Title
First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Development Agreement for a 66-Unit Residential Development Project Located at 2450 Washington Avenue (PLN2009-00006 and PLN21-0001) to Extend the Term of the Development Agreement by Three Additional Years; APN 077D-1410-25-00; Wm. Mathews, Inc. (Applicant and Property Owner). (PLN26-0021)
StaffReport
COUNCIL PRIORITY
Housing and Homelessness
SUMMARY
In 2011, the City Council adopted Resolutions No. 2011-192 and 2011-193 and Ordinance No. 2011-013, approving a 66-unit residential development project located at 2450 Washington Avenue (PLN2009-00006 and PLN21-0001). The approvals included a Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8003; a General Plan Map Amendment from Office to High Density Residential; and a rezoning from P (AU) (Professional with Assembly Use Overlay) to RM-1800(PD) (Residential Multi-Family with Planned Development Overlay). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were adopted for the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Development Agreement took effect on January 4, 2012, with an initial ten-year term and one optional five-year extension. In 2021, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (PLN21-0001), which exercised the five-year extension through January 4, 2027. The First Amendment also allowed the Project to be offered as a rental and/or for-sale development and applied the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to the Project.
In September 2026, the Applicant and Property Owner, William Mathews Brooks, of Wm. Mathews, Inc., submitted an application for a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement to extend its term by an additional three years, through January 4, 2030.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommend that the City Council introduce an Ordinance to approve an amendment to the Development Agreement to extend its term by an additional three years, through January 4, 2030.
BACKGROUND
Approved Project
The Project site consists of one parcel totaling approximately 124,469 square feet (2.85 acres), located on the east side of Washington Avenue at the northern corner of San Leandro Boulevard. The property is currently developed with a two-story professional office building that is used for office and commercial purposes. Surrounding uses include mobile home parks to the south and east (Trailer Haven and San Leandro Court), a residential development to the north (Sandpiper Condominiums), and auto-oriented commercial and industrial businesses to the west, across Washington Avenue. The site was formerly part of the Singer-Friden business machine manufacturing plant, which operated from approximately 1968 to 1976.
The approved Project consists of 66 multi-family units in twelve two-story buildings (seven five-unit buildings and five six-unit buildings), with 17 one-bedroom units, 48 two-bedroom units, and one guest/manager unit in a single-story recreation building along the Washington Avenue frontage. The buildings are arranged on either side of a central pedestrian promenade, with a gated private drive taking access from Washington Avenue at the northwest corner of the site. The Project provides 135 parking spaces (85 in attached garages and 50 open stalls). The approved density is approximately 23 units per acre.
Entitlements
The 2011 approvals consist of: (1) a General Plan Map Amendment from Office to High Density Residential; (2) a rezoning from P(AU) to RM-1800(PD); (3) a Planned Development permitting minor exceptions to the RM District standards, including a reduced front setback for the recreation building and the substitution of open parking stalls for some required covered spaces, in exchange for superior site design and additional open space; (4) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8003, which would merge the site into a single lot and create a condominium map; and (5) the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provides the following principal rights and obligations:
• Vested rights. The Developer has a vested right to develop the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals and the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other City rules in effect on the agreement date.
• Impact fees. The Developer would pay Development Impact Fees in effect on the agreement date, adjusted annually by published cost indices and calculated at the rate in effect when a building permit application is submitted.
• Life of approvals. Project Approvals are automatically extended to remain in effect for the term of the agreement.
• Development moratoria. The Project is exempt from City-imposed development moratoria.
• Annual review. The Developer must submit an annual letter demonstrating good-faith compliance with the agreement, which the Community Development Director reviews.
ANALYSIS
Rationale for Extension
The construction of the Project would advance the City’s housing goals by adding 66 new units. The proposed amendment would provide the Applicant with additional time necessary to advance the Project to construction.
The Developer has stated that previously existing tenant lease obligations have constrained the Developer’s ability to proceed with the Project until recently. With the recent removal of those lease obligations, the Developer is now seeking to move forward with development of the Project. Since reactivating work on the Project in 2026, the Applicant has retained planning, civil engineering, and development-management consultants; reviewed the existing approvals and mitigation measures; contacted prospective homebuilders; and met with City staff. These actions demonstrate a good faith effort to advance the Project.
The Developer has identified a schedule to move the project forward within the requested additional three-year time period. Staff considers the schedule to be reasonable. Staff will monitor progress through the required annual reviews. If the Developer is found not to be in good-faith compliance with the agreement, the City may pursue modification or termination as provided in the Development Agreement.
In the event a major amendment is needed to the Project to allow it to move forward, the Planning Commission and City Council would have the opportunity to review and approve the modification through an amendment to the Development Agreement.
General Plan Consistency
The Project is consistent with the underlying Medium-High Density Residential Land Use Designation in the General Plan, which specifies a residential density range between 16-25 dwelling units per acre. The Land Use Designation was modified from High Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential in 2016 as part of the 2035 General Plan update. The proposed amendment would extend only the term of the Development Agreement and would not change the Project’s land use, density, or design. Extending the term would also support General Plan and Housing Element goals that encourage the construction of new housing units. These objectives are reflected in the following goals and policies:
• General Plan Goal LU-3: Provide housing opportunities and improve economic access to housing for all segments of the community.
• Housing Element Goal 1: Increase housing production by providing adequate sites and removing constraints to residential development.
• Housing Element Policy 1.1 Reduce barriers to housing development.
• Housing Element Policy 1.3 Streamline housing entitlement and permitting processes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In 2011, the City prepared an Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines). These documents were approved by the City Council on November 21, 2011, by Resolution No. 2011-192. No further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The proposed amendment would extend only the term of the Development Agreement; it would not change the Project’s design, density, or conditions of approval, and the adopted mitigation measures and MMRP would continue to apply. There are no substantial changes to the Project, no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than those identified in the adopted MND.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On November 5, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted 6-0 to recommend City Council adoption of the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement. The Commission recognized the difficult economic conditions to build a new housing development but stressed the importance of the applicant meeting the milestones and timelines in the applicant’s extension request letter. The Commission’s motion did not include any modifications to the proposal.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item received standard noticing for the November 16, 2026 City Council hearing, including a legal advertisement in the East Bay Times newspaper, the posting of notices at City Hall and on the property, and mailed notifications to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The proposed amendment would not have a direct fiscal impact on the General Fund. Staff processing costs are recovered through application fees.
Under Section 2.6.3 of the 2012 Development Agreement, the Project is subject to the four development impact fees listed in Exhibit C: the Development Fee for Street Improvements (DFSI), Marina Boulevard/Interstate 880 Traffic Impact Fee, Overhead Utility Conversion Fee, and Park Facilities Impact Fee. These fees are adjusted annually by specified indices and calculated at the time of building permit application. The DFSI, Marina Boulevard/I-880, and Overhead Utility Conversion fees remain in effect and are adjusted using the same indices, so amounts under the Development Agreement would be consistent with current rates. The park impact fee changes adopted under Ordinance No. 2025-012 and Resolution No. 2025-106 would not apply to the Project. If they did, they would reduce the Project’s park impact fees.
ATTACHMENTS
• A: City Council Ordinance 2026-XXX
o Exhibit A: Proposed Second Amendment to the Development Agreement
• B: 2012 Development Agreement
• C: First Amendment to Development Agreement
• D: Extension Request Letter
• E: Approved Project Plans
• F: Planning Commission Resolution 2026-00xx
• G: Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
PREPARED BY:
Felipe Morfin Martinez, AICP, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department