01 - Laserfiche WebLink

what they can draw down on to live there. Many households have planned for years to put aside money that can be used for living expenses. It is not a rental component, but the cost of food, living services, care, etc. So, the model is much different than what is seen in independent living units. In addition to the 15% mark which staff believes is consistent with the intent of the City's inclusionary zoning ordinance. CLC is also agreeing to create an annuity on the site the purpose of which would provide monthly financial assistance to those households that need it to help pay to live at the development. The purpose of this would be for households that are 80 %, with a special emphasis for those households that are at 60% and 50 %. The maximum amount would be $400 per month. Staff indicated that if this money is managed properly, 31 units a month could be done with the annuity lasting for approximately 20 years. Much depends on interest earned and the number of people who take advantage of it, and it may be less given particular development situations. Therefore, staff believes this offers a financial tool that fits within the unique characteristics for a continuing care facility to manage it. CLC will provide the City with an annual report that outlines activities. Mr. Bocian stated that CLC and City staff will work on administrative guidelines agreement, which will create a clear guidance on unique situations. He stated units must be located throughout the development so there are no specific units where people will receive the benefit of the annuity. The preferences are consistent with the City's policy for senior units, and there is also language that toward the end of the 20 years, the City may want to meet with CLC and discuss an extension. Staff and CLC felt 20 years was an appropriate amount of time, but the Council could extend it but must either reduce the $400 or reduce potentially the number of units. Based upon CLC's experience, it felt that the 30 units and that the $400 made sense. He said the agreement also runs with the land in perpetuity. Speaking to the Growth Management Agreement, Mr. Bocian said residential care facilities are generally considered to be commercial units by the State, and they do not necessarily fall within the City's growth management process. In 2006, a detailed analysis was prepared and presented to the Council that, in looking at this type of development, what impacts could be seen as it relates to other residential developments within the community. Staff looked at things relative to the number of individuals residing in units, parking, number of trips, water usage, impact on schools, and uses on City parks. Staff presented information which indicated it to be equivalent to 241 units. Therefore, the 635 units is equivalent to a regular residential property at a ratio of 241 units. The Growth Management Agreement allows CLC to pull 241 residential permits in 2011. If they are not pulled, they could roll over to the next year. Relative to the living units, these are all that CLC must pull. The 241 units cover the growth management for all of the units within the development. Staff spent a lot of time with CLC regarding legal action, guidelines from the state, legal interpretation on their residential ratio. Concerning the Tax Sharing Agreement, Mr. Bocian said when the City annexes property it is required to enter into a tax sharing agreement with Alameda County. The agreement is consistent with the MOU which was done with the County in 2006 and with the City and the County's policies and practices relative to these agreements. It covers the City's share of the property tax that will be generated on the site, and the City's share of property taxes is equivalent to a Citywide weighted average, which is the same formula used for the Bernal property. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 15 September 7, 2010