The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.4 Positano Amend Housing Agmt Attch 3-681 ~2s~ ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OFITHE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN RE INVESTORS LLC FOR THE NORTHERN 7-ACRES OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY (APN 905-0006-001) PA 07-037 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Anderson property is located north of Interstate 580 and east of Croak Road near the eastern City limits and is included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and Fallon Village. The northern 7-acres of the Anderson property, referred to herein as the "project," is the subject of the proposed Development Agreement. B. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin RE Investors LLC ("Developer") has been presented to the City Council, Exhibit A, attached hereto. C. An Initial Study prepared by City Staff concluded that the 108-unit apartment project on the northern 7-acres of the Anderson property could not have a significant effect on the environment beyond those already studied, and no significant information arose for the project during the preparation of this Initial Study that would require further environmental review. On March 4, 2008, the City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 36-08), to prior environmental documentation including: 1) the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a program EIR, initially certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution 53-93) (SCH#91103064); 2) the East Dublin Property Owners Supplement EIR (SEIR) (SCH # 2001052114) certified by the City Council on April 2, 2002 (Resolution 40-02); and 3) the Fallon Village SEIR (SCH #2005062010) certified by the City Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution No. 222-OS). D. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning Commission on October 14, 2008, for which public notice was given as provided by law. E. The Planning Commission has, by Resolution 08-26, recommended that the City Council approve the Development Agreement. F. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on November 4, 2008 for which public notice was given as provided by law. G. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing. Attachment 3 8a ~ 2s~ SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin General Plan, (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (d) the Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH SCH#91103064), (e) the EDPO Supplemental EIR (SEIR) (SCH # 2001052114), (f) the Fallon Village SEIR (SCH#2005062010), (g) the CEQA Addendum to the previous environmental reviews adopted by City Council on March 4, 2008 (Resolution 36-08, (i) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan and in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for the site is Medium-High Density Residential, (b) the proposed project is consistent with the designated land use, (c) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to the provision. of infrastructure and public services, and (d) the Development Agreement includes provisions relating to vesting of development rights, and similar provisions set forth in the Specific Plan. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include Planned Development Zoning with an approved Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Site Development Review approval fora 108-unit apartment project. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, ,general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan which have planned for Medium-High Density Residential uses at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the Developer's project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan and with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. SECTION 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A) and authorizes the Mayor to execute it. SECTION 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. 2 ~~ ~~ SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 18th day of November, 2008 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2007\07-037 Anderson GPA SPA PD SDR\Development Agreement\CC Ord Anderson DA.doc 3 ~ ~~,~ ~/ RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, LLC FOR THE ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL PROJECT EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 ~5 sP 25'D ~~ THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this day of , 2008, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "the City"), and Dublin RE Investors, L.L.C., a California limited liability corporation (hereafter "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. RECITALS A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property; and B. DEVELOPER desires to develop and holds legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 7 acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Property"; and C. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is applicable to the Property; and D. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires Developer to enter into this development agreement; and E. Developer proposes the development of the Property with 108 residential units .and various non-residential uses including open space and private recreation facilities, storm water management elements and associated public and private rights-of-way (the "Project"); and F. Developer has applied for, and the City has approved various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including a General Plan Amendment (City Council Resolution 37-08), an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (City Council Resolution 37-08), a Stage 1 Development Plan (Ordinance No. 13-08), a Stage 2 Development Plan (Ordinance 13-08), and Site Development Review (Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-04) (collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project, the "Project Approvals"); and G. Development of the Property by Developer may be subject to certain future discretionary approvals, which, if granted, shall automatically Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 2 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project 1045745 9.DOC ~6 ~ ~~ become part of the Project Approvals as each such approval becomes effective; and H. The City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of said Project; and I. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended by City Council Resolution 37-08, and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.56; and J. The City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a development agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein; and K. On , 2008, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. The ordinance took effect on , 2008 ("the Approval Date"). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. Interest of Developer. The Developer has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in that it holds a right to purchase the property. 3. Relationship of City and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of the City. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 3 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~q ~ 2s~ 4. Effective Date and Term. 4.1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the Approval Date. 4.2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend five (5) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. 5. Use of the Prope 5.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement (such amendments once effective shall become part of the law Developer is vested into without an additional amendment of this Agreement).. 5.2. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities (operated by the City) and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals. 5.3. Additional Conditions. Provisions for the following ("Additional Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5.3.1. Subsequent Discretionary Approvals. Conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions. (These conditions do not affect Developer's responsibility to obtain all other land use approvals required by the ordinances of the City of Dublin other approvals from regulatory agencies.) Not Applicable 5.3.2. Mitigation Conditions. Additional or modified conditions agreed upon by the parties in order to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise relating to development of the Project. See Exhibit B Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 4 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ga ~ ~ 5.3.3. Phasing, Timing. Provisions that the Project be constructed in specified phases, that construction shall commence within a specified time, and that the Project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. See Exhibit B 5.3.4. Financing Plan. Financial plans which identify necessary capital improvements such as streets and utilities and sources of funding. See Exhibit B 5.3.5. Fees, Dedications. Terms relating to payment of fees or dedication of property. See Exhibit B 5.3.6. Reimbursement. Terms relating to subsequent reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public facilities. See Exhibit B 5.3.7. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous terms. See Exhibit B 6. Agglicable Rules, Regulations and OfFcial Policies. 6.1. Rules re Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of the Agreement. 6.2. Rules re Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether date of approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 5 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~~ ~ Z~ 6.3. Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing,- Electrical and Fire Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. 7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 7.1. New Rules and Regulations. During the term of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if: (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies have general applicability. 7.2. Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. 7.3. Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of the City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development or avoter- approval requirement which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, the City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and Taxes. 8.1. Fees, Exactions, Dedications The City and Developer agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development of the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project and complying with the Specific Plan shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals and in this Agreement Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 6 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~o~~ (including Exhibit B . The City shall not impose or require payment of any other fees, dedications of land, or construction of any public improvement or facilities, shall not increase or accelerate existing fees, dedications of land or construction of public improvements, or impose other exactions in connection with any subsequent discretionary approval for the Property, except as set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement (including Exhibit B, subparagraph 5.3.5). 8.2. Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective only; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. Developer does not waive its right to challenge the legality of any such fees under the controlling law then in place. 8.3. New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) the application. of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. Developer does not waive its right to challenge the legality of any such taxes under the controlling law then in place. 8.4. Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by the City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Property. 8.5. Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. In the event that any assessment, fee or charge which is applicable to the Property is subject to Article XIIID of the Constitution and Developer does not return its ballot, Developer agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors, that the City may count Developer's ballot as affirmatively voting in favor of such assessment, fee or charge. 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1. Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 7 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~,~~so 9.2. Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of State law and Chapter 8.56. 9.3. Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for "significant" reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum -height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City's Public Works Director shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is "significant". 9.4. Amendment of Proiect Approvals. Any amendment of Project Approvals relating to: (a) the permitted use of the Property; (b) provision for reservation or dedication of land; (c) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (f) monetary contributions by the Developer; or (g) public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Such amendment shall be limited to those provisions of this Agreement which are implicated by the amendment of the Project Approval. Any other amendment of the Project Approvals, or any of them, shall not require amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment of the Project Approval(s) relates specifically to some provision of this Agreement. 9.5. Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the. mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City. 10. Term of Proiect Approvals. 10.1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the term of the vesting tentative map described in Recital F above shall automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement. The term of any other Project Approval shall be extended only if so provided in Exhibit B. 11. Annual Review. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 8 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project qa ~ZS~ 11.1. Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between July 15 and August 15, 2009 and thereafter between each July 15 and August 15 during the Term. 11.2. Initiation of Review. The City's Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving to Developer thirty (30) days' written notice that the City intends to undertake such review. Developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Developer. 11.3. Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the mail and fax to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five (5) days prior to any annual review. 11:4. Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 12. Default. 12.1. Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 12.2. Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 12.3. No Damages Against City. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 9 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project 93 ~ zse 13. Estoppel Certificate. 13.1. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying party the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties.. City Manager of the City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this section are true, and any party may rely on such deemed certification. 14. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 14.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 14.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the. provisions of Section 14.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 14.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 10 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~ ~F ~ 2SD default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City's notice. The City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee. 15. Severability. 15.1. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. 16.1. If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 17. Transfers and Assignments. 17.1 Right to Assign.. Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of its Property to other developers (each such other developer is referred to as a "Transferee"). In connection with any such sale, transferor assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests and obligations of Developer arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred, to such Transferee, provided, however, that: no such transfer, sale or assignment of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 17.2 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment within ten (10) days after Developer's notice, provided all necessary documents, Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 11 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project g5 ; ~~ certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform the Developer's obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transferor assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the ofFicial records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer or assignment. 17.3 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 17.1 of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. 17.4 Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2 and Paragraph 18, Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Developer shall retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Developer's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. 17.5 Termination of Agreement Upon Sale of Individual Lots to Public. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the burdens of this Agreement shall terminate as to any lot which has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or sold to the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon and without the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be released from and no longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue to run as to any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the termination of this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement shall terminate as to such lot. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 12 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project g6 ~ 2~ 18. Agreement Runs with the Land. 18.1 All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such. properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 19. Bankruptcy. 1.9.1. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 20. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction., improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action, City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer. 21. Insurance. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 13 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project . ~7 ~~ 21.1. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with aper-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) self insurance retention per claim. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause orcross-liability endorsement. 21.2. Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain any such insurance. 21.3. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 21.1 and 21.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project. 22. Sewer and Water. 22.1. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency not within the control of the City. 23. Notices. 23.1. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 FAX No. (925)' 833-6651 Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows: Jeff Lawrence Dublin RE Investors Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 14 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~8 @;~~ 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201 Danville, CA 94506 FAX No. (925) 648-5700 A party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 24. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 25. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Additional Conditions 26. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 27. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 15 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~~ ~~o IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN: By: Janet Lockhart, Mayor Date: ATTEST: By: Date:_ Carolyn Parkinson, Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John D. Bakker, City Attorney DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., a California corporation Its Manager Name: OFF I~A~ P.~r`1CE. . ~ ~ c,.~ P~E.S r (~ ~ nl T (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) Dublin/Dublin RE Investors Development Agreement Page 16 of 16 For the Anderson Residential Project ~~~ ZS~ CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Contra Costa On ~ ~~` /~0 before me, Nancy E. Embrey, Notary Public Date Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person( whose namei~j®'are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that h~/she/they executed the same in /her/their authorized capacity(i~s), and that by is er/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(t~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person( acted, executed the instrument. NANCY E. EtVIBREY Commisslon # 1578043 -~ Notary Publk - CalKornla Contra Costa County My Comm. Explr~ Jun S, 2009 Place Notary Seal Above I certify under PENALTY OF.PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ~ ~ ' ignature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form tonanother document. Description of Attached Document ~.. D.~c^,P~-na r~1" '"1 ~~,~Yr~o.-~ Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ^ Individual ^ Corporate Officer -Title(s): ^ Partner - ^ Limited ^ General ^ Attorney in Fact • ^ Trustee Top of thumb here ^ Guardian or Conservator ^ Other: Signer Is Representing: Number of Pages: Signer's Name: ^ Individual ^ Corporate Officer -Title(s): _ ^ Partner - ^ Limited ^ General ^ Attorney in Fact ^ Trustee ^ Guardian or Conservator ^ Other: Signer Is Representing: Tap of thumb here ®2007 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 •Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402• www.NationalNotaryorg Item #5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1.800-876-6827 l~l v~ Exhibit A Legal Description of Property 1 oa e~ z5~ EXNIBIY~1 Order Number: 0131-613542a1a Page Number: 11 ANDERSON PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRTPTiON Real property in the Gty of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1, EAST MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERN LINE OF THE STATE HIGHWAY FROM DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE AS SAID LINE IS DEFINED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED FROM ALICE M. SHORT AND BEATRICE B. BRIGHT, TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED MARCH 13, 1934, IN BOOK 3008 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY AT PAGE 324, WITH THE EASTERN LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 6152, AS SAID COUNTY ROAD IS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED FROM HENRIETTA FARRELLY TO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1918, IN BOOK 2612, OF DEEDS, AT PAGE 352, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS; RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89° 30' EAST ALONG THE NORTHERN LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY $14.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 31' WEST 2855.00 FEEL" TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAS`f, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE WEST ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE 435.70 FEET' TO THE EASTERN LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD N0. 6152; THENCE ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; SOUTH 36° 35' WEST 23.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH Z3° 20' WEST 901.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 31' EAST 2001.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AL50 BEING A PORTION OF THE SANTA RITA RANCHO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 1950, SERIES N0. AE-13413. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, .BY DEED RECORDED OCT08ER 24, 1968, SERIES NO. BA-117504. PARCEL TWO: A PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE O.F CALIFORNIA BY DEED N0. 6832 RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 1950, IN BOOK 6021, PAGE 575, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF CROAK ROAD (ALSO KNOWN AS COUNTY ROAD NO. 6152) AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS SOUTH 0°21'44".WEST, ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, WITH A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 44°54'24", AN ARC LENGTH OF 39.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°33'15" bVEST, 9.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'16" WEST, 4.70 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CROAK ROAD; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID LINE NORTH 0°21`44"EAST, 35.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT. PARCEL THREE: Frst Amerlcart .Title In3°~ 2~ Order Number: 0131-613542a1a Page Number: 12 COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID STATE DEED NO. 32178 (REEL 2001 OR IMAGE 911), DISTANT THEREON S. 0°21'44" W., 159.94 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LAST SAID PARCEL; THENCE FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS S. 31°56'43" W., ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 270.00 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 56°35'28", AN ARC LENGTH OF 266.68 FEET; THENCE S. 89°59'16" E., 221.42 FEET TO THE EAS`fERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID STATE DEED NO. 6833 (VOLUME 6402 OR PAGE 393); THENCE ALONG LASE SAID LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCELS DESCRIBED IN SAID STATE DEED NO. 32177 (REEL 1995 OR IMAGE 343) AND SAID STATE DEED NO. 32178 (REEI.2001 OR IMAGE 911) N. D°21'44" E., 127.11 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT. APN:9O5-0001-0006-03 (Affects: Parcels One and Two) and 985-0027-005 (Affects: Parcel Three) . First American TrtJe a T 0 V Q. Q P u'S R 3 U H w~ 4 "' N ~1; N o ~ ti o ~ `~ ~ ~ o y 4i ~ a ~' o U C U ~ ~ ~ N UJ .f to-4-• ~ /row•n ~i cA°-~l ~ i (J} na w-r-t 'OL9Y•R•t _ neu-t-G:pnp~ei~o~ ~vdrs, ~ uwd caze ~.Q ; ~5 0 u /o~~ ~ EXHIBIT B Additional Conditions The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above. Subparagraph 5.3.1 --Subsequent Discretionary Approvals None. Subparagraph 5.3.2 --Mitigation Conditions Subsection a. Infrastructure Sequencing Program The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the Project is set forth below. (i) Roads: The project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of dedication) identified in Resolution No. 08-04 of the City of Dublin Planning Commission approving Site Development Review for the Anderson Residential Project (hereafter "SDR Resolution") shall be completed by Developer to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Director at the times and in the manner specified in the SDR Resolution unless otherwise provided below. All such roadway improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction and requirements of the Public Works Director. (ii) Sewer. All sanitary sewer improvements to serve the project site (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be completed in accordance with DSRSD requirements. (iii) Water. An all weather roadway and an approved hydrant and water supply system shall be available and in service at the site in accordance with the tentative map conditions of approval to the satisfaction and requirements of the City's fire department. All potable water system components to serve the project site shall be completed in accordance with the DSRSD requirements. Dublin/Investors Development Agreement Page 1 of 5 For the Anderson Residential Project-EXHIBIT B /flG v~ 25~ ~~ Recycled water lines shall be installed in accordance with'the tentative map conditions of approval. (iv) Storm Drainage. (A) General. The storm drainage systems off-site, as well as on-site drainage systems for the areas to be occupied, shall be improved consistent with the tentative map conditions of approval and to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department applying the City's and Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7) standards and policies which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the permit for the proposed improvements. Pursuant to Alameda County's National Pollution Discharges Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or pursuant to subsequent permits adopted by the Board, all grading, construction and development activities within the City of Dublin must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Proper erosion control measures must be installed at development sites within the City during construction, and all activities shall adhere to Best Management Practices. (v) Other Utilities (e.q. pas, electricity, cable televisions, telephone). Construction shall be completed by phase prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that specific phase of occupancy for the Project. Subsection b. Miscellaneous (i) Completion May Be Deferred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City's Public Works Director may, in his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director that assures completion, allow Developer to defer completion of discrete portions of any public improvements for the Project if the Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. Subparagraph 5.3.3 -- Phasing, Timing This Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete development of the Project within any period of time set by the City. It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals. Dublin/Investors Development Agreement Page 2 of 5 For the Anderson Residential Project-EXHIBIT B l0`1 ~-P 25~ ~~ Subparagraph 5.3.4 -- Financing Plan Developer will install all improvements necessary for the Project at its own cost (subject to credits for any improvements which qualify for credits as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.6 below). Other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer, potable water, and recycled water services to the Project will be made available by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Developer will enter into an "Area Wide Facilities Agreement" with the Dublin San Ramon Services District to pay for the cost of extending such services to the Project. Such services shall be provided as set forth in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(ii) and (iii) above. Subparagraph 5.3.5 -- Fees, Dedications Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fees. Developer shall pay the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") established by Resolution No. 111-04, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. Developer further agrees that it will pay at least eleven percent (11 %) of the "Section 1" portion of the TIF in cash. Developer also agrees that it will pay at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the "Section 2" portion of the TIF in cash. If the City amends its TIF fee and as a result the City's outstanding balance due on loans. is less than 25% of total Section 2 improvements, the Developer shall pay such reduced percentage of the "Section 2" portion of the TIF in cash. Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton for Freeway Interchanges. Developer shall pay the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in Resolution No. 155-98 and by any subsequent resolution which revises such Fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Dublin/Investors Development Agreement Page 3 of 5 For the Anderson Residential Project-EXHIBIT B ~~~ ~ a~ Subsection c. Public Facilities Fees. Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection d. Noise Mitigation Fee.. Developer shall pay a Noise Mitigation Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection e. School Impact Fees. School impact fees shall be paid by Developer in accordance with Government Code section 53080 and the agreement between Developer or its predecessor in interest and the Dublin Unified School District regarding payment of school mitigation fees: Subsection f. Fire Facilities Fees. Developer shall pay a fire facilities fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 12-03 including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection q. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Developer shall pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee in the amount and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 89-98 or any subsequent resolution which revises such fee. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. Subparagraph 5.3.6 --Credit Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fee Improvements --Credit The City shall provide a credit against Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to Developer far those improvements described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee if such improvements are constructed by the Developer in their ultimate location. All aspects of the credit shall be covered by Dublin/Investors Development Agreement Page 4 of 5 For the Anderson Residential Project-EXHIBIT B loq ~(as~ i~ the City's Administrative Guidelines for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (Resolution No. 20-07 ("TIF Guidelines"). Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee Right-of-Way Dedications -- Credit The City shall provide a credit against Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to Developer for any TIF area right-of-way to be dedicated by Developer to the City which is required for improvements which are described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. All aspects of the credits shall be governed by the TIF Guidelines. Subsection c. Public Facility Fee - Neiphborhood Parkland Component City shall provide a credit against Public Facilities Fees to Developer for any neighborhood parkland to be dedicated by the Developer which exceeds the amount required under section 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Such credits shall be expressed in acres of parkland. All aspects of the credits shall be governed by the City's Public Facilities Fees Administrative Guidelines. (Resolution No. 195-99) Subparagraph 5.3.7 --Miscellaneous (i) Term of Site Development Review Approval. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the City's Zoning Ordinance and section 10 of this Agreement, the term of the Site Development Review approval granted by the City of Dublin Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-04, and any subsequent revision to it, shall automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement. 1045745.8 Dublin/Investors Development Agreement Page 5 of 5 For the Anderson Residential Project-EXHIBIT B J~/~~ \I I~ /~' CITY CL .-~ ~, r-~ File # u` Y AGENDA STATEMENT CITY CQUNCIL MEETING DATE: Qctober'I$, 2005 ERK ~~ r-1 SUB.IECT: Braddock and Logan Affordable Housing Proposal to Comply with Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the ]3addock and Logan development at Fallon Village Report Prepared by Julia Abdala/Nousin~ Specialist ATTACHMENTS: 1. Braddock and Logan Affordable Housing Proposal 2. Proposed Stage 1 Development Map 3. Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive Staff Presentation 2. 3. Hear Public Testimony Deliberate 4. Direct Staff to: (a) Inform Braddock & Logan that the Council will not waive the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoninb Regulations required by the proposal; 4R (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 Logan has submitted a request for a Stage 2 llcvelopment Plan anal 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. CU~'Y TO: Page 1 of 7 t,:1PAfl12DO51U5-U38 RBtL Stage 2 Pallou VillagelCCSR 10-1-DS $&I. Houring I'mgosal,DUC ITEM NO. _ Attachment 4 ~~~ `~a~ Approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map will trigger the requirements of the City Df Dub~i17 TncluszDnaIy ~glling lZ,egulatio~zs, Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Qrdinance (Attachment Q). Chapter 8.68's stated purpose is to enhance the public welfare and assure further housing development contributes to the attainment oftl7e City's housing goals by increasing production of af..fordable units, and to assure that the limited remaining; developable land is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs- (Section 8.6$.010.) 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 50% of the affordable units for moderate-income households, 20% of the units. for low-income households, and 30% of the units far very low-income households as defned 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 (Section 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: 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. that the units to be constructed off-site are consistent with Section $.G8.030.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 affordable units would be governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units. 5. that conditions ofapprovaI 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 #o exceed S 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 of this Chapter." >yage 2 of 7 ANA,LYS>CS: a ~as~ Braddock and Logan has presented a proposal to provide the number of aft'ordablc units required far the construction of 1043 single-family units at the 486-acre property they currently own (See Attachmenl 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% 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 $4,390,25.70. 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 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 property is the Anderson Property (See Attachment 2), which is proposed to be designated multi-family medium density., Braddock & Logan does not own the Anderson property at this time. The proposal is to construct 88 units on the Anderson Property; 78 would be off-site affordable units for the 486-acre Fallon Villages property, 9 would satisfy the Inclusionary ordinance requirement for the 78 units on the Anderson property and one would be a manager's unit. The total number of affordable units Braddock and Logan proposes to construct would be 139 units between the two sites. The proposal is as follows: 1. 2d Integrated iJnits. 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 $1mi11ion to the City for affordable housing or community benefit. The following Table represents a summary of Braddock 8c Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal: Page 3 of 7 Tyae of Ownership Income mix Size of units Affordability Perio Unit /Rental 26 For sale SU% mod-income Same mix of In perpetuity Integratcd units 20% low-income bedroom sizc as Units 3U% ve low inc. rxaarket rate dev. 26 Rental units 50% mod-income All In perpetuity Secondary 2U% low-income 1 bedroom Units 30% ve law inc. 1 bath 7$ Rental units SQ%rnod-income All In perpetuity Apartments 20% low-income 2 bedroom plus the 9 3U% very low inc. 2 bath units for the Anderson ro e Timing of Gonstruction and Security The timing of construction in the proposal is different for the 26 integrated units, the 26 secondary units and the 88 off-site units. Staff believes that the timing included in the proposal, and the security proposed, do not mcct the purpose or requirements of the ordinance in that construction of the affordable uni#s would not be guaranteed concurrent with construction of market rate units. Staff is prepared to work. with the applicant; however, to modify the timing and security proposed if the Council is interested in considering the 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 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 obtai.tting 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.Reyuesrecl Braddock and Logan is requesting waivers from the lnelusionary Zoning Regulations, Waivers would be required from: • The bcdroom 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 project because th.e 88 units would be concentrated an the Anderson property. + The requirement that all of Inclusianary units be built concurrent with the remainder of the developrncnt. Two factors that the Council could co»sider 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 titan for SS years. {3 ~a59 Page 4 of 7 I 1 ~{ Issues ReCating to the Three Types of A, ffnrduble Units Eeing Proposed: 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 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The issues that anise with this part of the proposal are subtle. The Names to be built are large homes and the market rate homes will be expensive to purchase. All 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 to provide homes of this size to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. If the intent ofthe inclusionary Zoning Regulations is, rather, to provide entry-level homes for lower-income households to enter the homeownership m~urk.et 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 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 uiuts reflect the same number of bedrooms as the market rate units. A waiver can be granted pursuant to section 8.68.04Q.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. These units may not be able to be administered in any meaningful way by City Housing Staff. Currently, anal per the Inelusianary Ordinance and the "Layperson's Guide to the Inclusivnary Zoning Ordinance Regulations", Housing Staff m.onilors all rental units that are restricted to lower-income households annually. So far alI of these are apartment complexes with professional management staffs. Nonetheless, it sometimes requires several attempts to have the management staffs provide the required iz~foxmation an the lower-income tenants. If City Housing Staff is going to be contacting each private single-family home owner and requesting information on 1) whether they are renting our their units, and 2) the income of the tenant, it maybe substantially more difficult to secure the required information. if Staff does not receive the infonnatian needed within a reasonable amount of time and after repeated efforts, Staff may involve the City Attorney's office aand Council in seeking compliance with the regulatory agreement. Page 5 of 7 '~~~ 3. $$ Apartments (7$ off-site inclusionary units and 9 on-site inclusianary units, plus a /~ manager's unit) The proposal is for the off-site development of 87 units to house rnoderale-, 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 lnclusionary requirements by constructing units ol'f- sitc, it would have to make the five findings discussed above. Staff dons not believe the proposal, as presented, allows the Council to nial<e all f ve findings. if the Council is interested in considering the proposal for off-site construction oPunits 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 construction. of the 8$ units or construction of the units on-site, given the fact that tb.e applicarAt 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 disposal 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 affordable development such as an apartment complex, Staff assures that the appropriate Affordable Dousing Agreement is executed and that the developer has provided a management plan, indicating the method of marketing the developnaettt 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 fimded by Braddock and Logan proceeds. The developer does not intend to apply for tax credits or tax exempt bonds ar 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: Braddock and Logan has indicated that if the above described proposal is not satisfactory to the City Council that the firm would provide 78 lnclusionary 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 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 4404 or 6400 square foot lots to a lower-in.corm.e 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 awell-intended mismatch of ownership to for sale product. Other options can be explored to provide lnclusionary 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 o~the City of Dublin. Page 6 of 7 (16 Pinn Bxathers 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. Greenbriar developed town homes in tl~e zn.idst of the larger single-family homes specifically for the Inclusion•uy 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 far 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: 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 lnclusionary 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 1V/ V+)/ 4u~a lo: vc rfld Ul QNMV•+i~w•-'P•~•'~• $raddock c4c Logan's Affordable „~ou~ing Proposal ~~=~~- ~-Pa ~, The following is $xaddock acrd Logan's affordable housing proposal for meeting the Inelusianary Zoning requirements set forth in Chapter 8.68. Braddock and Logan is proposing 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 is the City. Specially the four proposed programs are as follows: (1) 26 nre~'ated Units. 'This proposal would provide 26 units on the $sx~khcad property (at 30% far Very Low; 20°/a Low, and 50°1° Moderate). 'These units would be integrated within the 4,000 square foot lots of Fallon Village and would be in identical in appearance, materials, and bedroom count and would be consistent with every portion of the requirements of Chapter 8.68. ?'inning Braddock and Logan would be agreeable to a condition of project approval that requires the developer to begin constructing the intergraded units at na later than the 175x` building permit, with completion of these a~'ordable 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): 2F ,Secondury I~welIini~ tlni~ This proposal would provide 26 Secaadary Dwelling U'ruts spread tlaroughotxt the project on lots which are 6,000 square feat o7 larger (at 30°/v for Very Low; 20% Law, and 50% Moderate). Thew units would be one-bedroom at~d 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 Heads that are ct¢rexttly not being met, such as collegelcarcer age children living at home; multi-gencra#ioztal families; and or older parents living 'with children. 7~mtng The Secondary Affordable usuts would be completed concurrent with units fox 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): $7 A~edium-Hi h e i A ordabla Units. This proposal would provide 87 affordable units {and one manager's unit) to be placed upon the Anderson propcriy. These units would be located on property designated medium density residential (at 30% for Very Low; 20% Low, and 50°1o Moderate). The Anderson Pmperiy is located to the east of Central Parkway and Croak Road, immediately cast of the proposed Village Center to be located on the xordan Property. The property is ideally suited in that it is lU/ VJ/ Guua lo: uc rnA Mi uu..v.rl.wNVO~_•• "' I ~ LJ ~~ ~ 1 ~ `/+J~ bath located in close proximity to existing and proposed transportation infrastructure, existing and proposed jab centers and retail development as well as open space, parks, schools, and semi public uses. The affordable units proposed on the Amd,er~son property would contain Z bedmoms and 2 bathrooms. Section 8.68.030(E) states the affordable units slxould reflect the range of bedrooms provided in the project. However, the uz-it configuration and bedroom count on the Anderson property is constrained by the nature of the higher density product and as a result Braddock and Logan is requesting a waiver from this requirement of Chapter 8.68. " ~"iming Braddock and l;ogan would be agreeable to a condition of project approval that requires the developer to begin constructing the Medium-1:Tsgh Densit}' Affordable Units no later than the no later than 5 years from the date of the approval of the Tentative Map for the Braddock and Logan/Bankhead properties. In addition, Braddock and Logan wotyld be agreeable placing a security bond, guarax~t~eeing the on-time completion of the 1Vledium- I-iigh Density Affordable Units affordable units, (4) CommunfN Benei4t Prevision. Tz~. addidon to the other aforementioned affordable units Braddock and Logan is proposing to provide a million dollars ($1,004,0(1{1) to the City. The City Council can determine the best use of the funds. The monies could be placed into tlae affordable housing in~lieu fee prog'am, or could be utilized for capital improvements such as reconstruction of Shannon Center or other City Park ar facility. Braddock and Logan is proposing to provide the City all of the aforementioned proposals in wetting its affordable housing obligation. The combatted approach would provide a total of 139 affordable units, which is 56 units more than required by Ck~aptcr 8.68• Additionally, these units would conta~ rent and resale restrictions that ensured the unit's affordability as proposed, indefinitely (as opposed to the required SS year requirement set by Src#ion 8.68A30E}. Hiaddock 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 ses'ved by the marketplace. These affordable units would integrated throughout the 480 acre project area and would designed, constructed, and managed in a way to ensure healthy and vibrant neighborhoods for years to come. jU/U3/LVVS 1D: VL CAO ui or~aav+.aw+ve~++ ~ ~'+~ 't 14!U~/xUUb 1tl:U3 !''AA ni'uuuwnaa..~bo.+ '~""~~© ~~ .. . ' ~ Rye°. ~WpGE~WK161t AF~'it''°~IEP~ ~1Yf~pItZA7A ~ Pc~ ~, ~' ~:~~ ~ ~!r": ~~:~ is °, I i '~" ~' i 1 Nae~r ~~~ gp~sitl~ ~f li1M ~ ~ t+s 11tidu~d~ ~ ~:~1.. i ~ 4~~''~ ~~ or~f1' ~~ ~~.M1C0111~ ~' 69~t>> A oA~dan~~'d'a°~oi~•~- p~~~rlrtsdt-' ~'_. ~; ~aNA~ ~t~a6d ~ ~ysaa traw~ara~ } ~ f~irg ~~ bob ~,`.~. ~ ~.. ~~ ~ puE~c sr+d pM+~ ~ ~ ~ abrl~ ~ } ~ ~+d Noce +N ~ ~~d°~p~r ~~` •i _ ".• ~ ~ ~~ il~~ ~ ~ ~ m 4 !1tl~ ~• ~ ~ ~~ ~na~! indr ~ h p~~rdtlp It" ~ ~~• ~~~ y~and ~~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~ ttM ids ~~~ pee~t fwlt P+~~' ~ an~Y a ¢~~ ~ w~nrltlpyrl~ balh ~~ a~° ~d w~ ~ urll ~~ ~ fps ~! ~ ~ ~ wry ~ ~~s~ ~~ ~, ~ ~aed ~~~ t j $i4lQ01~Y+ =~ ~Ilplflil.l~ ~ f i~ ~~~ PIM~~~ ~~'~" ~ 2 1W VJ/ Luup iu: uY' rILS KI~Y PRINCIPLIrS OF INC4tl510Ni/4.RY HouSING 1n its most basic terms, inclusionary housing requires or encourages market-rate housing developments tiD include ~ pefraentage (usually 10 to ZD perasnt~ of homes affordable to lower- and moderate-Income households- Inclusionary poli- ces take the form of either a vocal ordinance, a Genawal Ptan policy, ar a permtt approvals proorlss that requires or rev+rards affordable housing projects. While NPH and HBAIVC hold differing views an the merits of irrclusionary housing, the fallowing are key principles upon which our organizations agree: • Provldiny an adequate supply of housing ~ a societal respansibifity. - Local cAmmunities with indusionary housing programs h$ve a responsibility to contribute tangible and substantial resources so that the cost of providing affordable housing is spread fairly across the community. • Affordable housing policies that maximlZe resources by providing more hous- Irig opportunities or deeper levels of affordability at the same or less oast should be enoourdged. • TradrUonal inclusianery housing policies mat require the development pf "Ilke- for-like` units distributed uniformly throughout the market-rate development are often not the mast affective or aiflaent way of provKling affordable housing. • To increase effectiveness and etrrcienoy, inclusionary housing progra,m;3 should provide ttexibilRy acrd allow a range of alternative methods of providing atfarcfable unlt9. la~~a~ J ,~~ ,._~~ ~~y ~i. " 4;. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ~URiSpICTIOIrES W1TN INCt-USI~NARY Mousifv~ Pgoci~-i~s Market-rate builders should be provided with a choice of sHVersl options for producing the affordable homes. The builder should not be required to demonstrate the financial Infeasibility of traditional inolusianary requirements in order to use one of these options and, so long as the relevant criteria far a particular option are met, the builder should not be required to obtain approval by the local jurisdiction on a case-by-Case basis. klausrNC TYrs arm t)~sra-1 Fr.fXrercrTr M®nret-rate builders should be able to satisfy an inclusionary requirement btr providing alternative far-sale nouamg types, such as duets, tovmhouses, or Condominiurns, 13ullders sheuki have the option of clustering the uni4g ensile or building offslte (see Offsr7e Gonsfrucflar, page 4). lU/US/LUUO .I,D~u4 rnS Ll6NMV4J-,s"....GUU ~~~ _ J~~ Market-rate builders should be able to satisfy an ktclusianary requirement by providing rental hou8ing, provided that the project meets the induelonary percentage and incgrne targets applicable to rental projects. gpaln, the builder should have the option of clustering the unite on the project site or providing far the units oftsite (see OffSite Construrtlon, belay). ~,qHp GlfiDICATIQN Market-rate buitdets should be able to satisfy an indusionary requirement by donating land to the local government or anon-profit housing developer, subject to the folEowing: • The builder and c'dy should ensure that through an upeoning ar density bonus the dedicat- ed site will accommodate mare affordable units ac units at a deeper affardablliry level than the inclusionary.requirement would have provided; • Where rental housing is to be constructed on the dedicated site, the site shauld accommo- date at least 40 affordable units; • if the dedicated site is such that it requires "extra" canstruetfon costs-such as the need to do podium development or steel aonstlUCtlan---in order to accom- modate the required number of units, the market-rate builder should bear the extra cost, including any offslt® Improvements, environmentBA remedsation ar pn ` -- of utiflties. In mast other situations, the land dad itself will sa@oty the indusionary requirerr,ent•, • The dedicated site is located within the same ju flan as the project or within a defined subreglan - The dedicated site should have all land-u~ ent menu secured prior to completion of the marks units. If the local jurisdiction unreasonably refuses to approve the necessary entice- ments, the bulkier should be able to pay in-lieu fae6. f".~~FSIT~ COIM$TRUCTION Market-rate bulk#ers shouK! be able to choose to satisfy an Indusionary requirement by pro- viding for the unibs to be constructed outside the project bCatian, subject to the follpwirlg_ 4 .: ~ ortir.. am`W Ay.uroax. . Ai Cnronu Ronal ~ !'eto7imx4 C~1 dr mwkelynM l~r prarida! land m Edon Nauslnt ~nzlvad er ~+'ddY daeloW~ Am inchet~r„uy hams, maki~+r k }wsslbk Cv e~eare 7S Qpntnrerdi ajfotdnble fo fi~mifies tarns hdoK~ 80 pcrcan of ono mvdJwl ineemo (szaopo. ss,~D001, o}/eku rr,~ .arylber)<aren 4417 m rab! pn nlontll {iBR~Ri. lV/VJ/AVVa ;u. VY L'sLn ua u.a.... w.wa.v..v.. ~..-~~ ~~ //r'~1 ~~/ ! `~ l! • The pffslte location is either Comparable to the project site or wi11 result in either greater levels of of-ordabfth~+ or a greater number of affordable units than the ir~fu- gionary requirement would have provided; • The affordable units should be developed concurrently with the marital-rate homes. PaOLING AND GRHDiT ~RAr~kLFiAS • Z4w or more market-rate builders shaukl be able to plot resources to satisfy their InciUSionary requirement through a single affordable housirq project; Metket-rate builders that build 'extra" affordable housing units (i.e., mare than required by thB Incluslonary ordirrance) should be able to use the additional units as credits for meetin® future indusianary requirements in the jurisdiction or a defined subregion; • Market-rate builders that build'extra' affordable housing unite should be able to sell the additions{ units as credits to other buikters in the same JuNsd(ctlon or a defined subregion; • The "extra' units should be built before they can be treated as credits; • Non-profit builders should al8d be able to sell credits to market ate bulltlere for protects andlor units that are not being funded by the local government. The affordable homes should be entitled before or oonourrently with the market rate development aoquiting the credits; • Non-profrt builders should be able to acquire and improve existing mat'ket-rata develop- mantsand restrict future rents tovery-low income households end sell the units as credits to other builders in the same jurisdiction or a defined subregion. This option should only be allowed if: a) households served are et or below 5o percent of median income; b) the property undergoes extenafve renovations; c) number of units acquired and renovat- ed is al least double that of the standard inGusionary requirement; d) affordability is guaranteed for a perked of at least 55 years; and e) tenant relor~tion is appropriately addressed, i5 ~~'1Lr CaFY7 'TK1N AT 1'1r~y vkly LvmnAtwrunontr was moJrpovl6k barw+re 1rw Cfty v/Cokbod CA vpared She IiemrGrdbder to portner vith the rwr+~rofp BR1rsGE Ffauy~g m darelop thr.lnciurdonary homes off~iq bur near dbe mm•<aHCtr• boom. . 8l~~ Ho4ting <reatl'9 !. Z 3 and ~ bedroaa rrpartnhrra (er 3t4 hnxe . holds enrnlnj rn w beYvw SO and 6D pncent o(Ure wen median inovras. •, ~., _~. ____ _~. -- -.~- -- --..- ---- - -. __ .._ ~~a~ ~r A: Ofd ELn YiaYe.l6r. G~ o(Pela provHed naerprofit Burbank Noi .rk~Ydrriwn e/11 GorporaNan wgJr fmai ,node pm6ibfc br 1n,llrm Eros oath jnm variwu mgr{vl~rn{e devefipm n resufeed 1r deeper a(jafdOhififyr rrguaad br rho aidi,nncr._ r)k! ElmVl provides 9J o~arshrhJe hoover mr jrom seadw- m 4-tnrdn~m drplnx b 6auscs (m d mk of frorari»fdi ec:l 30, d$ Sa, bD, oad JO rrrtmr of 6Yea /AEd)all btoa~ afTvrdafYl9 to s4b•Ir p,er,ona wan Inranyrs m bw os S! AODD aN the way up to homilies afcix with i,rcarr,a of eb~vur 554, D68. h Mterparate: o bdJ of cnmmertYrf xpocn and tren- dr~dc aTthe space B devoted ie d' strbcitixod riJ!!d cnrr '/aciWar sae - Ms jomlFn: from Ofd f!m and she eurrarnrdbE ne~bEv»lroad tN-Lteu Fr~s Market ate bullder8 of projec#s with SO units or fewer should be able to choose to ssUsty an inclusionary requirerrient by paying a tea in Ueu of directly developing the units. This option should be available ko the developer without having to damonetrate that othor opttans are infeasible.' iteraMM~,aea tacos coMrruwtrr twphrrRlBtiTIONS l.acal governments fulifll a crucial role in the creation df affordable housing. Below are some key actions that local governments should take to demonstrele a broader commitment to addressing the affordsble housing shortage. i. funding • Make ranslstent efforts to pass IOCBII attorilable hausinp assistance bands or ether meas- ures to meet the existing community's fair share of the burl®n of providing affordable housing, • Either waive development impact fees and processing fees for inclusfonary un~s or pay for them through discretionary local funds such as redevelopment funds ovine general fund, • litiAlJG and NAfa do not here a common porldan etr in keu Peer J6r Wgeer MAN1 fipp ifrbn SO colts. ~~._~,_.~~ .~.__ ..... ~._____.._..._..~_ - -I~~_~. ,. - Where d fedevelppment agency exists, increase to at least SO percent the tax increment devgted to affordable housing programs, (Current IaW iepufrss a 20 percent low- to moder- ate-income sat aside for heusing.}. x. honing • Pigvlde at least ane density banes far each unit of affordable housing required. • Exempt Inclusionary units from building permit caps and growth allocatfan processes. - Proactively pre-entitle" (general plan and zoninQJ the sites identified in the housing ele- ment as aflordabte housing sites. ^ Maws appropriate surplus publicly owned sand available for affordable housing. 3. Program Admintstratipn • 1..ooal governments should provide a rfedlcated staff and budget t4 administer the program or contrail with a competent ehtlty to da so. • This responslbifily includes upfront assistange to homebuilders and prospective buyers/renters in the sales/rentai process as well as long-term mgrtikoring of the inclusion- ary homes. • En the Case at tar-sale Ineiuslonary units, in which the developer makes a good faith effort to sell the unit but it remains unsold after 90 days, the local government shaufd either. a} purchase the unR at the resMcted piioe and take over marketing; or b} giv¢ permission to set) the unit at market-rate and capture the dilferenCe- For option A, the local government must close an the unit within 12D days Tram completion. For option E, the program should be structured so That there will be an incentive to obtain true market value for tl5e unit • The cost of program administration should not come from tees or other exactions imposed on builders. Throughout California, public officials and private atizens are struggling to find ways to address the affordable housing crisis. Together, NPH and HBANC want to en9ure that the dialogue about sofutlons is belr~ tnicrmed by a set of principles effective and etfident at shaping public policies that wiA work far twilden3, cities and resider>is. Californa has long led the nation in innovative approaches to addressing the affordable housing crisis, and, by working together, NPH and N~ANC believe that we can find common ground to help solve the problem in the near future_ 7 lU/U:S!GVUO iv' ua rnd a............,,.,......,.... «- ~~ ~ Z /~~ ~a~~~ I t ~ F i @~ l1~~+7",nr~rwwQ~k eF d rRGJ~~ m ' ~_~ ~Z_~ r]J~n ~ 'R i I~l~ \ 1 r 1'. ~ }' T 1 ahK ~' . !~~ ~, \~~ n', t ~{ _ `C-11-i ~ll~'~ rs arc. L . carat L avert L ahoere r.,.a ,,,.,_ Fallon Village Stage I PD Amendment Slte Plan LEGEND uayji•ews isiir ~c+ KEY LANll U~P. ACREAGE DUlSQ I'I' GCICO CtuerelCamme~ciaUCuuur%rcisltrtlice 1'S4.U 1,!34,371 SF (iC: (rafvalCottgLr~cial 72.1 785,169 SF V(: Vdbtgc Cmntaetcial 6.4 96 DU/83,633 SF' L I.ow Drn~ly Residential 417.4 1,739 L)11 M A4ediumDu~tityResidertial 60.1 6011](1 MH Mxliunt lIiBh I)eneity Rcxitkzttial 2x.3 672 UlJ '3F Public/S~rou-Wblic(socNulchluw) (S.5) LS F]farnlary 9clLO~l 21.0 NS Neighbotitood Sytwte 7.G NP NeighhodtoalPark 23.6 LP Ca~ttmify Park 1R3 RR/A Rtanl Residential ! Agiwluue 139.4 OS Open Spxe 203.8 ' TOTAL 1132.11 3, I OS DU 2so3,t73 SF NO'tH: WblidSemrttiblin 1snM werLnY other a..:r dceipnaled on each l yarly. Aehrik deaola rwluiwl s..;yyc an each pnpwly own.a'a hoWirgs. .... Aa,w.a kalbn Village Cep R.:p.e Plu, Aran. Rafx v, fioj~ 7 nrr,Yynon far delnil w...minp fiu area. L 1>xc a m fS~ ~.~-a: rx L n.sfac ,4ND~I~-501 P~LoFt~--r~/ o ma' a0D' eoo~ -r's _ ~~_ ever.. °°~'Y° Mn"MO va-aMO V .------ ..___ . ...__.. l~'~' ~~a~ ! 4 . ~ INCLUSIONARY ZONING R~[3ULATIO~QS -.:r:.~: ~...~:.... Chapter 8.68 CHAPTER 8.6$ I'NCLU3IUNARY ZONING RE(3ULATXONS . S.b8.010. Pur~p'use. The purpose of this chapter is to; A. enhaaee the public welfare and assw~re that further housing development contn'butes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low, lorov, and modes~te irtaome. B, assure that~the litnitedre~maining developable land in the City's plasnning area. is utilized in a meaner consistent with the City's housing policies sad. needs. 8.6B.020. Deiinitious. As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall.be de~inod,as,fpllows: pl. "A~'oriclable Unit" means an .ownership or rental-housitng unit, :including senip~ hausarrg,,a$ardable to households gyith very-low, low, or moderate incon3es ~5 defined irk this chaptex. ,.. 1. Rental units are deemed affordable units if.the.annual reef saes not exceed 30% di.ipaa~cimurxn inaorne:lev~el for very-Iow-, lnw-, and moderate-income hauseholc~, adjusted for hvuge~old size anti as, defined below. 2. Owner-occupied units are deemed affordabl4. units if the sales puce results in annual Housing expenses that do not exceed 35% of income level for very-low-, law-, and moderate-il~come households, adjusted for household size and as defined below. For a very low-income awner- occupiead units, the unit shall be deemed an affordable unit if the sales price results in annual housing expenses that da not exceed 35°!a of the maximum in tlae very Iow-income level, adjusted for household size and as defined below. B. "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or copabination of entities that seeks city real property development permits or approvals. C. "Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household A. "Very-low-, low-, and moderate-income levels" meatia those income and eligibility levels determined periodically by the California peparbnent of Housing and Community Development based on Alameda County median income levels adjusted £or family size. Such levels shall be calculated oa the basis of gross annual household income cos~side,~ing household size sad number of dependents, inaamc of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members; and all other sources of household income acid will be recertified as set forth by local standards, rind state asxd federal housing law. 1. "Very~low income" meatus Sp% ar less of the median income, adjusted for actual household size. 2. "Low income" mesas more than SO% to 80°/a of the mediae income, adjusted for actual household size. 3. "Moderate income" means more than SO% to 120%~of the median income, adjusted far actual household size. Clty df puB11n Zalfing Ordlnence 66-1 , ,$$ptsmbgr; 'E99~, Qevlse~ ~i+Ch ~OS ' - - - '' INCLUS#CNA-RY ZQNING REGULATIt~ras 1 Chapter 6.88 ~. "Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shat] be restricted to erasure that the unit remains affordable to very-low-, law-, or moderate-ixacome households, as applicable, for a period of no# less than SS years. With respect to rental units, such rent restrictions shaIl be in the fazm of a regulatory agreement retarded against tl}e applicable property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the forru, of resale xestrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property. F. "Residential development" includes, without limita#ion, detached single-family dwellings, multiple- dweIIing structures, grougs of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and residential lazad subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public. 8.6$.030. General Requirements A. 12.5% Affordab~ity Requirement. 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 requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development (and generally at the tentative mug stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the development, provided the total number of units does not change. In applying and calculating the affordability requirement, arty decimal fraction Iesa than or equal to 0.50 znay be disregarded, and any decimal fraction greater than 0.50 shall be construed as one unit. B. Allocation of Units to Income Levels. Affordable units provided pursuant to this section shall be allocated to households with vary-law, low-, and moderate-income levels as follows: Very-low-income households 30% Law-income households 20% Moderate-income households SO% Where the calculatirna of the allocation results in farver 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.S4. C. Coadiiions of Approval; Any tentative map, conditions}. use permit, ar site development review approving residential development projects subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify th;e schedule of cansttuetion of affordable units, set faith the applicant's manner afcompliance rx~ith this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls asadlor rental restrictions an the affordable units. D. Concurrent Construction. All affordable units in a project ox phase of a project shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that extenuating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical. E. Design and Dlstrlbul3on of Affordable Units. All a1"for~dable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole and shall not be distinguished by exterior Clfy of Dublin Zonfng Ora~lnance 6&2 September, 1997 Revised Ma~+ch 2005 ~~~ ~~ INCI.USIONARY ZQNING REGULATIG~S r Chapter 8.B$ design, constructiazt, or materials. Affordable units may be of smaller size than the units in the project and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. All affordable wets shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project. 8.68.040. Eacceptians to I2.5% Affordability Requixement. Developers of projects subject to 8.68.030A shall construct 12.5% ofthe total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, unless subject to an exception Set Earth in this Section. A1] exceptions require City Council approval, which shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for the project. A. Payment of Fees In Lleu of Creation of AfIE'ordable Units. upon request of the applicant, the City Couttoil 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 8.6$.D30A. The 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 all of the affordable units within the deve]opment, 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 goat of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing far very low-, low- andmoderate-income households. 2, that the units to be constructed off site are consistent with Section 8.68.03flE above. 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 affordable units would be governed toy the terms of a deed res#rictian and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units.. that the conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within a reasonable period (not to e~cceed 5 years). C. Land Dedieatlon. 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: that dedication of land in lieu of constructing units is consistent with the chapter's goal of creating, preserving, rnaintai~ing, and protecting housing far very-low, low- and moderate- iztcomehouseholds. 2. that the dedicated land is useable far its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and contaminated soils, and is fully itxxproved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and all development-impact fees paid excluding any inclusionary zoning ordinance fees, City of Dublin Zoning Ordlnsnce 6B•3 September, 1997 Revised March 2005 ~~ ~~~ 1NCLUSIONARY ZONING RECUL.ATIQNS G ~pter 8.68 3. that the pi-aposetllaxid dedication is of sufficient sire to meet the followingrequirements: a. the dedication includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 8,68.030.A, based on the size oflots in the subdivision for which tkie applicant is meeting its obligation; and b. in addition, the dedication includes such additional land the matket value for which is squat to or exceeds the difference between the dalue of a rdairket-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 the'Cty Council) tiir~es the nutraber of units required. D. Credit transfers. An. applicant may hilly'or partially satisfy the requirements of Section $.6$.030A through the use of trat3sfer credits crested pursuant to S~ectiori S.G$:ta60. Credit certificates shall be presented to the Comrriuriity' Developtiaent Director, who sliall note at the time of project approval the credit certificate by nutxlber. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy the requirements for Inclusionary Units far the income category (i.e., very. Iow, Iow, or moderate) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. E. R'aiver of Requirements. The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this ordinance and apprpve alternate methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant dernozastrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this Chapter. S.b$.0$0. General Procedures for rmplemeatfng Inclusionary Zoning Requirements A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or rental controls, or both, as the case maybe, shall be set forth in an agreement between iris City and the. developer, i~ a form consistent with the City Council-adopted form agreement, which agreement shall be recorded against the property containing the. affordable units. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall run with the land and bind the applicant's successors. B. Rental Units; O.ccgpancy; Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units. shall require the owner of the affordable.units to ensure that the iuYi#s are occupied by tenants whose monthly income levels do not exceed very low-, low-,or moderate. income levels, as the Case maybe, and shall pxeclude tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit. The agreement skull also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager, in .a format approved b.y the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to the fallawin,g information: an identification of the affordable units witlvn the project; the monthly rents. charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information far tl~e prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year. C. Uwnerslup Units; Qccupancy; City's Right of First 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 utut, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximurX-. price that could be .Charged to an eligible household. City oaf Dutslln zor-ing Ordinance fi6.4 ~ ~ ~Septerriber,':1997 Revised March i!Q05 INCLUSIaNARY ZONING ~tEGULATIfJt1S Chapter 8.66 l"J, Selection Criteria. No household sha11 be pem~itted to occupy a unit that is required under this chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has agproved the household's eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of hausehold income, the median combined household income statistics for Alameda Gounty published periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources ofhousehold income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by law. The developer shall use an equitable selection method established in Conformance with the terms of this chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children. Selection of qualified persozt should be based on priorities established usixig 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 bublin (l additional point} • Dublin resident (3 points, one per household) • Seniors (1 point, one per hausehold) + Permanently disabled (1 paint, ane per household) + Immediate family member of Dublin resident (1 point, one per hausehold) • Required to relocate from current Dublin residence due to demolition of dwelling ar conversion of dwelling from rental to far-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 employed within the City of Dublin for at least six months. To qualify as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a xesident of the City of Dublin for at least cone-year period prior to the eligibility determination. 8.68.060. Affordable Unit Credits. A. Creation. Affordable unit credits may be created by the City Gauncil. 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 far the project by Section $.68.030A. 'The certificate shall designate a specific income category (i.e., very-low, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. B. Uwnersiup and use of credits. Affordable unit credit certificates are issued to and became the ,possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this chapter for another project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credi# certificates, the parties shall first obtain the consent of the Community Development Director, who will document the transfer by certificate number. Cify of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 68-5 September, i 997 Revised Mash 2005 ~3~~ ~~ INCLUSIQNARY BONING Rf`GUI..ATfOPY5 Chapter 8.68 $.68.x70. Incentives to Encourage On-Site Canstrucfion of Affordable LTa,its. 'T'he Cxty may, but shall not be required to, offer incentives ax financial assistance to encourage the on»site construction of affordable units in excess of 22.5% ofthe total number of units in the project to the extent resources for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City Council or City Manager. Such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. Fee Deferral. 2. Development Processing 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 Inapaet Fees. The City Council may authorize the deferred payment of development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility. The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees. B. Resign Modii"icaiians. 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. S. Reduced interior or exterior amenities. 6. Reduction in parking requirements. 7. Height restriction waivers. 8.68.080. Inclusianary honing In I,,ieu Fee Fund. Iti Lieu Fees shall bo deposited into a fund known 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 or 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 any monies committed to providing very-low-, low-, and. moderate-income housing. The annual report shall also include a review of administrative charges. 8.68.090. Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity that is subject to this ordinance pursuant to section $.G8.030A to violate any provision ar to fail to City Qf Dublln Zoning ard!»ance G$-$ September, 1997 Revised March 2005 __. _ _ . - ~~y ~~~ ,- 1NCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS Ohaoter 8.6B comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. A violation of any of the provisions ax failing to comply with, any of the requirements of this Chapter shall 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 infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of this Code shall be punishable as provided by the Government Cade of the State.of California. 8.68.100. Enforcement. A. General. The City Manager shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on 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 land-use approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residential development unless exempt from or in compliance with this chapter. The City may institute any appxopriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, ixlcluding, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval. B. Excessive rents/legal action. If the City Manager deteruaines that rents in excess of those allowed by operation of this chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may take appropriate legal action to xecover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant, or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged. $.58.110. Appeals. Decisions of the City Manager under this Chapter may be appealed as provided in Chapter 8.136. Cr'ty of Dublin Zan/ng prdinance 68-7 Septemitier,199T Revised March 2005 135 ago 14i1N~$S ~g Tfi~ CITY CaUNCiI. O~ Tf~~ CTI'Y C~ DUBLIN ~~~UL ~~~ruv~ ~- acro$ 1 ~~ ~aa5 CLOSIED SESSIQN A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: I. CONFERF..NC.'h' YYIIHLECrAL COUN~.S'Fl,-ANTICIPATEIa I.ITIGAl1UN Initiation of litigativn pursuant to Government Code ,rectinn 54956.9, subdivisivn c' (2 pvtenlial cases). II. C.QNFTRF'NCF YYITHL,~GAL C.QUNSFL -ANI7CIPATED T,ITICT.4TIO1V Gvvernment Code Section 54956.9, subdivision (h)(1) Facts and Circumstances: Government Code Section 5495b.9, subdivision (b)(3)(B) CIP Project # 9Fi92(1 ~' A regular meeting of the Dublin, City Council was held, on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin GiviC Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:14 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ..,,~.- ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hillenbrand, 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 C1TY C4LlNCIL MINtiTES VOLUME 24 REGt1LAR MEETING October I.B, ZUUS PAGF. 376 www.ci.d~lblin.c.~.us Attachment 5 ~ 3~ ~~ a~ NLW BUSIIVI;SS Braddock and Logan Affordable H~usir~g Proposal to Comply with Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the Braddock and Logan Development_at_Fallon Village 10:34 p.m. $.1 (430-80/450-ZO) Housing Specialist Julia Abdala presented the Staff Report and advised that the 11 property owners of the Fa11on 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. Thc~ Stage Z submittal is for the creation of 1,043 single-family units. Approval of a Stage Z Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map will trigger the requirements of the City's Inclusionary. Zoning Regulations. Staff is asking the Council to provide direction as to whether the City should: 1) Inform Braddock & Logan that the Council wi11 not waive the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations required by the proposal; or Z) By consensus, direct Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal including, in particular, the timing of construction of the proposed affordable units. Ms. Abdala noted that the Staff Report stated that Braddock & Logan did not own the Anderson property; however, she would like to clarify that they had an option on the property. Mayor Lockhart confirmed that the 26 integrated units would be single-family, and asked how many bedrooms and baths each unit would have. Ms. Abdala advised that they would be 3-4 bedrooms because the ordinance required that affordable units be built similarly to the market rate. Vm. Zika asked how the Developer intended to insure that the 26 secondary units, or granny flats, were rented out to low income people, and could not envision that someone paying $600,000-$800,000 for a borne and then rer-t out a granny unit to slow-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 DIJBLiN CITY E:OUNCIL MIND"rE5 vOLUM~ 24 REGULAR MEETING ()ctaber YS, 2405 PACE 39S www.ci.dublin.c~.us 13'9 ~ a5~ today in Dublin. It was envisioned to be something to provide an opportunity to the young people, a family member that wanted tv 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 c•eplacing somebody else's need for low income housing or a family member's needs for low income housing, it was still taking a senior out of the mix of needing senior housing or one young person out of the mix of going in with two or three other people to rent. Mr. Lawrence advised that the project was developed to provide three different product types to allow affordability. There were items brought up in the presentation that talked about landscaping and energy expenses, etc. Braddock & Logan has decided that it would be a good idea to complete the landscaping in the rear yards and provide some energy- saving appliances to cut casts, 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. 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. 1t 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 fax living in our community need to be offered. Cm. 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 op#ion. She asked if the 88 unit apartment complex would be a mix of market rate and affordable. DUBLIN CITY (;OUN~C]<L 1VIXNLJTES VOLUME ~4 REGULAR MEETING Octobew ~ i~, ZQ05 PACF. X99 wrv+~w.ci.dublin.ca.us iz~ ~as~o 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 plant not to have an area where all of the affordable apartments could. be identified. Mr. I.a.wr~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 l ZO-125 units at market rate. It was not part of the affordable proposal for tonight. Cm. Hildenbrand reiterated her concern about the apartment complex being grouped together and having residents stigmatized 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 ra#e. The $8 units would be integrated within the 12,4 125 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 lnelusionary Housing Ordinance. Cm. Oravetz noted that the Affordable Housing Ordinance purposely included the flexibility for a Developer to present different alternatives to meet the 12.5°,6 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. 1f 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 Z~ integrated units, which might set a precedent for other affordable projects. There would. be oppot~tttnities for Staff to work with the Q[ iBLIN CITY C:OUNCYL 1VIINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETYNG October 18, 20QS PAGE; 40~ www.ci.[lublin.c~r.us i3~ ~as~ 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. Cm. McCormick suggested that Green Building principles be used. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded Crn. McCormick and by majority vote (Vm. Zika apposed), 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 dawn the cast of living; 2) work on timing issues and obtain necessary security; 3) study the feasibility of integrating the 88 ~ affordable apartment units into a larger project; and 4) incorporate green building principles, as practical. /~ 11:07 p.rn. 8.2 Assistant City Manager Joni ttillo presented t Staff Report and advised that the City Council would receive an info ational repor on the Public Safety Activities associated with the past July 4, 2005 holi y. There as a reduction in calls of service in 2005 compared to 2004. The Council commended Fire and ice Services far their attention to the safety of Dublin citizens during the holiday s Consideration of a 11:1 Z p.m. 8.3 (61~ 50) City Manager Ric and Ambrose presented the Sta Report and advised that Mayor Lockhart reques that the City Council consider c missioning a commemorative inscription in cognition of outgoing Cramp Farks Com ander, Col. James Doty. The inscription, w ich would cost $100, would be engraved on concrete bench leadir~ up to the Public fety Memorial located in the courtyard of the 'vic Center. DUIiLlN C:1'I'Y COUNCIL MiNLJTES VOLUME 2~ itEGULAR MEETING October 1S, 2005 FADE 401 www.Ci.dultlin.cs-.us ~~~~a~ . ~ Ur llU~~ MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ~ OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~~~~ ~~ ~~1~`~ / REGULAR MEETING -March 4, 2008 \~ _<~ A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. -~_ ---.~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Lockhart. ABSENT: None Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor .~ __._-- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. ~~ ~_ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Proclamation -March 2008, American Red Cross Month (610.50) 7:18 p.m. 3.1 (610-50) Mayor Lockhart read a proclamation for the American Red Cross, proclaiming March 2008, American Red Cross Month. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING , ~ March 4, 2008 19 '~ Attachment 6 loll ~Q~~ PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing CEQA Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-Acre Residential Portion of the Anderson Property Located at 3457 Croak Road 7:20 p.m. 6.1 (400-20/420-30/410-55/450-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that Braddock & Logan was requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation from Medium Density to Medium-High Density, and a PD-Planned Development rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan to allow a 108-unit apartment project consisting of 78 affordable units to satisfy a portion of the Inclusionary Zoning obligation for the Positano development, 10 affordable units to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning obligation for the Anderson property, 19 market rate units and one manager's unit. Vm. Sbranti asked if in regard to the Positano project, they were talking about 1,043 single-family detached homes at market rate. Did the 78 units they were discussing on the Anderson property meet the affordability requirement for Positano? Mr. Baker stated it would meet a portion of the Positano requirement. They had an additional requirement of 26 secondary units and 26 detached homes. Vm. Sbranti asked for clarification regarding the 10 unit requirement. Mr. Baker stated Braddock and Logan was proposing an exception to the City's standard Inclusionary ordinance which was the 78 offsite affordable units on Anderson. With that proposal they would provide affordable units for those 78 affordable units. So they were proposing 12-1/2% of affordable units based on the 78, which equaled 10 units. They were providing affordable units based on the affordable units. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING ~~ March 4, 2008 '~ ~y y a ~a5v City Manager Ambrose stated. that was similar to what the Council had done on the Fairway Ranch project. Cm. Oravetz stated the Planning Commission recommended the City go from 19 market rate units to 25 units. Could the City go from 19 market rate units to 45 units instead of 25? Mr. Baker stated the way the Planning Commission had arrived at the 4 units was based on if you took a 108 unit project. and had 78 affordable units, you would have 30 units left over, so that they took 12-1/2% of 30 units which would give you the 4. That was how they arrived at the 4 units that they were proposing. If the City wanted to go to 45 market rate units, it would have to increase the number of units on the project. Cm. Oravetz asked if the City could make another exception and go even higher. Mr. Baker stated if the Council made the findings, the Council could determine to do something other than what was currently proposed. Jeff Lawrence, of Braddock and Logan, thanked Staff for their work on the project. Braddock and Logan was satisfied with the SDR as it was being proposed. They had a 78 unit project. So they had 26, 26 and 78 units. That was the 130. That was the 12-1/2% requirement for the Positano project. It was discussed that there were another 10 units, 12- 1/2% of the 78, and that was how they came up with the 10. That had been discussed with the Planning Commission. It was now up to the Council. Braddock and Logan would meet the affordable unit obligation based .upon 12-1 /2 % if they had 78 units of the affordable units offsite of Positano, plus the 26 units and 26 units, for a total of 130 to meet the affordable housing requirement for Positano. They would like to work with Staff to come up with ideas regarding how rents were to be calculated. Planning Commission Chair Bill Schaub stated the Commission felt it was meeting what the Council was expecting for affordable housing and also got the rock on the bottom which was a lot nicer than stucco. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR METING 19 _, March 4, 2008 ~ ~ 1~3~~s^o Mayor Lockhart stated because this project was going to be standing by itself for awhile, it was going to lead the way. People were going to look at that project and the standards of development around that project and they were going to come to the City wanting to emulate or do something similar. So it was important how it looked. Regarding the affordable issue, if the City did not learn while doing these projects, they were not doing their job. One thing the Council had learned was when you combined too large of an affordable population at one site you could. have .problems. that you would not otherwise have if it were a little more mixed. Twenty-five percent market rate was a decent mix. She would not be comfortable in reducing the number of affordable units by another 25 units. There were a lot of people that still needed homes and two bedroom, two bath rental units were difficult to come by. This would meet the needs of a lot of people that worked in Dublin, did not make the highest income and would like to live here with their families. She was comfortable adjusting it by the six units. She would not be comfortable in adjusting it by an additiona125. Cm. Scholz stated she agreed with the proposed 25%. Cm. Oravetz stated that he was concerned about the City having too many affordable units. But then he saw in the report that the Planning Commission had increased it to 25. He was concerned because of the rentals at the Crroves. Did the City want to go down that road again? He would support the 25. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she concurred with Cm. Oravetz. She originally thought the percentage might be higher than the 25%, but if that was where the Council felt comfortable, the Council needed to learn from its experiences. They would need to see if it balanced it out. She supported the Planning Commission's recommendation. Vm. Sbranti stated the 78 affordable units on the Anderson property exceeded the must build obligation because they must build was the 7-1/2%. Here was a case where the developer was proposing 12-1/2%. The City did not just want to collect fees. They wanted units. Here they were being built at the actual threshold of 12-1/2%, yet there was an additional affordable obligation on top of that. In the future that might discourage other people from building units where they might just decide to pay fees. City Manager Ambrose stated that there were 108, 78 of those were satisfying the requirement where the developer could have spread those 78 units through his 1,043 units on site. So the Council said no, we would allow you to do it offsite, but we would like DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING ~ ~~~ March 4, 2008 \~~ iu~ ~as~ some market rate units included. What the Planning Commission was saying was you have 30 market rate units under your inclusionary obligation. Those 30 units were not satisfying the Positano project requirements. Those were an additional 30 units. Under the City's ordinance, with 20 units or more, the developer was required to comply with the City's inclusionary zoning ordinance. So that would be 12-1/2%, or 7-1/2%, plus. 5% fees. That was how they had came up with the. additional 4 inclusionary units. With the exception, it was what the Council wanted to call in terms of its interpretation of what satisfied the requirement. Also, the Community benefit payment was part of the mix, in terms of how the City looked at this. In the case of Fairway Ranch, Council looked at the entire project and said you needed to provide that affordable requirement, not just the 2,500 units that you were building throughout Dublin Ranch, but also the affordable requirement for this new project that you were building called Fairway Ranch. The Council just interpreted it differently. Not right or wrong, just different. Vm. Sbranti stated this might be something the Housing Committee, as it took up the Housing Element and looked at the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, should look at. One reason those 30 market rate units were added, initially the City was looking at a project that was 100% affordable then the Council asked could you include some market rate units to have it be a mixed project. City Manager Ambrose stated the City's policy was very clear in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. They might `want to look at the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. This issue was only triggered when an applicant proposed and the Council indicated an interest in the 7-1/2% must build and the 5% fees. You would have to look at the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in its entirety. Vm. Sbranti stated when explained in that manner, the 25% looked fine. Cm. Oravetz asked if the Council wanted to increase it to 30 market rate units? Did the Council want that many more affordable units? The Council had done a great job. At what point did they slow it down a bit? Let us build more market rate units. He was just asking the Council to take a moment to consider 30 units. Mayor Lockhart stated she strongly advocated for 25 market units, because when the next applicant came along, the City would have a formula for what it had done. You would have to follow a fairness path for everyone. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING 9 ~ ~ ~ March 4, 2008 ~ iu5~asn Vm. Sbranti stated Cm. Oravetz's larger point was something that could be looked at as part of the, next Housing Element update and the re-examination of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Scholz stated the Council should proceed with the formula and go with 25 market rate units. On motion of Cm. Scholz, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION N0.36 - 08 ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE 1993 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN, THE 2002 EAST DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE 2005 FALCON VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING RELATED STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS and RESOLUTION N0.37 - 08 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN/EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE 7-ACRE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL and waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance Approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with an Amended Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-Acre Residential Portion of the Anderson Property; and directed Staff to develop an Affordable Housing agreement which would provide for 25 market rate units and the 78 units plus the four affordable units on that site. ~~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING March 4, 2008 '~ ~