HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06262001 - D.2 a 4 Contr
AMENDED BOARD MEMO J� co C1
(Staff Report & Attachments Unchanged) ' JCou
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 I`�
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Director of Community Development
DATE: June 26, 2001
SUBJECT: Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDER report of the Director of Community Development regarding compliance of
Shapell Industries of Northern California with the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing
Program and issues related thereto; DETERMINE whether Shapell Industries is in compliance
with the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program for the years 1999 and 2000; and
CONSIDER action to be taken on the request of Shapell Industries to amend the Dougherty
Valley Affordable Housing Program for the Shapell portion of the-program.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. No General Funds involved.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IRECOMW NDATIONOF BOARD
COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 26, 2001 APPROVtbAS RECOMMENDED
THE BOARD CONTIIQ[JED THIS MA=.To AUGUST 7, 2001
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
xx UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Source: Jim Kennedy
335-1255 ATTESTED Jame 26, 2001
JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE
cc: County Administrator's Office BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
County Counsel COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development-Land Development _
Community Development-Housing
Via: Community Development BY , DEPUTY
- Shapell Industries
- Lennar Homes
- Tri-Valley.Interfaith Poverty Forum
W:\Personal\\BoardOrders\BOARD.dougherlyva lley6.5
AMENDED BOARD MEMO
(Staff Report & Attachments Unchanged)
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 10,2000 the Board heard a report from the Community Development Director regarding compliance of Shapell
Industries of Northern California with the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. The Board requested staff to return
to the Board with additional information. This report responds to the request of the Board, and includes:
• the legislative history of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program (DVAHP);
• further explanation of the three alternatives (A,B, & C) set forth in the October 10, 2000 report;
• assurances/mechanisms for securing at least a 30-year term for affordable moderate income rental units;
• terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between Ecumenical Association for Housing and Shapell for very low
income and low income housing;
• disclosure program regarding the mixed income nature of the Dougherty Valley and the location of rental units
within the area, including the possibility of incorporating disclosure into project CC&R's;
• provisions for assuring the delivery of the affordable housing units should subsequent traffic studies limit the total
development in Dougherty Valley to 8,500 units rather than 11,000 units; and
• the identification of any other issues that should be addressed by the Board.
On May 22,2001 the Board of Supervisors referred a letter of same date from the Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty Forum to staff
for a report. The questions in that letter regarding compliance with the DVAHP are contained herein. The May 22, 2001
letter of the Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty Forum is attached as Exhibit H.
I. SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 10, 2000 REPORT TO THE BOARD
The full October 10,2000 report is included as Attachment A, and summarized below. The Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994, is incorporated by reference into the
Development Agreements between the County and the two development entities—Shapell Industries of Northern California
and Windemere Ranch Partners, PLC. The fundamental requirement is that 25% of the housing units in the Dougherty
Valley be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. Compliance is determined by the Board of
Supervisors in its review of annual compliance reports submitted by the developers.
Shapell submitted annual reports found to be in compliance with the DVAHP as of October, 1997 and October, 1998. The
annual reportsubmitted as of October, 1999 has notyet been determined to be in compliance. Outstanding issueswere 1)
the term of affordability for moderate-income rental projects, and 2)compliance with the very low income and low-income
program requirements.
The term of affordability for moderate-income rental projects is in dispute. Based on the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan,the
legislative history of the DVAHP,and the changed housing market conditions,the County staff has indicated that a 30-year
term of affordability for moderate-income rental projects exists. Shapell disagrees stating that the DVAHP sets forth no term
of affordability for moderate-income units.
Six alternative approaches to resolving the dispute have been identified. The Board requested additional information on
Alternatives A, B, & C. The six alternatives are:
Alternative A - County position based on adopted DVAHP — 30 year term; rents at 30% of 100% of monthly
median household income (see Table 2(a) of October 10, 2000 report).
Alternative B -Shapell proposal of July 19,2000—term of perpetuity; rents at 30%of 110%and 120%of monthly
median household income (see Table 2(b) &2(c) of October 10, 2000 report).
Alternative C — Compromise on.rents. Fixed Term: permit rents to be computed at 30% of 110% of monthly
median household income (see Table 2(b) of October 10, 2000 report); 30-year term.
Alternative D—Step-down rents: utilize Shapell proposal to permit higher rents on larger units at the outset, but
limit their adjusting to inflation so that they do not fully use the inflationary increase. This would
allow rents to adjust to their desired rents; 30 year term.
Alternative E — Apply any change to the DVAHP rents/terms to Shapell's Falcon Bridge project only, (project
currently renting-up);maintain current definition of permitted rents for moderate-income rentals at
30% of 100% of median monthly household income (see Table 2(a) of October 10,2000 report)
for all other units; restate the 30-year term for moderate-income rental projects.
Alternative F—Compromise on rents, Falcon Bridge only(project currently renting-up);Fixed Term:permits rents
at Falcon Bridge to be computed at 30% of 110% of monthly median household income (see
Table 2 (b) of October 10, 2000 report); 30—year term for entire DVAHP.
With respect to the very low-income and low-income program,annual reports submitted by Shapell as of October,1999 was
found deficient because it lacked sufficient detail to reasonably conclude that these program elements would occur. Shapell
and Ecumenical Association for Housing were negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding to address this need for detail
at the time the Board received the October 10, 2000 report.
IL TERM OF AFFORDABILITY FOR MODERATE INCOME RENTAL UNITS
The major area of non-compliance is in the affordability term in proposed moderate-income rental units. The goals and
policies of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and the DVAHP emphasize the need to maintain housing affordability over .
the long run. Policy H-9, in the Specific Plan states"affordable units will be maintained the maximum period feasible.
W:\r'ersona I\\BoardOrdersTOARD.dou ghert}�,a I I e1'G.5
Target period shall be a minimum of 20 years for for-sale units and 30 years for rental units."
A) Legislative History
A review of the legislative history of the DVAHP was requested by the Board. At the time the DVAHP was approved,the
understanding of the parties was that the moderate income housing obligation would be met through the provision of
home ownership opportunities at market prices without the need for public subsidy. A March 8, 1994 memorandum from
Harvey Bragdon,then County Director of Community Development,to the Board of Supervisors (Attachment B) reflects
this understanding between the parties. It says, "Most of the moderate income units (65% of all affordable units)will be
owner occupied." Due to the lack of specific financial benefit to the buyer(e.g.: homes affordable to moderate-income
households were approximately the projected market price; no expectation of below market rate financing, etc.), it was
not considered feasible or appropriate to require moderate-income households to purchase an essentially market rate
unit with an affordability term restriction. Consequently,the adopted DVAHP does not currently specify a required term of
affordability for moderate-income units. The legislative history that preceded adoption of the DVAHP is noteworthy and
summarized below:
• May 7, 1993—.A draft outline of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program prepared by County staff
includes on page 4 (Section VI (13)(1)) a provision for a term of affordability as the"greater of financing program or
SAP (Specific Plan policy) H-9" (which states a 20 year term for homeownership terms and 30 year term for rental
projects);
• June 24, 1993—A memorandum to the Board of Supervisors on policy options related to the DVAHP includes, on
page 4 (Section 5) a discussion of affordability term. The draft DVAHP as of that date reflects the provisions of
the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan (minimum 20 year for home ownership and 30 years for rental projects).
Options are delineated;
• September 10, 1993—An updated memorandum to the Board of Supervisors on DVAHP content and policy options
indicates continued requirement for affordability term per Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, i.e., minimum 20 years for
homeownership, 30 years for rental projects. Options are delineated;
• March 8, 1994—A memorandum to the Board of Supervisors delivering the DVAHP for formal consideration
by the Board indicates that the "moderate income units are not subject to affordability terms as a result of this
Affordable Housing Program" (page 2, paragraph 5). Importantly,the memorandum also sets forth the
expectation of the parties"that most of the moderate-income units (65% of all affordable units)will be owner
occupied" (page 2, paragraph 3). The DVAHP was adopted pursuant to the terms of this March 8, 1994
memorandum, and with the expectations of the parties set forth and understood.
B) Analysis of Alternative Approaches for Resolving Issue
The three alternative approaches for which the Board requested additional information are:
Alternative A - County position based on adopted DVAHP — 30 year term; rents at 30% of 100% of monthly
median household income (see Table 2(a) of October 10, 2000 report).
Alternative B -Shapell proposal of July 19,2000—term of perpetuity;rents at 30%of 110%and 120%of monthly
median household income (see Table 2(b) &2(c) of October 10,2000 report).
Alternative C — Compromise on rents. Fixed Term: permit rents to be computed at 30% of 110% of monthly
median household income (see Table 2(b) of October 10,2000 report); 30-year term.
These alternatives exist along a continuum framed by the position of the County(Alternative A)and Shapell (Alternative B),
with a compromise (Alternative C). The alternatives have two policy dimensions, one of which is in dispute—required rent
term —and one of which is not—permitted monthly rent. The policy variables are presented in Table 1. The best way of
assessing the financial impact of these alternatives is to calculate the capitalized value of a project using the revenue
streams and standard loan underwriting criteria. Table 2 uses the current 256-unit Shapell Falcon Bridge projectto derive a
capitalized value comparison of the three alternatives. Alternative A has the greatest affordability and the lowest capitalized
value; Alternative B has the least targeted affordability and the highest capitalized value; and Alternative C represents a
compromise on rents and a mid-range capitalized value. Of note,Shapell Industries has represented thatthe Falcon Bridge
project,which is now completing construction and renting up,was designed with numerous amenities not typically found in
apartment complexes(separate enclosed garages,fireplaces, etc.),therefore higher rents are needed to support. Future
projects could be designed to a high quality but without the additional amenity package thereby providing an argument for
limiting the discussion of a compromise on rents (Alternative B or C) to the Falcon Bridge project only, and ratifying that
future projects in the Dougherty Valley are subject to rents/term set forth in Alternative A.
An additional way of comparing the Alternatives is to compare the rents under the various alternatives to market rents on
comparable projects in the Tri-Valley. Table 3 below suggests that the proposed rents are, under all three alternatives 10-
20%, above the market rates in large Tri-Valley apartment projects built since 1985. However,when compared to new
projects only(built in late 1990's)only the proposed rents under Alternative A are at or slightly belowthe market rent for new
units,Alternative B rents are slightly above the market rent for newer units, and Alternative C rents are comparable to the
market rent for newer units.
Yet another way of comparing the alternatives is to compare the percentage of median income used to calculate monthly
rents for moderate-income projects/programs that stipulate affordable rents. Table 4 below suggests that there is little
precedent for allowing rents to be calculated at the 120% of median income levels. Rents are generally computed on the
basis of 100 or 110% of median income.
W:\Pcrsona[VOoardOrders\BOARD.dou gherty,\,a l l eg6.5
ATTACHMENT A
October 10, 2000
Report to the Board of Supervisors on the
Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program and Shapell Industries
Compliance with Said Program.
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, Y P, AICP, Director of Community Development J' County
DATE: October 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDER report of the Director of Community Development regarding compliance of
Shapell Industries of Northern California with the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing
Program; and CONSIDER action to be taken on the request of Shapell Industries to amend
the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program for the Shapell portion of the program.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. No general funds involved.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM ENDATION O BOARD
COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROV 5bAS RECOMMENDED
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Source: Jim Kennedy
335-1255 ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
cc: County Administrator's Office BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
County Counsel COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development-Land Development
Community Development-Housing
BY , DEPUTY
BACKGROUND
The Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program was adopted by the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994. The Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program (DVAHP) is incorporated by reference into the Development
Agreements between Shapell Industries of Northern California and the County, as well as
between Windemere Ranch Partners-BLC and the County. The basic requirement of the
DVAHP is that 25% of the housing units within Dougherty Valley must be affordable to
very low, low and moderate-income households. At least 10% of the affordable units
must be affordable to very low-income households; at least 25% of the affordable units
must be affordable to low-income households, and no more than 65% of the affordable
units are affordable to moderate income households. Defined terms from the DVAHP are
included as Attachment A. Compliance with the DVAHP requirements applies to each of
the development entities separately. Compliance with the DVAHP is determined on an
annual basis by the County Board of Supervisors based on reports submitted by the
respective developers. The annual compliance report must provide for a one-year and a
three-year strategic plan for the provision for the affordable units.
A) Shapell Industries Compliance History
The following summarizes the major issues in the following matters:
1. Term of affordability for moderate income projects- and
2. Compliance with the very low-income and low-income program.
Shapell Industries has submitted compliance reports as of October 1997 and October
1998 that have been determined to be in compliance with the DVAHP. The County staff
has been unable to determine that Shapell Industries is in compliance as of October 1999.
The following will explain the basis for the inability of the County staff to make such a
determination and Shapell's response.
1) Issue 1 —Rents/Term of Affordability
From the County's perspective, the major area of non-compliance is in the
affordability term in proposed moderate-income rental units. The goals and
policies of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and the DVAHP emphasize the
need to maintain housing affordability over the long run. Policy H-9, in the
Specific Plan states "affordable units will be maintained the maximum period
feasible. Target period shall be a minimum of 20 years for for-sale units and 30
years for rental units." At the time the DVA..HP was approved, it was assumed
that the moderate income housing obligation would be met through the provision
of home ownership opportunities at market prices without the need for public
subsidy. A March 8, 1994 memorandum from Harvey Bragdon, then County
Director of Community Development, to the Board of Supervisors reflects this
understanding between the parties. It says, "Most of the moderate income units
W:\I'crsonal\BoardOrders\BOARD.9.26.doughertyval ley
(65% of all affordable units) will be owner occupied." Due to the lack of specific
financial benefit to the buyer (e.g.: homes affordable to moderate-income
households were approximately the projected market price; no expectation of
below market rate financing, etc.), it was not considered feasible or appropriate to
require moderate-income households to purchase an essentially market rate unit
with an affordability term restriction. Consequently, the adopted DVAHP does
not currently specify a required term of affordability for moderate-income units.
As we are all aware, the housing market conditions have changed substantially
since 1994. Housing prices have increased significantly, therefore Shapell
indicates its plans for addressing the moderate-income obligation have changed.
Shapell now proposes to address a substantial .portion of its moderate-income
obligation through a rental program. Shapell has proposed to satisfy over 80% of
the moderate-income housing obligation through the production of rental units.
The County position is that the switch to a rental program requires a 30-year
regulatory period as set forth in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. A form of
regulatory agreement accomplishing this 30-year term was provided as an
appendix to the DVAHP.
Shapell Industries docs not agree with the County position. (See Shapell letter of
July 19, 2000.) From their perspective the DVAHP states that no term for
moderate-income affordability is assumed. Furthermore, they reference the
Development Agreement, which prohibits changes to terms of the policy set forth
including those relating to affordable housing, without the mutual consent of the
parties. (See Shapell letter of June 5, 2000.) County staff believes the Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan and the legislative history leading up to the adoption of the
affordable housing program is inconsistent with Shapell's position.
a) Shapell Compromise Proposal
Shapell Industries has proposed a compromise approach. Their proposal,
which would apply to all of Shapell's obligation under the DVAHP, is set
forth in their letter of July 19, 2000. Shapell's compromise proposal is to
limit the rents on the studio and 1 bedroom units to rents set at 110% of
monthly median household income, and 2 bedroom and larger units to
rents at 120% of monthly median household income. Shapell has
proposed an affordability term in perpetuity in exchange for these higher
rents. Table 1 depicts the Falcon Bridge project, Shapell's initial 256-unit
moderate-income rental project, and makes an estimate of the change in
capitalized value given the two rent schedules.
WAPersonal\BoardOrdersU30ARD.9.26.doughertyvaI ley
Shapell Industries represents they designed the Falcon Bridge project
using an erroneous assumption (which they acknowledge as their error)
that moderate-income rents were calculated based on 120% of median
income. In fact, the DVAHP sets forth the moderate-income rental rates at
100% of median income. The Tables 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) on the following
pages reflect the difference between the rents at 100% of median monthly
household income and 110% and 120% of median monthly household
income.
TABLE 1 —FALCON BRIDGE
ANNUAL RENT/CAPITALIZED VALUE ANALYSIS
Unit Type Number of Units Annual Rents- Annual Rents-
(# bedrooms DVAHP # Sha ell Proposal #
1 104 $1,687,296 $1,855,776
2 128 $2,336,256 $2,803,200
3 24 $486,720 $584,064
_ 256
Gross Annual Rents $4,510,272 $5,243,040
Minus Vacancy ($225,514) ($262,152)
5%
Minus Operating ($1,488,390) ($1,730,203)
Expenses
33%
Net Income for Debt $2,796,369 $3,250,685
Service
Cap Rate 8.0% 8.0%
Capitalized Value $34,954,608 $40,633,560
# Monthly Rents currently are:
DVAHP SHAPELL PROPOSAL
1'bedroom units $1,352.00 $1,487.00
2 bedroom units $1,521.00 $1,825.00
3 bedroom units $1,690.00 - $2,028.00
W:\I'ersona lU3oardOrders\I30AItl).9.26.doughertyva l Icy
I�
TABLE 2(a)
MEDIAN INCOME RENT SCHEDULE
Monthly Rent*
Unit Size at 100% of
median income
Studio $1183
I bedroom $1352
2 bedroom $1521
3 bedroom $1690
TABLE 2(b)
1.10% RENT SCHEDULE
Monthly Rent* at
Unit Size 110% of median Difference from
median rents
Studio $1301 $118
1 bedroom $1487 $135
2 bedroom $1673 $152
3 bedroom $1859 $169
TABLE 2(c)
120% RENT SCHEDULE
Monthly Rent* at
Unit Size 1.20% of median Difference from
median rents
Studio $1420 $237
1 bedroom $1622 $270
2 bedroom $1825 $304
3 bedroom $2028 $338
* Does not include a utility allowance that would reduce these rents.
W:Personal\Board0rdcrs\BOARD.9.26.doughertyvalley '
b) Alternative Policy Approaches for the Board to Consider-
Rents/Term of Affordability
The policy aspects of this issue have two dimensions: 1) required rent
term; and 2) permitted monthly rents. Any consideration of alternatives
should bear in mind the relationship between allowable incomes and
permitted rents. A variety of alternatives exist along a continuum framed
by the positions of Shapell and the DVAHP. They are:
Alternative A—County position based on adopted DVAHP —30 year
term; rents at 30% of 100% of monthly median
household income(see Table 2(a)).
Alternative B — Shapell proposal of July 19, 2000— term of perpetuity;
rents at 30% of 110% and 120% of monthly median
household income (see Table 2(b) & 2(c)).
Additional alternatives for discussion and consideration, include:
Alternative C — Compromise on rents. Fixed Term: permit rents
to be computed at 30% of 110% of monthly median
household income (see Table 2(b)); 30 year term.
Alternative D — Step-down rents: utilize Shapell proposal to
permit higher rents on larger units at the outset, but
limit their adjusting to inflation so that they do not
\ fully use the inflationary increase. This would
allow rents to adjust to their desired rents.
Attachment B provides an example of this concept;
30 year term.
Alternative E— Apply any change to the DVAHP rents/terms to the
Falcon Bridge project only; maintain current definition
of permitted rents for moderate-income rentals at 30%
of 100% of median monthly household income
(see Table 2(a)) for all other units; restate the 30-year
term for moderate-income rental projects.
Alternative F — Compromise on rents, Falcon Bridge only; Fixed Term:
permits rents at Falcon Bridge to be computed at 30% of
110% of monthly median household income (see Table
2 (b)); 30-year term for entire DVAHP.
2) issue 2– Very Low and Low Income Program
The DVAHP requires the delivery of very low and low-income units. The
information submitted to date on this component by Shapell is very limited.
County staff has requested additional information as part of its determination of
compliance as of October 1999 to facilitate this component of the DVAHP. The
information requested would include:
W:\Personal\BoardOrders\BOARD.9.26.dougliertyvalley
• The proposed location with a description of the specific site or sites to be
used, including the identification of acreage, configuration, and the
identification of significant development and environmental constraints;
• The type of housing proposed, i.e. mixed income or 100% affordable multi-
family, senior, unit size/number of bedroom;
• Range of incomes and household size, target population; and
• The relationship to other units in the development;
• Identification of involved parties with role and responsibilities delineated;
• A schedule for development of the required units with development and
financing related benchmarks identified.
Shapell has expressed concern that the County staff position may have the effect
of requiring Shapell to accelerate the delivery of the very low- and low-income
component of the program beyond the terms of that document. Shapell asserts
that the DVAHP provides for flexibility in determining when the very low-
income and low-income units need to be determined. Staff concurs with Shapell
with respect to the DVAHP allowing for flexibility in determining the distribution
and timing of very low- and low-income units. However, Shapell has now
submitted tentative map applications, or has approved entitlements (vesting
tentative maps) or has pending final maps for approximately 75% of their portion
of the 8,500 units approved by the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. Table 3
provides a summary of the planning status of the Shapell portion of the Dougherty
Valley development. This suggests the need to identify the elements of very-low
and low-income program at this tirne.
On September 28`x' staff held a meeting with -representatives of Shapell and
Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) a major non-profit affordable
housing builder. An executed letter -of intent between Shapell and EAH was
presented. A memorandum of understanding outlining the business parameters in
greater detail is expected by the end of October. This September 28`11 meeting
was a first show of positive activity in this regard, and hopefully represents the
progress needed.
W:\Pcrsona I\BoardOrders\BOA Rt).9.26.do ughcrtyval ley
TABLE 3— HOUSING UNIT APPROVAL STATUS
SHAPELL PORTION, DOUGHERTY VALLEY
Percentage of units Percentage of units
Number of Units allowed per Settlement allowed per Specific
Agreement4505 units Plan, subject to traffic
studies-5830 units
Approved with
Tentative Maps
Gale I 1216 27% 21%
Gale II 1825 41% 31%
Requested Tentative
Map
1433 32 25
Gale III
Total 4474 99% 77%
B) Correspondence
The following correspondence, which provides more information with respect to these
issues as well as other minor issues, is attached:
1. August 17, 1999, letter from Community Development Department to Shapell
Industries,
2. November 22, 1999, letter from Shapell Industries to Contra Costa County;
3. April 18, 2000, letter from Community Development Department to Shapell
Industries;
4. June 5, 2000, letter from Shapell Industries to Contra Costa County;
5. July 19, 2000, letter from Shapell Industries to Contra Costa County;
6. July 20, 2000, letter from Community Development Department to Shapell
Industries;
7. August 10, 2000, letter from McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson to Contra
Costa County.
C) Next Steps
Should the Board opt to make any changes in the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing
Program, the staff should be directed to prepare the necessary documentation. It should
be noted that any change would apply to the entire Dougherty Valley program, i.e., to
both the Shapell and Windemere portions. Consultation with all parties will be needed.
An affirmative process to determine compliance with the DVAHP would be triggered by
W:\Persotial\BoardOrders\1.30ARD.9.26.dougliertvvalley
the developers submitting revised compliance reports, and the Community Development
Department reviewing and recommending an action to the Board. All aspects of the
DVAHP — the very low income, the low income, and moderate income elements —
would be subject to review. Any actions necessary to modify legal agreements and
policy documents to correspond to DVAHP changes will also be identified and
recommendations set forth.
cc: Debbie Sanderson
Kathleen Hamm
Shapell Industries
Lennar/Centex/BrookCield
File C4.3(bX 1.6Xa)
W:\Pcrsona l\Boa rdOrders\130ARD.9.26.doughertyva I ley
ATTACHMENTS
"ATTACHMENT A - DEFINED TERMS (FROM DVAHP)"
III. Definitions
The terms defined herein for all purposes of this Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing
Program shall have the respective meanings specified as follows:
"Affordable Units" means any one or more of the units reserved for occupancy by Very
Low, Low, or Moderate Income Households in the Dougherty Valley. The Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan requires that-25% of the units in the Dougherty Valley be
Affordable Units.
"First Time Homebuyer" means households who shall not have had a present ownership
interest in a principal residence at any time during the three-year period prior to the
origination of a mortgage to purchase an Affordable Unit.
"Lower Income" means generically all households of Very Low, Low, and Moderate
Income.
"Low Income Households" means households whose incomes are from 51 to (and
including) 80 percent of the Contra Costa County Median Income, as adjusted for family
size and published by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
"Low Income Rent" means the lesser of (1) the monthly market rate rent, including a
Utility Allowance; or (2) a monthly rent which is no greater than one hundred percent
(100%) of the Section 8 Existing Program Fair Market Rents, established in accordance
with 24 CFR Part 882, effective at the time of occupancy, less the Utility Allowance then
in effect.
"Low Income Sales Price" means a price determined by taking into account family size,
unit size, the Prevailing Interest Rate, and other conventional loan underwriting criteria
(example provided as Appendix D).
"Medi-Cal Patient" means person determined by the County's Social Service
Department's Medi-Cal Eligibility Unit to be eligible for Medi-Cal benefits and a person
who holds a valid Medi-Cal number.
"Median Income" means the median income for the Contra Costa County, adjusted for
family size as published by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5-and 50105.
"Median Monthly Income" means 1/12 of the Median Income.
"Moderate Income Households" means households whose incomes are from 81 to (and
including) 120 percent of the Contra Costa County Median Income, as adjusted for
family size and published by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
"Moderate Income Rent" means the lesser of (1) the monthly market rate rent; or (2) a
monthly rent which is no greater than 30% of 100% of the Median Monthly Income,
including a Utility Allowance. Rents for studio units shall be calibrated utilizing the one-
person Median Income Household income; one-bedroom units shall use a two-person
Median Income Household income; two-bedroom units shall use a three-person Median
Income Household income, etc.
"Moderate Income Sales Price" means the lesser of(1) the market rate sales price; or (2)
a price determined by taking into account family size, unit size, the Prevailing Interest
Rate, and other conventional loan underwriting criteria (example provided as Appendix
E).
"Prevailing Interest Rate" means the then current rate for 30-year fixed rate loans insured
by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 203
(b) and (i) of the National Housing Act of 1934, otherwise known as FHA 203(b)
Federal Mortgage Insurance.
"Utility Allowance" means the allowance for tenant purchased utilities adopted by the
Contra Costa County Housing Authority and approved by the U. S. Department of
Housing. and Urban Development for the Section 8 Existing Rent Subsidy/Section 8
Voucher Programs.
"Very Low Income-Households" means households whose incomes do not exceed 50
percent of the Contra Costa County Median Income for Contra Costa County, as adjusted
for family size and published by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
"Very Low Income Rent" means a monthly rent which is no greater than 30% of 50%
of the Median Monthly Income including a Utility Allowance. Rents for studio units
shall be calibrated utilizing the one-person Very Low Income Household income; one-
bedroom units shall use a two-person Very Low Income Households income, two-
bedroom units shall use a three-person Very Low Income Households income, etc.
"Very Low Income Sales Price" means a price determined by taking into account family
size, unit size, the Prevailing Interest Rate, and other conventional loan underwriting
criteria (example provided as Appendix F).
Housing Types
"Co-Housing" means Developments containing homes with common facilities for
cooking, child care, recreation, and work, which are managed by the residents
themselves. Can be developed and financed as condominiums, limited-equity
cooperatives, or rental housing.
"Condominium" means a type of ownership in which each individual has fee-simple title
to a specific unit in a multi-tenant building. Each unit owner has an individual mortgage
and contributes a share of the common area maintenance and operating expenses of the
property.
"Congregate Housing" means long term housing in a group setting that includes
independent living and sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared dining and
recreational facilities. It is usually occupied by seniors.
"Cooperative Ownership" means a corporate ownership in which each individual owns
shares of stock. Each shareholder then gets a proprietary lease to occupy a unit.
"Duplex" means a detached two-family dwelling unit on a single lot.
"Factory-Built Housing" means any of the following: (1) Open panel housing which is
preassembled with conventionally framed wall, floor and ceiling structural panels which
are joined on site; (2) modular housing is .composed of factory assembled three
dimensional boxes of wall floor, ceiling and roof elements. Plumbing, electrical,
insulation, and finished walls are also installed in the factory; and (3) manufactured
housing are factory built mobile homes built to the HUD mobile home standards.
"Intermediate Care Housing" means housing for individuals who are not capable of
independent living, but do not require 24 hour care. Emphasis is on social services,
personal care, and rehabilitation programs.
"Mixed Use" means a development that combines residential uses with one or more other
uses such as office, retail, public, entertainment, or even manufacturing. Mixed Use
developments are characterized by significant physical and functional integration of
project components, including`uninterrupted pedestrian connections.
"Multi-Family Housing" means a residential structure with more than one dwelling unit
in the same building.
"Second Units" means an attached or detached residential unit on the same parcel or
parcels as the primary unit, which provides complete, independent living facilities for one
or more persons, including sanitation and food preparation facilities. Second units may
also be referred to as "in-law units," "granny flats," or "ECHO units."
"Self-Help Housing" (also known as sweat equity) is housing in which the homebuyer
is contributing their labor to the construction or renovation. Self-Help saves money both
for participants and funding sources because of the labor provided.
"Senior Citizen Household" means a household in which the head of household is 62
years of age or older.
"Senior Housing" means housing designed or managed for Senior Citizen Households.
Senior Housing may be independent living, congregate care, or assisted living.
"Shared Living" means people residing together for social contact, mutual support and
assistance, and/or to reduce housing expenses.
"Single-Family Housing" means a type of residential dwelling designed to house one
family.
"Shared Living" means people residing together for social contact, mutual support and
assistance, and/or to reduce housing expenses.
"Single-Family Housing" means a type of residential dwelling designed to house one
family.
"SROs" means single room occupancy residences with individual or shared sanitary and
food preparation facilities. SROs do not include student housing.
"Supportive Housing" means housing which includes services designed to assist the target
population in their daily living and/or efforts to achieve an independent living status.
Examples include assisted housing for the mentally and physically disabled, and
transitional housing for homeless individuals and families, battered women, and
substance-abusing populations. Senior Housing is not Supportive Housing.
"Townhouse" means a type of single family housing built as an attached or semi-detached
row house.
"Transitional Housing" is housing that is typically provided in combination with
supportive services to assist homeless individuals and families in achieving economic
independence and moving to permanent housing within 24 months.
Ln. � Or, MLnNtoNCO d- tDNNMr� OLn � ^
cj•O m 00 .-� tD m � M e--1 O 1-4 N V• to � N to tD O\ Ol
�- V','<:�:: n Qt O +-� .••� N Ln O M to tD 111 M N N V' O .--L OO
00 tDr\ OlM � r� 00 eitD 'c r\ MN ttOlr\ Qt rN c
t0 c
n N n M 00 �• O n M n � N O o0 t0 Ln v �1- ti• �
� � N NMMti• q- m %DtDr� 0000CtCD -4 r14 MNr Ln tD L
c_ O .-� ei . . . 1 . , e 1 , . . ei .-� N N N N N N N N f� 04 c
M c_
cn
p T N c
' O t0N 00tDMeit000MOr, NM .- Ln00 -4 -4O .iM �+
c N t1`CJ;i:< 00 0o tD .i lD N .i Ul CO V" t0 00 t\ t\ to n .i lD m O ma1 Z M tntD r�z. 00NQ• OnZ.N 111o0Mei V Mri00t\ . 1 � o a1
� O O � .-� ei V' .-1 O V' O ei M M tD M � O 'i t0 r_ V Ln Q � p N
2 o Ol tD N O Ol tb n n n Ln O Ol ei M tD Ol N tD 1 t0 M V- O
-C,
V. 00 Ot ,-L N N M d' Ln tD r\ 00 ON +-� N M V tD t\ Qt O Q1
C) a1 � ::.0:;';v. .i r-1N NN NNNNN NNNMMMMMMM V N >
a1 >
O Ln ei M O N t\ Ln n C E
O Q rJ Ln O Ln N tD O oo Ln I-
ON
Ot O tD tD N N Ol N N O
00 r 1 � O to T Ln r\ N 00 p aa) C
a N r� ei t0 O Ln to O t0 .� -
QL O j N N M M rt � LIl Ln tD 10 t\ Q
a
:,�••+1... " e--1 e 4 e-i .--� e•-1 ei .•i ei ei ei la U 41
C O;>::: r1 tv
O _ a.:::::0 m
V v ~ L '�' u
c OT M Q u
4v v :.t".:;?.'. :° O Ln ,i Ln Ln M r� Ol r*, M 1 tD O c
70 00 al =3o:Z: ::»: M tD Ol M O m 14 t\ r" M M � CD _0O
Q p O O Ln N N V n ti N M r, M et Ol o L
o ZdM Ln N � tD M . 1 m r, Ln d'ru
C o 00 01 O O N M M d In l0 ^ (Yl
C_ O � .i .--1 N N N N N N N N N o
O
O < p a t7
>� n n N tD M M O M t0 M 00 Ln tp CO C
r0 .>.O: <: [r' -1 Ln c0 O M 00 00 tD lD N Q c
Z7 vi r u<;.;::>::>:: 00 N .+ t\ Ol Ol O• O M O i aJ
L > 'C^.......� d
f13 0y CO N Ot CO Ol M O O d O O L- i
O 0 N 00 M Ol Ln N Ol tD M " Ot M
::.V :C1: N N M M V_ Ln Ln t0 n 00 00 a a)
Q aJ >` T
ei ei e-4 .-i e--1 lD
i e•1 O
O v N .,•:��.z:.::: rp
r4
................ tr O C1
Q 0 CZ5 v : . : O t�M O t\ r, tD M Qi N O N >
co Ln Ol Ln Ol O tD t0 m c0 M O
M L11 M O tD Ln tD M t\ t\ o
p 19
t o 6 O M O ei Ln cr r_ Ln t\ L11 r� N � C C
E) 4vL o QJ �y .�3<> m r, t0 Ln 'Q tt Ln tD o0 O a1
C o � ;::4);.p 00 m O r+ N M Ir Ln t0 t� m p LA L
LA C o O� 0 'Q' "O O . 1 .i N N N N N N N N N lD o
Ul O a' ;:L.:.. N O
C O . 1 = LII 4 ►ti C)41p
N Ln Ln M M ti- 00 110 O O� M
O O 0.;. Ln N tD r, Ln O M Ln cr. r� O o Oo
O
U U.::::::: O ti Q\ r_ tD c0 n v ,i Ol O
.-4 N lD N ,--1 N tD M M In ry
E �jL N t\ N r\ MCl Ln —4 M M
.-1 e-i N N M M 'V' Ln Ln %� n E >
c
o: V-1 4= w C
QO
c N 1Z:: M co 00 tD O, N N r, [r M "r o b
aJ N e-1 V N tD Qi e-1 ei M N
tD N e 1 d O O Ln M t0 M Ln 00 c
M Ql Q1 0
ti . : N O 00 t0 Ln d' M M M Ln Ln
(y o LU �':: r� GO CO O� O .i N M d' Ln tD ^ �j OC � V_
OO 44-+ :':.0:'S: .-1 .-1 e-i ei N N N N N N N M a1 Q1
r-1 Q r0
O
V � j
L C C O
al
r0 J m V1 a1 Ql
(U 4' ++ .
} 1 N M V Ln tD .00 ON O .4 N M q- Ln tD n 00 Ol O fes`. � � � � � �`w
1 .i e i r 1 e i N O rU U a1 w
to ►-+ .O = =1io
m c~ Q 0 C a i
K rn a� r0 O
ATTACHMENT
2 BEDROOM RENTS OVER TIME
RENTS
2250 100%
2200 ,Rents
2150
2100
2050 110%Rents
2100 stepped
2050 Down Rents
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
1600
1550
1500*
BASE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 YEARS
Stepped Down
100% Rents Rents-110% to 100%; 10 yrs. 100% Rents
Base $1521 1673 1673
l 1588 1731 1747
2 1658 1790 1824
3 1731 1852 1904
4 1807 1915 1988
5 1886 1981 2075
6 1969 2041 2166
7 2056 2118 2262
8 2147 2189 2361
9 2241 2263 2465
10 2340 2340 2574
W:\Personal\BoardOrdcrs\BOARD.9.26.dougliertyva l ley
CORRESPONDANCE
i
MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSEN,LLP
P/1 36
August 10, 2000 Direct: (925)975-5339
ctalbert@mdbe.com
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Debra R. Sanderson
Special Projects Manager
Community Development Department
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Gale Ranch III FDP Application, DP998306
Dear Ms Sanderson:
This letter responds to your letter of July 20, 2000, concerning the County's
determination that Shapell's Gale Ranch III application is incomplete, based solely upon the
County's unfounded and erroneous conclusion that Shapell is not in compliance with the
Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program ("Program"). As is further explained below,
not only does Shapell's phase one development fully comply with the Program, but the
County's recent conclusion completely contravenes the County's earlier findings in the 1998
and 1999 Compliance Monitoring Reports that Shapell was in compliance with the Program.
As you are aware, Shapell is now in year two of what is expected to be a 20
year build-out of Gale Ranch. The first phase of that build-out, Gale Ranch I, includes 1216
units that will be constructed and sold over an approximate five year period. Included in this
phase are the 256 Falcon Bridge apartments, which are currently under construction. In
order to satisfy the Specific Plan's policy of providing a minimum of 15% affordable
housing in each phase of development, Shapell repeatedly has told the County that at least
182 of these apartments (representing 15% of the units in phase one) will be Moderate
Income Units.' That is, at least 182 of these units will be rented by Shapell at Moderate
Income Rents to Moderate Income Families at the time of initial occupancy.2 Shapell also
has sold units in phase one to families with Moderate Incomes, thereby further increasing the
Capitalized terms are to have the meanings given to them in the Program.
2 Shapell has agreed with the County for sometime now that such Moderate Income Rents cannot
exceed 30% of 100% (as opposed to 120%) of the Mediate Monthly Income, including a utility
allowance and depending upon the number of bedrooms in the apartment.
A 1' T O R N E Y S A 7- L A w 1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 210 San Francisco Palo Alto
P.O.Box V Los Angeles Taipei
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1270 Walnut Creek
Tel. (925) 937-8000 Fax (925) 975-5390
www.mccutchen.com �,
Debra R. Sanderson
August 10, 2000
Page 2
provision of affordable housing in phase one. Shapell is currently gathering and assembling
that information for submission to the County.
The foregoing plan for providing affordable housing meets exactly what is
required by the Program3 and is exactly what the County determined satisfied the
requirements of the Program for the past two years. None of the facts have changed and the
County has absolutely no basis for asserting now that Shapell is not in compliance with the
Program. Accordingly, Shapell's application is complete.
Shapell has proposed a modification to the Program to include restrictions on
Moderate Income Units, and recently made such a proposal to the Board of Supervisors.
Shapell has asked that the matter be placed on the Board's agenda as soon as possible so that
a modified program could be applied to the Falcon Bridge apartments (see Tom Koch's
attached letter dated July 19, 2000). However, until such time as the Board and Shapell
jointly agree to modify the program, Shapell remains in full compliance with the existing
program and the County has no basis upon which to conclude otherwise.
Shapell hopes that the foregoing expression of its continued commitment to
meet its obligations under the Affordable Housing Program will lead the County to conclude
that the Gale Ranch III application is complete. Accordingly, Shapell looks forward to
having the application processed and forwarded to DVOC for its review at your earliest
opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
Cecily T Talbert
cc: Dennis Barry
Jim Kennedy
Kathleen Hamm
Vic Westman
Daniel Hancock
Chris Truebridge
Tom Koch
301296761
3 Policy H-6 of the Program states that "accompanying the initial final development plan/tentative
map submittal, there shall be a phasing plan to indicate the delivery of affordable housing." Shapell
included that phasing plan with its phase one submittal.
Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Community Contra Community Development Directo
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building F•. F=-
651 Pine Street :% I
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095 0`, u,
Phone: (5-4-G) 9 `may
5� 335-1208 °�s-
2,1
July 20, 2000
Mr. Chris Truebridge
Shapell Industries of Northern California
P. O. Box 361169
Milpitas, CA 95035
Re: Gale III FDP Application, DP998306
Dear Mr. Tru `r,8
This letter responds to your June 20, 2000 submittal, on behalf of Shapell
Industries, of a revised project description for the above referenced proposed project.
The Department finds the project application incomplete at this time, since Shapell
has not yet demonstrated compliance with the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing
Program. The following paragraphs summarize the basis for this determination.
Affordable Dousing Program:
As background, recall that the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, Policy H-3 and H-
4, specify a broad range of housing types for a wide range of household income
levels, with at least 25% of the units meeting the County's definitions of low,
very low and moderate income households. Similarly, the Dougherty Valley
Affordable Housing Program, (DVAHP) (Item D, page 23) requires phasing of
affordable units as Dougherty Valley is developed. The DVAHP (Item D.1.a) also
allows some flexibility in determining the distribution of Very Low and Low
Income Units across the various phases, "subject to the findings of the
Compliance Monitoring Report." Item D.3 on that page of the DVAHP further
specifies,
"Failure to perform with respect to the provision of Affordable Units shall
permit the County to find applications incomplete or to otherwise deny .
applications for future entitlements (including but not limited to Preliminary
Development Plans, Final Development Plans, Tentative Subdivision Maps,
and Land Use Permits)."
Office Hours Monday- Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Page 2
Item D.2.c. specifies that, for Moderate Income Units,
"one phase may omit Moderate Income Units upon a finding of the Director of
Community Development that a feasible plan exists for the provision of
Moderate Income Units in the next phase."
The attached letter from Mr. Jim Kennedy to Mr. Tom Koch presents the
Department's analysis of Shapell's Compliance Monitoring Report for the 1999
Project Year, and concludes that Shapell has not yet demonstrated compliance
with the DVAHP.
Other County Requirements for Affordable Housing:
Both the Gale I (DP923010, 1994) and Gale II.(DP953086, 1996) Final
Development Plans require compliance with the Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program. Gale I Conditions of Approval 108 requires:
Gale I, COA 108: The applicant shall provide affordable housing
consistent with the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program,
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994(or as may be
amended).
Gale II, COA 18: The applicant shall provide affordable housing
consistent with the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program,
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994(or as may be
amended). Prior to filing each final map, the applicant shall indicate the
status of affordable housing provided; and the schedule for future
provisions consistent with the affordable housing requirement.
In addition, both Development Agreements for the Gale Ranch properties require
compliance with the DVAHP -- Development Agreement for Country Club at
Gale Ranch(Gale I), January 24, 1995, Item 3.1(e); Development Agreement for
Gale Ranch(the remaining phases), April 8, 1996, Item 3.3(c):
3.1(e) Gale I Affordable Housing. Developer shall, in connection with its
development of Country Club at Gale Ranch, implement the terms and
provisions of the Affordable Housing Program adopted by the Board on
March 22, 1994, as such Affordable Housing Program, notwithstanding
any County regulations to the contrary, may be amended from time to
time, by mutual agreement of the Parties, regarding its application to the
Country Club at Gale Ranch Site (the"Affordable Housing Program").
3.3(c) Gale Ranch (all remaining phases)Affordable Housing: Developer
shall, in connection with its development of the Gale Ranch, implement
the terms and provisions of the Affordable Housing Program adopted by
the Board on March 22, 1994 pursuant to Board Order, (the "Affordable
Housing Program"), which requires that a minimum of twenty-five
Incomplete Letter-July 20 00.doc,
Page 3
percent (25%) of all dwelling units be developed as affordable to low, very
low and moderate income households.
Gale III Project Background
On April 29, 1999, this Department notified Shapell that its Gale III application
was incomplete, in part due to the Department's finding that Shapell had not
demonstrated compliance with the Affordable Housing Program. In a letter
dated May 31, 1999, Shapell responded to the affordable housing issues raised in
the incomplete letter. In addition, Shapell submitted its Affordable Housing
Compliance Report for the Project Year 1998. With receipt of that report, the
Department treated Shapell's compliance with affordable housing requirements
as "under review" and notified Shapell on July 9, 1999 that the Gale III
application was considered complete. Staff then proceeded with the CEQA
analysis.
On June 20, 2000, Shapell submitted a revised project description, which.
initiated another 30-day review period in which the Department must determine
if the application is complete. This review period ends today, July 20, 2000.
Finding Application Incomplete
Since July 9, 1999, the Department has received Shapell's 1999 Affordable
Housing Compliance Report, with numerous letters back and forth between
Shapell and the Department. As explained in the attached letter (dated July 19,
2000 from Jim Kennedy to Tom Koch), and as discussed at the July 12, 2000
meeting of the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee, the Department
currently concludes that Shapell has not yet demonstrated compliance with the
requirements of the Affordable Housing Program. As a result, the Department is
notifying Shapell Industries, through this letter, that Shapell's Gale III
application is incomplete.
This incomplete notice is made pursuant to the provision found in Item D.3 (Page
23) of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program, which allows the
County to deny an application or find it incomplete if developer demonstrates
failure to perform with respect to the provisions of the Affordable Units.
At this time, the Department has taken no other action concerning other
applications under County review -- for either Gale I or Gale II -- as would be
allowed by either of the Development Agreements, the DVAHP, or Section 84-66.404,.,
of the County Code. By finding the application incomplete, the County and Shapell'
will have an opportunity to resolve the issues concerning the provision of affordable
housing units before the County evaluates and draws conclusions about the Gale III
proposal.
Incomplete Letter-My 20 OO.doc.
t
r�
Page 4
The Department recognizes that Shapell Industries has long supported the concept
of Affordable Housing in Dougherty Valley, so we look forward to a prompt
resolution of this problem.
Sincerely,
Debra R. Sanderson;
Special Projects Manager
cc: Dennis Barry .
Jim Kennedy
Kathleen Hamm
Project File 99-8306
Incornplete letter_July 20 00.doc,
L 1.;
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES of NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
A Division of Shapell Industries, Inc. 00 ��
N 3: 31
July 19, 2000
W. Tun Kennedy r
Community Development Department
Contra Costa Coun}y
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94513
Dear Jim:
This letter is sent to propose to the County a potential change to the Dougherty Valley
Affordable Housing Program. Our purpose here is to make formal the concepts that we
have discussed informally on numerous occasions. These ideas were also reviewed lag
week at the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee. We would request your assistance
in putting this matter before the Board of Supervisors for their earliest convenicilt
consideration.
The costs of housing in the Bay Area continue to climb at a rapid pace, exceeding evgn
the most aggressive projections. Prices in the San Ramon area often exceed $250 per
square foot. Homes are sold for more than their listing price and the inventoryof
available product is near an all.-tune lo%,\,.
Proximity to excellent employment opportunities, temfic schools and a safe place to raise
a family continues to define San Ramon. There is no indication that any of these trends
are going to worsen. Accordingly, the probability is strong for continued increases in
housing costs in the area around Dougherty Valley.
At the same time, Shapell intends to persist in building the highest quality home that %ye
can. As directed by the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, our goal is to build affordable
and market rate units as indisti.nguisllable from each other as possible. These factofs
further minimize our ability to readily provide affordable housing as called for in the
Affordable Housing PrograSn-
When the DVATTP vvas adopted in 1994, it seemed possible to meet some of the moderate
rate affordability through o«m.ership product. In fact, Nvi.thout any public policy
requirement, we sold townhouses at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Crow
Canyon shortly afterward at prices which then met moderate income standards. These
same townhouses which sold in the mid 90's for$225,000 now are routinely re-sold for
snore than $400,000.
Homes of Quality Since 1955
P.O. Box 361169, 100 North Milpitas Boulevard,Milpitas,California 95035 Phone:408/946-1.550 Fax:408/946-9687 A
Mr. fun Kennedy
July 19, 2000
Page 2
In light of these factors, Shapell now plans to meet most of its moderate rate affordable
housing requirements through rental units. Herein is the issue that we would like to bring
to the attention of the Board.
Currently,the DVAHP requires that moderate rental units rent for no more than 100%Qf
median income. However,the same program also makes clear that no terns of
affordability is required for moderate rate units, with no distinction made between rentpl
and ownership units. We propose changes in these two components of the plan. These
proposed changes would apply to all of Shapell's portion of Dougherty Valley.
First, Shapell requests that for rental units which would meet moderate rate income
affordability that a 110%of median income threshold be applied to studio and 1 bedrooln
units,while a 120% of median threshold for 2 bedroom and larger units. As you are
aware,the 120% standard is applicable to ownership units and is the same standard used
by the state in determining housing element compliance. During our discussions on the
topic, you informed me that the 100%concept for rental units is found elsewhere in the
County but only in redevelopment areas with concomitant housing set-aside funds.
In an effort to permanently provide affordability within the moderate rate rental units,
Shapell would agree to a perpetual affordability term. We would implement this unique
approach with a deed restriction or other comparable device to insure its continuance. ff
adopted,this concept would do more to tackle the"challenge of ever-decreasing
affordability than perhaps any other provision of the DVAHP. Further, we are unaware
of any existing project in Contra Costa with a perpetual affordability.component. The
longest term that we are familiar with runs 30 years and carries with it public subsidy. In
this case,no subsidy would be required and the term would not lapse.
Should any of the foregoing require clarification, I would be happy to meet with you and
explore the matter further. However, we would request that the matter be placed on the
Board's agenda as soon as possible as the proposal we are bringing forth would apply to
our 256 unit Falcon Bridge apartments in Phase 1 of Dougherty Valley. These units are
nearing completioli.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter and for you continued help in workig
with Shapell to affirmatively achieve the goals of affordable housing in the Dougherty
Valley.
Sincer
-6 -as 3. Koch
Vice President
Jun Da pp 09:27a Tom/Katie Koch 510/527-0774 P. 1
Y
SHAPED. INDUSTRIES of NORTHERN CALIFORMA
A avrslon or saapeu hdustacs.tw.
June 5, 2000
Mr. Jim Kennedy
Deputy Director—Redevelopment
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Jim:
RE: Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Thank you for your letter of April 18, 2000 responding to our 1999 Annual
Compliance Report While your correspondence is helpful, it appears that
Shapell and the County continue,to disagree on sonic fundamental aspects of
the DVAHP, its terms and timing.
It is our hope that through this letter and our planned subsequent Deering, that
a true furtherance of our mutual objectives of providing affordable housing in
Dougherty Valley can be achieved. However, we feel that some core issues
still need to be addressed.
We,,611 try to be responsive to your letter of April IS tb on a point-by-point
basis. In setting the context of our response, please consider the following
points ofvicw:
1) Shapell can not agree your suggested unilateral change in the DVA1-1P
regarding term of moderate rate units. The DVAIV clearly states that no term
for moderate rate affordability is assumed. Quoting from page 22 of the
DVAIP "Me length of time Moderate Income Units must remain affordable is
governed solely by requirements of any subsidy source...there is no
expectation of public subsidy....the Moderate Laconic Units are not generally
expected to have an affordability term."We tried to make this point in our
letter of November 22, 1999. Further,Shapell and the County have catered
into a Devclopracat Agreement which prohibits changes to terms ofthe
policies set forth, including those relating to affordable housing, without the
mutual consent of the parties.
2) Shape[[ is faced with a difficult situation regarding the implementation
of affordability in the Falcon 13ridgc apartment complex currently under
construction. lliese units were designed assuming a 120%of median income
threshold We have indicated to you at previous meetings a possible
Homes of Quality Sincc 1955
P.O.BOK Y11 109, 100 Nnr111 MilnilaS BOulcvard,Milnita-z .ncnic nr........ ...r.n.i
Tam/Katie Koch 510/527-0774 P, 2
Jun 0£3 00 09: 27a .
Mr. fim Kennedy
June 5,2000
Page 2
ameadmeat to the DVAHP which would provide both the solution.to our
current challenge at Falcon Bridge and assure the ongoing moderate rate
affordability that your letters call for. We look forward to your thoughts on
this matter at our[truing on lune
3) We are coucerned that your sincere drsire to help realize affordability
as soon as possible may be having the effect of requiring Shapell to accelerate
certain aspects of the DVA.HP beyond the terms of that policy document.
Specifically, the timing and location of Very Low Income Units appears, from
reading your letters,to need determination now. It was not our understanding
that such a determination was to be made as soon as two yeart into the build-
out of Dougherty Valley.
4) Shapell remains interested in understanding the specific subsidies and
funding/financing options that the County anticipates may be made available to
assist with the.implcmentado-a of the DVAHI'. Tlds.is especially true of the
Low and Very Low Income Units.
We appreciateyour consideration of the point of view that Shapell brings to
these discussions. Although we know it does not match yours, and by
ia:4)lication, that of the County, we hope that it is sccu as an attempt to reach
consensus with the County in an open and straightforward manner.
The following attempts to track your letter of April 18�.
1) Your tetter mentions the need for Incotim Certification verification
forms. Thank you for reminding us of the need to demoastrate the income of
buyers who's previous purchases may qualify based solely on their income, not
the price of the unit. Given the time of year,we would ask that we be allowed
to retroactively provide your office with this infou=tion in the October, 2000
Annual Compliance Report.
2) Your letter asks for Income.for Sale.Price Calculation data. Shapell
docs not anticipate meeting moderate rate affordability thresholds through
prices on for sale units in.the near future_ Current market conditions, the
densities called for in the approved Bridges at Gate Ranch Tentative Map and
other factors contribute to our inability to do so within the next throe years.
Accordingly, we ask that your consider that your request may not be timely.
However,we cart couf rni that current HOA dues for single-family units in the
I3ridges arca are
Jun Oo 00 09:20a Tom/Katie Koch 510/527-0774
Mr. rim Kennedy
June 5, 2000
Page 3
Your letter argues that the DVAHP rrmst be changed to require Moderate
Income affordability terms of up to 30 years. Shapell's thoughts on this issue
have been partially expressed earlier in this letter. Your conclusion at the end
of the fust paragraph"Therefore the DVAHP and its implementation nods to
change to comply with the Specific Plan""is understood,but not agreed to.
You point out that the original assumption that much of the moderate rite
affordability would be handled through for sale units has, for the time being,
changed_ This is true. However,we do not sec how this fact is germane to the
question of how long our Falcon Bridge Apadmcntc must remain affordable?
As with the anticipated moderate for sale units, no subsidy has been provided
for these apartments. therefore, given the language of the DVAHP re:
affordability tern for moderate wants, why should these apartments be treated
differently than any other private property?
You snake the point that the Specific Plan called for"Affordable Units shall be
maintained foc the maximum period feasible." The DVAHP was established
16 months after the adoption of the Specific Plan and was cognizant of the
goals of that docmuent. The DVAITI' in fact states in its introductory
paragraph on Page 1 that is"designed to provide an implementation structuze
to the affordable housing requirements and policies of the County General Plan
and the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan." Given this language,how can you
now assert that the broad goals of the Specific Plan should govern rather than
the established detailed policies of the DVAIT? In the DVA T,The County
strikes a balance which related affordability term to the quantity and quality of
subsidy provided by itself or other government agencies. Again, at the risk of
being repetitive, no such subsidy has been forthcoming. You ackQowledge that
moderate for sale units are not required to have an affordability tenor We
agree. However, is it your position that Shapell as a private property owner of
the Falcon Bridge apartments has a different set of obligations/rights than the
anticipated buyer of a for-sale, moderate rate home? If so, please explain why.
Also, Shapell believes that the Specific Plan's concept of`feasibility" vas
reflected in the DVANP's limits on the term,of affocdability for moderate
income units_
Finally, the approach that you're suggesting was included in the circulation
drab of September 7, 1993. This draft expressly called for the idea that 20 and
30 year affordability terms be imposed on all affordable units. The final
DVAI-1P, established March 22, 1994, amended the draft to reflect the ultimate
policy directive of the County which eliluin.ated the concept that you're now
suggesting should be imposed_
Jun 08 00 09: 28a Tam/Katie Koch
510/527-8774 p. 4
Mr. run Kennedy
June,S, 2000
Page 4
Absent a resolution on this item with you and your station the 8% Shapell
does desire to move this issue forward to further deliberation with the
appropriate government entities such as DVOChhe Board of Supervisors. We-
would
ewould like to reserve the right to express our position more fully to them when
the issue is placed on an agenda.
4) Your letter indicates that the current Fair Market Rents are attached.
perhaps a technicalllogistics error took place in sending your letter to us as we
did not see the attached FMR's you referenced. We would look forward to
reviewing them with you at our meeting o f the 8`�.
S) Your letter reiterates[tie need for further discussion of carriage units.
Shapell has been pleased.with the market response to the units in the Bridges at
Gale Ranch project which have a form of carriage units. Specifically, our
largest home in the project provides for an attached unit with a separate
entrance,parking, cooking, bathroom and storage facilities_ Ia other words,
they may corq)ly with the standards you expressed in your August 17, 1999
letter.
The issues concerning term of these units' affordability relate to the discussion
in point 3 of this letter. However, as they are a new concept that we would like
to exlAore with the County, we would like to continue the discussion of the
potential of these units to help achieve the DVAHP goals and any costs
associated with them.
G) Your letter discusses the potential problem of Very Low Income Units
occurring later in the project or perhaps not at all- The Dougherty Valley
Specific flan calls for the densest portion of the Shapell portion of the play to
be built at the Village Center. Both the D VAI-1P and the Specific flan were
drafted at a time when it was assumed that this portion of the Shapell project
would occur toward the end of the build out of Gale Ranch. That assumption
is valid today. In fact, the proposals for the Phase H(approved) and Phase M
(proposed)portions of Gale Ranch have yet to reach the Village Center area.
Tlus phasing program is similar to the approach anticipated when DV was
approved We felt then and we still feel that the Very Low Income units are
most like[y to be realircd in tli_e densest pari of Dougherty Valley. While no
specific site has been determined, we ask why is this planning concept"not
acceptable"as your letter of April I e states?
z
Jun Ota 00 09: 20a Tom/Katie Koch 510/527-0774 p. 5
Mr. rim K nedy
Junc 5,2000
Page 5
Your letter continues that ` icasc be advised that any deferral of the affordable
housing obligation is subject to review and approval of the County." This
statement can easily be read to imply that the County is choosing to alter the
intended tithing of the very low component of the DVAHP and will review our
annual compliance reports with this in mind, threatening to withhold their
approval unless we comply with the new timing. Is this the County's intention
with this language?
On the more basic question of implemmentation of the Very Low Income units,
Shapell has continued discussions with Ecumenical Associates for Housing
(FAIl)on this subject and hope to provide more detailed progress by our
October, 2000 annual compliance report. Our discussions are focused on
identifying a suitable site.in the latter phases of the project to accommodate
these units with an eye to possibly dedicating that site to CAH.
Shapell certainly agrees with your characterization that further development of
Dougherty Valley, or any other project for that matter in this era,is"risky."
The regulatory eaviromment that we are working in has caused extraordinary
changes to plans that were otherwise settled as far as the local land use agency
was concerned. While we understand your desire to eliminate as much of the
"risk""as possible from your objectives, we can not agree to a disproportionate
shifting of the"risk"to us as a means cif achieving your ends_
Finally, your introductory paragraph questions where our one and three year
forecasts are for the 1999 report Both were included in my letter of November
22'd. What I wanted to provide you with was a more legible copy of our
analysis for 1998_ I apologize that I si_tnply overlooked the need to do so. My
assistant Linda Fluken is preparing that document now. It would we helpful if
you could provide us with a disc which has your desired format for that
infoauation on it. Recreating that chart has proven to easily exceed my
technical prowess! Ilene, my method of handwritten responses.
I hope tic preceding is at least helpful in furthering the needed discussions we
must undertake to successfully implement the DVAI-M. We recognize that a
number of issues present challenges. We intend to undertake an effort to
overcome these challenges in a spirit of cooperation with the County, an open
mind, an aclmowledgcaieat of our commitment and requirements under the
DVA iP and with an"eye on the prize"of helping to provide a broad range of
housing%%rithin Dougherty Valley for the entire community.
Jun 08 00 00: 28a Tom/Katie Koch 510/527-8774 p. 6
Mr. rim Kennedy
June 5, 2000
Page G
On behalf of Shaped Industries of Northern California, 1 look focward to our
dicussions on these important matters.
Sinccr ,
I�iom.as J. Koch
Vice President
Community Cont) a Dennis t Barry, me
Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building .
651 Pine Street %� s
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095
Phone: �.rr o�Nta
April 18, 2000
Tom Koch, Vice-President
Shapell Industries of Northern California
100 North Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas CA 95035
Dear Tom:
RE: Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
This is in response to your 1999 Annual Compliance Report for the Dougherty Valley
Affordable Housing Program (DVAHP). Your November 22, 1999 letter referenced that your
one and three-year program would be forthcoming in a matter of days. We have yet to
receive it. Your letter discusses the following issues and sets forth our understanding of the
Shapell position, where applicable. This response follows the order of our August 17, 1999
letter.
1. Moderate Income "Purchasers Income Certification" form
We have yet to receive a Purchaser Income Certification for any homebuyer.
You have previously indicated to us that a few of the homebuyers qualified as
moderate-Income. For buyers who have already closed we need a certification
from the lender. Without such a certification no credit for this can be provided.
We have received nothing to date. Future purchasers by moderate income
homebuyers after our August 17 letter must include the- "Purchaser's Income
Certification".
2. Moderate Income For-Sale Price Calculation
Up to half of the DVAHP Moderate Income obligation that is addressed via
home ownership may be done solely on the basis of the buyers income without
respect to home price. The remaining half must be subject to income and price
restrictions. Paragraph 4 on page 2 of my August 17, 1999 letter is intended to
D:\Redev-temp\Letters\KodiDVAHPItT.doc
Office Hours Monday- Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
/l((:.... :.. –1---r1 41— -1–+ q-4 Q. G4h f=r'..d l..... ..F .,nnk ---+L.
provide you with an understanding of how that moderate income sales price is
calculated. You can be of assistance in making sure our model for calculating
the Moderate Income Sales Price is accurate by providing current data as
requested.
3. Affordability Term-Moderate Income Rental Units
Your November 22, 1999 letter incorrectly asserts that both "the Specific Plan
and the DVAHP both concluded that no term for moderate income housing
would be established". This is incorrect. Policy H-9 in, the Dougherty Valley
Specific Plan states that "Affordable Units shall be maintained for the maximum
period feasible. Target periods shall be a minimum of twenty years for for-sale
units and thirty years for rental units". My August 17, 1999 letter recounts the
operative expectation back in 1993/1994 when the DVAHP was created, i.e.
that for-sale units priced at the market would be the primary, if not exclusive,
manner of complying with the moderate income requirements. Given the
altered market conditions this operative expectation has changed. Therefore
the DVAHP and its implementation needs to change to comply with the Specific
Plan. `
My letter of August 17, 1999 suggested the methodology for accomplishing the
required changes -clarify the DVAHP and reach closure on a form of Regulatory
Agreement that would provide for continuing affordability for the required term.
Your November 22, 1999 suggests your firm does not agree with this position.
The venue for discussing this difference is the Dougherty Valley Oversight
Committee (DVOC), and ultimately the Board of Supervisors. If that is your
desire, you should formally set forth your request and the basis for it so that
these bodies will have the benefit of your position.
4. Low Income Rents
The DVAHP defines the above term. We can provide the Section 8 Fair Market
Rent (FMR) levels. The current FMR's are attached, with the current utility
allowances permitted. The Low Income Rents are the lesser of:
a.) the market rents (less an allowance for tenant-paid utilities); or
b.) the FMR's (less an allowance for tenant-paid utilities).
5. Carriage Units issues.
These issues need to be discussed and resolved as stated in our August 17,
1999 letter.
6. Phasing of Very Low Income Units
The essential point of our August 17, 1999 letter was that the incorporation of .
approaches to deliver very low income in earlier phases must be fully explored.
I appreciate your clarification of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement,
but the fact remains the final phases are more risky than earlier phases. A
0.\Redev-temp\Letters\Koctl D VAH P[tr.doc
development scenario that does not realize very-low income production is not
acceptable, and the DVAHP Compliance Reports need to begin to reflect
alternative approaches. Please be advised that any deferral of the affordable
housing obligation is subject to the review and approval of the County. We look
forward to the additional information you suggest is forthcoming this year.
I am available to respond to questions you may have on the above matters. I can be
reached at (925) 335-1255.
Sincerely,
Ji Kennedy
i D puty Direct r - Redevelopment
Cc: Board or Supervisors
Dennis Barry
Debbie Sanderson
Debbie Chamberlain
Kathleen Hamm
Dan Hancock, Shapell
Chris Truebridge, Shapell
Dan Coleman, Lennan Homes
File C4.3(b)(1.6)(a)
J K/jjr
D:\Redev-temp\Letters\KocliDVAHPItr.doc
-NOV-23-89 10-01 FROM-LSA ASSOCIATES INC IDg51023634eO PACE 3/6
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES of NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
A Division of Shapell Industries. Inc.
November 22, 1999
Mr. Tun Kennedy
Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Aepartment
651 Pie Street
M-irinez,CA 94553
Dear Tina:
The following is intended to provide Shapell's Annual Compliance Report for the
Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program(DVAHP)for 1999. This report was due
on October 1, 1999. Please accept our apologies for its lateness.
Shapell Industries remains committed to acbacving the objectives of the DVARP and the
[lousing goals of the County General Plan and the DV Specific.Plau. The policy of
providing a broad range of housing near expanding job centers continues to make a great
deal of sense. Jt is quite clear that the failure to do this in other areas of the Bay.Area in
general and the County specifically has caused much of the traffic nightmare that we all
face. In this letter,we v aV offer. 1)context as to the situation the market has placed us
in,2)responses to your letter of August 17% 1999 and 3)an updated one year and three
year forecast. Concerning our overall program,we have Ickt it unchanged from last
year's report although would appreciate continued discussions with staff concerning a
number of issues. A more legible version of the same information presented previously
will follow in a matter of days
1999 saw a continuance of development of homes,in the first please of Dougherty Valley.
Since the first sales in July of 1998,more than 250 units are now occupied in the project.
Demand for housing, even the higher-end housing we are now providbig;remains on a
brisk pace. Lotteries for homes,waiting lists and the lik=e are now routine aspect-,of our
sales process
Thus dTong demand has also caused home prices to increase dramatically.New li-owes
similar to those sold in the summer of 1998 for$500,000 are now selling for more than
$600,000. 'hese factors have made the forecasting of exactly how ShapellwM meet the
DVAHP all the more diff fins to determine. Specifically, it has caused us to look more
and more to rental units as the means of meeting affordability.
In your letter of August 17, 1999 you reference the aspects of our plan which point to the
increased reliance upon rental units. On.page 2 of your letter,you discus the issue of
affordabay term for moderate income rental units- You mention some aspects of the
thinking that went into the cra$ing of the Specific Plan and the D.VAHP and.that both
concluded that no term for moderate income housing would be established- We agree
with the recounting of the background you offer on this issue.
Homes of Qualit} Since 195-
P.O. Box 361169,100 North Milpitas[ioulevard,Milpitas,California 9.5035 Phone:408/946-1550 Fax:403/940-9637
i•
14DI101 FRUM-LSA A5SOC1ATES INC iD-5102363460
PACE 4/6
November 22, 1999
Mr. Tim.Kennedy
Page 2
However, Shapell does not agree with your conclusion that the DVAHP must be
amended to require the same 30 year minimum;affordability term that is in fact required
for units buBt through government subsidies. Fundamental to the basis for a no term
requirement on moderate income units,was the notion that term of afford.ablUy should
track the requirements of the subsidies provided. In the case of the rental units that we
intend to bring to market as soon as practicable,there is no public subsidy. In fact, any
subsidy that may be required to have these units meet affordability standards Will be
provided by Shapell- As you are aware,given the quality of design and amenities
provided in thew,we do believe that we will be required to subsidize these units in order
to generate credit toward our affordable housing obligations.
Shapell is unaware of any aspect of the approved Specific Plan or the DVAHP which
mandates that we are to be treated any differently than any other private party regarding
this moderate income term issue. Until some assistance its provided by the County or
other governmental agency to subsidize these waits,we cannot agree to the unilateral
assertion that`DVAHP requirements for maintained affordability should be modji lied... "
Your letter of August 17th also deals with a number of other issues concerning the
DVAIgP and Sbapell's compliance with it. Firstly,thaak-you for your assistance in
providing us with an income certification form for use by our moderate-income buyers.
While we have yet to incorporate this form into our escrow procedures,we are in the
process of doing so. Accordingly, a supplementary report regarding the number of
buyers v,*ose incomes only meet moderate rate affordability will be following in the near
future_
Your request for"Additional Information Needed to Confirm Compliance"on page 2 has
couf ised us. Implicit in it is the idea that some affordability is being met through the.
sales prices of moderate income units_ No such units have been constructed/sold as yet.
However,if your request is more of a`cheads-up"about future information required,we
appreciate the focus you've provided us.
On page 3 of your letter you discuss the need for mope information regarding low-income
rents especially with regard to distinction between market rents or 100°/a percent of
Section 8 pair Market Vents. We are unaware of the method for determining the FMR
levels. Please so advise.
Page 4 of your letter discusses the issues associated with the concept of carriage units
being implemented to meet affordability requirements. In our 1998 compliance report,
we indicated our desire to develop this form of housing along with similar in-law units.
You've raised a number of issues that require further discussion between Shapell and the
NOV-23-99 10-02 FROM-LSA ASSOCIATES INC 10- 5102363490
PAGE 5/6
Mr. run Kennedy
November 22, 1999
Page 3
County. We would look forward to meetiaig with you at your convenience to Vroxk
through these questions.
Page 5 of your letter disaLsses the phasing.of our very-low income unit mjuicem,=ts.
You make the point that the kformation that we have provided thus far is limited- We
agree 'plc density,design,specific timing of and even.the location-of these units is very
speculative at this time. Your letter expresses the concern that these units might never be
implemented at all based ort terms of the DV Settlement Agmement with San Ramon and
Danville. We would 11ik-c to note that the DVSA docs not require a further EM at 5,500
units per se, It does requke ongoing analysis ofthe traffic in the area` The 5,500 wait
issue only governs in that it is the point at which San Ramon and Danville are no longer
required to assist in.allowing any necessary casements,mitigations,,et(-in tlxt�ir
respective_i risdictions to allow for improved traffic flow.
While the tinning of the very-low income unitsremains cloudy,we have begun the
process of discussing possible partnership with both Northbay Ecumenical Housing and
Ecumenical-Associates for Housing,both based iu Ma>in-Caun y. not--of these
organizations are well known for their innovative approach to delivering the most deeply
aft.rdable units possible_ We hope to be able to_provide more substantial information in
next year's report.
One,Year Foreenst:
All of Shapeft's housing.provision within.the ne year will occur in Ulla se 1.of the
Dougherty Valley project(The Bridges at Orale Ranch).
Shapell is seeking building permits to allow us to constnlct the Falcon Dridgc apa =eat
units. This 256 unit complex will feature one,two and three bedroom units. Our plans
have always included this entire complex as part of our affnrdAbility program Withany
luck,these units will be buil during the first half of 2000 with occupancy by the fall of
next year. Our warket forecast indicates that these units.will rent very quickly.
Shapell continues to proceed with site work on.our 171 unit townhouse project. Last
year's compliand e repoxt indicated that as many as 15 of these units.might make
moderate income affordability during the 1998-2002 build out of PbLase 1.
As mentioned earlier,Shapell Email impl mcrA a tracking system for moderate income
buyers in accord with the income certification form you provided. We will also bring
curre=nt the facts concerning those who have already made Dougherty Valley their home_
,NUV-2J-yy IOtO2 1N, l U. bl W 2J(�: J4UO
. PACE 6/6
Mr. rim Kenuedy
November 22, 1999
Page 4
Three Year Forecast:
During the next three years, Shaper anticipates that 0 of the balance of Phase 1 ,will be
constructed and occupied. Per the terms of last year's report, this should generate 276
affordable units out of 1,181 or 23.0o'. This exceeds the 15%per phase DVAB?
requirement and the specific requirements of AVAIL'D.2.A regarding moderate income
unit phasing.
Concurrent with the build-out of Phase 1 will be the site preparation work;in Phase 2.We
expect this work to begin next year with possible occupancy occurring as early as the fall
o£2001. Many factors might delay this start date including physical provision of public
utilities.
While Phase 2 is erected to build out through 2006 wid hence beyond the three year
forecast required here, its full implementation along with Phase 1 would result in a
surplus of seven units of moderate income housing and a shortfall.of only 5 units of low
income housing. The very low income homes would occur somewhat later and more
southerly in the Dougherty Valley. We believe that this exeelleat apprwdmation of the
target distribution of affordability demon-strates that the Gale Ranch portion ofDV is
designed to meet the intent of the DVAHP.
We hope the foregoing has provided the County with the needed information to meet the
reguirements of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. It is clear that a
number of issues remain to be resolved and that this project will be Hilly realized only
after the passiuuof rmany gears We also hope that.it is clear that the goals memorialized
by Contra Costa Cotwty both in 1992 and 1994 are on track;for implementation-
We look forward to your response and to the opportunityy to work with you further on_this
most-wottlawUe endeavor.
incere ,
Thonaas I Koch
Vic:.Preside,;:
Den
ICP
Community Contra Comm it Darcy. pme
Community peveloament p.reaor
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building * ..
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing x
Martinez,California 94553-0095 '
y. '� COU�'r T`
Phone: (925) 335-1255 '_>- .----��'` August 17, 1999
Mr. Thomas J. Koch
Vice President, Shapell Industries
P.O. Box 361169
Milpitas, California 95035
Dear Tom:
RE: Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
The purpose of this letter is to respond to information submitted by Shapell Industries
with respect to the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program (DVAHP), including
vour June 14, 1999 letter and DVAHP Opportunities Analysis, and a June 2, 1999 letter
with attachments from Chris Truebridge to Jennifer Peterson. Based on the information
provided, I understand that Shapell is committed to meeting DVAHP requirements for
the development of housing affordable to very-low, low and moderate-income
households. Although several issues require additional information and discussion, it
appears that the overall affordable housing program proposed by Shapell complies with
the requirements of the DVAHP as of October 1998. It is anticipated that the outstanding
issues will be resolved and additional information provided no later than October of 1999
v,,lien the next DVAHP Annual Compliance Report and Opportunities Analysis is due.
The following summarizes outstanding issues and additional information needed to
implement the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program as proposed by Shapell.
AFFORDABILITY — Moderate-income For-sale Units
The DVAHP requires that moderate-income homeownership units must be sold to
households with incomes at or below 120 percent of the Contra Costa County Area
Median Income (AMI) as adjusted for household size. In addition, a minimum of half of
the units must be sold to the target population at an affordable price.
• Moderate-income Homebuyer Income Certification
Per your request, I am forwarding to you a form of income certification to be
executed by moderate-income homebuyers and submitted to the County as
documentation of income eligibility in accordance with DVAHP requirements. Note
that the homebuyer must certify the household's income under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, by signing the income certification form, the household also agrees to
0ffira Hnifrc f Annriav-Frrfgw-R-nn a m - S•nn n m
permit the County to verify the income information through access to the mortgagor's
loan file. It is the intent of the County to monitor these files on a periodic basis to
ensure compliance.
You have also indicated some concern with respect to confidentiality of homebuyer
records and income. While County records are public documents, we have never to
my knowledge received a request from a member of the public to view individual
homebuyer records maintained for purposes of the County's affordable housing
programs. The County maintains mortgage assistance records for several thousand
homebuyers.
Based on information previously provided by your office, two moderate-income
households have already acquired homes in the Dougherty Valley. As stated in the
preceding, documentation is required in order to confirm that the households are
eligible in accordance with the definition of a moderate-income household. Since
these loans have closed, the County will accept the following as documentation: name
and address of qualified household; household size; and ttte lender's certification as to
income eligibility. Please note that this will be acceptable for these two households
only. In the future, in order to qualify as a moderate-income household under the
DVAHP households acquiring homes will be required to provide income
certifications as discussed in the above.
• Additional Information Needed to Confirm Compliance.
Tile maximurn allowable sales price for a moderate-income unit according to the
DVAHP is the lesser of the current market price and a price taking into account unit
and family size, prevailing interest rates, and other conventional loan underwriting
criteria. In order to determine the allowable sales price for the price-restricted
moderate-income units, additional information is needed concerning proposed unit
size/number of bedroorns, target market characteristics (e.g., household size), and
assumed underwriting criteria, particularly homeowner association dues.
RLNTAL UNITS -Moderate and Low-income-
4
ow-income• Affordability term –Moderate Income Rental Units
The DVAHP and Dougherty Valley Specific Plan goals and policies emphasize the
need. to maintain housing affordability over the long run. Policy H-9 in the Specific
Plan states that "Affordable units shall be maintained for the maximum period
feasible. Target periods shall be a minimum of twenty years for for-sale units and
thirty years for rental units." At ttre time (tic DVAHP was approved, it was assumed
that the moderate-income affordable housing obligation would be met through the
provision of affordable homeownership opportunities at market prices without the
need for public subsidy. Due to a lack of specific financial benefit to the buyer (e.g.,
below-market price, low-interest loan), it was not considered feasible to require
moderate-income households to purchase an essentially market-rate unit with an
affordability restriction. Consequently, the DVAHP does not currently specify a
required term of affordability for moderate-income units.
In part as a result of substantial changes in housing market conditions, Shapell is now
proposing to satisfy over 80 percent of the total moderate income housing obligation
through the production of 876 rental units. 'In order to accommodate the revised
program and remain consistent with Specific Plan and DVAHP housing affordability
goals and policies, DVAHP requirements for maintained affordability should be
modified to state that rental units intended to satisfy the moderate income housing
requirement must remain affordable to and occupied by the target population for a
minimum of thirty years. In addition, the developer/owner of the rental units should
be required to enter into a regulatory agreement with the County to ensure that the
units remain in the affordable housing stock for the required period of time. This
approach is fully consistent with affordability requirements for very-low and low-
income rental units and with Policy 11-9 of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and
DVAHP. A final form of regulatory agreement must be prepared, using Appendix
I to the DVAHP as a starting point. .
• Request for Additional Information and Clarification — Moderate and Low-income
Rental Units
Maximum allowable rents for the moderate-income units are defined as the lesser of
the monthly market rent or a monthly rent including an allowance for utilities which
does not exceed 30 percent of the monthly area median income for Contra Costa
County. Similarly, maximum allowable rents for the low-income units are defined as
the lesser of the monthly market rent or 100 percent of the Section 8 Fair Market Rent
(FMR) less an appropriate allowance for utilities. In both cases, rents are adjusted
based on the number of bedrooms and assumed household size in a unit. Additional
information concerning proposed unit size/number of bedrooms, probable utility
configuration and appropriate allowances, and size of target market household is
needed in order to determine compliance of the proposed moderate and low-income
rents with the requirements of the DVAHP.
In a second issue, it appears that the rents for the low-income apartments and rental
units have been incorrectly calculated based on 30 percent of the gross monthly
income of a household at 80 percent of the area median rather than the FMRs as
required by the DVAIiP. Depending on the number of bedrooms in a unit, the rents
proposed for these units may not comply with the maximum affordable rents for the
DVAHP. The rents for these units should be clarified as soon as possible.
• Carriage Units— Moderate and Low-incorne
Shapell proposes to rneet a portion of the moderate and low-income affordability
requirement through the provision of carriage units. In general, carriage units are a
separate housing unit located on the same lot and purchased in combination with a
single family home. The carriage unit option was not specifically addressed in the
3
DVAHP. Therefore, some clarification in the requirements to be attached to this type
of rental housing is appropriate. In order to qualify as an eligible rental unit, the
carriage unit must be a separate unit (i.e., separate entrance, kitchen, and bath
facilities, separate off street parking). In addition, owners of the carriage units must
rent the units to moderate or low-income households at rents including a utility
allowance which do not exceed the maximums allowable under the DVAHP for a
minimum of 30 years. The specific income group to be targeted for occupancy of the
carriage unit(low or moderate income) must be identified at the time the homebuyer
enters into a sales agreement. In order to ensure compliance, owners of carriage units
will be required to enter into regulatory agreements with the County to be recorded
against the property and specifying the affordability requirement. It is not
immediately apparent how the DVAHP affordability requirements will affect the
demand for and ultimate feasibility of carriage units as affordable rental housing. In
addition to the information requested for rental units in general, please provide
information concerning the potential market for this type of unit by homeowners and
moderate/low income renter households.
A second issue with respect to carriage units concerns compliance through the period
of required affordability. In general, owners of multifamily rental projects with 20 to
100 or more units each are required to submit periodic reports confirming compliance
%with County affordability and use restrictions. The County reviews compliance on an
ongoing basis. In the event of non-compliance, the County will work with the owner
to bring the project back into conformance with the affordability requirements.
Absent corrective action, the County will declare the project in default under the
terms of the regulatory agreement. While there are obvious administrative costs
associated with monitoring compliance of these projects, these costs are provided for
in the regulatory agreement. In contrast, the proposal to use over 300 carriage units,
each with a separate owner/landlord, to satisfy a portion of the County affordability
requirements involves potentially significant compliance and related administrative
costs due in part to a lack of apparent economies of scale. Discussions should be
initiated between Shapell and the County to determine an equitable approach to
covering these costs.
• Low-income Rental Units — Phasing
As currently proposed, the majority of low-income units will be produced in Phases II
and III of tine project; none are produced in Phase I. This is allowable under the
current DVAHP subject to the Findings of the compliance monitoring program. In the
next compliance report, please provide the proposed construction timeline for each
phase of the project in order to clarify the anticipated time frame for construction of
the low-income units.
4
RENTAL UNITS — Very-low Income
• Request for Additional Information — Very-low Income Units
The information submitted on Shapell's strategy for producing very-low income units
is limited. Additional information needs to be provided prior to the next annual
report to facilitate assessing the feasibility of this component of the affordable
housing program. This information should include: the proposed location with a
description of the specific site or sites to be used for very-low income housing
(acreage, configuration, significant development and environmental constraints); the
type of housing proposed (mixed-use or all affordable, multifamily, senior, unit
size/number of bedrooms); range of incomes and household size of target population;
and the relationship of these units to other units in the development. .
• Development Mechanism and Procedures
As one alternative to producing the units themselves, Shapell has proposed meeting
the requirement for very-low income housing by dedicating a parcel of land to a non-
profit affordable housing developer. This approach is allowable under the DVAHP.
Discussions should be initiated to identify proposed procedures and criteria to be
employed in selecting a non-profit for this purpose. Given the complexities of
affordable housing finance which typically involves multiple funding sources, it is
important that this process be initiated early in the development in order to permit
adequate time for the nonprofit to design and obtain the necessary financing and
planning approvals for the project.
• Phasing
As currently proposed, all 146 of the very-low income housing units will be produced
at the end of the development in Phase IV. While tile. DVAHP does not require a
specific distribution of very-low, low and moderate-income units by phase,
incorporation of the very-low income units in the last phase increases the risk that
these units will never be built. For example, pending completion of a new or
amended EIR, the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement with the City of San
Ramon and Town of Danville limits the number of units to be built to 8,500 out of the
11,000 units approved by the Board. On a pro rata basis, this would allow Shapell to
build a total of 4,505 units. Phases I through III will result in the development of
4,439 units, leaving only 66 to be produced in Phase IV prior to completion of a new
EIR. Discussions should be initiated to develop alternative approaches to be followed
by the developer to meet the very-low income housing requirement earlier than Phase
IV. These alternatives should include the feasibility of building the very-low income
units in an earlier development phase.
I anticipate that the majority of the issues identified in this letter will be successfully
resolved and the additional requested information provided prior to or coincident with
submission of the next annual affordable housing program compliance report and
5
opportunities analysis due in October 1999. My staff and I would be happy to meet with
you to at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
Ji n Kennedy
D puty Directo —Redevelopment
cc: Board of Supen•isors
Dcmis Bam
Debbie Chamberlain
KaUem Hamm
File C.4.3(bxl.6xa)
K}J0Aatah\or{Jd vahp3.doc
6
October 3, 2000
SHAPELL Dl1STRIES of NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
A Division of Shapell Industries, Inc.
Mr. James Kennedy 00 OCT `S Ptd S: 00
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street l r"Lo I
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your assistance in the ongoing discussions between Shapell and the
County regarding the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. From our point of
view, the dialogue has been both illuminating and productive.
.in our letterof July of tlhrs year, Shi,.pclpropose„ an amen...I.ert to.t,.e D IAHP.
Specifically, we offered support for a series of changes which would both provide long
term affordability through moderate income rental units while changing the allowable
rents from 100% for all units to 110% for studios and 1 bedroom units and 120% for 2
and 3 bedroom housing.
In the series of phone calls and meetings that have followed since then, it is evident to us
that the County's desires, as expressed by staff, include deeper affordability than the
amendment that we have brought forth. Accordingly, this letter is sent to inform you that
Shapell would support a change to the DVAH:P whereby a 30 year term would be in place
for all moderate income rental units. All. rental units, including 2 and 3 bedroom homes,
would be pegged to a maximum of 110% of the median income level by family size.
Should the Board of Supervisors support this amendment, two important goals would be
achieved. First, a 30 year term would be provided, resolving the dispute concerning the
pertinent aspects of the DVAHP. Second, affordable rents targeted to families whose
incomes qualify, would be made available. As an example, new 3 bedroom units in
Dublin currently rent in excess of$2,700 and are fully leased. In Dougherty Valley,
comparable units will rent for approximately $1,800. This provides for nearly an $11,000
per year subsidy per 3 bedroom unit.
We look forward to the meeting of the 10`t' of October for deliberations with the Board on
this important issue. Our annual compliance report as mandated by the Dougherty Valley
Development Agreement will follow shortly thereafter.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (408) 946-1550.
Sine ly,
Noma" s J. Koch
Vice President
Shapell Industries of Northern California
Homes of Quality Since 1955
P.O. Box 361169, 100 North Milpitas Boulevard, Milpitas,California 95035 Phone:403/946-1550 Fax: 408/946-9637
ATTACHMENT B
Legislative History of the
Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
W:`•.{'ersonaP�.f3oardOrders`.L;Or�U.dait,'hCit�ti'1IIC\'b.S
1
Initial Outline of DVAHP
May 7 , 1993
r
517/93 Revision
OUTLINE OF DOUGHERTY VALLEY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
I. Intro and Purpose
A. Jobs/Housing Balance (see EIR); and
B. Affordability
In consideration (as mitigation?) for approving a Specific Plan that permits up to
11,000 units in the Dougherty Valley, the County is requiring that at least 2,750
units be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income income households,
as further described below.
II. Conformance with Programs and Plans
A. County General Plan (Table Form)
1. Goals 3-D 6-1
3-K 6-2
3-L 6-4
2. Policies 3-1 6-1.1
3-20 6-2.1
3-21 6-4.1
3-22
3-23
3-24
3. Implementation 3-g 6-1.4
3-h 6-1.5
3 j 6-1.8
3-ab 6-2.0
6-2.2
6-2.3
6-2.4
6-2.5
6-2.11
6-2.12
6-4.2
6-4.3
B. Dougherty Valley Specific Plan
Policies H-1 to H-11
LU-6
C. State Housing Element Law/Fair Share Housing Provisions with Emphasis on
State HCD Correspondence Relative to Dougherty
D. Contra Costa Transportation Authority
E. County Comprehensive Housing Assistance Strategy (CHAS)
III. Definitions
A. Very Low Income
B. Low Income
C. Moderate Income
D. Affordable Rent
1. Very Low Income Unit
2. Low Income Unit
3. Moderate Income Unit
E. Affordable Price
.1. Very Low Income Unit
2. Law Income Unit
3. Moderate Income Unit
IV. Types of Housing (defined and explained, stressing the need for some innovative
approaches and alternative product styles)
A. Senior Housing/Congregate Cate/Extended Living/Nursing Home
B. Dispersed Duplexes
C. Townhomes
D. Condominiums
E. Affordable Rentals
2
F. Co-housing
G. Co-op Housing
H. Residential Above Commercial Development Programs (Mixed Use)
I. Group Homes
V. Affordable Housing Finance Alternatives
A. General
1. Home
2. CDBG
3. Housing Trust Funds
4. Redevelopment
5. Employer Assisted Housing
6. Trade Union Assistance
7. Pre-Development Loans
8. Non-Profit Housing Developers
9. CRA/SAMCO
10. FNMA
B. Rental Housing
1. MF Bonds
2. Low Income Housing Tax Credits
3. RHCP
4. Other State (?)
5. 202
6. Other Federal (?)
7. Section 8/Vouchers
3
8. Public Housing
C. Ownership Housing
1. SF Bonds
2. MCC's
3. Section 235
4. FHA Insurance
5. Other Federal (?)
6. Other State
7. CHFA Construction Loan Programs
VI. Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Requirements apply to Shappell and Windemere separately and proportionately
A. Targeting - # of Units (restate spatial deconcentration public policy)
1. Income Distribution - minimum threshold level, say 20-20-37 with
remainder flexiby assigned
2. Tenure Distribution
3. Specialized Facilities - note this as an alternative to income targeting
a. Group Homes
b. Nursing Homes
C. Other Special Needs Populations
B. Term of Affordability
1. Greater of financing program or SAP H-9
C. Phasing
1. SAP H-7
2. Failure to Perform (Debbie to enhance)
4
D. Determination of Compliance
1. SAP H-6
E. Documentation of Affordability Requirements
1. Ownership Projects
a. Developer Sales Agreement
b. Buyer Agreement
2. Rental Projects
a. Regulatory Agreement
E. Annual Reports to the Board of Supervisors
Individual reports from Shappell and Windemere interests must be
combined into one submittal
VII. Plan of Finance
A. Principles
1. Moderate Income Units are all Unassisted
2. Very Low and Low may Require Public Financial Assistance
a. County Best Efforts to:
1. Issue Tax Exempt Bonds
2. Identify and Pursue Other Funds
3. Provide Opportunity of Access for Local Affordable
Housing Funds
4. Investigate Intedurisdictional Transfers of Funds
5. Approve Development Projects Consistent with this
Program and SAP
6. County will require notification/disclosure of future
affordable housing developments
5
r
b. Developer Best Efforts to:
1. Pursue Investment Grade Rated Credit Enhancement on
Market Terms to Permit Viable Tax Exempt Bond Issues
2. Identify and Pursue Other Funds as Identified by the
County, or Other Parties
3. Work Creatively and Cooperatively with Non-Profit and
For Profit Developers to Develop Feasible Project
Financings
4. Development of very low, and low income units may
require land contribution, land writedown, or other internal
subsidy to accomplish
5. Provide notification/disclosure to buyers regarding future
affordable housing developments
3. Amendments
a. In recognition of the fluctuating and evolving nature of real estate
markets, there is an acknowledged need for continuing review
b. The Affordable Housing Program shall be automatically reviewed
by the County at the earlier of:
1. Final Development Approval of (5,000?) housing units
within the Dougherty Valley SPecific Plan Area; or
2. January 1, 2000
B. Financing Scenarios
Scope out our matrix with reference to identified financing alternatives;
or
Develop alternative scenarios; or
Utilize developer generated phasing/schedule data (not yet in hand) to
build alternative financing plan around.
nc:m
sn/93
sra9/&affhsg.1st
6
Briefing Memorandum to Board
of Supervisors on DVAHP Policy Options
June 24 , 1993
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 24, 1993
TO: Supervisor Tom Powers, District 1
Supervisor Jeff Smith, District 2
Supervisor Gayle Bishop, District 3
Supervisor Suhhe" McPeak, District 4
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, 'stric 5
FROM: Harvey Bragdon, Directo
Community Developme e
SUBJECT: Dougherty Valley A able Housing Program
Attached is the draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. The Dougherty Valley
Affordable Housing Program has been developed to provide an implementation structure to the
affordable housing requirements and policies of the County General Plan and the Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan.
The draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program is a mixture of prescriptive measures
(for example, the Affordable Housing Program Requirements - Chapter V) that are a derivative
of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, and recommendations (for example, the Affordable
Housing Finance Alternatives - Chapter IV, and the Plan of Finance - Chapter VI). The Board
of Supervisors may wish to consider a number of major policy options that would still be
consistent with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, including:
1. Income Targeting
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (A)(1) is prescriptive and sets forth specific percentages of
Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Targeting that are based on ABAG
Housing Needs Determinations (37% of the Affordable Units for Very
Low Income, 26% for Low Income, and 37% Moderate Income).
B. Policy Options
1. Establish goals with "good faith efforts;" or
Members of Board of Supervisors -2- June 24, 1993
2. Prescribe targets using lower percentages for Very Low and Low
Income Units. The minimum thresholds could be those specified
by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) in its certification of the County's Housing Element
(Chapter II (C) and Appendix Q. The HCD letter states that units
in the Dougherty Valley "will be affordable in at least the
following ratio: 10 percent (V)ery (Low), 25 percent (L)ow, and
65 percent (M)oderate Income."; or
3. Accept a suggestion of the developers that an alternative be the
payment of fees in-lieu of the production of Affordable Units in
the Dougherty Valley. The premise for this position is three-fold:
(1) that the per unit subsidy cost (public and private) for each
Affordable Unit would be less in areas with lower land and
infrastructure costs; (2) that the net fiscal effect of Dougherty
Valley development with Affordable Units results in opportunity
costs, or foregone revenue; and (3) that the fees in-lieu is easier to
accomplish than alternatives. This alternative does not address
jobs/housing balance, nor does it promote mixed income
communities and spatially deconcentrate Lower Income
households. The adopted Dougherty Valley Specific Plan
explicitly precludes an in-lieu fee option.
2. Number of Affordable Units
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (A)(1) stipulates that 2,750 units shall be affordable to Very
Low, Low, and Moderate Income Households. This number is 25 percent
of the 11,000 housing units the Dougherty Valley could accommodate
under the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan.
B. Policy Options
1. Fix the number of Affordable Units at 2,750 units irrespective of
the ultimate number of housing units that can be accommodated or
built pursuant to the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan; or
2. Fix the number of Affordable Units as 25 percent of the ultimate
number of units that can be accommodated or built pursuant to the
Dougherty Valley Specific Plan; or
1
u
Members of Board of Supervisors -3- June 24, 1993
3. Regardless of the number of Affordable Units fixed., facilitate
Second Units as part of the Affordable Housing Program.
3. Tenure Targeting
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (A)(2) stipulates that no less than 50% of the Affordable Units
shall be rental, although the percentage of rental Affordable Units could
be higher. The percentage of owner occupied Affordable Units can be no
more than 50% of the total Affordable. Units; however, it could be less.
B. Policy Options
The proportion of Affordable Units could arguably be higher or lower
than the proportion specified.
1. A higher percentage of rental units could be rational based on the
fact that the per unit subsidy costs (public or private) is generally
less for rental units, particularly in the Very Low and Low Income
categories. Since the draft Affordable Housing Program stipulates
at least 63% of the Affordable Units be reserved for Very Low
and Low Income Units, a similar percentage for rental units is
defensible; or
2. The percentage of rental units in the current Countywide housing
stock of 31.7%, and the proportion of rental housing as provided
for in the ABAG Housing Needs Determination of 34% would
argue for a lower percentage; or
3. Include a specified percentage of Affordable Units to address the
housing needs of special populations, e.g., Supportive Housing,
Transitional Housing, etc.
4. Types of Housing
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
No direct stipulations are made with respect to Housing Types defined in
Chapter III. The suggestive provisions of Chapter V (A)(3) - Specialized
Facilities - provides incentive for that particular type of housing facilities
i
Members of Board of Supervisors 4- June 24, 1993
The minimum 50% for rental units arguably also suggests multi-family
units, as does the homeownership provisions (condominiums and
townhouses).
B. Policy Options
1. All housing types defined in Chapter III could be provided with a
minimum percentage. Should this policy option be pursued, the
total of all stipulated percentages should be less than 100% to
provide some ability to respond to market opportunities and
constraints; or
2. The major housing types that exist in the market could be
stipulated, i.e., Single Family, Multi-Family, Senior Housing, and
housing for special needs populations (handicapped, disabled,
supportive care, homeless, etc.). Incentives to facilitate less
conventional but potentially valuable housing types (Cooperatives,
particularly limited equity, Supportive Housing, Nursing Homes,
etc.) could be provided for; or
3. Specify that the Annual Review include a listing of housing types
(homeownership, rental, and other specialized housing) produced,
and indicate in the one and three year strategic plan how any
imbalances noted are to be corrected.
5. Affordability Term
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (B) is prescriptive and reflects the provisions of the Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan.
B. Policy Options
1. The specified terms could be higher or lower than currently stated.
The minimum terms currently specified are fairly aggressive.
2. The terms could be left to be stipulated by the financing program
utilized. The various financing programs identified in Chapter IV
and Appendix G are not consistent with respect to required
Members of Board of Supervisors -5- June 24, 1993
affordability terms. Some programs do not even have such terms. Should
this approach be preferred, a hybrid that includes a relatively low
minimum affordability term is suggested. Otherwise windfalls to owners
of Affordable Units could result, and the County would realize no long
term benefit.
6. Affordable Price/Rent
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
All Affordable Units are subject to prescriptive rent and price restrictions
(Chapter V (C)).
B. Policy Option
1. It may be argued that income limitations alone are all that is
necessary to control prices and rents. This option permits the
developer/owner to set the price/rent at a level that will result in
all. Affordable Units being sold/rented at affordable levels.
7. Phasing
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Specific Plan
Chapter V (D) is moderately prescriptive by providing for phasing of the
Affordable Units in a manner that permits some limited passage forward
of the obligation to future phases (no more than forty percent (40%) of an
individual phase Affordable Unit requirement can be passed forward to
future phases). The Affordable Unit obligation must be in absolute
conformance at two times - at the time 50% of the Dougherty Valley is
developed, and at the time 100% of the Dougherty Valley is developed.
B. Policy Options
1. A review of compliance with this Affordable Housing Program
occurs upon the submittal of applications for future phases. Such
applications may be found incomplete, or applications may be
denied if non-compliance with the Affordable Housing Program is
determined; or
Members of Board of Supervisors -6- June 24, 1993
2. The most prescriptive phasing requirement would permit no
variance between the proportion of Affordable Units provided and
the proportion of all units constructed in the Dougherty Valley.
3. A suggestive alternative would set goals but no mandates, except
the final proportion. This option provides maximum flexibility to
the developer, but is higher risk with respect to Affordable
Housing goals, i.e., they may not be realized until final phases or
not at all.
8. Plan of Finance
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
The suggestive premise of the Plan of Finance (Chapter VI) is that the
private developer(s) are responsible for delivering the Affordable Units.
The Moderate Income Units are to be delivered without public assistance.
The Very Low and Low Income Units may receive public subsidy, but it
is limited to offsetting the defined "Affordability Gap" (the amount of
financing not supported by income due to the Affordable Unit
requirement). Furthermore, the commitment of funds is not guaranteed,
but provided for on a best efforts basis.
B. Policy Options
1. The explicit commitment of financial resources to fund the
"Affordability Gap" is theoretically possible, but legally and
politically difficult. This Board of Supervisors cannot commit
future Boards of Supervisors on items of discretion. Furthermore,
the precommitment of County controlled funds for Affordable
Units in the Dougherty Valley could result in cities in the County
refusing to enter into cooperation agreements for some of these
funding programs, and ultimately result in the County no longer
being eligible to receive such funds, e.g., Community
Development Block Grants and HOME funds.
2. Public financing of the "Feasibility Gap" (the amount of financing
not supported by income at market rents/prices) is an option,
however, it may be cost prohibitive.
Members of Board of Supervisors -7- June 24, 1993
3. The County could stipulate that the delivery of Affordable Units
is to be provided for by the public and quasi-public non-profit
sector. Such a position is inconsistent with current public agency
fiscal realities, and may be financially inefficient since leverage of
private sector financing is foregone or limited.
9. Ongoing Program Management
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
The presence of affordability terms prescribed in Chapter V (B) suggests
an ongoing program management function. For-sale units are subject to
recorded deed restrictions (Appendix H) that gives the County or is
assignee a right of first refusal'to purchase the home in order to maintain
its affordability. Rental projects are subject to a regulatory agreement
(Appendix I). The regulatory agreement stipulates that the project owner
regularly submit documentation that can be monitored by the County to
assure compliance. The regulatory agreement is a recorded document.
B. Policy Options
1. Ongoing program management functions could be assigned to one
or more local non-profit housing development organizations. Non-
profits may, if adequately financed, be able to respond more
efficiently to a notice of a homeowner intending to sell, and
offering the property under a right of first refusal contract. The
County has utilized this approach in the past and is implicit in the
language of the program documents, e.g., right of first refusal to
the "County or its assignee;" or
2. Private firms may be an alternative, however, this option is not
well developed in the marketplace at this time. If employer
assisted housing develops and expands as an approach to financing
affordable housing, or if the number of public sector programs
expands, a niche market for program management services
(compliance monitoring to transaction execution) could emerge.
Some non-profit organizations are beginning to establish for-profit
subsidiaries that could serve both public and private sector clients.
Members of Board of Supervisors -8- June 24, 1993
Summary and Conclusions
This memorandum has summarized the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program and
identified the major policy options that are before the Board of Supervisors. The Board of
Supervisors should give direction with respect to the following questions:
1. What is the desired forum for discussing the Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program?
2. When should these discussions take place?
3. Which of the policy options, including those of the Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program, are preferred by the Board of Supervisors?
4. What is the preferred mechanism for contractual agreement to this Dougherty
Valley Affordable Housing Program?
RB:JK:lh
Attachment
cc: County Administrator
GMP_DA
County Counsel
Shappell Industries
Windemere Partners
sra9/dvaihsg2.mem
DOUGHERTY VALLEY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
Prepared by the
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
(Circulation Draft of June 24, 1993)
A. Targeting of Units
1. Income Targeting
a. At least 2,750 units shall be affordable to Very Low, Low, and
Moderate Income Households;
b. At least thirty-seven percent (37%) of the Affordable Units shall
be reserved for Very Low Income Households, and twenty-six
percent (26%) for Low Income Households. No more than thirty-
seven (37%) of the Affordable Units shall be for Moderate Income
Households.
2. Tenure Targeting
No less than fifty percent (50%) of the Affordable Units shall be for rental
units. No more than fifty percent of the Affordable Units shall be for
owner occupied housing.
3. Specialized Facilities
Some housing is physically designed to serve the housing needs of special
populations, e.g., housing for the physically disabled. Some housing
serves the housing needs of special populations through the provision of
on-site support services, e.g., housing for the developmentally disabled.
Specialized facilities of this type shall be eligible for inclusion in the
Affordable Housing Program as follows:
a. Supportive Housing shall be counted as Low Income Housing,
with each bedroom equating to 0.5 Low Income Unit;
b. Nursing Homes shall be counted as Moderate Income Housing,
with each bed equating to 0.5 Moderate Income Unit. Nursing
Homes that are licensed for Medi-Cal Patients and commit at least
30% of the beds to Medi-Cal Patients shall be counted as Very
Low Income Housing, with each Medi-Cat bed counting as 1.0
units of Very Low Income Unit.
C. Transitional Housing shall be counted as Very Low Income
housing, with each unit equating to 1.0 Very Low Income Units.
-20-
B. Affordability Term
Affordable Units shall be maintained as such for the following minimum terms:
1. For-sale units shall be maintained as affordable for a minimum of twenty
(20) years. Developers providing such units shall enter into a Developer
Sales Agreement (form included as Appendix H) with the County at least
90 days prior to filing of a Final Map;
2. Rental projects and specialized facilities with Affordable Units shall be
maintained as such for .a minimum of thirty (30) years.
Developers/owners of rental projects shall enter into a Regulatory
Agreement, the form of which is included as Appendix I, prior to issuance
of any building permit required for the development.
Nothing in the foregoing shall preclude the achievement of a longer term of
affordability as may be negotiated or required by financing sources.
C. Affordable Price/Rent
Affordable Units are subject to rent and price restrictions. Very Low Income
Rents and Very Low Income Sales Price shall apply to units reserved for Very
Low Income Households; Low Income Rents and Very Low Income Sales Price
shall apply to units reserved for Low Income Households; and Moderate Income
Rents and Moderate Income Sales Prices shall apply to units reserved for
Moderate Income Households.
D. Phasing
1. Each phase established shall be subject to providing Affordable Units. A
minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the units in each phase are to be
developed as Affordable Units, i.e., no more than forty percent (40%) of
an individual phase's Affordable Unit requirement may be passed forward
to future phases;
2. In no case shall the Affordable Units in a future phase exceed fifty percent
(50%) of the number of planned units;
3. One phase may omit Affordable Units upon a finding of the County
Zoning Administrator that a feasible plan for the provision of the required
Affordable.Units in the next phase exists;
4. The initial Final Development Plan/Tentative Map shall include a phasing
plan indicating the delivery of Affordable Units; and
-21- �1
Briefing Memorandum to Board
of Supervisors on DVAHP Policy Options
September 10, 1993
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: September 10, 1993
TO: Supervisor Tom Powers, District 1
Supervisor Jeff Smith, District 2
Supervisor Gayle Bishop, District 3
Supervisor Sunne McPeak, District 4
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, District 5
FROM: Harvey Bragdon, Director
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Attached is the September 7 draft of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. This
draft is a proposal that is consistent with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. The draft provides
a framework for the additional policy debate that will occur in setting the ultimate
implementation structure to the affordable housing requirements.
The draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program is a mixture of prescriptive measures
(for example, the Affordable Housing Program Requirements - Chapter V) that are a derivative
of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, and recommendations (for example, the Affordable
Housing Finance Alternatives - Chapter IV, and the Plan of Finance - Chapter VI). The Board
of Supervisors may wish to consider a number of major policy options that would still be
consistent with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, including:
1. Income Targeting
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (A)(1)(b) is prescriptive and sets forth specific percentages of
Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Targeting that are based on the
thresholds specified by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) in its certification of the County's Housing Element
(Chapter II (C) and Appendix Q. The HCD letter states that units in the
Dougherty Valley "will be affordable in at least the following ratio: 10
percent (V)ery (Low), 25 percent (L)ow, and 65 percent (M)oderate
Income." The HCD specified percentages are considered to be a floor
that the ultimate program cannot go below.
4
Members of Board of Supervisors -2- September 10, 1993
B. Policy Options
1. Establish goals with "good faith efforts;" or
2. Prescribe targets using higher percentages for Very Low and Low
Income Units. For example, following the ABAG Housing Needs
Determinations, 37% of the Affordable Units would be for Very
Low Income, 26% for Low Income, and 37% Moderate Income;
or
3. Accept a suggestion of the developers that an alternative be the
payment of fees in-lieu of the production of Affordable Units in
the Dougherty Valley. The premise for this position is three-fold:
(1) that the per unit subsidy cost (public and private) for each
Affordable Unit would be less in areas with lower land and
infrastructure costs; (2) that the net fiscal effect of Dougherty
Valley development with Affordable Units results in opportunity
costs, or foregone revenue; and (3) that the fees in-lieu is easier to
accomplish than alternatives. This alternative does not address
jobs/housing balance, nor does it promote mixed income
communities and spatially deconcentrate Lower Income
households. The adopted Dougherty Valley Specific Plan
explicitly precludes an in-lieu fee option.
2. Number of Affordable Units
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (A)(1)(a) stipulates that a minimum of 25% of the total units
in the Dougherty Valley shall be affordable to Very Low, Low, and
Moderate Income Households. The draft is consistent with the minimum
Dougherty Valley Specific Plan requirement (Policy H-4).
B. Policy Options
1. Fix the number of Affordable Units at 2,750 units (25% of the
currently provided for 11,000 units) irrespective of the ultimate
number of housing units that can be accommodated or built
pursuant to the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan; or
Members of Board of Supervisors -3- September 10, 1993
2. Provide for a higher percentage of Affordable Units by various
alternative mechanisms such as (a) requiring a higher percent,
e.g., 35%, of all units to be Affordable; or (b) reserving for public
use all unit capacity above the ultimate number up to 11,000
currently provided for in the Plan, without developer obligation
and for construction as Affordable Units after the Dougherty
Valley is substantially built-out. This alternative assumes that
traffic and other performance standards can be met..
3. Regardless of the number of Affordable Units fixed, facilitate
Second Units as part of the Affordable Housing Program.
4. Accept a developer suggestion that additional credit against the
total obligation be provided for the delivery of Affordable Units in
early phases.
3. Tenure Targeting
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
The draft Affordable Housing Program does not state any tenure
requirements. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan "encourage(s) and
promote(s) owner occupied housing, especially for affordable units"
(Policy H-9).
B. Policy Options
1. The percentage of rental units could be rationally based on the
Very Low and Low Income requirement (not less than 35% of the
Affordable Units in this draft) because the per unit subsidy costs
(public or private) is generally less for rental units, particularly in
the Very Low and Low Income categories. Since the draft
Affordable Housing Program stipulates at least 35% of the
Affordable Units be reserved for Very Low and Low Income
Units, a similar percentage for rental units is defensible; or
2. The percentage of rental units in the current Countywide housing
stock of 31.7%, and the proportion of rental housing as provided
for in the ABAG Housing Needs Determination of 34% would
argue for a similar percentage; or
l
Members of Board of Supervisors -4- September 10, 1993
3. Because the need for Affordable rental Units is acute, stipulate that
no less than 50% of the Affordable Units shall be rental, although
the percentage of rental Affordable Units could be higher. The
percentage of owner occupied Affordable Units can be no more
than 50% of the total Affordable Units, however, it could be less;
or
4. Specify either a minimum or maximum specified percentage of
Affordable Units to address the housing needs of special
populations, e.g., Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing,
Senior Housing, etc.
4. Types of Housing
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
No direct stipulations are made with respect to Housing Types defined in
Chapter III. The suggestive provisions of Chapter V (A)(2) - Specialized
Facilities - provides incentive for Supportive Housing (group homes for
the mentally or physically disabled, Transitional Housing, etc.), and
Nursing Homes, especially those with Medi-Cal beds.
B. Policy Options
1. All housing types defined in Chapter III could be provided with a
minimum percentage. Should this policy option be pursued, the
total of all stipulated percentages should be less than 100% to
provide some ability to respond to market opportunities and
constraints; or
. 2. The major housing types that exist in the market could be
stipulated, i.e., Single Family, Multi-Family, Senior Housing, and
housing for special needs populations (handicapped, disabled,
supportive care, homeless, etc.). Incentives to facilitate less
conventional but potentially valuable housing types (Cooperatives,
particularly limited equity, Supportive Housing, Nursing Homes,
etc.) could be provided for•, or
Members of Board of Supervisors -5- September 10, 1993
3. Specify that the Annual Review include a listing of housing types
(homeownership, rental, and other specialized housing) produced,
and indicate in the one and three year strategic plan how any
imbalances noted are to be corrected.
5. Affordability Term
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (B) is prescriptive and reflects the provisions of the Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan (Policy H-9).
B. Policy Options
1. The specified terms could be higher or lower than currently stated.
The minimum terms currently specified are fairly aggressive.
2. The terms could be left to be stipulated by the financing program
utilized. The various financing programs identified in Chapter IV
and Appendix G are not consistent with respect to required
affordability terms. Some programs do not even have such terms.
Should this approach be preferred, a hybrid that includes 'a
relatively low minimum affordability term is suggested. Otherwise
windfalls to owners of Affordable Units could result, and the
County would realize no long term benefit.
6. Affordable Price/Rent
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Affordable Units are subject to prescriptive rent and price restrictions
(Chapter V (C)), except that up to 50% of the Moderate Income Units
could be determined solely by the income of the homebuyer.
B. Policy Options
1. It may be argued that income limitations alone are all that is
necessary to control prices and rents. This option permits the
developer/owner to set the price/rent at a level that will result in
all Affordable Units being sold/rented at affordable levels.
Members of Board of Supervisors -6- September 10, 1993
2. Stipulate that the Moderate Income Units must be evenly split
between households earning 80-100% of median and 100-120% of
median, with prices set accordingly.
7. Phasing
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Chapter V (D) is moderately prescriptive by providing for phasing of the
Moderate Income Affordable Units in a manner that permits some limited
passage forward of the obligation to future phases (no more than forty
percent (40%) of an individual phase Affordable Unit requirement can be
passed forward to future phases). The Very Low and Low Income Units
provides for a flexible approach in which one year and three year strategic
plans for the delivery of said units are required to be submitted (Chapter
V (17))•
B. Policy Options
1. A review of compliance with this Affordable Housing Program
occurs upon the submittal of applications for future phases. Such
applications may be found incomplete, or applications may be
denied if non-compliance with the Affordable Housing Program is
determined; or
2. The most prescriptive phasing requirement would permit no
variance between the proportion of Affordable Units provided and
the proportion of all units constructed in the Dougherty Valley.
3. A suggestive alternative would set goals but no mandates, except
the final proportion. This option provides maximum flexibility to
the developer, but is higher risk with respect to Affordable
Housing goals, i.e., they may not be realized until final phases or
not at all.
8. Non-Profit Entities
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
Section V (E) permits the developers to contract with non-profit entities
to construct the Very Low and Low Income Units. The substitution of a
non-profit entity may satisfy all or a portion of the developers' Very Low
y
Members of Board of Supervisors -7- September 10, 1993
and Low Income requirement if the property is dedicated to the non-profit.
Additional land dedications may or may not be required, dependent on the
presence or absence of Surplus Funds from initial Very Low and Low
Income developments of the non-profit(s).
B. Policy Options
1. Maintain the delivery of Very Low and Low Income Units as a
developer responsibility without assignment to non-profits.
2. Permit assignment to non-profits but require land dedications in all
cases, i.e., not recognize the possibility of Surplus Funds being
available for subsequent Very Low and Low Income projects.
9. Plan of Finance
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
The suggestive premise of the Plan of Finance (Chapter VI) is that the
private developer(s) are responsible for delivering the Affordable Units.
The Moderate Income Units are to be delivered without public assistance.
The Very Low and Low Income Units may receive public subsidy, but it
is limited to offsetting the defined "Affordability Gap" (the amount of
financing not supported by income due to the Affordable Unit
requirement). Furthermore, the commitment of funds is not guaranteed,
but provided for on a best efforts basis.
B. Policy Options
1. The explicit commitment of financial resources to fund the
"Affordability Gap" is theoretically possible, but legally and
politically difficult. This Board of Supervisors cannot commit
future Boards of Supervisors on items of discretion. Furthermore,
the precommitment of County controlled funds for Affordable
Units in the Dougherty Valley could result in cities in the County
refusing to enter into cooperation agreements for some of these
funding programs, and ultimately result in the County no longer
being eligible to receive such funds, e.g., Community
Development Block Grants and HOME funds.
Members of Board of Supervisors -8- September 10, 1993
2. Public financing of the "Feasibility Gap" (the amount of financing
not supported by income at market rents/prices) is an option,
however, it may be cost prohibitive.
3. The County could stipulate that the delivery of Affordable Units
is to be provided for by the public and quasi-public non-profit
sector. Such a position is inconsistent with current public agency
fiscal realities, and may be financially inefficient since leverage of
private sector financing is foregone or Iimited.
10. Ongoing Program Management
A. Draft Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
The presence of affordability terms prescribed in Chapter V (B) suggests
an ongoing program management function. For-sale units are subject to
recorded deed restrictions (Appendix H) that gives the County or is
assignee a right of first refusal to purchase the home in order to maintain
its affordability. Rental projects are subject to a regulatory agreement
(Appendix I). The regulatory agreement stipulates that the project owner
regularly submit documentation that can be monitored by the County to
assure compliance. The regulatory agreement is a recorded document.
B. Policy Options
1. Ongoing program management functions could be assigned to one
or more local non-profit housing development organizations. Non-
profits may, if adequately financed, be able to respond more
efficiently to a notice of a homeowner intending to sell, and
offering the property under a right of first refusal contract. The
County has utilized this approach in the past and is implicit in the
language of the program documents, e.g., right of first refusal to
the "County or its assignee;" or
2. Private firms may be an alternative, however, this option is not
well developed in the marketplace at this time. If employer
assisted housing develops and expands as an approach to financing
affordable housing, or if the number of public sector programs
expands, a niche market for program management services
(compliance monitoring to transaction execution) could emerge.
Some non-profit organizations are beginning to establish for-profit
subsidiaries that could serve both public and private sector clients.
Members of Board of Supervisors -9- September 10, 1993
Summary and Conclusions
This memorandum has summarized the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program and
identified the major policy options that are before the Board of Supervisors. The Board of
Supervisors should give direction with respect to the following questions:
1. What is the desired forum for discussing the Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program?
2. When should these discussions take place?
3. Which of the policy options, including those of the Dougherty Valley Affordable
Housing Program, are preferred by the Board of Supervisors?
4. What is the preferred mechanism for contractual agreement to this Dougherty
Valley Affordable Housing Program?
HB:JK:lh
Attachment
cc: County Administrator
GMEDA
County Counsel
Shappell Industries
Windemere Partners
dv/dvafhsg2.mem '.
Briefing Memorandum to Board
of Supervisors on DVAHp policy options
March 8, 1994
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: March 8, 1994
TO: Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
FROM: Harvey Bragdon, Direc
Community Develo nWep
SUBJECT: Proposed Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
This proposed Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program represents a consensus program
developed by staff in consultation with the Dougherty Valley developers. The proposed
Affordable Housing Program is a mixture of prescriptive measures (for example, the Affordable
Housing Program Requirements - Chapter V) that are a derivative of the Dougherty Valley
Specific Plan, and recommendations(for example, the Affordable Housing Finance Alternatives-
Chapter IV, and the Plan of Finance - Chapter VI). Following is a summary of the items
incorporated into this proposed Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program.
1. Income Targeting
Chapter V (A)(1)(b) is prescriptive and sets forth specific percentages of Very
Low, Low and Moderate Income Targeting that are based on the thresholds
specified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) in its certification of the County's Housing Element (Chapter II (C) and
Appendix Q. The HCD letter states that units in the Dougherty Valley "will be
affordable in at least the following ratio: 10 percent (V)ery (Low), 25 percent
(L)ow, and 65 percent (M)oderate Income." The HCD specified percentages are
considered to be a floor that the ultimate program cannot go below. The validity
of these income targets has been confirmed by the Gruen Gruen & Associates
Jobs/Housing Balance study which found that the income distribution within the
lower income ranges approximated these targets (Appendix J, Table II-6).
2. Number of Affordable Units
Chapter V (A)(1)(a) stipulates that a minimum of 25% of the total units in the
Dougherty Valley shall be affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income
Households. The proposed Affordable Housing Program is consistent with the
minimum Dougherty Valley Specific Plan requirement (Policy H-4).
Members of Board of Supervisors -2- March 8, 1994
3. Tenure Targeting
The proposed Affordable Housing Program does not state any tenure
requirements. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan "encourage(s) and promote(s)
owner occupied housing, especially for affordable units" (Policy H-9). It is
expected that most of the Very Low and Low Income will be provided as rental
units because the subsidy costs are less for rental units (up to 35% of all
affordable units), and that most of the Moderate Income units (65% of all
affordable units) will be owner occupied.
4. Types of Housing
No direct stipulations are made with respect to Housing Types defined in Chapter
III. The suggestive provisions of Chapter V (A)(2) - Specialized Facilities -
provides incentive for Supportive Housing (group homes for the mentally or
physically disabled, Transitional Housing, etc.), and Nursing Homes, especially
those with Medi-Cal beds.
5. Affordability Term
Chapter V (B) is prescriptive and reflects the provisions of the Dougherty Valley
Specific Plan (Policy H-9) for Very Low and Low Income Units. For-sale units
require affordability for twenty years, and rental units for thirty years. Moderate
Income units are not subject to affordability terms as a result of this Affordable
Housing Program.
6. Affordable Price/Rent
Very Low and Low Income Units are subject to prescriptive rent and price
restrictions (Chapter V (C)). Moderate Income Units are subject to prescriptive
rent and price restrictions requirements except that up to 50% of the Moderate
Income Homeownership Units may be determined solely by a determinant that the
homebuyer is of Moderate Income.
7. Phasing
Chapter V (D) is moderately prescriptive by providing for phasing of the
Moderate Income Affordable Units in a manner that permits some limited passage
forward of the obligation to future phases (no more than forty percent (40%) of
an individual phase Affordable Unit requirement can be passed forward to future
Members of Board of Supervisors -3- March 8, 1994
phases). The Very Low and Low Income Units provides for a flexible approach
in which one year and three year strategic plans for the delivery of said units are
required to be submitted (Chapter V (F)).
8. Non-Profit Entities
Section V (E) permits the developers to contract with non-profit entities to
construct the Very Low and Low Income Units. The substitution of a non-profit
entity may satisfy all or a portion of the developers' Very Low and Low Income
requirement if the property is dedicated to the non-profit, who must deliver units
in a timely fashion. Should the non-profit not perform, the developer may build
market rate units on the site, and dedicate a site in a subsequent phase. Any
dedication of land to a non-profit may be completed with the non-profit owner
assuming its proportionate share of community infrastructure obligations. The
assumption of this infrastructure obligation may be by payment of the required
developer fee or by the assumption of an assessment and/or special tax.
Additional land dedications may or may not be required, dependent on the
presence or absence of Surplus Funds from initial Very Low and Low Income
developments of the non-profit(s).
9. Plan of Finance
The suggestive premise of the Plan of Finance (Chapter VI) is that the private
developer(s) are responsible for delivering the Affordable Units. The Moderate
Income Units are to be delivered without the expectation of public assistance.
The Very Low and Low Income Units may receive public subsidy, but it is
limited to offsetting the defined "Affordability Gap" (the amount of financing not
supported by income due to the Affordable Unit requirement). Furthermore, the
commitment of funds is not guaranteed, but provided for on a best efforts basis.
10. Level of Contribution
In determining affordable housing contribution, some consideration needs to be
given to the component costs of a lot. The developer contribution becomes better
understood and the options more clearly defined once the fixed and incremental
costs are provided. The cost per lot enters into the affordability thresholds. To
the extent that costs are cut for affordable lots, they are shifted to remaining lots.
Members of Board of Supervisors -4- March 8, 1994
11. Jobs/Housing
The need to better understand the relationship between job availability in the Tri-
Valley area and housing for those employees resulted in a study entitled, "The
Effect of the Proposed Dougherty Valley Housing and the Jobs/Housing Balance
in the Tri-Valley," by Gruen Gruen & Associates was completed (Appendix J).
The findings and conclusions of the study are:
• It is forecast that approximately 45,000 new employees will be added to
the Tri-Valley work force during the Dougherty Valley time frame. These
additional new employees will generate an effective demand for
approximately 33,000 new homes. The actual demand is closer to 35,000
new units when factoring in a 5 percent vacancy rate and other
considerations.
• If the Dougherty Valley is built out as proposed, it will only provide about
31 percent of the total number of units needed to supply all of the
projected worker households. 100% of the future Tri-Valley employees
will be able to afford housing that is proposed for the Dougherty Valley.
• While the income survey indicates that a higher percentage of affordable
housing in the Dougherty Valley could be absorbed by local workers, it
also shows that the housing proposed can be supported by local workers,
thereby improving the jobs/housing balance.
• Of the total units demanded in the "Affordable price range,
approximately 5% of the total affordable units are demanded by Very Low
Income households, 27% are demanded by Low Income households, and
68% are demanded by Moderate Income households.
• It is estimated that approximately 2.5 percent of the future Tri-Valley
workers will need housing valued at less than $100,000. 4.5 percent of
the housing units proposed for the Dougherty Valley will meet the home
pricing requirements of wage earners that fall into this income category.
• The overlap between the distribution of prices that would be paid by all
Tri-Valley households with at least one worker in them when each
household is assumed to afford only a dwelling whose annual costs equal
30. percent of the income does not overlap perfectly with the price
Members of Board of Supervisors -5- March 8, 1994
distribution of the units proposed by the developers. The distribution of
prices that can be afforded by the worker households in the population are
skewed toward the low side of the housing price categories proposed.
Only 60.5% of the two distributions mesh or overlap. This is because
70% of the price categories that can be afforded by employee households
are below $200,000, but only about 28 percent of the proposed units
would be at prices below this level.
• How this 60.5% "mesh" rate effects the jobs/housing balance of the Tri-
Valley between 1995 and 2005 depends on the total number of units built,
not just the 11,000 units proposed by the Dougherty Valley developers.
We estimate that about 35,000 units will have to be added to the supply
to meet the demands of the employees expected to be added to Tri-Valley
jobs between 1995 and 2005 and also allow for some vacancies and
replacement of the existing stock. If this many units or more are built,
it is likely that the lack of overlap or mesh between the proposed units
will avoid creating affordability problems because:
• Under competitive conditions, the price of existing units will
remain stable or decline in real dollars so as to provide units in the
lower end of the range of prices proposed.
• Other developers will fill in the price ranges where shortfalls are
indicated.
• The Dougherty Valley developers will switch their distribution to
the lower end in order to sell units.
• Gruen Gruen & Associates feels particularly confident that the market
reaction of a total increase in demand will have the effect of creating a
balance because of the conservative nature of the assumptions in this
study. First, although housing prices were assumed to be constant, we
have not "grown" the 1993 incomes found in our survey. Secondly, the
method used by Gruen Gruen & Associates to forecast household income
tends. to underestimate household incomes and, as a result, home buying
power. This analysis may also understate home buying power by not
considering the equity that some homebuyers can bring to their purchases
from homes they have previously owned.
12. Ongoing Program Management
The presence of affordability terms prescribed in Chapter V (B) suggests an
ongoing program management function. For-sale units are subject to recorded
deed restrictions (Appendix H) that gives the County or is assignee a right of first
Members of Board of Supervisors -6- March 8, 1994
refusal to purchase the home in order to maintain its affordability. Rental
projects are subject to a regulatory agreement (Appendix I). The regulatory
agreement stipulates that the project owner regularly submit documentation that
can be monitored by the County to assure compliance. The regulatory agreement
is a recorded document.
Summary and Recommendations
This memorandum has summarized the proposed Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing
Program. Staff recommends its adoption. Upon its adoption, it is recommended that the
Affordable Housing Program be incorporated into the respective Development Agreements for
the Dougherty Valley developments.
HB:JK:Ili
Attachment
cc: County Administrator
GME-DA
County Counsel
Shappell Industries
Windemere Partners
dvldvafhsg4.metn
ATTACHMENT C
Analysis of Capitalized Value — Falcon Bridge Project
using three alternative rent formulations.
W:'\Personal'P,BoardOrdersTOARD.doughertyvaI]eN 6.5
ATTACHMENT C-1
FALCON BRIDGE
ANNUAL RENT/CAPITALIZED VALUE ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE A
UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS ANNUAL RENTS#
(# Bedrooms)
1 104 $1,787,136
2 128 2,474,496
3 24 515,520
256
Gross Annual Rents $4,777,152
Minus Vacancya5% (238,858)
Minus Operating Expenses@33% (1,576,460)
Net Income for Debt Service 2,961,834
Cap Rate 8.0%
Capitalized Value $37,022,925
#MONTHLY RENTS ARE CALCULATED USING 100% OF MEDIAN INCOME,WHICH RENTS ARE CURRENTLY:
ALTERNATIVE A
1 bedroom units $1,432
2 bedroom units $1,611
3 bedroom units $1,790
W:\Personal\\BoardOrders\BO.4RD.doughertyva I l ey6.5
ATTACHMENT C-2
FALCON BRIDGE
ANNUAL RENT/CAPITALIZED VALUE ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE B
UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS ANNUAL RENTS#
(# Bedrooms)
1 104 $1,965,600
2 128 2,969,088
3 24 618,624
256
Gross Annual Rents $5,553,312
Minus Vacancy[cD5% (277,666)
Minus Operating Expenses@33% (1,832,593)
Net Income for Debt Service 3,443,053
Cap Rate 8.0%
Capitalized Value $43,038,162
#MONTHLY RENTS ARE CALCULATED USING 100%OF MEDIAN INCOME FOR 1 BEDROOM UNITS,AND 120%OF
MEDIAN INCOME FOR 2 AND 3 BEDROOM UNITS,WHICH RENTS ARE CURRENTLY:
ALTERNATIVE B
1 bedroom units $1,575
2 bedroom units $1,933
3 bedroom units $2,148
W:\Personal0oard0rder-00ARD.dougheriN .1HeN.6.5
ATTACHMENT C- 3
FALCON BRIDGE
ANNUAL RENT/CAPITALIZED VALUE ANALYSIS — ALTERNATIVE C
UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS ANNUAL RENTS#
(# Bedrooms)
1 104 $1,965,600
2 128 2,721,792
3 24 567,072
256
Gross Annual Rents $5,254,464
Minus Vacancya5% (262,723)
Minus Operating Expenses@33% (1,733,973)
Net Income for Debt Service 3,257,768
Cap Rate 8.0%
Capitalized Value $40,722,100
#MONTHLY RENTS ARE CALCULATED USING 100% OF MEDIAN INCOME,WHICH RENTS ARE CURRENTLY:
ALTERNATIVE C
1 bedroom units $1,575
2 bedroom units $1,772
3 bedroom units $1,969
W:\Personal\\BoardOrders\130ARD.doughem vaI le.0.5
ATTACHMENT D
Proposed Form of Regulatory Agreement and Declaration
of Restrictive Covenants
W APersonaI\\BoardOrders\BOAR D.doughertyvaI Iey6.5
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street,40,Floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA 91553
ATTN: Deputy Director-Redevelopment
REGULATORY AGREEMENT
AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
By and Between
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
and
OWNER
Dated as of
W:persona I\documents\Dougherty.vly.re};.agree.6.01.revised
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Definitions and Interpretation. .............................................................................1
Section 2. Acquisition, Construction, Equipping and Completion of the Project..............4
Section 3. Residential Rental Property...................................................................................5
Section 4. Very Low, Low, Moderate Income Households. ................................................6
Section 5. Indemnification.............................................................................................9
Section 6. Consideration.......................................................................................................10
Section7. Reliance........................................................................ .......................10
Section 8. Sale or Transfer of the Project. ............................................................................11
Section9. Term......................................................................................................................11
Section 10. Covenants to run with the land..........................................................................11
Section 11. Burden and Benefit..............................................................................................12
Section 12. Uniformity; Common Plan..................................................................................12
Section13. Enforcement..........................................................................................................12
Section 14. Recording and Filing............................................................................................13
Section15. Payment of Fees. ..................................................................................................13
Section16. Governing Law.....................................................................................................13
Section17. Amendments........................................................................................................13
Section18. Notice....................................................................................................................13
Section19. Severability. ..........................................................................................................14
Section 20. Multiple Counterparts.........................................................................................14
EXHIBIT A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT B - STATISTICAL REPORT OF COUNTY
EXHIBIT C- CERTIFICATE OF HOUSEHOLD ELIGIBILITY
EXHIBIT D - CERTIFICATE OF CONTINUING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
EXHIBIT E - COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
i-
REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
THIS REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS (the "Regulatory Agreement") is dated as of , by and between
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a public body, corporate and politic organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California (the "Issuer"), and (the "Owner").
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County adopted the Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan the ("Specific Plan") on December 19, 1996;
WHEREAS, the Specific. Plan provides for the development of a mixed -income
community in the Dougherty Valley in order to achieve a jobs-housing balance and address
affordable housing needs set forth in the County General Plan-Housing Element;
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Specific Plan's affordable housing goals, the Board of
Supervisors adopted the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program ("DVAHP") on
March 24, 1994; and
WHEREAS, development approvals in the Dougherty Valley are subject to
Development Agreements adopted pursuant to Section 65864 et seq. of the California
Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreements incorporate by reference the DVAHP;
WHEREAS, the County has approved the project as herein defined, which is subject to
the DVAHP;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings set
forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
hereby are acknowledged, the County and the Owner hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions and Interpretation. Capitalized terms shall have the respective
meanings given to such terms herein. The following terms shall have the respective meanings
assigned to them in this Section 1 unless the context in which they are used clearly requires
otherwise:
"Adjusted Income" means the adjusted annual income of a person (together with the
adjusted income of all persons who intend to reside with such person in one residential unit) as
calculated in the manner prescribed in Exhibit B.
"Affordable Units" means any one or more of the units reserved for occupancy by Very
Low, Low, and Moderate Income Households in the Dougherty Valley. The Dougherty Valley
Specific Plan requires that 25% of the units in Dougherty Valley be Affordable Units.
"Area" means the Oakland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area.
"Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance" means the.Certificate to be filed by the
Owner with the County under Section 4(e) hereof, which shall be substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
"Completion Certificate" means the certificate of completion of the construction of the
Project required to be delivered to the County, (if other than the Issuer), pursuant to Section 2
of this Regulatory Agreement, which shall be substantially in the form attached to this
Regulatory Agreement as Exhibit E.
"Colnpletion Date" means the date of the completion of the construction and equipping of
the Project.
"DVAHP" means Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program.
"Housing Act" means the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, or its
successor.
"Income Certification" means a Certification of Household Eligibility in the form attached
as Exhibit C hereto or in such other form as may be provided by the County to the Owner.
"Lower Income" means generically all households of Very Low, Low, and Moderate
Income.
"Low Income Households" means households whose annual incomes are from 51 to (and
including) 80 percent of the Contra Costa County Median Income, as adjusted for family size
and published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
pursuant to Health &Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
"Low Income Rent" means the lesser of (1) the monthly market rate rent, including a
Utility Allowance; or (2) a monthly rent which is no greater than one hundred percent (100%)
of the Section 8 Existing Program Fair Market Rents, established in accordance with 24 CFR
Part 882, effective at the time of occupancy, less the Utility Allowance then in effect.
"Low Income Units" means the units in the project required to be rented to, or held
available for occupancy by, Low Income Households.
2
"Management Plan" means a plan developed by the Owner setting forth procedures and
forms deemed necessary to comply with the. provisions of Section 3 & 4 hereof. A
Management Plan conforming with said sections must be subject to the review and approval of
the Director of Community Development.
"Median Income" means the annual .median income for the Contra Costa County,
adjusted for family size as published by the California Department of. Housing and
Community Development pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
"Median Monthly Income" means 1/12 of the Median Income.
"Moderate Incolrne Households" means households whose annual incomes are from 81 to
(and including) 120 percent of the Contra Costa County Median Income, as adjusted for family
size and. published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
"Moderate Income Pent" means the lesser of (1) the monthly market rate rent; or (2) a
monthly rent which is no greater that 30% of 100% of the Median Monthly Income, including a
Utility Allowance. Rents for studio units shall be calibrated utilizing the one-person Median
Income Household income; one-bedroom units shall use a two-person Median Income
Household income; two-bedroom units shall use a three-person Median Income Household
income, etc.
"Moderate Incolne Units" means the units in the project required to be rented to, or held
available for occupancy by, Moderate Income Households.
"Owner" means and its successors and assigns, as owner of the
project.
"Project" means the rental Project Facilities and the Project Site known as
and further described as follows:
Location:
Address:
AP No:
County File No:
"Project Facilities" means all buildings, structures and other improvements to be
constructed on the Project Site, and all fixtures and other property of the Owner located on, or
used in connection with, such buildings, structures and other improvements constituting the
Project.
"Project Site" means the parcel or parcels of real property described in Exhibit "A", which
is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, and all rights and appurtenances
thereunto appertaining.
3
i`
"Qualified Project Period" means the period beginning on the date of the Completion
Certificate and ending on the date which is 30 years after the date on which at least fifty
percent (50%) of the dwelling units in the Project were first occupied.
"Regulatory Agreement" means this Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants.
"Utility A1107Vance" means the allowance for tenant purchased utilities adopted by the
Contra Costa Housing Authority and approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the Section 8 Existing Rent Subsidy/Section 8 Voucher Programs.
"Very Low Incofiie Households" means households whose annual incomes do not exceed
50 percent of the Contra Costa County Median Income for Contra Costa County, as adjusted
for family size and published by the State Department of Housing and. Community
Development pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
"Very Lou) Income Pent" means a monthly rent, which is no greater than 30% of 50% of
the Median Monthly Income including a Utility Allowance. Rents for studio units shall be
calibrated utilizing the one-person Very Low Income Household income; one-bedroom units
shall use a two-person Very Low Income Households income, two-bedroom units shall use a
three-person Very Low Income Households income, etc.
"Very Loin Income Units" means the units in the project required to be rented to, or held
available for occupancy by, Very Low Income Households.
Unless the context. clearly requires otherwise, as used in this Regulatory Agreement,
words of the masculine, feminine or neuter gender shall be construed to include each other
gender when appropriate and words of the singular number shall be construed to include the
plural number, and vice versa, when appropriate. This Regulatory Agreement and all the terms
and provisions hereof shall be construed to effectuate the purposes set forth herein and to
sustain the validity hereof.
The defined terms used in the preamble and recitals of this Regulatory Agreement have
been included for convenience of reference only, and the meaning, construction and
interpretation of all clef.ined terms shall be determined by reference to this Section 1
notwithstanding any contrary definition in the preamble or recitals hereof. The titles and
headings of the sections of this Regulatory Agreement have been inserted for convenience of
reference only, and are not to be considered a part hereof and shall not in any way modify or
restrict any of the terms or provisions hereof or be considered or given any effect in construing
this Regulatory Agreement or any provisions hereof or in ascertaining intent, if any question of
intent shall arise.
Section 2. Acquisition, Construction, Equipping and Completion of the Project. The
Owner hereby represents as of the date hereof, covenants and agrees as follows:
(a) The Owner [has/will] commence[d] the construction of the Project and
will proceed with due diligence to complete the same.
4
I
(b) The Owner reasonably expects to complete the construction of the Project
by
(c) The statements made in the various certificates delivered by the Owner
to the County are true and correct.
(d) On the Completion Date of the Project, the Owner will submit to the
County a duly executed and completed Completion Certificate.
(e) The Owner (and any Affiliated Party) will not take or omit to take, as
applicable, any action if such action or omission would in any way cause the project to
be developed in a manner contrary to the requirements of this Regulatory Agreement.
(f) The Owner shall file an annual certification of compliance with the terms
of this Regulatory Agreement.
Section 3. Residential Rental Property. The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees
that the Project is owned, managed and operated as a residential. rental project for a term equal
to the Qualified Project Period. To that end, and for the term of this Regulatory Agreement, the
Owner hereby represents, covenants, warrants and agrees as follows:
(a) The Project will be constructed for the purpose of providing multifamily
residential rental property, and the Owner will own, manage and. operate the Project as
a project to provide multifamily residential rental property comprised of a building or
structure or several interrelated buildings or structures, together with any functionally
related and subordinate facilities.
(b) All of the dwelling units in the Project are similarly constructed units,
and each dwelling unit in the Project contains complete separate and distinct facilities
for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation for a single person or a family,
including a sleeping area, bathing and sanitation facilities and cooking facilities
equipped with a cooking range, refrigerator and sink.
(c) None of the dwelling units in the Project will at any time be utilized on a
transient basis, or will ever be used as a hotel, motel, dormitory, fraternity house,
sorority house, rooming house, nursing home, hospital, sanitarium, rest home or trailer
court or park.
(d) The Owner shall not take any steps in connection with a conversion to
cooperative or condominium ownership or use, other than filing a condominium map
and final tract map on the Project and obtaining a Final Subdivision Public Report from
the California Department of Real Estate. The Owner will not take any steps in
connection with a conversion of the Project to a condominium ownership during the
Qualified Project Period.
(e) All of the dwelling units [have been/will be] completed and will be
available for rental on a continuous basis to members of the general public and the
Owner will not give preference to any particular class.or group in renting the dwelling
5
units in the Project, except to the extent that dwelling units are required to be leased or
rented to [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Tenants.
(f) The Project Site consists of a parcel or parcels that are contiguous except
for the interposition of a road, street or stream, and all of the Project Facilities comprise
a single geographically and functionally integrated project for residential rental
property, as evidenced by the ownership, management, accounting and operation of
the Project.
(g) No dwelling unit in the Project shall be occupied by the Owner;
provided, however, that if the Project contains five or more dwelling units, this
subsection shall not be construed to prohibit occupancy of such dwelling units by one
or more resident managers or maintenance personnel any of whom may be the Owner.
(h) The units reserved for Lower Income Households shall be of comparable
quality and offer a range of sizes and number of bedrooms available to other tenants,
have substantially the same equipment and amenities, and shall not be geographically
segregated from such other units.
(i) For the term of this Regulatory Agreement, the Owner will not
discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or
ancestry, religion, marital status, age, disability, source of income or receipt of public
assistance or housing assistance in connection with the rental, use, or occupancy of
units in the Project or in connection with the employment or application for
employment of persons for operation and management of the Project, and all contracts,
applications and leases entered into for such purposes shall contain a nondiscrimination
clause to such effect.
Section 4. [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households/Rents. Pursuant to the
requirements of the Specific Plan and the DVAHP and this Regulatory Agreement, the Owner
hereby represents, warrants and covenants - as follows:
(a) Commencing on the completion date, [Very Low, Low, Moderate]
Income Households shall occupy at least percent (_%) of all completed and
occupied units in the Project; and for the Qualified Project Period no less than _% of
the total number of completed units of the Project shall at all times be rented to and
occupied by [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households. For the purposes of this
paragraph (a), a vacant unit which was most recently occupied by a [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Households is treated as rented and occupied. by a [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Households until reoccupied, other than for a temporary period of
not more than 31 days, at which time the character of such unit shall be redetermined.
Except as otherwise provided herein, (including without limitation, Section 3(e) hereof)
the [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Units shall be intermingled with all other
dwelling units in the Project and shall be of a quality, and offer a range of sizes and
number of bedrooms, comparable to those units which are available to other tenants.
Tenants in the [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Units will have equal access and
enjoyment to all common facilities of the Project.
6
(b) The rents for the [Very Low, Low, Moderate Income Units] shall not
exceed the [Very Low Income Rent, Low Income Rent, and Moderate Income Rent].
(c) No tenant qualifying as a [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Household
shall be denied continued occupancy of a unit in the Project because, after admission,
such tenant's Adjusted Income i-ncreases to exceed the qualifying limit for [Very Low,
Low, Moderate] Income Households; provided, however, that should a [Very Low,
Low, Moderate] Income Household's Adjusted Income, as of the most recent
determination thereof, exceed one hundred forty percent (140%) of the applicable
income limit for a [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Household of the same family
size, the next available unit of comparable or smaller size must be rented to (or held
vacant and available -for immediate occupancy by) a [Very Low, Low, Moderate]
Income Household; and provided further that, until such next available unit is rented to
a [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Household, the former [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Household who has ceased to qualify as such shall be deemed to
continue to be a [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Household for purposes of the
percent (_%) requirement of Section 4(a) hereof until the next available unit of
comparable or smaller size is rented to a qualifying [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income
Household.
(d) The Owner will obtain, complete, and maintain on file Income
Certifications from each [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Household, dated
immediately prior to the initial occupancy of such [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income
Household in the Project, and will provide such additional information as may be
required to verify eligibility in the future by the County. The Owner will also obtain,
complete, and maintain on file an annual income Certification from each [Very Low,
Low, Moderate] Income Household, dated the anniversary of the date of initial
occupancy in the Project by such [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Household. A
copy of.the most recent Income Certification for [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income
Household commencing or continuing occupation of a [Very Low, Low, Moderate]
Income Unit shall be attached to each report to be filed with the County. The Owner
shall make a good faith effort to verify that the income provided by an applicant in an
Income Certification is accurate by taking one or more of the following steps as a part of
the verification process: (1) obtain a pay stub for the most recent three months, (2)
obtain an income tax return for the most recent tax year, (3) conduct a TRW Credit
Bureau or other similar search, (4) obtain an income verification from the applicant's
current employer, (5) obtain an income verification from the Social Security
Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if the applicant
receives assistance from either of such agencies, or (6) if the applicant is unemployed
and does not have an income tax return, obtain another form of independent
verification. The Owner shall also engage in a review of bank statements of that tenant
for the prior six (6) months. ,
(e) The Owner will maintain complete and accurate records pertaining to the
[Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Units, and will permit any duly authorized
representative of the County to inspect the books and records of the Owner pertaining
7
to the Project, including those records pertaining to the occupancy of the [Very Low,
Low, Moderate] Income Units.
(f) The Owner shall prepare and submit to the County, thirty days after the
end of each month until ninety-five percent (95%) of the units in the Project are
occupied and will prepare and submit at the end of each calendar quarter thereafter, a
Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance in the form of Exhibit D hereto executed
by the Owner stating (i) the percentage of the dwelling units of the Project which were
occupied or deemed occupied, pursuant to subsection (a) hereof, by [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Households during such period, (ii) that either (A) no unremedied
default has occurred under this Regulatory Agreement or (B) a default has occurred, in
which event the certificate shall describe the nature of the default in detail and set forth
the measures being taken by the Owner to remedy such default.
(g) The Owner will accept as tenants on the same basis as all other
prospective tenants, persons who are recipients of federal certificates for rent subsidies
pursuant to the existing program under Section 8 of the Housing Act, or its successor.
The Owner shall not apply selection criteria to Section 8 certificate or voucher holders
that is more burdensome than criteria applied to all other prospective tenants.
(h) Each lease or rental agreement pertaining to a [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Unit shall contain a provision to the effect that the Owner has relied
on the income certification and supporting information supplied by the [Very Low,
Low, Moderate] Income Household in determining qualification for occupancy of the
[Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Unit, and that any material misstatement in such
certification (whether or not intentional) will be cause for immediate termination of such
lease or rental agreement. Each such lease or rental agreement shall also provide that
the tenant's income is subject to annual certification in accordance with Section 4(d)
hereof and that if upon any such certification such tenant's Adjusted Income exceeds
one hundred forty percent (140% ) of the applicable income limit for a [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Tenant of the same family size, such tenant shall, subject to (b)
above, cease to qualify as a [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Tenant, and such
tenant's rent is subject to increase. A lease addendum setting forth procedures for
handling changes in tenant status shall be part of each lease agreement.
(i) The requirements of this Regulatory Agreement shall be administered
and compliance therewith monitored by the County, but the County shall incur no
liability hereunder as a consequence thereof.
(j) At least twelve months prior to the expiration of the Qualified Project
Period the Borrower shall provide the notices set forth by Section 65863.10 of the
Government Code.
(k) Following the expiration or termination of the Qualified Project Period,
except in the event of foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, eminent domain, or action
of a federal agency preventing enforcement, units required to be reserved for occupancy
pursuant to Section 4(a) shall remain available to any eligible household occupying a
[Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Unit at the date of expiration or termination, and at
8
a rent not greater than the amount set forth in Section 5 (a), until the earliest of any of
the following occurs: (1) the household's income exceeds 140 percent of the maximum
eligible income specified in clause (a) above; (2) the household voluntarily moves or is
evicted for "good cause" ("good cause" for the purposes of this subsection, means the
nonpayment of rent or allegation of facts necessary to provide major, or repeated minor,
violations of material provisions of the occupancy agreement which detrimentally affect
the health and safety of other persons or the structure, the fiscal integrity of the Project,
or the purposes or special programs of the Project); (3) thirty-two years after the date of
the commencement of the Qualified Project Period; or (4) the Owners pay the relocation
assistance and benefits to tenants as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 7264 of the
Government Code. During the three years prior to expiration of the Qualified Project
Period, the Owner shall continue to make available to eligible households Affordable
Units that have been vacated to the same extent that nonreserved units are made
available to noneligible households.
(1) All tenant lists, applications and waiting lists relating to the Project shall
at all times be kept separate and identifiable from any other business of the Owner and
shall be maintained as required by the County, in a reasonable condition for proper
audit and subject to examination during business hours by representatives of the Issuer.
(m) The Borrower shall not permit occupancy in any unit in the Project by
more persons than is permissible under the Section 8 of the Housing Act household size
standards.
Any of the foregoing requirements of the County may be expressly waived by the
County in writing, but (i) no waiver by the County of any requirement of this Section 4 shall, or
shall be deemed to, extend to or affect any other provision of this Regulatory Agreement; and
—Co
(ii) any requirement of this Section 4 shall be void and of no force and effect if counselft e
County and the Owner render a written opinion or receive a judgement that any requirement
would be in conflict with local, state or federal law.
Section 5. Indemnification. The Owner hereby covenants and agrees that it shall
indemnify and hold harmless the County and its officers, directors, officials, employees and
agents from and against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person arising from any
cause, whatsoever in connection with this Regulatory Agreement, and the Project (or the
operation thereof), any and all claims arising from any act of omission of the Owner or any of
its agents, contractors, servants, employees or licensees in connection with the Project (or the
operation thereof), and all costs, counsel fees, expenses or liabilities incurred in connection with
any such claim or proceeding brought thereon. The Owner further hereby indemnifies, and
agrees to defend and hold harmless, the County, their officers, directors, officials, employees
and agents from and against all loss, costs, damages, expenses, suits, judgments, actions and
liabilities of whatever nature (including, without limitation, reasonable fees of legal counsel
which counsel is reasonably acceptable to the respective indemnified parties, litigation and
court costs, amounts paid in settlement, and amounts paid to discharge judgments) directly or
indirectly resulting from or arising out of or related to (a) the design, construction, installation,
operation, use, occupancy, maintenance, or ownership of the Project (including compliance
with.laws, ordinances and. rules and regulations of public authorities relating thereto); or (b)
any written statements or representations with respect to the Owner, made or given to the
9
County, by the Owner, or any of its agents or employees, limited. to, statements or
representations of information or partnership affairs.
In the event that any action or proceeding is brought against the County or any of its
officers, directors, officials, employees or agents, with respect to which indemnity may be
sought hereunder, the Owner, upon written notice from the indemnified party, shall assume
the investigation and defense thereof, including the employment of counsel and the payment
of all expenses. The indemnified party shall have the right to employ separate counsel in any
such action or proceedings and to participate in the defense thereof, and the Owner shall pay
the reasonable fees and expenses of such separate counsel; provided that the indemnified party
shall have the right to review and approve or disapprove any compromise or settlement. The
rights of the County to indemnification under this Section shall survive termination of this
Regulatory Agreement.
The Owner also shall pay and discharge and shall indemnify and hold harmless the
County from (i) any lien or charge upon payments by the Owner to the County hereunder and
(ii) any taxes (including, without limitation, all ad valorem taxes and sales taxes), assessments,
impositions and other charges in respect of any portion of the Project. If any such claim is
asserted, or any such lien or charge upon payments, or any such taxes, assessments,
impositions or other charges, are sought to be imposed, the County, upon actual knowledge
thereof shall give prompt notice to the Owner and the Owner shall have the sole right and duty
to assume, and will assume, the defense thereof, with full power to litigate, compromise or
settle the same in its sole discretion.
In addition thereto, the Owner will pay upon demand all of the fees and expenses paid
or incurred by the Issuer in enforcing the provisions hereof.
Section 6. Consideration. The County has approved the project pursuant to the Specific
Plan, and the DVAHP, for the purpose, among others, of inducing the Owner to develop the
Project Site and, construct, equip and operate the Project. In consideration of these
development approvals by the County, the Owner has entered into this Regulatory Agreement
and has agreed to restrict the uses to which this Project can be put on the terms and conditions
set forth herein.
Section 7. Reliance. The County and the Owner hereby recognize and agree that the
representations and covenants of the Owner set forth herein may be relied upon by all persons
interested in the project. In performing its duties and obligations hereunder, the County may
rely upon statements and certificates of the [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households,
and upon audits of the books and records of the Owner pertaining to the Project. In addition,
the County may consult with counsel, and the opinion of such counsel shall be full and
complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by the County
hereunder in good faith and in conformity with such opinion. In determining whether any
default or lack of compliance by the Owner exists under this Regulatory Agreement, the
County may conduct any investigation into or review of the operations or records of the
Owner, or may rely solely on any written notice or certificate delivered to it by the Owner with
respect to the occurrence or absence of a default unless it knows that the notice or certificate is
erroneous or misleading.
10
1
Section 8. Sale or Transfer of the Project. The Owner hereby covenants and agrees not
to voluntarily sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the Project, or any portion thereof (other
than for individual tenant use as contemplated hereunder), without obtaining the prior written
consent of the County, which consent of the County shall be deemed given upon receipt by the
County of (i) evidence reasonably satisfactory to the County that the Owner's purchaser or
transferee has assumed in writing and in full, the Owner's duties and obligations under this
Regulatory Agreement, (ii) evidence reasonably satisfactory to the County that either (a) the
purchaser or assignee has at least three years' experience in the ownership, operation and
management of large mixed-income or affordable rental housing projects, without any record
of material violations of discrimination restrictions or other state or federal laws or regulations
applicable to such projects, or (b) the purchaser or assignee agrees to retain a property
management firm with the experience and record described in subclause (a) above, or (c) the
County shall not have any reason to believe that the purchaser or assignee is incapable,
financially or otherwise, of complying with, or may be unwilling to comply with, the terms of
all agreements binding on such purchaser or assignee relating to the Projects, (iii) an opinion of
counsel of the transferee that the transferee has duly assumed the obligations of the Owner
under this Regulatory Agreement and that such obligations and this Regulatory Agreement are
binding on the transferee. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that any voluntary sale,
transfer or other disposition of the Project in violation of this Section shall be null, void and
without effect, shall cause a reversion of title to the Borrower, and shall be ineffective to relieve
the Owner of its obligations under this Regulatory Agreement.
Section 9. Term. This Regulatory Agreement and all and several of the terms hereof
shall become effective upon its execution and delivery. This Regulatory Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect for the periods provided herein and shall terminate as to any
provision not otherwise provided with a specific termination date at the end of the Qualified
Project Period.
The terms of this Regulatory Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, all and
several of the terms hereof shall terminate and be of no further force and effect in the event of
(A) a foreclosure or delivery of a deed in lieu of foreclosure whereby a third party becomes the
owner of the Project or (B) involuntary non-compliance with the provisions of this Regulatory
Agreement caused by fire, seizure, requisition, condemnation or a similar event, provided,
however, that the preceding provisions of this sentence shall cease to apply and the restrictions
contained herein shall be reinstated if, at any time subsequent to the termination of such
provisions as the result of the foreclosure or the delivery of a deed in lieu of foreclosure or a
similar event, the County or any related person to them obtains an ownership interest in the
Project for federal income tax purposes. Upon the termination of the terms of this Regulatory
Agreement, the parties hereto agree to execute, deliver and record appropriate instruments of
release and discharge of the terms hereof; provided, however, that the execution and delivery
of such instruments shall not be necessary or a prerequisite to the termination of this
Regulatory Agreement in accordance with its terms.
Section 10. Covenants to Run With the Land. The Owner hereby subjects the Project
(including the Project Site) to the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth in this
Regulatory Agreement. The County and the Owner hereby declare their express intent that the
covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running
with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors in title to the
11
Project; provided, however, that on the termination of this Regulatory Agreement said
covenants, reservations and restrictions shall expire. Subject to Section 10, each and every
contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Project or any
portion .thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted
subject to such covenants, reservations and restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants,
reservations and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instruments.
Section 11. Burden and Benefit. The County and the Owner hereby declare their
understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants set forth herein touch and concern
the land in that the Owner's legal interest in the Project is rendered less valuable thereby. The
County, and the Owner hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit
of such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and
use of the Project by [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Tenants, the intended beneficiaries of
such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which
the project was approved.
Section 12. Uniformity; Common Plan. The covenants, reservations and restrictions
hereof shall apply uniformly to the entire Project in order to establish and carry out a common
plan for the use, Project and improvement of the Project Site.
Section 13. Enforcement. If the Owner defaults in the performance or observance of
any covenant, agreement or obligation of the Owner set forth in this Regulatory Agreement,
and if such default remains uncured for a period of 60 days after notice thereof shall have been
given by the County to the Owner, then the Issuer shall declare an "Event of Default" to have
occurred hereunder, provided, however, that if the default stated in the notice is of such a
nature that it cannot be corrected within 60 days, such default shall not constitute an Event of
Default hereunder so long as the Owner institutes corrective action within said 60 days and
diligently pursues such action until the default is corrected. Following the declaration of an
Event of Default hereunder the County may, at its option, take any one or more of the
following steps:
(i) by mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding law or in equity,
require the Owner to perform its obligations and covenants hereunder or enjoin any
acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation of the rights of the County
hereunder;
(ii) have access to and inspect, examine and make copies of all of the books
and records of the Owner pertaining to the Project; and
(iii) take such other action at law or in equity as may appear necessary or
desirable to enforce the obligations, covenants and agreements of the Owner hereunder.
The Owner hereby grants to the County the option, upon the expiration of 60 days after
the giving of the notice to the Owner referred to in the first paragraph of this Section of the
Owner's default under this Regulatory Agreement, until the earlier of the remainder of the
Qualified Project Period or until any termination of this Regulatory Agreement, to lease-up to
percent (_%) of the units in the Project for a rental of $1.00 per unit per year for the
purpose of subleasing such units to [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households, but only
12
to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 4 and. Section 5. The option
granted in the preceding sentence shall be effective only if the Owner has not instituted
corrective action within such 60-day period. The option and any leases to the County under
this provision shall terminate with respect to each default upon the achievement, by the Owner
or the County, of compliance with the requirements of Section 4 and Section 5 and any
subleases entered into pursuant to the County's option shall be deemed to be leased from the
County. The County shall make diligent effort to rent [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income
Units to [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households for monthly rental amounts
equivalent to those collected from tenants of similar units in the Project, but shall not be
required to obtain such rental amounts. Any rental paid under any such sublease shall be paid
to the Owner after the Issuer has been reimbursed for any expenses incurred in connection
with such sublease.
All fees, costs and expenses of the County incurred in taking any action pursuant to this
Section shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner.
The Owner hereby agrees that specific enforcement of the Owner's agreements
contained herein is the only means by which the County may obtain the benefits of such
agreements made by the Owner herein and the Owner therefore agrees to the imposition of the
remedy of specific performance against it in the case of any default by the Owner hereunder.
Section 14. Recording and Filing. The Owner shall cause this Regulatory Agreement
and all amendments and supplements hereto and thereto, to be recorded and filed in the real
property records of the County of Contra Costa and in such other places as the County may
reasonably request. The Owner shall pay all fees and charges incurred in connection with any
such recording.
Section 1.5. Pavment of Fees. The Owner shall pay the County's annual administrative
fee in an amount equal the greater of i) $5,000/year; or ii) $75.00/unit/year, payable in
advance in annual installments on each thereafter, commencing until
the end of the Qualified Project Period. The annual administrative fee shall increase at the rate
of 2% per annum.
Section 16. Governing Law. This Regulatory Agreement shall be governed by the laws
of the State of California.
Section 17. Amendments.
(a) This Regulatory Agreement shall be amended only by a written instrument
executed by the parties hereto or their successors in title, and duly recorded in the real
property records of the County of Contra Costa, California. The parties requesting such
amendment shall notify the other parties to this Regulatory Agreement of the proposed
amendment.
Section 18. Notice. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be made in writing
and shall be given by personal delivery, certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return
receipt requested, at the addresses specified below, or at such other addresses as may be
specified in writing by the parties hereto:
13
County: County of Contra Costa
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
41h Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Attention: Deputy Director-Redevelopment
Owner:
Notice shall be deemed given three business days after the date of mailing.
Section 19. Severability. If any provision of this Regulatory Agreement shall be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining portions
hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
Section 20. Multiple Counterparts. This Regulatory Agreement may be simultaneously
executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument,
and each of which shall be deemed to be an original.
14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Owner have executed this Regulatory
Agreement by duly authorized representatives, all as of the date first above written:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
By:
Deputy Director-Redevelopment
Owner:
By:
I ts:
15
State of California )
ss
County of )
On before me, Notary Public,
personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the
person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Sea 1)
State of California )
ss
County of )
On before me, Notary Public,
personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the
person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE
[to come]
A-1
EXHIBIT B
STATISTICAL REPORT OF COUNTY
Reporting Period: Date:
As of the date hereof:
1. Of the [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Units occupied by [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Households:
units are occupied by households with children; and
units are currently occupied by elderly households with a member of age 62 or
over.
2. The number of [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households who terminated their
rental agreements during the previous twelve (12) month period is
3. The number of units rented to new [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households
during the last twelve (1.2) month period is
4. The family names of each household currently occupying a [Very Low, Low, Moderate]
Income Unit are listed on the schedule attached hereto.
5. The number of two-bedroom [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Units is
6. The number of one-bedroom [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Units is
B-1
1
8. The number of former [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households whose Adjusted
Income has exceeded 140% of the applicable income limit for a [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] Income Households of the same family size and have therefore ceased to
qualify as [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households is
Owner:
By:
I ts:
B-2
EXHIBIT C
CERTIFICATION OF HOUSEHOLD ELIGIBILITY
RE: [name and address of Project]
Apartment Number: Floor Number:
Square footage: Number of Bedrooms:
Rent:
Initial monthly rent: $
Plus utility allowance
TOTAL Housing Cost$
I/We, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, state that I/we have read and answered
fully and truthfully each of the following questions for all persons who are to occupy the unit
in the above apartment Project for which application is made, all of whom are listed below:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Name of Members Relationship Social
of the to Head of Security Place of
Household Household Age Number Employment
HEAD
SPOUSE
6. The anticipated income of all the above persons during the 12-month period
beginning on the later of the date on which the above persons first occupy the apartment or
sign a lease with respect to the apartment, including income described in (a) below, but
excluding all income described in (b) below, is $
(a) The amount set forth above includes all of the following income (unless
such income is described in (b) below):
(i) all wages and salaries, over-time pay, commissions, fees, tips and
bonuses and other compensation for personal services, before payroll
deductions;
(ii) net annual income from the operation of a business or profession
or from the rental of real or personal property (without deducting expenditures
for business expansion or amortization of capital indebtedness). (An allowance
for depreciation of assets used in a business or profession may be deducted,
based on straight-line depreciation, as provided in Internal Revenue Service
regulations. Include any withdrawal of cash or assets from the operation of a
C-1
business or profession, except to the extent the withdrawal is reimbursement of
cash or assets invested in the operation by the above persons):
(iii) interest and dividends (include all income from assets as set forth
in item 7(b) below and include any withdrawal of cash or assets from an
investment, except to the extent the withdrawal is reimbursement of cash or
assets invested by the above persons);
(iv) the full amount of periodic payments received from social
security, annuities, insurance policies, retirement funds, pensions, disability or
death benefits and other similar types of periodic receipts including a lump-sum
payment for the delayed start of a periodic payment;
(v) payments in lieu of earnings, such as unemployment and
disability compensation, workers' compensation and severance pay;
(vi) any welfare assistance: if the welfare assistance payment includes
an amount specifically designated for shelter and utilities that is subject to
adjustment by the welfare assistance agency in accordance with the actual cost
of shelter and utilities, include as income (a) the amount of the allowance or
grant exclusive of the amount specifically designated for shelter or utilities, plus
(b) the maximum amount that the welfare assistance agency could in fact allow
the above persons for shelter and utilities. (If the welfare assistance is ratably
reduced from the standard of need by applying a percentage, the amount
calculated under clause (b) shall be the amount resulting from one application of
the percentage);
(vii) periodic and determinable allowances, such as alimony and child
support payments and regular contributions and gifts received from persons not
residing in the dwelling;
(viii) all regular pay, special pay and allowances of a member of the
Armed Forces (whether or not living in the dwelling) who is the head of the
household, spouse or other household member whose dependents are residing
in the unit; and
(ix) any earned income tax credit to the extent it exceeds income tax
liability.
(b) The following income is excluded from the amount set forth above:
(i) Income from employment of children (including foster children)
under the age of 18 years;
(ii) Payment received for the care of foster children;
(iii) Lump-sum additions to household assets, such as inheritances,
insurance payments (including payments under health and accident.insurance
C-2
I
and worker's compensation), capital gains and settlement for personal or
property losses;
(iv) Amounts received by the household that are specifically for, or in
reimbursement of, the cost of medical expenses for any household member:
(v) Income of a live-in aide;
(vi) Amounts of education scholarships paid directly to the student or
to the education institution, and amounts paid by the Government to a veteran,
for use in meeting the costs of tuition, fees, books, equipment, materials,
supplies, transportation, and miscellaneous personal expenses of the student.
Any amount of such scholarship or payment to a veteran not used for the above
purposes that is available for subsistence is to be included in income;
(vii) The special pay to a household member serving in the Armed
Forces who is exposed to hostile fire;
(viii) (a) Amounts received under training programs funded by HUD;
(b) Amounts received by a Disabled person that are
disregarded for a limited time for purposes of Supplemental Security
income eligibility and benefits because they are set aside for use under a
Plan to Attain Self-Sufficiency (PASS); or
(c) Amounts received by a participant in other publicly
assisted programs which are specifically for or in reimbursement of out-
of-pocket expenses incurred (special equipment, clothing, transportation,
child care, etc.) and which are made solely to allow participation in a
specific program;
(ix) Temporary, nonrecurring or sporadic income (including gifts); or
(x) Amounts specifically excluded by any other federal statute from
consideration as income for purposes of determining eligibility or benefits under
a category of assistance programs that includes assistance under the United
States Housing Act of 1937.
7. If any of the persons described in column 1 above (or any person whose income
or contributions were included in item 6) has any savings, stocks, bonds, equity in real
property or other form of capital investment (excluding interests in Indian trust lands, but
including the value of any assets disposed of for less than fair market value (including a
disposition in trust, but not in a foreclosure or bankruptcy sale) during the previous two years
in excess of the consideration received therefor), provide:
(a) the total value of all such assets owned by all such persons: $ , and
C-3
(b) the amount of income expected to be derived from such assets in the 12-
month period commencing this date: $
We acknowledge that all of the above information is relevant to the status of the subject
project and rental unit complying with affordable housing requirements of Contra Costa
County as set forth in a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
between the Owner and Contra Costa County.
Date:
Head of Household
Spouse
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of
(NOTARY SEAL)
Notary Public in and for the State of
My Commission Expires:
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
NOTE TO PROJECT OWNER: A vacant unit previously occupied by individuals or a
family of Lower Income, may be treated as occupied by individuals or a family of Lower
Income until reoccupied for a period not to exceed 31 consecutive days.
C-4
FOR COMPLETION BY PROJECT OWNER ONLY:
1. Calculation of eligible income:
(A) Enter amount entered for entire household in 6 above: $
(B) if the amount entered in 7(a) above is greater than 55,000, enter:
(i) the product of the amount entered in 7(a)
above multiplied by the current passbook
savings rate as determined by HUD: $
(ii) the amount entered in 7(b) above: $
(iii) line (i) minus line (ii) is less than $0, enter $0): $
(C) TOTAL ELIGIBLE INCOME
(Line I(A) plus line 1(13)(iii)): $
II. Qualification as individuals or a family of lower income:
(A) Is the amount entered in line 1(c) less than [50%, 80%, 120%] of Median Income
for the Area with adjustments for smaller and larger families.*
Yes No
(B) If line II(A) is "No", then the household does not qualify as individuals or a
family of very low income.
III. (Check one)
The household does not qualify as individuals or a family of [Very Low, Low,
Moderate] income.
The household qualifies as individuals or a family of [Very Low, Low, Moderate]
income.
C-5
IV. Number of apartment unit assigned:
(enter here and on page one)
Owner
* "Median Income for the Area" means median income for the Contra Costa County, adjusted
for family size as published by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development pursuant to Health & Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105.
C-6
V
EXHIBIT D
CERTIFICATE OF CONTINUING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
The undersigned, being the authorized representative of (the "Owner") has read and is
thoroughly familiar with the provisions of the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants with the County of Contra Costa.
As of the date of this certificate, the following percentages of completed residential units
in the Project (i) are occupied by [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households (as such term
is defined in the Regulatory Agreement) or (ii) are currently vacant and being held available for
such occupancy and have been so .held continuously since the date a Very Low Income
Household vacated such unit; as indicated:
Occupied by [Very Low, Low, Moderate] Income Households: percent
Unit Nos.
Held vacant for occupancy
continuously since last
occupied by [Very Low, Low, Moderate]
Income Household: percent
Unit Nos.
Vacant Units: percent
Unit Nos.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the Owner is not in default 'under any of the
terms and provisions of the above documents.
Owner:
By:
Its:
D-1
EXHIBIT E
COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all portions of the Project were substantially
completed and available either for occupancy or use by tenants in the Project as of
Owner:
By:
I ts:
E-1
ATTACHMENT E
Shapell Industries and Ecumenical Association for Housing
Memorandum of Understanding
W APersonal\\BoardOrders\BOAR D.doughertyvaI Iey6.5
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND
EAH, Inc.
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish the basic terms of
an agreement between Shapell Industries of Northern California ("Shapell") and EAH, Inc. or
its affiliate (collectively "EAH"), regarding the development, construction and ownership of
affordable rental apartments to be built on Shapell's portion of the Dougherty Valley
Development known as Gale Ranch located in Contra Costa County ("Project"). These terms
will be used as a guide for the development and will be incorporated into future agreements
and documents required for construction and ownership of the Project. The Project will be
comprised of a series of phases totaling between 390 and 500 dwelling units of very low and
low-income rental housing. The total number of very-low and low income units shall be
dependent on the total number of units approved by the County of Contra Costa for Gale
Ranch. The low and very low income units shall be constructed on parcels integrated
throughout the Gale Ranch portion of the Dougherty- Valley Development.
The Project will be developed in a series of phases ("Phase"). The first and second Phases of
the Project will be for approximately eighty (80) units each of low and very-low rental income
housing to be constructed within the two hundred thirty-two (232) unit apartment site
approved as part of the Gale Ranch II Tentative Map. This two hundred thirty-two (232) unit
site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Bollinger Canyon and
Dougherty Roads (see Exhibit "A"). Start of construction for this first and second Phase is
currently anticipated for late 2002. The third and fourth Phases will also be approximately
eighty (80) units each of low and very-low income housing to be constructed as part of the
four hundred fifty (450) apartment unit site that is part of the pending Gale Ranch III
Tentative Map application. This four hundred fifty (450) unit site is also located south of
Bollinger Canyon Road and adjacent to Alamo Creek (see Exhibit "A"). The next two (2)
Phases would each range from eighty (80) to one hundred twenty (120) units of low and very-
low income housing. One location for eighty (80) to one hundred twenty (120) units would
be in Gale Ranch IV south of the Gale Ranch III elementary school site (see Exhibit "A").
The other location for the final eighty (80) to one hundred twenty (120) unit Phase would be
in the Gale Ranch portion of the Dougherty Valley Village Center. The exact location and
number of units in a Phase and income levels required by renters will be determined by
Shapell, in consultation with EAH. The terms for affordability and requirements for the
overall Project are defined in the Dougherty valley Affordable Housing Program established
by Contra Costa County for the overall Dougherty Valley Development.
After the first 80 unit Phase receives either an allocation of nine percent (9%) Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, or an allocation of four percent (4%) Low Income Housing Tax Credits
and Tax Exempt Bonds, Shapell and EAH will meet to discuss proceeding with subsequent
Phase(s). Should Shapell and EAH mutually agree to proceed with any subsequent Phase,
Shapell and EAH shall review this MOU and all other subsequent agreements between
Shapell and EAH related to the first Phase, and make changes and/or additions as appropriate
prior to proceeding with any subsequent Phase. Subsequent Phases will be timed and sized to
best position EAH with applications for tax credits or other forms of subsidized financing,
subject to the approval of Shapell.
1. Project Ownership
Each Phase of the Project will be owned by a limited partnership ("Partnership"). EAH, or
an entity formed by EAH, will be the Managing General Partner for each Partnership for the
life of each Partnership. The General Partner will form the Partnership and admit the
investor to the Partnership as a Limited Partner.
2. Project Development
EAH will act as developer of each Phase. EAH and Shapell will coordinate efforts in order to
assure consistency with the overall Gale Ranch project design, and compliance with the intent
and specific provisions of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, Dougherty Valley Settlement
Agreement and Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. EAH will hire members of
the development team, after consultation with Shapell. EAH will hire the architect, structural
engineer and landscape architect, subject to the approval of Shapell, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Shapell will select civil, and geotechnical
engineering support for the design efforts. Contracts with the Shapell-selected consultants,
including the Shapell construction contract, if any, will be assigned to the Partnership for each
Phase, subject to the approval of EAH, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned
or delayed. All design, engineering, construction, and other contracts will be entered into by,
or assigned to, the Partnership and shall be subject to the approval of the General Partner.
EAH will seek predevelopment funding for each Phase from all reasonable sources including
Contra Costa County. If, at any time and for any Phase, sufficient County predevelopment
funding is not available, Shapell will pay predevelopment expenses until such time that
funding becomes available for reimbursement of predevelopment expenses. Any such
predevelopment funds advanced by Shapell and not reimbursed as part of the Phase's
predevelopment expenses will be reimbursable to Shapell out of initial development funding
or, if necessary, will be treated as a residual receipts loan(the "Shapell Subordinate Note #1")
repayable only out of residual cash flow, in coordination with repayment requirements
imposed by the County or other funding entity for its loan funds. However, at no time shall
Shapell be responsible to fund in excess of 75% of predevelopment expenses for any
particular Phase.
The General Partner will attempt to secure funding sources for each Phase that will include,
but are not limited to, the Federal Home Loan Bank's Affordable Housing Program (AHP),
Contra Costa County administered HOME and Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) programs, and conventional mortgage loans. Shapell will be responsible for any
funds required to complete the Phase. Should a Phase require additional financing backed by
Shapell, any such financing shall not exceed that amount that can be reasonably demonstrated
as being reimbursable out of development funds and/or residual cash flow. However, at no
2
time shall Shapell be responsible to fund in excess of 510,000 per unit of the funding
necessary for the development of a Phase. All funds provided to the Phase by Shapell, not
reimbursed during the course of development of the Phase, will be treated as a residual
receipts loan and become a part of, should it exist, the Shapell Subordinate Note Tldescribed
above.
EAH and Shapell will jointly be responsible for obtaining the remaining local entitlements.
This effort will include review by the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee (DVOC), City
of San Ramon and the Contra Costa County Planning Commission.
3. Related Services
The Partnership will engage EAH and Shapell for certain services related to the development,
construction, and operation of each Phase. EAH will provide development services to the
Partnership and be compensated with the Project's developer fee, as allowed by the Califomia
Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
Shapell will have first right of refusal to enter into a construction contract with the Partnership
as the General Contractor for each Phase on terms and conditions acceptable to Shapell and
the General Partner. When acting as the General Contractor, Shapell will provide
preconstruction value engineering services for the Phase. Shapell will also purchase building
materials for any Phase Shapell acts as General Contractor. Shapell will charge the industry
norm for profit and overhead for each Phase Shapell acts as General Contractor. Other terms
including the form of the construction contract will be formalized in a later agreement. Any
contractual relationship between Shapell and the Partnership shall be structured in such a .
manner as to not invalidate or limit in any way the insurance coverage available to or
maintained by or for the benefit of EAH (including any coverage which may be available for
the benefit of EAH and the Partnership through the General Contractor's policy) and in the
Partnership, or any tax credits or predevelopment financing otherwise available to the Limited
Partnership. In any event, Shapell Industries of Northern California will enter into a
continuing guarantee to guarantee the terms and conditions of the prime contract with the
Limited Partnership.
EAR will provide services required for lease-up,.property management and partnership
management services during the operation of each Phase.
The EAH and Shapell services mentioned above shall be provided to the Partnership at costs
that are reasonable and competitive in comparison with other potential entities providing
similar services.
4. Acquisition of Land
The Partnership will acquire the land for each Phase from Shapell at the land's appraised
value for multi-tenant residential development. Shapell, at its sole cost, shall be responsible
for the subdivision of the land for each Phase. Appraised value shall be determined by a
3
licensed real estate appraiser acceptable to Shapell and EAH; and absent agreement, by a
licensed real estate appraiser selected by the Contra Costa Board of Realtors.
Title for the land for each Phase will be transferred to EAH or to the Partnership at no less
than sixty (60) days prior to the deadline for submittal of an application for Low Income
Housing Tax Credits. In order to be competitive under the "Leveraging"tax credit
application guidelines, Shapell will donate a portion of the land value to EAH. In as much as
EAH is a nonprofit corporation, Shapell may be eligible for tax incentives for having made a
contribution to a charitable organization. EAH will in turn sell the land to the Partnership
taking back the value of the donated portion of the land in the form of a subordinate land loan
("EAH Subordinate Note"). (According to the current California tax Credit Allocation
Committee Regulations, in order to obtain maximum points in the "Leveraging"category the
value of donated land must equal a minimum of$12,500 per unit.) Shapell will sell the
remaining balance of land value to the Partnership. Should the development funds available
to the Partnership for the development of a Phase prove insufficient to pay for the remaining
land value Shapell will take back the balance through a subordinated land loan (the "Shapell
Subordinate Note#2"). The foregoing land loans are repayable only out of residual cash
flow, in coordination with repayment requirements imposed by the County or other funding
entities for its loan funds. The priority for the repayment of these loans shall be; first, those
funds provided by the County or other funding entity; second, the Shapell Subordinate Note
#1 and Shapell Subordinate Note #2; and third, the EAH Subordinate Note.
5. Purchase of Tax Credits
At present Shapell is interested in being the tax credit investor for each Phase. Accordingly,
Shapell may elect to become the investor through a direct investment or through an affiliated
partnership, formed by or on behalf of Shapell. Regardless of the structure of the Partnership,
it is anticipated that the Limited Partner will retain up to ninety-nine and ninety-nine one
hundredths percent (99.99%) interest in the Partnership with the balance being retained by the
General Partner.
In recognition of the fact that securing sufficient tax credit equity is essential to the success of
the project, EAH and Shapell agree that the syndication price and terms for tax credits must
be reasonably competitive when compared with other potential investor proposals. EAH will
seek competitive syndication proposals from Shapell, or its related investment entity, as well
as other acceptable investors. In order to be selected as the investor, the proposal from
Shapell or its related investment entity must be no more than 5% less than the best investment
proposal, all other things such as schedule of payments and deal terms being reasonably
similar. Shapell will not be permitted to review other proposals before submitting their
proposal.
6. Sale of Project After Tax Credit Compliance Period
At the conclusion of the 15-year tax credit compliance period, EAH will have the right to
purchase the Project, or the Limited Partner's interest in the project, for an amount equal to
4
outstanding debt, and will assume all subordinate loans. EAH will continue to operate each
Phase according to its existing management agreements, consistent with all low-income
covenants imposed by any of the various funding entities. Further, the property will remain
affordable subject to the terms of all affordability requirements of any of the financing
source(s).
7. Confidentiality
The terms of this MOU are confidential and, absent mutual consent of the undersigned
parties, are not to be shared with any parties outside of either Shapell or EAH, with the
exception of each organization's respective attorneys.
This MOU establishes a basic agreement between the undersigned for the development,
construction, management and ownership of affordable rental apartments at Gale Ranch in
Contra Costa County. It is anticipated that the parties will amend this MOU from time to time
and enter into other more complete and fo
rmal agreements at appropriate times in the future.
Signed on this��ay of
EAH, Inc.
BY:
Mary Murtagh
Its:
President
Shapell Industries f North rn lifor is
BY:
Daniel W. Han ock
Its:
President
5
GALE RANCH
[hln�la'7 � �noa[xE
l
GALE RANCH
PHASE II BOLUNGER ;
180 UNITS
_ ~" _ �• WINDEMERE
HIGH SCHOOL
GALE RANCH
PHASE III
180 UNITS
GALE RANCH
00
fr ' PHASE IV
80 TO 120 UNITS
s �
W
a WINDEMERE
y COMMUN
V COLLECT
a (SALE RANCH
VILLAGE CENTER
80 TO 120 UNITS
GALE RANCH
—N—
C8MUD
GMP PAR"0 2000 eorr CRM sue 04
CRT OF UN RAMON
1 1ncQ 2000 ft
EXHIBIT A uggeri
GALE RANCH R ensen
LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING )Azar&Associates
LOCATION MAP X01 �NS 0ME.SWTE 155. PLEASANTON.CA 9.58E
PwONE: (925)227-9100. FARC (925)227-9300
.v+.vrr.�nswa+� rn� •..ter.nafrw
OCTOBER 10, 2000
ATTACHMENT
Proposed Form of Disclosure of
Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program
WAPcisonal\\BoardOrdcrs\BOARD.douvhcrtw,IIle-,6.5
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DOUGHERTY VALLEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
This statement applies to the following area:
[Include map of project area or site description.]
State Housing Element law requires California jurisdictions to analyze existing and future
housing needs for all economic segments of the population and develop specific policies
and programs to meet the identified needs. In order to assist the County in meeting the
requirements of State Housing Element law, the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors adopted the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program (DVAHP) in
March of 1994. The DVAHP was incorporated by reference into agreements between the
County, Shapell Industries of Northern California, and Windemere Ranch Partners-BLC
governing the future development of 11,000 housing units in the Dougherty Valley.
According to the requirements of the DVAHP, a minimum of 25 percent of all housing
units developed within Dougherty Valley must be affordable to very-low, low and
moderate-income households. In addition, at least 10 percent of the affordable units
must be affordable to very-low income households and 25 percent must be affordable to
low-income households.
Assuming all 11,000 housing units are developed, the DVAHP will result in the provision
of 2,750 affordable housing units in the Dougherty Valley, including 275 affordable to
very-low income households, 688 for low-income households, and 1,788 for moderate-
income households. While the affordable housing obligation may be met through the
development of either rental or ownership housing, current plans indicate that the
majority of the affordable units will be apartments.
Information concerning the status of the DVAHP including the location of proposed sites
for the affordable units may be obtained from Shapell Industries (408/946-1550) and
Windemere Ranch Partners (Lennar Communities 925/416-4949).
Very-low income households are defined as households with incomes at or below 50 percent of the area
median income for Contra Costa County(AMI)as adjusted for household size and defined by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development. Low-income households are defined as households
with incomes at/below 80 percent AMI,while moderate income households have incomes at/below 120
percent A.M.For example,in December of 2000,the maximum allowable income for a four person very-
low income household was S33,800,the maximum income for a low-income household was$67,600 and
$81,100 for a moderate income household.
i
Please sign this Disclosure Statement in the space provided below and return it to:
Shapell Industries Lennar Communities
100 North Milpitas Blvd. 5960 Inglewood Drive, # 220
Milpitas, CA 95035 Pleasanton, CA 94588
I have read and understand the above Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Disclosure
Statement including provisions that require the provision of housing affordable to very-low,
low and moderate-income households in the Dougherty Valley.
By: Dated:
Signature of Buyer/Renter
Print name of Buyer/Renter
kkh/w/word/dvahp7
ATTACHMENT G
Shapell Industries Annual Report
as of October, 2000
W:\Fersonal\\BoardOrders\BO:V2D.dougliert}�•al1e.6.5
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES of NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
A Division of Shapell Industries, Inc.
01 H`!! 29 P1:1 2: 35
March 28, 2001
Mr. Jim Kennedy
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Jim:
Pursuant to the terms of the.DoucTherty Valley Affordable Housin« Program (DVAHP),
Shapell Industries of Northern California is pleased to present to the County our annual
compliance report for the year 2000. As always, thank you for your help in guiding us
through the complexities of the reporting process and the varied aspects of providing a
broad range of affordable housing in Dougherty Valley.
This report has been somewhat delayed by our collective efforts to resolve the issues
concerning the Falcon Bridge apartments in Phase I. As you are aware, both formal
presentations to the Board of Supervisors and to the Dougherty Valley Oversight
Committee (DVOC) as well as numerous discussions with staff have taken place. In
light of the failure to reach consensus on possible revisions to the DVAHP and the fact
that Falcon Bridge units will be occupied within the next 45 days, Shapell has determined
that as of this time, we will rent 182 of the 256 units at Falcon Bridge at no more than
100% of median income based on family size. This figure represents 15% of the total
first phase (the Bridges at Gale Ranch) unit count of 1,216. Policy H-6 of the Specific
Plan provides for a minimum of 1.5% per phase affordability. Policy D.2.a. of the
DVAHP also reflects this requirement.
Since our last report, a good deal of progress has been made with respect to ascertaining
where and when we will be able to meet the goals of the DVAI P. As you're aware,
Shapcll has entered into an agreement with Ecumenical Assc-ciation for f1ousing (EA11)
to provide ]ow and very-low income units throughout the project. Previous annual
reports have indicated that finding a way to finance and provide these units was
especially challenging. Your office has been helpful in working with Shapell and EAH
in hammering out the details of this part of the plan. Accordingly , we are very happy to
report that throughout the remainder of the project, low and very-low income units will
be provided. Also, given the nature of competitive financing and the"opportunities for tax
credits financing for very-low income units, there is a high likelihood that of the 35% low
and very-low units (25% + 10% respectively) of the 25% overall affordable units
required, there will be a greater ratio of very-low income units than low. Affordability
will be deeper and more widespread than we originally had thought and deeper than the
DVAHP requires.
Homes of Quality Since 1955
P.O. Box 361169, 1.00 North Milpitas Boulevard, Milpitas,California 95035 Phone:408/946-1550 Fax:408/946-9687
Mr. Jim Kennedy
March 1, 2001
Page 2
With respect to moderate income units, Shapell is exceeding the minimums required for
Phase 1. Thus far, five homes have met moderate income requirements based solely on
the income of the buyers. Coupled with 182 Falcon Bridge affordable units, we will be
certain of 187 in Phase 1. We also estimate than another 20 units will meet income-level
moderate thresholds as the remaining 144 Cedar Bridge townhouses are brought to
market. As will be true elsev,,here in the project, the smaller market-rate units (i.e.
townhomes) will likely attract a greater percentage of these type of buyers than the larger
homes Gale Ranch started with. As you will recall provision C on page 22 of the
DVAHP allows up to half of our moderate income requirements to be met through
incomes only. It's unlikely that we'll ever even approach such a ratio.
We estimate that at buildout of Phase 1, there will be 207 moderate income units,
exceeding Phase 1's requirement of 198. Because of initial project costs, low and. very
low income units were never planned for Phase 1. Low and very low income project
requirements are being met in Phase 2 and 3 through the EAH program.
Shapell in working diligently to finalize all permit requirements for Phase 2. We are
hopeful that needed federal and state authorizations are forthcoming and we plan to begin
grading the site this Spring. As was directed in the Specific Plan, Phase 2 is a denser,
more varied and, hence, more affordable area than Phase 1. The same is true to an even
greater degree in Phase 3.
Phase 2 will include 1,825 units with a wide-range of product types. Included are 232
apartments of which 160 are allocated to low and very-low income units provided by
EAH. The remaining 72 will all meet moderate-income requirements at 100% of median.
Neighborhood 10 calls for 93 townhouses, all of which we plan to sell meeting moderate-
income thresholds at 120%. Another 146 townhouses may provide further chances for
sale and income based affordability. The high ratio of attached product, including the
256 courtyard units, will further allow for income-based qualification. Therefore, we
estimate that another 60 units of income-based qualifiers will live in Phase 2.
Phase 2 has a target of 296 moderate rate units. By totaling the 9 carried over from Phase
1, the 72 at the apartments, the 93 at the townhouses and the 60 additional income-
qualifiers, we reach a level of 234 or 62 short of the goal. However, this figure exceeds
the minimums allowed for on page 23, section 2a of the DVAHP which equate to 178.
This section requires that the shortfall of moderate-income units need to be made up in
the next phase. Phase 3 is designed to do just that.
Mr. Jim Kennedy
March 1, 2001
Page 3
Phase 3 is a proposed tentative map under review by County staff. It calls for a still-
denser area of 1,433 homes on 130 net acres or an average of 11 units per net acre. 423
apartments are planned of which EAH will work on 160 for low and very-low units. The
remaining 263 can all provide moderate or even some additional low-income homes.
There are 374 townhouses proposed at densities that will allow both sale and income
based qualification. 147 innovative Cottage Homes of between 2,600 and 3,100 square
foot lot sizes are included further enhancing affordability. In fact only 289 of the 1,433
units are traditional, single-family lot units typically found in suburban areas. Therefore,
80% of Phase 3 provides the type of housing that allows affordability to be realized and
for a greater variety in product choice.
The attached tables quantify the spread of units throughout the project through Phase 3.
Additional low and very-low income units in 2 pods of up to 120 units each are part of
the program with EAH located in Phase 4 and the Village Center. This could bring our
total to 560 low and very-low units, exceeding the 510 called for in the DVAHP. Once
again, its is likely that the majority of these units would be very-low income instead of
the roughly 70% to 30% ratio in favor of low that the DVAHP sets forth.
Thank you for your help. On behalf of Shapell Industries of Northern California, I look
forward to our ongoing collective efforts to bring affordable housing to the Tri-Valley
area.
Sincerely,:
Thomas J. Koch
Vice President
Shape]] Industries of Northern California
1
t. p t ra
� d
. n
n � r
0 fDy+
•� u 'w6'
Ot
x� p o
00
to
N,� C
G p•CJ? .� th � y.l
o tp (Tai,
� o •n � N cS xV 0
� C, �,, ..• +-� •.. bC
CVwb
0
20,
�� � n a
Pw
r
a'
INO
00 CT * rn
o v vol
'r. n W a r► „ U
o G o50 � 0
2 p.
n } * � * } w
r N -_a � (Vol
}
} " O .
W
CL
PN
U 0 t
c off^ b dUo. O
C•tt4 G
0 o to
'�c � 4�• N� p"t'1 � �
AV p' o Npw
`'• b � b � O` Na
n
O
3 0'�' p 9 P, -r-
co
tQ
o,
co L N O
� -
O
n
.n
a o
ATTACHMENT H
May 22, 2001 Letter of Tri-Valley
Interfaith Poverty Forum
1'1':`.Personal`;,BoatJOrdzrs`,BOARD.doughzrty�•aUz�'G.S
Memo May 22, 2001
To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
From: Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty Forum
P.O. Box 1652
San Ramon, CA 94583
Maurine Behrend, coordinator Tom Kirk, Danville Contact
961 Maricaibo Place 524 Norfolk Place
San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506
Phone: (925)820-0758 (925)7363626
Fax: (925)838-2483
Email: mbehrend@home.com Email: TEKIRK@aol.com
We want to offer our services to you to help you keep monitor the compliance of
the affordable housing agreement in Dougherty Valley.
As concerned citizens involved in serving low-income people in the tri-valley, we
are aware of the crisis in affordable housing in the bay area, and of the human
cost. These are not just numbers to us, these are people we know who are
suffering.
We are also aware that the affordable housing agreement in Dougherty can do
much to alleviate this problem, but we are concerned about compliance.
Please direct your planning staff to answer the following questions.
1. How many units are occupied in Dougherty Valley to date?
2. How many of those units are affordable to very low, low and moderate
income levels?
3. How do these numbers align with the agreement?
Any other information that will help us monitor this agreement would be
appreciated.
I
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM �P, 0
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 0
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the 'Board.
Name: "z� 7'A 1 b o� Phone:
Address: l3 J 3 'V0 ' 1G- City:
I am speaking for myself or organization: -�h!ja& �
(name of organization)
CHECK NE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # � Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of J►`Q. �Ok l�� V ��`uSi
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
i
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
isupport documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
i
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name:)A v t b Phone: Z 1 '
Address: �p l ® . MCity: ✓ . s
1 am speaking for myself__. or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date :
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
i
SPEAKERS
I
Deposit the"Req' uest to Speak" form on the reverse side in the box next to the speaker's
P 9 P � ) � P.
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation.or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 3
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board. p
Name: �bh Phone:
Address: b�� C� tiro 14m 4-b-'A City: 1/e(i✓����
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CR S' 6 ,q--y
(name of organization)
CHECK
ONE:
t, I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: D/oZ6
My comments will be: general for _ I,� against
I wish to speak on the subject of �n to z SVU
`^�
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
j4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
I
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum bef re addressing the Board.
Name: 1 C/// /l_/ Phone:
r
Address: aGy /r./�/L City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK
ONE:
V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # .r Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
I
2. You will be called on to make your presentation..
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
I
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
I
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
I persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
,
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum re addressing the Board.
Name: ��/,J �/�h /Ly/1� Phone: 2 - 04/
Address:
l 3 3,1 1,91, city: 177A 1 ri^,-r Z
I am speaking for myself or organization: G
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
i I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
II representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
I
i
I
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum befo'r'e addressing the Board. G
Name: ��/,� ; �l� l� Phone: 6 2Q 075
Address: ! / I City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of o ganization)
CHECK
/ONE:
V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
I
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Y't C1►^ qe 1t4—webhew Phone: �� �I -�0--270
Address: [ J7�J S U1,74V ah City: (IyG Jk t/� Cv&--L
I am speaking for myself or organization: -rti �2y-Cet�Jtt Coyv ,C
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # —Q—.L—Date: L EI .
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM ill a
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 09
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board. _ V/X-10 �
Name: /V��VC� /��7 Phone: —
Address: 1��� / " ��` '� City: �Z'Iry ��f��/✓
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # _ Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
I
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the .-box .next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item` is to be considered. °
i
2 . You "W iii be' called on to make -your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give,"•the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support- documentation if available before speaking.
I
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The. Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �d
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: E s/,c�EE�lfl6 Phone:
Address: City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
"'tea o F -L
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
�'—vrvE MoD /
I wish to speak on Agenda Item Date: �
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
"
_:;Who Qualifies'.for Affordable.Housing?
` :Every yearthe Califortia Depent`of Housiri `and Cominuni
i .
. . . arte?.. :. .,
velopment"determines the'income'limits wl icN=will determine
z.
ualifies`for'thee. arious levels of affordable_ housin`
k.,. ._ _
- - - .� _ -
: .Ho in' l: 1. n o'
�., - us s cons dered aff,oTdable:when o more thari`30%of. "
:tWig . .:: T._ w:.. r ;, _ = �t
y:.... (
'hotsefiold,incones:s nfon hour' ren -:mora :` `e 'etc: - :. .. . ..
r . _
rK
.:
�`..:.
Ste One:=A M
p. rea`Meclian:Income::HCD:i3efeirines'the:median .
�'}'r•� ::t-: - ter,:.• _ :;yi;�� �:r'�::;....•.:i��:i� ..
come or:a.=farril' of fou .'in a vagi areas m the`state
.._�..:.r-•.':_ _�. .�_:::.':...,. -�:>rr:.7t'.¢=
S Two:;
':. tie'> SizeofHousetioW °With"a'fami offour.as;tliebrie
r . p
:... . ..:..
.J
=level RHCI)dete!Wes th� m. i^ `in f r'
-, a ed ffi core o ..otter�household
�. .ti 'Y•
sines usin :ttie followiri formula''
_ t?Y. .g -- g _
MO
of Persons: 1 "2;_ 3. 4 _-;�.y_.5 ;
:.
Wit_ _ _
f Factor of: T. :i�
8 9 ':°;:..base=� ;1:08;
-
ru et:Stie Three `Levels`of Aff or fabiIity HCD,`uses
the followin
formula"to det6tiWiie the:income.:limits for,'the':various levels`of .'
:..;
0.11
F'= ° ordaliili in -
_
�h =
Low,income�: = 50" :of;nedia_n
�;�. _ _ o _ � •51� iof
oderaft Income° - -:12p°/ -
. ..:.... .:.
M 8'1%. .,. o'of.iitelian
,:.f.'
:
_ ^:S,t_e Fount:iIq come.Limits to Qual' Here`are the in 'i&:
limits=.that 'uali in Al 'd oCo::....::.
:. - _
q fy. ameda:an C ritra Coinh s it 2QO�l,
Stn' lard lneome'Lim'
G : Area Medlar n rtSAO'Qual'ify .
Income f6t a Farm
w:_: e;
�.
i•
Lown::` , :';25 050= :28 640 _35 80U
37'700 �43 088 53 860.
$71;600 =7 Median:: 50,1.00. 57;280` 600,
.:
,...
Moderate 60,150 6$,72.0: : :85;900
:; Note: Use of.these limits varies with each city: Consult your city offfices.
,. . .:. .
For more info, see'http://housii g.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/lirc/rep/s Winc2ki pdf
�':. ..
i - \
k
V
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 2001 ' = _ :':: Wh'oQualifies,for Affofdable:Housing?...
. .... .. . ... .
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Every;'yea tie-Callfortia Deparhnent of Housing and Community
CONTRA cosrA co. > Development determmes_'the'ii" e:limits'which Hell determine
._ a'e:i.- '_:.=• -,�. r;,• •.
wl►o;quahfes forrious eve S.0
Ahb.-V _da61e
Housri is'consideied affodable'when'no more than 30V/o.of
F g
• -
household iicoirie is s' nton=house ren :wortp
r4.u
Vii.,,;.A`/`�
tep;One:Ar@a` silian.lncme:::°_HCD:determines the median.
s';iricome:for afaril rof:four; 'tie vai 4j
�. . , �.
y'• _iri ous areas iii the state'_
=Two:'
Sfie Sie`ofd
Household: Witt ''If i`
p ,,. a am of.fouras.the. e
'level'HCD'deteiiiiiries the=median income-for: h
_ other oisehold
"a ry ,
sizes usin .the-
•g following
;•: #
0f1Persoris: -- 3:.
4' 5 6:
,�= _Factor-sof=�� - 7' :8 •=r9-<.- e:� �1:08;:=.:1 -
_)::. , . :16' :1:32
;r
,:r „p, of ffordabii HCD uses theRill
ula"#o deter n ne the income limit§'fdfg he various levels of
affordatiili iri ho :in r
4'
scone;=� ;;:: .519'0"==80'�4of:median.:
:.. -
�..:_�:..; �•':r;1 of median
;Moderate`Income° -
Y ..
Ste` 'Four::t lncome`Limrts fio'. +u 1' H ` e
Q a ere ar the iri" 'ine°<
:•. ,. eda
ts:that ual `iiiAlam t
q fy. :and Contra Counties in 2001::'"
` ^ =14rea.Median StaMa d =
in:.
Maid _ Inconie"LUh is b Qualify
come::;;;
F`
1 =2-
_ 25 050_'`_;28'640 ft
3 8U
^x
y'
;7
-:, 3 088 ,53'860:..
71 00" Median 5 0.
,6 010 57;280 71;600:-::
Modera e
t 60`15Q:: ;::68 720 86900.
Nofe:.Use of these;limits varies with each`city.. Consult your.city.offices..
1,...
:<Fot tnore;irifo :see.'http://housing.ticd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc%p/stat�nc2kl:pdf
�EIVED r _
Qualifies for Affordable Housin
9
2
1 -- - � - - - - - - -- . ..
N -
JU 2 00 - -
``:.Ev- tl"ilifori ia'De = -'enf of Housin d 'omm i
�JMQl YILan C un
g. . .: tY
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ..;: %.`Uevel "ent'determnes:the "income:lirriits which will determine
CL CONTRA COSTA CO. a; : ::�^ r:t ,u,ppm -... .. _. .- -
1 >'= who ualifes for the:;various lev&.:of aff rdal le:ho'win
: I3ousuig ts`considered afforaatilgypegoo more'than''30"%;of
:l ., .
f::.tiousetoldiricome i's:.s` ton°hods' ren mortgagq..efc
s
; .. , dete"rriiines the median
p� rea;aAAedian�Incorie :��HCD�_
for:''i famil of four in.the ar ous`'aTeas'in the state::=
,. y.-
i: ":Stie 'Two: S }��
ire'ofHouseholii:With=::a''fami of;foura's:thebase
;level HCD.'dete mps... e;!median income�for=other household
.foil Wi
y.
W
: _.sizes:by
,= _
ng the.:- - - - -_- .�:•'
i o ri formula:=
f°Person' -
F`:
x'1.32
r:r._Stie„Three: Levels of Aff ij04bil�'}y WD uses the follovi%in
"-: - ::5: -- _ x�, �•:-,r�::..a'..y",._ rr.
9:,q, ermine.
ermine:tile,iacom_e limits foi 'tlze various levels'of.
V.
�affordaliili m liousii '' ro" s:
ig
Y;Ve 'Low.lncome _ `_ 50"6°of`median
�:-. :�� .
_ -80°x`of median;
ie'a ib-fi,onie° 81: r 1: f
_ - - �`=,.20./0 o M, tan,
•:.:-::.- : t
o Incorrtet:mits`to:�Qual' �:Here�are;the iricoime��
vts that 'yual in Alameda_and-Contra=Countie"s in 2001
9. fY:
rea: ian Standard - Income Litiits to Quay
, . .
for''a-F a14,
mi
.. .::..
_
,.:
.V::L ... .>;;� ,:";-25 Q50 :28'640 .35 800:
y.
ti
�538fi3 3,088 0.
X71` 00. ... 7 AAedian _ 50'1`00` 57 280 71 600'
68,720, 85.900
_ .`{r:.
"N
bte:-Use:of these'lin its varies viiith each 44y.- ,Consult your city offices.
`: > for.more see http://tiousing.t cci.ca`gov%lipd/hm/rep/stMcAnc2kl`pdf
County of Contra Costa
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 25, 2001
TO: Board of Supervisors
County Administrator
County Counsel ��
FROM: Gina Martin, Acting Chief Clerk o
SUBJECT: DOUGHERTY VALLEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
We received a request from the Community Development Department to replace this
Board Order(D.2 on 6/26/01 Agenda) after the packets had been assembled and
distributed.
Please remove the original Board Order and replace it with this new one. Thank you.
UTCHEN
RECEIVED
MCCUTCHEN,DOYLE,BROWN&ENERSEN,LLP
JUN 2 6 2001
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
June 25, 2001 , Direct: (925) 975-5339
,iUN 25 2001 � ctalbert@mdbc.com
Li
SU�ERV�SUR UlLKEMA
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Hon. Gayle B. Uilkema and Members of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
351 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Shapell Industries of Northern California
Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program ("DVAHP")
Dear Supervisors:
On behalf of Shapell Industries of Northern California, I am writing with
respect to the Community Development Department's Staff Report for the Board's
June 26, 2001 consideration of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. As is
further set forth in my attached letter to Jim Kennedy, Shapell is unequivocally in
compliance with all aspects of the DVAHP, and does not request any amendment of the
program at this time.
Although efforts were made by Shapell last summer and fall to reach
resolution with the County concerning issues raised by staff regarding the requirements for
moderately affordable units under the DVAHP, those efforts were unsuccessful. As you are
aware,the DVAHP does not require a term of affordability for moderate units absent public
assistance by the County or another public agency. Shapell had offered last year to restrict
moderate income units in perpetuity at rents based upon income levels of 110% and 120% of
median income, rather than 100%. The County did not act on that offer in a timely fashion.
Subsequently,when it became necessary for Shapell to commence a leasing program for
those units, Shapell advised County staff last February that Shapell was withdrawing its
previous offer and intended to comply with the DVAHP as written, without the need for any
amendment. Shapell then completed construction of the initial Falcon Bridge apartments
(Gale Ranch I) and has begun leasing thein in accordance with the DVAHP.
County staff is apparently unhappy with this turn of events and now asks you
to unilaterally modify both the intent and terms of the DVAHP by finding Shapell out of
R N E Y S A T L A W 1333 North California Blvd., Suite 210 San Francisco Affiliate Office
P.O. Box V Los Angeles Taipei
1 Walnut Creek,California 94596-1270 Palo Alto
Tel. (925) 937-8000 Fax (925) 975-5390 Walnut Creek j
www.mccutchen.com J
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
June 25, 2001
Page 2
compliance with the DVAHP, despite the fact that Shapell has continuously met and even
exceeded both the intent and the explicit provisions of the DVAHP.
Shapell accordingly requests that the Board:
• consider the Staff Report and all of the information presented by
Shapell to the County, including Shapell's March 28, 2001 Compliance
Report;
• find Shapell in compliance with the DVAHP program; and
• direct the Community Development Department to continue processing
Shapell's applications for development in the Dougherty Valley in
accordance with the County's 1994 and 1996 Development
Agreements with Shapell.
Sincerely yours,
Cecily T albert
cc: Dennis Barry, Community Development Director
Jim Kennedy, Community Development
Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel
Debbie Sanderson, Current Planning
Kathleen Hamm, Principal Planner—Housing
Chris Truebridge, Shapell Industries
Tom Koch, Shapell Industries
Dan Coleman, Shapell Industries
Tom Powers
Pete Peterson, Lennar Communities
Lynn Salomon Jochim, Lennar Communities
Debbie Chamberlain, City of San Ramon
P. i
.surf c i u t u-r: ocp
E
309 Dlablo?koad
Danville,California 94526 Contra Costa Count
(925)820-86M ,� � Board of Superviso
(925)820-6627 FAX
Email: -
dist3@bos.co.contra-cost&ea.us r
DONNA GERBER
District 111 Supervisor d
=A-e-re-eve
l�
4b
x
t S Abti r y�
� U
� a G
jun ei ul u•t: ;yep
p. d
Pric.Mm a7 Cal&rnia
Subject: Priced Out of California
Date: 18 Apr 00 15:20:32 EDT
From: Chet<chet.paul@usa.net>
To:mayor@cj.walnut-creek.ca.us
CC: rainey@se.n.ca.gov,assembiyrqcmber.leach@assembly.ca.gov,
dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.Ca.US
near Mayor Abrams: My name is Chet Paulineilie and I am a resident of walnut
Creek. I am originally from Pennsylvania and moved to California 16 years
ago.
I am a 40 year old single male, college graduate, and employed full time.
I am a renter and have lived in my current apartment for 5 years. I have been
a good tenant and have always paid my rent on time. Yesterday I received a
rent increase of $200 per month effective June 1st. When I moved into my 1
bedroom, 600 sq. ft. unit in 1995, my rent was $795 per month. As of June
1st, it will be $1180 per month. If I chose not to sign a 12-month lease, the
monthly rent for me to stay as a month-to-month tenant- will be $1305 per
month.
I make a good salary, however, am unable to assume a $200 month increase
without much hardship. Due to the inflated rental market in my area, as well
as a 3% vacancy rate, finding another, similar living situation is next to
impossible. I live near a BART station and regularly use public
transportation to get to and from my job.
I am now looking at, moving back to Pennsylvania. The cost of housing in
Central Contra Costa County, especially if located near BART or easy freeway
access, has become outrageous. At one point I had the hope of actually buying
a little condo, but as my rent continues to climb, I'm unable to save anything
close to a down payment. I do not need low-income housing, I need housing
that will allow me to have some consistency in my life as well as (hopefully)
an opportunity to save enough money to eventually get out of the rental
merry-go-round. Yes, I am aware of the "no down payment/first time buyer"
options, but as housing costs have increased, so has my accumulated credit
card debt as I attempt to live from paycheck to paycheck. I do not live an
extravagant lifestyle - I have not taken a vacation since a long weekend
weekend in 1994. My car will be 10 years old next year. I cut coupons and
buy my clothes at discount stores. I have made concessions so that I could
live in a safe and convenient area.
I can understand rising rents based on supply and demand, but the situation in
this area is no longer about that -- it is about greed. I could have
understood a $100 increase, but $200??? We have no rent control, therefore,
landlords can raise their rents to any level they want, in other words,
tenants like myself are at their mercy.
I am fortunate in that I still have family back in Pennsylvania and am able to
sustain myself for a few months tat my ]nigher rent} . I wonder what the people
do who have no family and/or enough resources to draw on to bridge the gap
these sorts of increases cause. What do they do?? All my life I've looked at
the homeless people and though "what in the world did they do to get
themselves in that situation?" Now I' `' ' ; like that could easily be me.
Chet Paulinellie
2967 Santos Lane, #305
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7557
(925) 274-172-,-
Jun ei ut ul: jjp
P. 3
F'nc�but of Calillimia
Reside at: Bay Landing Apartments
Owned by Maxim Property Management
ps - I realize you have no control over what individual property owners charge
for rent. You are, however, in a position to draw attention to what is truly
a situation of greed and injustice -- and which is taking place in YOUR CITY.
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmai_l.com/?A=1
2of2
4/Z0/00 4:4
Jun 21 p1 04:3�p
Z.eZ
Ql.b3-O l '
To Whore It May Concern, ` 2V O
My name is Carol Origgers,I live in Concord CA. Recently I have been trying to find housemg
for my 83 year old Father. Needless to say I have hit one brick wail after the other. 1 can not believe what
the elderly have to go through in this cotwty to have A place to live.1 think it is appalling that the same
people that have helped to make this coutttsy what it is have to beg,barrow,and steal just to survive in
chert old age-
1 have gotten a list fram the Dept,Of Human Resources for senior houseing and besides the
waiting list belt r+ediculas,the cost of most of them are very unrealistic.Since l have been looking for my
Dad I have had the opartunity to talk to many elderly people that are in the same sibmtionjust in Conoard.It
is heart breaking to listen to some of them cry because they do not know what is going to happen to then
tomorrow and to know that know one carets.They can't pay the kind of rent they are forced to pay plus
utilities,and food and the other neooessities that the clderly need or have to have.
I would[Eke to know what if anything our elected officials are doing concerning this problem?
And when or if it is going to be resolved.My Dad will be alright because I will make sure of it,but there
are hundreds of elderiy people that don't have anyone to help them.My husband plays golf at Mare Island
and we have noticed that there are hundreds of houses,apts.And buildings there that are not being utilized
Why can't thosehouses and apts.Be made available for low income elderly?I think this Country should be
ashamed ofthe way our elderly are being treated Please help me to understand why this state is not helping
these people.
'shank You.For Your Time
Carol Driggers
2081 Sofano Way
Conoord,CA.94520
(925)686-5554
. 1