table 3 below). Table 3: First Phase Inclusionary Reauirement (Part Onel Phase of AHA Total Units Inclusionary Re uirement Inclusiona Units Part One 247 12.5% 31 Part Two 169 12.5% 21 Revised Unit Mix Under the Agreement, as previously amended, Braddock & Logan would satisfy this requirement in Part One by constructing 26 affordable units and paying fees in-lieu of constructing the 5 additional units in this phase (please refer to Table 4 below) and in Part Two by constructing 26 affordable units (please refer to Table 5 below). Under the terms of the Agreement, the in-lieu fee would be refunded at the point at which the location of the Inclusionary units in Part Two were approved by the City. Braddock & Logan proposes to construct 31 affordable units in the Part One of the First Phase, rather than 26 units, which will avoid the necessity of paying the in-lieu fee for the additional 5-unit obligation. It would also result in 5 fewer affordable units being constructed in Part Two of the First Phase. In addition, Braddock and Logan proposes to modify the unit mix and affordability of the affordable units in Parts One and Two. Under the current proposal Braddock & Logan would introduce a new secondary unit size - 275 square foot secondary units as studio units (rather than 437 square foot one bedroom units). The Studio and one bedroom secondary units are attached the primary residence. The proposal would: 1) eliminate seven of the 4 bedroom detached homes affordable to low and moderate income households; 2) eliminate nine of the 1 bedroom secondary units affordable to very-low and low income households; and 3) add twenty-one studio secondary units affordable to very-low income households (Attachment 7). The Applicant would continue to pay a prorated portion of the $1,000,000 Community Benefit Payment prior to issuance of each building permit. Tables 4 and 5 below provide a comparison of the existing and proposed unit mix and affordability level in, respectively, Parts One and Two of the First Phase. 4 of 6 Table 4: Existing and Proposed Affordable Unit Mix for Part One of Expanded First Phase Existin A ffordable Unit Mix Pro osed Affordable Unit Mix Unit T e Income Level Unit T e Income Level 9 Single-family 67% moderate (6 units) 2Single-family 50% moderate (1 unit) detached Units 33% low (3 units) detached Units 50% low (1 unit) 17 One Bedroom 47% low (9 units) 8 One Bedroom 88% low (7 units) Secondary Units 53% very low (8 units) Secondary Units 12% very low (1 unit) 0 Studio 21 Studio Secondary Units __ Secondary Units 100% very low (21 units) Total: 26 units* -- Total: 31 Units -- *Plus Inclusionary Zoning In-lieu fee for five units. Table 5: Existing and Proposed Affordable Unit Mix for Part Two of Expanded First Phase Existin A ffordable Unit Mix Pro osed Affordable Unit Mix Unit T e Income Level Unit T e Income Level 9 Single-family 100% moderate (9 units) 9Single-family 100% moderate (9 unit) detached Units detached Units 17 One Bedroom 12 One Bedroom Secondary Units 100% very low (17 units) Secondary Units 100% very low (12 units) 0 Studio 12 Studio Secondary Units __ Secondary Units __ Total: 26 units* -- Total: 21 Units -- The Applicant has indicated that in the current economic climate it is not feasible to sell the 4-bedroom homes to very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The Applicant has indicated that currently the price of these homes is not competitive with homes that are available on the resale market. The Applicant believes that the proposed Amendment to provide studio secondary rental units available to very-low income households satisfies the intent of the Inclusionary Zoning requirements and is better suited for the current market. The proposed change also results in "deeper" affordability in that the total number of very low income units has increased from 25 to 34 and the number of moderate-income units has decreased from 15 to 10, and the number of low-income units has decreased from 12 to 8. However, because the 275 square foot studios will replace the 437 square foot one bedroom units, the secondary units would generally be smaller than the units produced under the current agreement. 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 First Phase AHA (Attachment 3 - AHA Section 6.C, Page 5) requires the Developer to provide rear yard landscaping for all of the detached affordable units as directed by the City Council (including turf, shrubs, trees, irrigation, and a usable rear yard area). The Developer is required to submit conceptual rear yard Landscape Plans for review as part of the SDR application for the design of the homes. Energy Efficiency and Green Building Principles The First Phase AHA (Attachment 3 - AHA Section 6.D, Page 5) also obligates the developer to incorporate energy efficient measures and green building practices for all of the affordable detached units and secondary units. Braddock & Logan 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 was incorporated into the First Phase AHA (Attachment 3, Exhibit 5), and the Agreement required that each unit obtain 50 points on the checklist. The amendment would require that each unit obtain 52 points on the checklist. 5 of 6 Subsequent Phase Affordable Housing Agreement As previously discussed, Braddock & Logan proposed to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing obligation through the construction of 78 off-site affordable apartments on the Anderson property. The Subsequent Agreement prevents development of the last 539 residential lots in the 1,043-unit project until either the Anderson Project is under construction or the Subsequent Agreement is amended. Braddock & Logan no longer controls the Anderson property. Therefore, it is likely that in the future the Applicant will request an Amendment to the Subsequent Phase Affordable Housing Agreement to address the affordable obligation through an alternative to creation of inclusionary units on the Anderson property. CONCLUSION: Braddock & Logan is requesting approval of Amendment No. 3 to the First Phase Affordable Housing Agreement for Positano to modify the unit mix and income affordability of the Inclusionary units (Attachment 7). Because the secondary units (i.e. studio and 1 bedroom 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 "be allocated to households with very-low, low, and moderate income levels" as defined in the Ordinance, and 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 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes this finding can be made based on the affordability characteristics of 4 bedroom homes and the secondary units, the fact that the units will be affordable in perpetuity and the Developer's commitment to provide fully landscaped rear yards and energy efficiency measures which reduce housing costs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 3) Deliberate; and 4) Adopt the Resolution approving Amendment No. 3 to the Affordable Housing Agreement for the First Phase (416 units) of Positano to modify the unit mix and income affordability level of the Inclusionary units and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Amendment. 6of6 Qr'D~j~ CITY CLEI~KzS J~ ~~ t=ile # lv D 0 - 3 ~ ~~ ,,~ ^ao~ a^ ~~ $~ x ~~~r~ C~ ,R/ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY GQUNCIL MEETING DATE: Qctober 1$, X005 SUB.IECT: 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 Abdala/Housin~ Specialist ATTACHMENTS: 1. Braddock and Logan Affordable Housing Proposal 2. Proposed Stage 1 Development Map 3. Dublin Municipal Code Chapter $.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive Staff Presentation 2. 3. Hear Public 'T'estimony Deliberate 4. Direct Staff to: (a) Inform Braddock & Logan that the Council will not waive the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations required by the proposal; OR ' (b) By consensus, direct Staff to work with Braddock Sc Logan to refine the proposal including, in particular, the timing of construction ot; and security for, the proposed affordable units. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: DESCRIPTION: No fiscal impact at this time. The eleven property owners of the Fallon Village area have submitted a request for a Stage 1 Development Plan. At the same time Braddock and Cogan has submitted a request for a Stage 2 Ucvelopment Plan and a Vesting Tentative Map for the Braddock and Logan property, consisting ot'the northernmost 486 acres of Fallon Village. (See Attachment 2) The Stage 2 submittal is for the creation of 1,043 single-family units at this site. CaPY TO: Page I of 7 G:1PAlf12D051U5-U3813&L Stage 2 Fallon Vi[Iage1CCSR 1Q-f-US B&I. Houeing F'rogosai,l)C1C LP"~ fQ ~ '~ 7t ATTACHMENT 1 ~2zs Approval ofa Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map will trigger the requirements of e City of Dublin inclusiouary7.oning Et.egulatioxts, Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Qrdinance (Attachment 4). Chapter 8.(i8's stated. purpose is to enhance the public welfare and assure further housing development contributes to the attainment ofthe City's housing goals by increasing production of affordable units, and to assure that the limited remaining developable land is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs- (Section 8.5$.(}10.) The ordinance requires developers constructing residential units in the City to provide 12.5% of the development as affordable housing. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations break down the affordable requirements to production of SO% ofthe 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 of"for sale" housing and rental housing similarly, with the same affordable unit requirement and the same income level breakdown. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations provide that the affordable units -both rentals and "for sale" units -- reflect the range of the number of bedrooms as the market rate development and not be distinguished by exterior design or materials. The affordable units may, however, be smaller in size and may have fewer amenities. Finally, the affordable units are to be dispersed throughout the development (Seckr"on 8.68.030.E). The Zoning Regulations state that an applicant may fulfill the lnclusionary affordable housing requirement by constructing the affordable units off-site if the City Council makes the following five findings: 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- andmoderate-income households. that the units to be constructed off-site arc consistent with Section 8.68.030.E (same range and number of bedrooms as provided in the project as a whole, consistent in design, construction 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 require that the off-site affordablc units would be governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units. that conditions ofapproval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within a reasonable period (not to exceed S years). The hzclusionary 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 of this Chapter." Page 2 of 7 ANALYSICS: ~~z2s Braddock and Logan has presented a proposal to provide the number of af['ordablc units required for the construction of 1043 single-family units at the 486-acre property they currently own (See Attachment 1 }. Per the lnclusionary Zoning Regulations a development of 1043 units would require 130 affordable units. The ordinance allows a developer to pay fees in lieu of constructing 40/0 of the required affordable units, which equates to 5% of the total units. Braddock & Logan could, thus, pay fees for 52 units which are currently $84,198 for each unit not constructed. This would produce an in lieu fee total of $4,390,925.70. Braddock and Logan's proposal is to build all 130 affordable units required far the 486-acre property they currently own. The proposal is not consistent with the requirements of the lnclusionary 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 units. The second properly is the Anderson Froperty (See Attachment 2), which is proposed to be designated multi-family medium density., Braddock & Logan does not own the Anderson property at this time. The proposal is to construct 88 units on the Anderson Property; 78 would be off-site affordable units for the 486-acre Fallon Villages property, 9 would satisfy the hlclusionary ordinance requirement for the 78 units on the Anderson properly 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. 26lntegrnted 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 of the homes on 6,000 square foot lots. All units would be rentals and would be attached to the main dwelling. They would be one-bedroom units. The units would be affordable in perpetuity. 3. 88 Multi family Units. These would be constructed off-site on the Anderson property as part of an apartment complex with two-bedroom, two-bathroom units. There would also be 9 affordable units to satisfy the Inclusionary requirements for the Anderson property and one manager's unit, that would be market rate. The 87 units would be affordable in perpetuity. 4. Braddock & Logan would make a payment of $ lmillion to the City for affordable housing or community benefit. The following Table represents a summary of Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal: Page 3 of 7 T e of Ownership Income mix Size of units Affordability Period Unit /Rental 26 For sale SU% mod-income Same mix of In perpetuity Integrated units 20%low-income bedroom size as Units 30% ve low inc. market rate dev. 2G Rental units 50%mod-income All Jn perpetuity Secondary 20%low-income 1 bedroom Units 30% ve low inc. 1 bath 78 Rental units SO%rnod-income All In perpetuity Apartments 20%low-income 2 bedroom plus the 9 30% very low inc. 2 bath units for the Anderson ro e Timing of Construction and Security ~ ~~zs The timing of construction in the proposal is different for the 2G integrated units, the 2G secondary units and the 88 off-site units. Staff believes that the timing included in the proposal, and the security proposed, do not meet the purpose or requirements of the ordinance in that construction of the affordable units would not be guaranteed concurrent with construction of market rate units. Staff is prepared to work with the applicant; however, to modify ttte timing and security proposed if the Council is interested in considering the proposal. For example, some security measures would need to be in place, until Braddock and i,ogan 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 permit for the market rate units to the number of Inclusionary units under construction. The conditions and regulatory agreement would also need to explicitly indicate that should the developer be unsuccessful in obtaining the Anderson property and obtaining the required approvals and financing, the requiremrents of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations would apply; chat is, all Tnclusionary Units are to be built throughout the subject site, of the same bedroom mix as the whole development and would be evenly dispersed throughout the development. Watvet's Requested Braddock and Logan is requesting waivers from the lnelusionary 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 units be dispersed throughout the projec# because the 88 units would be concentrated on the Anderson property. The requirement that alt of Inclusionary units be built concurrent with the remainder of the development. Two factors that the Council could consider in granlittg 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 titan for SS years. Page 4 of 7 Issues Relating to the Three Types ofAf,~ordr~hle Units Being Proposed: ~j~ZZ s 1. 26 Integrated Units Providing units along with the market rate units at the site of the development is consistent with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The developer is further indicating that the units would be marketed to the income-range mix that is specified in the lrtclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The issues that arise with this part of the proposal are subtle. The homes to be built are large homes and the market rate homes will be expensive to purchase. A11 of the homes will be expensive to maintain. Along with the purchase of the large home arc expenses such as landscaping, maintenance, heating, etc. The policy issue is whether it is the Council's desire and the intent of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations io provide homes of this size to very Iow-, low- and moderate-income households. If the intent of the lnclttsionary Zoning Regulations is, rather, to provide entry-level homes for lower-income households to enter the homeownership market then perhaps this is not an ideal solution being proposed. 2. 26 Secondary Units The secondary units, sometimes referred to as "granny flats," maybe of several types. They could be over the garage as in the Bernal development in Pleasanton or they could be attached to the maim 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 ututs 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 number of Inclusionary Units is not being provided. The owners of these units would be able to rent out the unit to lower-income households, keep them unoccupied and for their personal use, or allow for family members to occupy the units. If the property owners decide not to rent the units out, then the required 26 units that are required, per the inclusionary Zoning Regulations, would not be available and the number of units available for lower-income households would be less than the 139 proposed. Staff believes there are other issues tied to secondary units that the Council should consider. Providing one-bedroom units will limit the size of the households that could occupy the units to one or two person households. ?hese units may not be able to be administered in any meaningful way by City Housing Staff. currently, and per the Inclusionary Ordinance and the "Layperson's Guide to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Regulations", Housing Staff monitors 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 information on the lower-income tenants. )f City Housing Staff is going to be contacting each private single-family home owner and requesting information on 1) whether they are renting our their units, and 2) the income of the tenant, it maybe substantially more difficult to secure the required information. Lf Staff does not receive the information needed within a reasonable amount of time and after repeated Efforts, Staff may involve the City Attorney's office and Council in seeking compliance with the regulatory agreement. Page 5 of 7 22'~ 3. 88 Apartments (78 off-site inclusionary units and 9 on-site inclusionary units, plus a manager's unit) The proposal is for the off-site development of 87 units to house xnoderale-, low- and very low-income households, in the same ratio required by the Inclusionary Ordinance. For the Council to allow the applicant to satisfy the Inclusionary requirements by constructing units ol'f- 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 f ve findings. If the Council is interested in considering the proposal fvr off-site construction ofunits and believes the five findings can be made with revisions to the proposal, Staff can work with the applicant to refine the proposal. One refinement that Staff would recommend is a trigger point for canstructioxz of the 88 units or construction of the units on-site, given the fact that the applicant does not own the Anderson property. In order to make the five fmdings, the Council would need to grant a waiver from the bedroom count requirement of the ordinance and a waiver from the dispersal requirement or the ordinance. The construction of apartments off-site to satisfy 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 permits are allowed for an aftbrdablc 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 developtnezxt 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 $raddock 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 funds available to lower-income rental developments. As such, the developer would not request any gap funding from the City of Dublin. This is not part of the formal proposal, however. OPTIONS: $raddock 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 Falcon Villages site, mixed in with the market-rate for sale units and pay the required in lieu fee for the other S%. 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-i.n.conne 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, includini; property taxes, homeowners' insurance, landscaping, heating and cooling and general long-term maintenance. T1ie additional housing costs may exceed what the lower-income household maybe able to pay. The results may be swell-intended mismatch of ownership to for sale product. Other options can be explored to provide inclusionary Units on-site, but any variation from the lnclusionary 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 6 of 7 ""12~~ Pinn Brothers will be offering eight of the smaller "Manor" cluster homes to moderate-income households, with the low- and very low-income households offered homes in the condominiums. Creenbriar developed town Names in the zn.idst of the Iarger single-family homes specifically for the Inclusion~ty 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. Thcrc would be no guarantee that $raddock and Logan's offer to construct 13Q 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 othex options that would be more consistent with the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Hear public testimony; 3) Deliberate and; 4} Direct Staff to: (a) Inform Braddock & Logan that the Council will not waive the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations required by the proposal; or (b) By consensus, direct Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal including, in particular, the timing of construction of the proposed affordable units. Page 7 of 7 JU/VJ/Faun io:vc rAd U~QMMV.rs~.VO~~ Braddock c~ Logan's Affordable ,dousing Proposal The following is Braddock and Logan's affordable housing proposal for meeting the Inclusionat'y Zoning requirements set forth in Chapter 8.68. Braddock and Logan is proposing to bundle the fallowing four proposals in order provide the highest number of units in the most logical place and to meet housing needs not currartly being provided for in tbe City. Specially the four proposed programs are as follows: (I) 26 nte~'ated Units.. This proposal would provide 26 units on the Barikhcad property (at 30% for Very Low; 20•/a Low, and 50% Moderate). 'fhcse units would be integrated within the 4,000 square foal lots of Fallon Village and would be in identical in appearance, materials, and bedroom count and would be consistent with every portion oi•' the requirements of Chapter 8.6B. Timing Braddock and Logan would be agreeable to a condition of projeck approval that requires the developer to begin constructing the Intergraded units at no later than the 175"` 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 the entire project being 213 complete. In addition, Braddock and Logan would be agreeable placing a security bond, guaranteeing the on-time completion of the Fordable units. (2): 26 Secondc»~ X7wellinl~ Unit This proposal would provide 26 Secondary Dwelling Units spread throughout the project on lots which are 6,000 square feet or larger (at 30% for Very Low; 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 liausiag needs ttaat are ctaretttly oat being met, such as coIlegelcareer age children living at home; multi•generational families; and or older pares living with children. 71mTng The Secondary Af~fordablc units would be completed concurrent with units for the lots that axe 5,000 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 i .4 ordable Untts. This proposal would pr~nvide $7 affordable units {and one manager's unit) to be placed upon the Anderson property. These units would be Located on property designated medium density residential (ax 30% for Very Low; 20% Low, and 50% Moderate). The Anderson Property is located to the east of Central parkway and Croak Road, immediately east of the proposed Village Center to be loco#ed on tlae Jordon Property. The property is ideally suited in that it is 22~ 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 affordable units proposed on the Anderson property would contain 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Section 8.68.030(E) states the affordable urrits should reflect the range of bedrooms provided in the project. However, tht urkrt configuratton and bedroom Count on the Anderson property is constrained by the nature of the higher density product and as a result Braddock and Logan is requesting a waiver from this requirement of Chapter 8.68. 2"iming Braddock and Logan would be agreeable to a condition of project approval that requires the developer' to begin constructing the Medium-1:Tigh Denslt}' Affordable Units no later thaa the no later than 5 years from the date of the approval of the Tentative Map for the Braddock and LogatJBankhead properties. In addition, Braddock an,d Logan would be agreeable placing a security bond, guaranteeing tt-e on-time completion of the Medium- High Density Affordable Units affordable units, (4) Community Penei4t Provision. tan addition to the other aforementioned affordable units Braddock and Logan is proposing to provide a million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City. The City Council can determine the best use of the funds. Tkte monies could be placed into the affordable housing in~lieu fee program, or could be utilized for capital improvements such as reeanstructioa of Shannon Center dr other City Park or facility. Braddock and Logan is proposing to provide the City aII of the aforementioned proposals is meeting its affordable housing obligation. The combined approach 'would provide a fatal of 139 af~fardable units, which is 56 units more than required by Cl~aptcr 8.58• Additionally, these units would contain rent and resale restrictions that ensured the unit's affordability as proposed, indefinitely (as opposed to the required SS year requirement set by Scc#ian 8.6$.030E). Braddock and Logan feels this combination of proposals will further the City's goal of providing housing and providing units to households that are not currently served by the marketplace. These affordable units would integrated throughout the 480 acre project area and would designed, canstructcd, and mmmaged in a way to ensure healthy and vibrant neighborhoods far years to come. lU/UJ/LVU~ lU:VG CAO uiauMw+w•+~e~•+ "'- ~' '- N Ike •.'i's ~:r ;~ `r ~~ ~~ ~~ B~ .~ ~ ~ / ~.,... fir` ww_; .. ~y, ~~: w~,. #4i ~1~ }t1 ~a ~~ f. i ~~~~~~~ ;~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~_ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~€ g~~~t~= ~~~i~~~~ ~ ~t~f=c ~iEl~~~ €i~a~i~~ ~i~~~~~ fi~~~3#~ }Issp# ~ ~, ~`3t~i1 f~~E~~ f F tt i L i• 4 ~k I I ~` ,' y 1 `i i k ~~ ~~ t . ~~ ~~3 V N t 1 r c c K K C c a r a 4: ~f ti a R C P P F 1wvo~cuua iv:u4 me 1Y• yyµVba"u"a.vpula ~ ~~zz~ I'CE`lr PtiINCIPL~~i ©~ INCWSIANARY HOEJS3NC. In its most basic terms, indusionary housing requires or encourages market-rate housing developments to include a percentage (usually 1D to Z{- percent} of homes affordable to lavuer- and moderato-incoms households. Inclusionary poli- Ges take the form of either 8 local ordinance, a General Plan pokey, or a permit approvals process that requires or rev~rards affordable housing projects. Vlfiile NPH and HBANC hob differing views on the merits of incluaionary housing, the foGawing are key principles upon which our organizations agree: + Providing an adequate supply of housing is a societal resporasibiGty. - Local communities with indusionary housing programs have a responsibility to contribute tangible and substantial resources so that the cost of providing affordable housing is aprriad talrty across the community. • Affordable housing policies that maximlZe resources by providing more hous- ing oppaltunlties or deeper levels of affordability at the same or less oast should be encouraged. • Traditional indusionary housing policies alai require the development of "lllce- for-like` units dlstrlbuted uniformly throughout the market-rate de+relopment are orten not the mast etlective or eficien# way of prwtdirig affordable housing. • To Increase effectiveness and efficiency, inclusbnary housing programs should provide flexibility and allow a range of alternative methods of providing affordable units. ,~~ J : -; _ '~ b~ 'L'y .: .. ~i. Rt=coMMENDA~"iONS FOR ~URiSE7tCTlOlrlS W1TH 1NCLUSIOKAiiY HOUSING PgOGRAMS Market-rate bulldets should tie provided with a choice of several options for producing the affordable homes. The builder should not be required to demonsb~ate the financial infeasibility of traditional inclusionary requirements in order to use one of these options end, so Tong as the relevant criteria far a particular option are met, the builder should not be n~uired to obtain approval by the local jurisdiction on a case-by~case basis. I"IOUSING TYPE AFID t)BSIaN FI.4r>61[~TY Market-rate builiers should be able to satisfy an in~lusionary requirement by providing alternative for~ale housing types, such as duets, townhouses, or coraomlrriums. Builders should have the option of clustering the unit`s onsRe or building vtTslte (see Offsr7e Gbnsfroctron, Page 4). lU/US/L,VU4 AD~u4 1•XA L10MMVMa-asa..~6~•~+ +'••°•' ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ v Market-rate builders should be able to satisfy an Incluslanary requirement by providing rental housing, provided that the proJact meets the induelonary percentage and income targets applicable to rental projects. A®aln, the bullder should have the option of clustering the unite an the project site or providing forme units oftsite (see Offsite Cansirudion, below). IANr? Cl~'D~CdTrQM Market-rate builders should be able to satisfy an lnduslanary requirement by donating land to the local government or a non-proftt housing developer, subject t4 the tdlowing: • The bullder and city should ensure that through an upzorung or density bonus the dedicat- ed site will accommodate more affordable units or units at a deeper affardabiBry level than the inclusionary.requirement would have provided; • Where rental housing Is to be constructed on the dedicated site, the site should accommo- date at Ir:aet 40 affordable units; if the dedicated site is such that it requires "extra" ,~,,, nrnrmrw~rwo,7x~ construction costa--such 21S the need to do podium Al Carona Ranch A feww+rxiC~ thr morl;Rq•mrt l~de~ hrorider! m„A development or steel aonstruCtlon--in orderto acaom- u Ede, Hous~n~~rvee ef~cdr a~a~~e ~ ~~~'Y~- modate the required number of units, the market rate mokin~ kpossl6k ~ aeare 7s cpn+m.~~ e(rwdabk ro /nrnir~cc eami~ ta~~ 80 pcrtr~t o{or~o mcdlwi ineema {T1~400. SS.~DDOI.e}/erJnt builder should bear the extra cost, including any ofl`slt® ,r~~.~r~rf~ g4z~ m>rabl p.+n~auh {isi~drt). Improvements, environment8il remadiaition or pr"'`_'M of utilffies. In most other situations, the land dec itself will sntl9fy the induslonary requirement; i'he ded[cated site is located within the same ju lion as the prajed or within a defined subregion The dedicated site should have all land-use ant menb mecured prior to compleUOn of the marke units. If the kxaal jurisdiction unreasonably refuses to approve the necessary entitle- ments, the builder should be able to pay in-lieu fees. O~FSrT~ COMSTRUCTiON Market-rats butkiers should t?e able to choose to satisfy an indusionary requirement by pro- viding for the unite to be constructed outside the project location, subject to the following_ 4 1V/ VY/ LVVJ emu. V'l l•!10 a/a uuuvwwruvssv« T~ '~ '-- V ~~ • The affsita tooafion is either comparable to the project site or Witt result in either greater levels of affordabilfty or a greater number of affordable units than the inolu- sionary requirement would have provided; • The affordable units should be developed concurrently with the mariCel-rate homes. P'p04tNG AND CiRfiCiT ~i~Ar+kSr~6pS • Tlrro or more market-rate builders should be able to pool resources to satisfy their Inckrsionary requirement through a Slftgle affordable housir~ project; • Market-rate builders that build 'extra" affordable housing units (i.e•, more than required by the indusionary ordinance) should be able to use the addftlonal units as credits for meeting future indusionary requirementie in the jurisdiction or a defined subregion; • Market-rate builders that build aextra' affordable housing unftS should be able to sell the additional units as credits to other builders in the Soma jurtsdlctlon or a defined autxegion; • The "extra" units shoukf be built before they can be treated as credits; • Non-profrt bulldetS Should also be able to sell credits to market ate twAtlere for projects andlor units that are not being funded try the toast government. The affordable homes shoukt be entitled before or concurrently with the market rate development acquiring the credits; • Non-praftt builders should be able to acquire and improve exiaGng market-rate develap- mantsand restrk:l future rents to very-bw income households and sell the units as credits to other builders in the same jurisdiction or a defrned subregion. This option should only be allowed if. a) households served are at or below 50 percont of median income; b) the property undergoes extensive renovations; c) number of units acquired and renovat- ed is al least double that of the standard indusionery requirement; d) affordability is guaranteed for a period of at least 55 years; and e) tenant relocation is appropriately addressed' s QHS~ CeFral'rx~ tiT war;, Ylfk LcmrtArwrunara war made frosflhk becnure ihr fife o/Cakbod CA ' oAaed fire Iwm.(ydiQer ie partner With fhr rron~prailr sRrEtr~ Hauynq to darebp [hr. fncturiomry home of(sda, her near the mcni~rt-rc2r. Jwme. , gRJO~ Hwlsfng ereaeed f. Z 3 and t hedrocvn +rpartmm>s (er 3~4 house 6okh eurnlnj at or blow so rind bf) pew,: of t1~ wee medhrn tnmmr. >~,l~~.s ti: ofe ~ via. ~ erq ojPelaF proridad narprufii Eur6ank i-fa ~°h'^"^t Corporathn wWr (mor made paa6i6fe by 1n,Orm ftos aWt (rwn varidu marf+Frnte dcvdaymr I2 tnufxd Lr deeper o{(ardehiA[y r n.quirr.J by the ardnance.Ok! Elm 1N proridrs B7 o({orchrlrle bamee ran jrara s9rdr,» w 4-Ludnn~m d~rpiax a iraairs jor a mLr of fraarnofds etr 30, ~D, Sa, 6D, and 1d prtrrrnr of Ored Me`dia>t ffCaneq of forddllB to SbbJr ~b/tUM WJIfr In(CM7GS m faY~ os sr ~aiw ak ~ X~ uP famd6es+r/•~ rah i~ca~nes of c3wur S5?, DDt1. h McaPwota a tKh of tm+mnrckl apace and taro- ~~ q j~e tpacc ~ drvp~d th Q iarba:itixnd rind cnrr {asiPq sere !nj jemrFES (ram Ofd E!m and the sunwndkt rrr~Ltwhoad inrLtEt1 FEFs Markek-fate buitder8 of projects with 50 units or fewer should be able t4 Choasa to satiety an inclusionary requirerrienf by paying a fee in lieu of directly developing the units. This option should be available to the developer without having to demonatrata that other option8 are irrfeasfbfe.' IIZECOMMENt>FQ Locra~ CoMMltNi1TY t:owrrtiBUriaNs local govemmefrb fulfill a crucial role in the creatlan of affordable housing. Below are some key actions that local governments should take to demonstrate a broader oommttment to addressing the affordable housing shortage, ~, Funding • Make consistent efforts to pass local aflOrElable housing assistance bonds or other meas- ures to meet the existir~ wmmunity's fair share of the burlen of previdtng affordable housing. - Either wafYe development Impact fees and pracessing fees for inclusionary units a pay for them through discretionary local funds such as redevelopment funds or the general fund. • NRANL and NfrFf do not here a cornmen porltbrt eur w kaa. fees Jw projras IAAfM ripe rfrOn 50 unb. {,~zZS - Where 8 redevelppnleM agency exists, increase to at least SO percent the tax increment dgYated to affordable housing programs, (Current law requtrea a 2D percent IoW- to moder- ate-inecme set-aside for housing.}, Z. ,honing • Provkie a! least one densitir banes for each unit of affordable housing required. • Exempt Inclusionary units from buildirtg permit caps and growth allocation processes. - Proactively'pre-entitle" (general plan and zonir~) the sites identified in the housing ele- ment as affvrdaWe housing saes. • Make appropriate surplus publicly owned land available for affordable housing. 3. Program Adminlatratlon • iocai governments should provide a dedicated staff and budget to administer the program or contrail with a competent entity to do so. This responslbil[ly includes upfront assistance to hometwilders and prospective buyers/renters in the saleslrental process as well as long-term monitoring of the incluslon- ary homes. In the Case of tcx-sate inciuslonary units, In which tha devabper makes a good faith effort to seN the unit but it remains urtsokl after 90 days, the kcal government should either. a} purchase the unit at the rr3strtiled puce and take over marketing; or b) give permission to sell the unit at market-rate and capture the diRerenc9. For option A, the local government must close an the unit within 120 days from completion. For option 13, the program should be structured so that there will be an incentive to obtain true market value Tor tl1e unit • The cost of program administration should not come from fees or other exactions imposed on txiildsrs. Throughout California, public ofticisals and private citizens arc struggling to find ways to address the affordable housing crisis. Together, NPH and HBANC want to ensure that the dialogue about solutions Is being informed by a set of principles effective and elfidertt at shaping public policies that wiA work far builders, cities and resldertts. California has long led ttta nation in innovative approaches to addressing the atfordat~le housing crisis, and, by working together, NPH and HBANC believe that we can find common ground to help solve the problem in the near future- ass lUlU.S!LVUA lO~ua me ~~44YV1-•"""'~"" "' -' i i C'7 ,.:. :i -~ '$~.ADOoc-r~ ~ a"ZIyJ Fallon Village Stage I P[7 Amendment Slte Plan LEGEND ""~y'~."",`. ~~~,~,.~~;. KEY LANlll1~I? Al'itF.AGE DU/SQIT CiClCO General(;ammerciaUCownaciallxTice 134.(1 1,(i34,371SF (iC: Grnaal Cwuaelcial 72.1 785,169 SF VC Villnln:Cumu>etcial 6.4 96DU/83,675SF L Low Dcnsiry Residaltial 417.4 1,739 ULJ M Mediumlk7l~iryRecidnaial 6R1 601ll1J MH Malium lIigh t)enaily R/~xiikatial 2x.3 672 UlJ a(- Public/Suni-WkYlic(sccNulcbclow) (8.5) EJ F.l~wry Scfbal 21.0 NS Neighborhood 5yluue 7.G NY Neighhorhowl Puck 23.6 CP Commuldry Park 1R.3 RR/A Rurnl ResidesGtial / Agricultwe 139.4 OS Qlx:n S[lece 203.8 TD'fAL I132.1J 3.108 DU ND'IH: }1~61iu'5emiPablic Iseb wu6Y olhm r.c~ dcsigetled an a.oh prtyMy, A.tiek deeolw rwlxi~al.+.~+tc on ewh popoAY'>"'nds Foltinp. .... [h„c4s }.Ilon V iWg. CYMc.lic~nc IM.n Ara. Rd .. R`i} K nc~cription to dMil unamu~g fiu ap. ,ae .or ~. IIA~~S~S ~:..; a ~~ ° ; d4. ,LfNpa~IL5o1v Pra.cF~-n/ ~.~~-~~ z~- tNCLUSIQNARY ZQNING REC3UL~I~O~S° Chapter 8.68 CHAPTER 8.68 INCLUSI41~iARY ZON11vG REC3ULA'l.'IO1VS 8.68.010, Pur~p'use. 'I~ae purpose of this chapter is ta; A. enhance the pt~lic welfare and assuue that further housing development cantn'butes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable lay households of very Iovv; low, and moderate istaome. B. assure tbat~the limiteclremaining developable land in the City's planning area. is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs. 8.b8.020. riefi~nitians. As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall.be defiz~ed,as, fpllvws: A "Afforiclable Unit" mesas au ownership or rental-housing neat, :including seutJO~ hpusing,.a££ordable to households with very-low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this chapter, 1, Rpntal units are deemed affordable units if the.annual rent does not exceed 30% ti~.~na~cimurr, inacarne 1~e1 for very-Iow-, low-, and moderate-income $ousahold~, adjusted for hvug~old size aaici as. defined below. 2. Owner-occupied waits are deemed affordable. units if the sales price results in annual Housing expenses that do not exceed 35% of income level for very-low-, low-, and modecater%ticome households, adjusted for household size and as defined below. Far a very low-income owr~er- occupied units, the unit shall be deemed azi affordable twit if the sales price results is annual housing expenses that do sot exceed 35% of the maximum in the very low-income level, adjusted for household size and as defined below. B. "Applicant" mesas any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, ar any entity or combination of entities that seeks city real property development permits or approvals. G "Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household. D. "Vezy-low-, low-, and moderate-income levels" means those income and eligibility levels determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development based on Alameda County mediae income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of dependents, inaame of all wage earners, elderly ar disabled family members; and all other sources of household incotz~e and will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and state and. federal housing law. 1, "Very~low income" means SO% ar less of the median income, adjusted for actual household size. 2. "Low income" mesas more than SO% to 80% of the median income, adjusted £or actual household size. 3. "Moderate income" means more than 80% to 120°1o~of the median income, adjusted far actual household size. ,....... City ofAuld/n Zaning Ordinance G8-1 , $4trtembar, 4997, ., . ~ tae..Ieaiff AIlalleh SOS INGLUSIQNARY ZQNING REGULATIp~S ~.~ Chapter 8.68 E. "Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very-law-, Iow-, or moderate~ix~come households, as applicable, far a period of not less than SS years. With respect to rental units, such rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls sha11 be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or otter similar documents recorded against the applicable property. F. "Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multigle- dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, aandominium conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public. 8.68.030. General Requirements A. 12.5% Affordability Reclairementi All new residential development projects of 20 units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this chapter. The foregoing requiarern~ent shall be applied no more than once to as approved development (and generally at the tentative map stage}, regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the development, provided the total number ofunits does not change. In applying and calculating the affordability requirement, any decimal fraction less than or equal to 0.50 maybe disregarded, and any decimal fraction greater than 0.50 shall be construed as one unit, B . Allocation of Units to Income Levels. Af#'ordable units provided p~1rsuAnt to this section shall be allocated to households with very-low, low-, and Moderate-income levels as follows: Very-low-income households 30% Low-income households 20% Moderate-income households SO% Where the calculation of the allocation results in fewer units that would otherwise be required pursuant to subdivision A above, one additional unit should be allocated to the income level with a decimal fraction closest to O.SO. C. Conditions of Approval: Any tentative map, conditional use permit, ar site development review approving residentia] development projects subject to this chapter shall contain con,ditians suf~clent to ensure carnpliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set faith the applicant's manner of wmpliance with this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls andJar rental restrictions an the affordable units. D. Concurrent Construction. A11 affordable units in a project ar phase of a project shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate waits, unless the City Manager determines in writing that exteaauating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical. E. Design and I?lstril~ut3on of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whale and shall not be distinguished by exterior City of Dublin Zoningr Ora~lnsnce B&2 September, 1997 Revised Ma~+ch 2005 INCI.USIONARY ZpNING REGULATIa~S Chapter 8.68 design, construction, ar materials. Affordable units maybe of smaller size than the units in the proj ect and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. All affordable wars shall be reasonably dispersed tlzraughout the project. 8.68.040. Exceptions to 12.5% Affordability Requirement. Developers of projects subject to $.68.030A shall construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, unless subject to an exception Set Earth in this Section. All exceptions require City Council approval, whick~ shall be obtained at ar prior to the last discretionary approval for the project. A. Payment of Fees In Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. upon request of the applicant, the City Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to 40% of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to Section $.68.030A. 7'he amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which maybe amended from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In lieu fees shall be paid at the time and in the amount set forth in the in lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. B. Off-Site Projects. An applicant may construct the affordable units not physically within the development in Lieu of constructing some or aI1 of the affordable units within the development, with the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds: 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- andmoderate-income households. 2. that the units to be constructed off site are consistent with Section $.b8.030E above. 3. that it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable writs on-site. 4. that conditions of approval far the project require that the o~ site affordable units would be governed by the terms of a deed res#riction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units. 5. that the conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond, dr letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within a reasonable period (not to exceed 5 years). C. Land Dedication. An applicant may dedicate land to the City or city-designated local non-profit housing developer in lieu of construction of some. or all of the required affordable units, if the Council finds that: 1. that dedication of land in lieu of constructing units is consistent with the chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing far very-low, low- and moderate- itacome households. 2. that the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and contaminated soils, and is fully unproved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and all development-impact fees paid excluding any inclusionary zoning ordinance fees. City of Dublin Zo»ing Ondlnsnce SB-3 September, 1997 Revfsad March 2005 3. th ~~~ -p,rt~~«. INCLUStONARY ZQNING RECD TIQNS Ch~ptBr $.68 ~setl laud dedication is of sufficient sire to meet the following requirements: a. the dedication includes land sufcient to construct the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 8.68.a30.A, based on the size of lots in the subdivision for which tkie applicant is meeting its obligation; and b. in addition, the dedication includes such additional land the mat~ket value for which is squat to or exceeds the difference between the value of a market-rate, 120Q-square foot unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an A.ffardable Unit (which amount shall be set forth in a resolution adopted from time to time by ~e'Cty Council} times the nutir-ber df units required. D. Credit transfers. An, applicant may ;fully'.or pa#tially satisfy the requir~etlts of Section 8.68A30A through the use of trat33~fer credits crested pursuant to Section 8.C8:06U. Credit certificates shall be presented to the Comrnuriity' Development l3irector, who shall note at the time of project approval the credit certificate by auzxiber. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy the requirements for Inclusionary Units for the income category {i.e., very. Iow, Iow, or moderate) and number of bedrooms far which they axe issued. E. Waiver of Requirements. The Gity Council, at its discretion, may vti-aive, wholly 6r partially, the requirements of this ordinance and apprpve alternate methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant denaanstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this Chapter. 8.6$.OSQ. General Procedures, for Implemenflmg Inclu$ionary Zonitlg Requirements A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affoxdable unit, resale restrictions or rental controls, or both, as the case maybe, shall be set forth in ati agreement betvfreen the City and the. developer, iw a farm consistent with the City Council»adopte~d form agreement, which agreement s11a11 be recorded against the groperty containing the. affordable units. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall run with the land and bind the applicant's successors. B. Rental Units; Occupancy; Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units shall require the awnea of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income levels do not exceed very Iow-, Iow-,or moderate. income levels, as the case maybe, and shall preclude tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit. The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to the foIlowing information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly rents. charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year. C. pwnerslup Units; Occtrpa:ncy; City's Right of Fimt Refusal. Agreements for ownership units shall specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and may not be leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions shall provide that in the event of:the.sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximut~a price that could be.charged to an eligible household. Gity of Dualln Toning ordinance 68-4 ~ September; .1997 Revised Merck 2x05 INCLUSlpNARY 2pNtNG ~tEGUTATIpNS Chapter 8.68 D. Selection Criteria. No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has approved the household's eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income, the m.ediau combined household income statistics far Alameda County published periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources of household income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by Iaw. The developer shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children. Selection of qualified person should be based on priorities established using the point system described below: • Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin (3 paints, one per household} • Public Service employee working in the City of Dublin (1 additional point} • Dublin resident (3 points, one per household} • Seniors (1 point, one per household) • Permanently disabled (1 point, one per household) « Immediate family member of Dublin resident (1 point, one per household) • Required to relocate from current Dublin residence due to demolition of dwelling or conversion of dwelling from rental to for-sale unit (1 point, one per household) To qualify as a "public Service Employee", the person shall be employed by a Public Agency. To qualify as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin", the person shall have been ezxiployed within the City of Dublin far at least six months. To qualify as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Dublin for at least none-year period prior to the eligibility determination. 8.b$.OGO. Affordable Unit Credits. A. Creation. Affordable unit credits maybe created by the City Council. One affordable unit credit certificate shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable units required to be constructed for the project by Section 8.68.434A. 'f'he certificate shall designate a specific income category (i.e., very-low, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. B. Ownerslxip and use of credits. Affordable unit credit certificates are issued to and become the possession of the project owner, who may then use thexn to satisfy the requirements of this chapter for another project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall fret obtain the consent of the Community Development Director, who will document the transfer by certificate number. C;ty of Dubin Zoning ordinance 68-5 September, i 997 Revised March 2005 -~ ',~" '~' "7 INCLU510NARY BONING REGUL.ATIOPTS Chapter 8.68 8.65.070. Incentives to Encatrrage On-Site Construction of Affordable iJt~its. The Czty may, but shall not be required to, offer incentives ax financial assistance to encourage the on»site construction of affordable units in excess of 12.5% of the total number of units in the project to the extent resources for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City Council or City . Manager. Such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: p,. )F'ee Deferral. 1. Development I'rocessitig Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City processing fees applicable to the review and processing ofthe project. The terms and payment schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. 2. Development Lnpact pees. The City Council may authorize the deferred payment of development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility. The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees. B. Resign Modifications. The City Council may approve design modifications to affordable units that increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Reduced lot size. 2. Reduced setback requirements. 3. Reduced open space requirements. 4. Reduced landscaping requirements. 5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities. 6. Reduction in parking requirements. 7. Height restriction waivers. 8.68.OS0. Inclusionary honing In ~,ieu Fee Fund. In Lieu )?ees shall be deposited into a fund lmown as the "Inclusionary Zoning In Lieu Fees Fund" ("Fund"}. A. Use. All monies in.the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing very-low, low-, and moderate-income ownership ar rental housing in the City of Dublin. B. Annual report. The City Manager shall prepare an. annual report to the City Council identifying the balance of monies in the Fund and the affordable units provided and itny monies committed to providing very-Iow-, low-, and moderate-inconne housing. The annual report shall also include a review of administrative charges. $.68.090. Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity that is subject to this ordinance pursuant to section $.G8.434A to violate any provision or to fail to City pf Dublln Zoning Ordinance ~$-6 September, 1997 Revised March 2005 INCIUSIbNARY ~bNING REGU TION~~ Chapter 8.68 comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. A violation of any of the provisions ar failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter sha11 constitute a misdemeanor; except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Cade, any such violation constituting a misdemeanor under this chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and prosecuted as an infit'action. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of this Gode shall be punishable as provided by the Government Cade of the State of California. $.68.100. Enforcement. A. General. The City Manager shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding an all agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The Gity Manager may suspend or revoke any building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this chapter. No lead-use approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residential development unless exempt from or in compliance with this chapter. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings,. necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval. $. Excessive rents/legal action. If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those aIlowed by operation of this chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may take appropriate legal action to xecover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant, or to the Gity in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged. 8.68.110. Appeals, Decisions of the City Manager under this Chapter may be appealed as provided in Chapter 8.136. City of ©ublin Zvning prdinance 88-7 Septert-ber,199T Revised March 2005 ~- ~ ~ ~. nr~w sus~nrESs Braddock and Lagan Affordable Housing Proposal to Comply with Inclusianary Zoning ~gulations for the Braddock and Logan Development.at Pollan Vilta~e 10:34 p.m. 8.1 (430-80/450~Z0} Housing Specialist ,Julia Abdaia presented the Staff Report and advised that the 11 property owners of the Fallon Village area have submitted a request for a Stage 1 Development Plan. At the same time, Braddock and Logan has submitted a request for a Stage Z Development Plan and a Vesting Tentative Map for the Braddock and Logan property, consisting of the northernmost 48C acres of Fallon Village. The Stage Z submittal is for the creation of 1,043 single-family units. Approval of a Stage Z Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map will trigger the requirements of the City's lnclusionary 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 lnclusionary Zoning Regulations required by the proposal; or 2) By consensus, direct Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal including, in particular, the timing of construction of the proposed affordable units. Ms. Abdala noted that the Staff Report stated that Braddock & Logan did not own the Anderson property; however, she would like to clarify that they had an option on the property. Mayor Lockhart confirmed that the 26 integrated units would be single-family, and asked how many bedrooms and baths each unit would have. Ms. Abdala advised that they would 'be 3~4 bedrooms because the ordinance required that affordable units be built similarly to the market rate. Vm. Zika asked how the Developer intended to insure that the 26 secondary units, or granny flats, were ren#ed out to low income people, and could not envision that someone paying $600,000$800,000 for a home and then rent out a granny unit to a low income participant. 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 [:OUN[:IL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING Uctober Y8, 2405 PAC, E 398 www.ci.dublin.ca,as ATTACHMENT 2 a~~zzs 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 low4 and very;low opportunity for those people. Mayor Lockhart stated that whether it was t~eplacir~ 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 yaung person out of the mix of going in with two or three other people to rent. Mr. Lawrence advised that the project was developed to provide three different product types to allow affordability. There were items brought up in the presentation that talked about landscaping and energy expenses, etc. Braddock & Logan has decided that it would be a good idea to complete the landscaping in the rear yards and provide some energy- saving appliances to cut costs, specifically in those units. Instead of feeir~ 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. Cm. Hildenbrand asked is Vm. 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 their financial feet, as well as allow handicap and seniors citizens some independent living. Different alternatives for living in our community need to be offered. Lm. Hildenbrand concurred and stated that a variety of options, other than multiunit, 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 CI'T'Y COUNCIL Ml]V[JTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING October 1 A, 2005 I'AGF 399 ww+w.ci.dublin.ca.us 2Z.°S 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. Cm. 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 idenfified. Mr. I.awi~ence 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 1 ZQ-1 Z5 units at market rate. It was not part of the affordable proposal for tonight. Cm. Hildenbrand reiterated her concern about the apartment complex being grouped together and having residents stigmatized in 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 124-125 units. Cm. McCormick stated that the granny flats would meet a need. Vm. Zika reiterated his concern that the granny unit idea did not meet the needs of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (:m. 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 reieased. until the affordable units were secured because they were not affordable untii 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 Z6 integrated units, which might set a precedent for other affordable projects. There would be oppot~tunities for Staff to work with the Dl iBLIN CITY C;OUNCYL MINUTES VO~.UME 24 REGULAR MEETING October 18, 2005 PAGIJ 440 www.ci.~iublin.ca.us a~~aZs Applicant regarding timing 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. Crn. 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: 7) 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 SS ~ affordable apartment units into a larger project; and 4) incorporate green building principles, as practical. r ~ ~ After Action Report an July 4, 2045 Public Safety Activities 71:07 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 Cal. James Doty,. Camp. Parks Commander 11:12 p.m. 8.3 (61D~-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 Cramp Parks Commander, Col. James Doty. The inscription, which would cost $100, would be engraved on a concrete bench leadir~ up to the Public Safety Memorial located in the courtyard of the Civic Center. DUBLIN C:l'I'Y C:4UNGIL 11~IiNtJTES VOLUME 24 1tEGU1,AR MEETING [)ctober 1S, 2005 PAGE 401 www.Ci.dutyiin.cfl.us