Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-2009 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 1 Tuesday, January 27, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Swalwell; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Chair Wehrenberg requested to move the Goals and Objectives discussion until the end of the meeting and move Item 6.1 PA 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use Permit between Item 5.1 and 5.2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. King, and with Cm. Brown abstaining, the minutes of the January 13, 2009 meeting were approved with modifications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 5.1 Administration of Oath of Office by Caroline Soto, City Clerk to newly appointed Planning Commissioner Alan Brown. CONSENT CALENDAR - 6.1 PA 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the PD (Planned Development) zoning district in which up to 16 people may live and to allow for an On-Site Parking Reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Court. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they would they like to discuss this item before taking action. Cm. Schaub pulled Item 6.1, Iroonet Conditional Use Permit for discussion. Cm. Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has not reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for a Boarding House before. He felt strongly that the Commission could not approve the item and felt that the Commission had not discussed or approved the findings for Items A through G Planning Commission January 27, 2009 WsgufarMeeting 24 of the Resolution. His first concern was the findings for Item #D; which states there are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, etc. He stated that the finding states that it is located in an existing dwelling within a single family residential neighborhood with adequate services. He stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance the definition of a Boarding House is a multi-family dwelling. He stated that once the project is approved as a Boarding House then it becomes a multi-family dwelling, therefore he could not support Item #D. Cm. Schaub stated that he has no problem with Item #G but felt it was not specific as to at least one aspect where he found the project to be inconsistent with the General Plan. Section 2.1.3 of the General Plan states that; "zve should avoid abrupt transitions betzveen single family development and high density development on adjoining sites." The Commission felt that by placing a multi- family dwelling in the center of a single family residentia=: neighborhood the project was inconsistent with at least one aspect of the General Plan. He :suggested including Section 2.1.3 in Item #G of the findings so that the Council will have that information available when making their decision if the project is appealed. Cm. Schaub stated that if in the event the item goes to Council and they overturn the Planning Commissions denial, the item will have gone to Council without the Planning Commission having discussed the conditions. He also mentioned that in the minutes of the meeting at least one of the Commissioners had suggested some changes to the conditions but the Commission did not discuss those suggestions because they went straight to the denial of the resolution. He stated he is OK with just having his comments in the minutes and having those minutes available to the Council. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Schaub that the Commission did not discuss all of the conditions which should have been done in order to deny the resolution. Otherwise, the City Council could reverse the Commissions decision without any discussion and felt the place to discuss the conditions is at the Planning Commission. Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager stated that if the project is appealed to City Council, the Council could refer a revised project back to the Planning Commission for consideration and that could be one of the alternatives mentioned in the Staff Rep art to the Council. Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Baker to explain his comments further. Mr. Baker continued the City Council could send the project back to the Planning Commission for review of any new or changed conditions if the City Council felt that was appropriate. Cm. King stated that Cm. Schaub's point was that some of the conditions were not discussed. Mr. Baker responded that the City Council does have the option of sending the project back to the Planning Commission for action even if the conditions remain the same. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this action is appealed, will Staff keep the resolution the same or add in more specifics as to which finding the Commission could not make. Planning Commumn Yanuary 27, 2009 fgufarWeeting 25 Mr. Baker answered the Planning Commissions findings would be as they approved them in the denial resolution. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff would add modifications that the Planning Commission discussed. Mr. Baker answered Staff would modify the Resolution as directed by the Commission and the approved Resolution would go to Counci:_ if appealed. Cm. Swalwell agreed with Cm. Schaub regarding Item D. He was unsure if the answer that Staff gave meets what the resolution states which is that there are adequate provisions for public access to sanitation and water, etc. He stated that Gregory Shreeve, City Building Official stated at the last Planning Commission meeting that it meets the building code requirements but Cm. Swalwell was not satisfied that the Commission had enough information as to what the impact on resources would be. He felt that Mr. Shreeve's answer only stated what the building code allows and not necessarily what the true impact on resources would be. Chair Wehrenberg understood Mr. Shreeve's answer to mean that the house could have up to 19 people living there because the code allows for 200 sq ft pear person, therefore the water and sewage design is for 19 people. Mr. Shreeve stated that the houses could accommodate the public access for water and sanitation but the Commission agreed that the impact would be that the owners would have a higher water bill which would be the owners' penalty and not the City's. Cm. Schaub felt that Mr. Shreeve meant the house was designed as a single family dwelling and by definition it will change to a multi-family dwelling if approved which was missed in earlier conversations. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Schaub that the project did not fit in the single family residential neighborhood. Cm. Schaub stated that fact was covered very well in the findings in the Staff Report and Resolution. Mr. Baker added that in the Zoning Ordinance a Boarding House is considered a permitted use through a Conditional Use Permit to operate within a single family area; therefore it would be consistent with the General Plan as far as a use that could occur in the area. He continued it would be consistent with the utilities and supplies for a similar property with a large family with 9 or 10 children living there. The Conditional Use Permit allows the Planning Commission to condition the project to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses or deny the project. Cm. Swalwell asked how Cm. Schaub's concern, which is that -.he Commission was not treating the project as a multi-family unit, would affect the findings, if at all. Ms. Faubion stated this is an unusual situation because we are talking about single family zoning that allows something that doesn't typically look like the other single family homes in the area. She stated that a Boarding House is defined and the definition was read at the last meeting. She continued that the definition of a boarding house allows that kind of use to be established with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. She continued that by virtue of the Conditional Use Permit rather than an outright permitted USE' she felt that is what recognizes the sort of "ragged edges" of this project where in some respects it appears to be more like a (Planning Commission January 27, 2009 fgularWeeting 26 multi-family dwelling in it's function and the number of people living there, but the Conditional Use Permit is the way the Zoning Ordinance reconciles a single family district and a multi- family type use. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated that another illustration of where this type of use occurs in a single family neighborhood is in community care facilities, where the State has determined that a community care facility is a single family residential use. There may be up to 6 people living there that need care or up to 12 with a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that it is similar to a Boarding House but the State has determned that it is considered a single family dwelling unit. Cm. Schaub agreed that it is similar; however, the City's definition specifically says that a boarding house is considered to be a multi-family dwelling. Cm. Swalwell felt the Planning Commission was alright with the findings and did not think the Commission should go back and amend the conditions on the project. He felt that if the Council wants to overturn the Commissions decision, they can send the project back to the Planning Commission for further review and amendment of the conditions. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Schaub, with Cm. Brown abstaining, and with Cm. Schaub's modifications regarding including Section 2.1.3 of the General Plan in Item #G of the findings, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Resolution to deny without prejudice the following: RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BOARDING HOUSE WITH UP TO 12 BOARDERS IN THE PI) (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING LOCATED AT 3608 OAKHURST COURT (APN 985-0017-042) PA 08-023 Ms. Faubion stated that the effect of the action is to approve the resolution denying the resolution without prejudice. Cm. Wehrenberg complemented the recording secretary on the minutes from 1-13-09. 5.2 Planning Commission Goals and Objectives. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, presented the specifics of the Goals & Objectives as outlined in the Staff Report. Planning Commission January 27, 2009 fturarWeeting 27 Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City knows what the impact will be on the Goals & Objectives with the current fiscal economic problems and the State budget cuts. Ms. Ram answered they do not know as yet. The City is in the process of working on estimated actuals for the end of the year. There have been some fiscal issues with business closures and permits and revenues are down. She stated there will be an impact and Council will have to weigh that. She stated that suggestions have been made to include items that can be accomplished at the Staff level without hiring outside consultants. She stated that Staff has not suggested any Goals and Objectives that Staff believes will have fiscal impact. Chair Wehrenberg asked if after the evaluation of the budget would there be potential modification of some of the Goals and Objective. Ms. Ram answered that it could happen and since the City does not know the State budget for this fiscal year, we don t know what the effect will be on local government. She continued that through the budget process the Staff has a better picture as to what to recommend to City Council. She discussed how changing a priority could affect the budget and higher services levels. She continued that different departments have different higher service levels and depending on the how much money there is the City Manager will make a recommendation to the City Council as to what should be funded and what should not be funded. She continued that Staff could be working on the budget over the next few months. Ms. Ram continued with Goals & Objectives and how it relates to the budget. She stated that within the Staff Report are the adopted FY 2008-2009 Goals & Objectives and how Staff has done meeting those goals. Ms. Ram continued with the Goals #1, #2 and #3. Cm. Schaub mentioned that the Village Parkway plan should be on the list also. Ms. Ram answered that it is not listed in the goals adopted by the Council but Staff included it in the project scope when it was sent out for the Request for Proposal. Council did not amend the goal but it was added to the consultant's scope based on the Council's direction. Mr. Baker mentioned that the current scope for the Downtown Specific Plan is with RBF Consultants to do the Specific Plan document and the Environmental Review will be handled through a separate contract and Staff is developing the RFP for a that contract. Chair Wehrenberg asked if that is where the services are needed. Mr. Baker answered that both would be on-going contracts where money would be appropriated to cover the costs; however, the EIR would be covered through an MTC grant from the State. Chair Wehrenberg asked if it would take 12 months to complete. Mr. Baker answered yes. Ms. Ram continued with Goal #4 - Complete Scarlet Court Specific Plan. She stated that the design guidelines for Scarlet Court Specific Plan were completed as Phase 1. The Specific Plan portion was tabled until Camp Parks is completed, because tht!re are traffic capacity issues and Tfanning Commission January 27, 2009 4fgular9deeting 28 the City Council did not want to make decisions on Scarlet Court without taking into consideration Camp Parks and the land uses there. Ms. Ram continued with Goal #5 - Participate in 2010 Census. She stated this is underway and a presentation will be made at the February 17th City Council meeting. Ms. Ram continued with Goal #6 which is a new goal - Exam:.ne Zoning Ordinance to identify changes to streamline entitlements for businesses seeking to locate in Dublin. She stated the City feels they can accomplish this at Staff level by examining fie Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Ram continued with Goal #7 - Update General Plan. She stated this was given a low priority because of the expense and Staff felt it was not necessary with so many Specific Plans that are more specific than a large General Plan. Ms. Ram continued with Goal #8 - Added in 2007 - Develop policy requiring play areas in walking distance of new homes in new subdivisions. This was given a low priority based on previous Council direction however; Staff has been working with developers to include play areas. She stated they did not create a policy but tried to achieve the goal at a Staff level. Ms. Ram asked the Commission for questions. Cm. King stated during their work on the Community Design and Sustainability Element he had posed a question as to whether the concrete structures at the main gateways into the City should have a unified look or all be different. He stated it was suggested he wait until the Goals and Objectives discussion and wanted to discuss it now. Mr. Baker stated that in the Community Design and Sustainability Element it calls for a unified design for each of the granite entry markers and asked if Cm King was proposing a different marker for each entry. Cm. King stated he was not proposing the entry markers be either different or the same but if they should go beyond the granite marker with some kind of architectural theme, archway or signature in addition to the granite marker. Mr. Baker passed around a page from the Community Design Element which shows a rendering of the proposed entry monument. There was a discussion regarding what kind of entry monument should be at the gateways to the City and whether there should be a policy that they are the same and would represent Dublin or if they should be allowed to be different. Cm. King felt that unless the question was addressed every gateway into the City will look different because there is no policy that dictates otherwise. He questioned if that would be acceptable or if the Commission would rather have the entryways something more consistent that says "You're in Dublin" no matter which gateway is used. He stated he did not intend to suggest something that would require additional expense on the part of the City. Pranning Commission January 27, 2009 ftgurarWeeting 29 Mr. Baker answered there are a few things that the City is doing to address Cm. King's concern. He continued that through the Streetscape Master Plan the City is implementing a design monument that will run down Dublin Blvd. from the Historic Park to Hacienda Drive. It is a vertical monument, approximately 15 feet tall, spaced approximately every 500 feet along Dublin Blvd. It will be located within the center median and rave the City logo and shamrocks creating that identity. Cm. King liked the monument but felt that was only on Dublin Blvd. and did not address the gateway issue. Ms. Ram stated there are different amounts rights-of-way available for these types of features at different entrances and Staff developed the monument so that it would fit everywhere and have consistency of design coming into the City. Cm. Schaub suggested some kind of interesting design on the Street such as a Shamrock design on the street. Ms. Ram stated when the Streetscape Master Plan was developed Staff considered pavement and other types of designs and found that there are huge maintenance costs with colored pavement or patterns in the street. Cm. Swalwell mentioned a project he worked on at the University of Maryland where the M was painted on the streets throughout the campus, and to defray the costs they created an "M Day" where the students volunteered to repaint the M's and :he only cost to the City was the paint. He liked the idea of the shamrocks which are unique toc. Ms. Ram mentioned that there is an approved sign design of a shamrock cut out that will replace a feature on San Ramon Rd. within the median and along the bridges. She asked if the Commission would like to have Council readdress the sign. If so, Staff could write a Goal and Objective and they could talk to Council. Cm. King and Cm. Schaub agreed that they would like to have City Council address the monument, and logo. Cm. King felt the question is whether we should do more than just the sign such as enhanced features. Ms. Ram restated that the Commission would like to embellish the entry monument with enhanced features at the entrances to the City. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Commission does not want to change the granite monument but embellish or enhance the City streets with additional enhanced features at the gateways. It was suggested the maintenance costs could be paid for by private enterprises and it could be an opportunity for Dublin Pride Week. There was a discussion regarding the gateways to the City and where they are located. Planning Commission January 27, 2009 fgurarWeeting 30 Mr. Baker read a draft of a Goal which stated: "Amend the Streetscape Master Plan to include enhanced entry feature designs at gateways." The Commission agreed. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that the Commission would like to review the City parking standards and suggested adding that to the Goals and Objectives. Ms. Ram stated that the Public Works Director has added a Goal for that department and would be working with Planning Staff to examine the parking standards in the Municipal Code for potential modifications that would streamline development review and encourage businesses to locate within Dublin. Chair Wehrenberg asked if that was directed mostly towards businesses and asked if it would cover the shared parking issue. Ms. Ram felt there could be conflicts with shared parking. Ms. Ram asked the Commission to tell her what they would like to accomplish in regards to the parking standards and Staff will write the Goal. Cm. Schaub suggested having a study session to discuss the parking issue. He stated on-street parking is a concern of residents and he felt that the Planning Commission has not talked about it enough. He felt the City's parking standards are adequate but would like to be able to use the same verbiage when discussing parking. He would like reviews on parking in regards to transit because of the density of the projects and was concerned because he felt the Commission had compromised for the transit concept. He also wanted to discuss how to adequately calculate parking for different sized apartments, and asked for the information as to how the transit area parking was determined. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that the Parking Standards have not been reviewed recently which was brought up when the appeal for the ClubSport projE-ct was submitted. Cm. Schaub felt the Commission had committed to the Council to review the parking standards. Ms. Ram asked if the Commission would like staff to review the Parking Ordinance and bring back a report or hold a study session. Cm. Schaub stated he would like the Planning Commission to have a study session on the Parking Ordinance. Ms. Ram felt the Council should be advised if, through the study session, the Commission concludes that the Parking Ordinance should be modified in order to include it in the budget. Mr. Baker suggested the Goal could be to have Staff evaluate the parking standards with a consultant and as part of that process hold a study session to determine if the parking standards should be modified. Planning Commission January 27, 2009 fgularWeeting 31 The Commission asked if they could evaluate the parking standards without hiring a consultant. They suggested having a study session and deciding at that point if they need a consultant. Ms. Ram felt that the Planning Department does not have the Staff or the expertise to do the type of work the Commission is interested in. She stated that Staff could do research and provide the Commission with information regarding approved shared parking areas, parking by use type and that type of information. Chair Wehrenberg was interested in knowing what our Standards are, if they are still appropriate, and if industry has changed them. She felt they might not need a study session but just a review of the parking standards. She would like to compare our standards to other cities, and was concerned about future commercial development and wanted to ensure there is appropriate parking so that the Commission does not deny a project because there is a parking issue. Cm. Schaub was more concerned about residential parking than commercial parking. He felt that if a commercial project's parking is not correct that is an inconvenience, but if residential parking is not correct that is a tragedy. Ms. Ram suggested the Commission could have a study session with information on what has been done in the past for residential and commercial and see if further study is needed. If so, then we can do a study at Staff level, but if the Commission wants a full study then consultant's services will be needed. She stated to add this item to the Goals they would need to indicate a consultant's services will be needed. Ms. Ram suggested that the Goal read: "Hold a study session and identify any recommended modifications to the Parking Ordinance." She felt that the Commissioners had different ideas about what they wanted to study and felt that after Staff submits an interim report it may be clearer as to what issue they need to concentrate on. Ms. Ram commented that there was an appeal of a project with shared parking but the issue that was brought up was regarding residential parking. She wanted the Commission to also consider the high cost of parking and when talking about trying to encourage businesses to locate in the community, there is a conflict between requiring more parking and the idea of encouraging businesses to come to the area. Cm. Schaub felt that was a good thing to bring up in the study session and asked Staff to include that information in their report so that the Council will also be informed. Cm. Schaub mentioned that at some point there may be a nee& for a parking authority. He felt the transit centers will need meters or tickets, but something will have to be done about how to enforce what has already been done. He felt there may be a revenue opportunity there. Cm. King would like to understand what the traffic impact will be at build-out. Planning Commission January 27, 2009 WegularWeeting 32 Chair Wehrenberg stated that there is a cause and effect of hove we plan the neighborhoods and one project will lead to traffic from the next until there is a problem. Mr. Baker suggested the Parking Goal to read: "hold a Plarning Commission study session to review parking standards and reevaluate the Parking Ordinance." The Commission agreed. Ms. Ram asked if there were any other goals that the Commission wanted to add under Planning. Cm. Schaub wanted to add a goal for the Planning Commission to that address sustainability and green building. He felt this was the right time to have this as a goal. Ms. Ram stated that the Council has directed the City requiring sustainability and green building. She noted the previous efforts already underway as directed by the City Council. Ms. Ram stated that last year Council put a Goal and Objective on the Building Division to create a mandatory self-certification program for green building and will be taking that to Council in March 2009. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Commission could also make suggestions to the Building Division to consider requiring existing homes to replace wood burning fireplaces with gas, electric or remove them completely, without adding burden to the homeowners. She wanted to start eliminating wood burning fireplaces from the City. She suggested having the Building Division develop an ordinance to go before the City Council to establish a policy regarding wood burning fireplaces. Ms. Ram suggested that Chair Wehrenberg bring tip the subject in the joint Council/Commission meeting. Cm. Schaub stated he would like to have the Planning Commission's Goals and Objectives address green building. There was a discussion regarding; how Goals and Objectives are determined and the difference between Goals and Objectives and items the Council has asked Staff to work on. Ms. Ram continued that Staff has discussed listing all their projects in one location so that everyone knows what Staff is working on. She mentioned a few of the projects that Staff has worked on regarding carbon footprints, a climate action forurn and gas emissions. She stated the City has reduced the fees for solar panels and swimming pools. She stated that City Staff is working on a lot of projects as directed by the council, but they are not listed in any one place. Ms. Ram reminded the Commission that during last year they completed the Community Design and Sustainability Element which was added to the General Plan. She stated that no other city in California has this element and it can be augmented with more sustainability principals or more green buildings requirements. Planning Commission January 27, 2009 fgularWeeting 33 Ms. Ram mentioned that the City is applying for an American Planning Association award for the Community Design and Sustainability Element. Cm. Brown asked if it is reasonable to have a measurable objective in terms of savings, etc. within the next 8 years where new developers have put in a percentage of green enhancements to houses. Ms. Ram stated that the City is preparing a green program that is a self-certification program based on 50 elements of green building principals that must be incorporated into every home. She continued that because of all of the climate legislation Staf= will need to develop a Planning document that lowers the City's carbon footprint. Cm. Swalwell felt that Goal #6 is the most important goal and they should convey that to the council so that it can receive the highest priority. He wanted to ensure that more Staff time and funding should be spent on Goal #6 than the others. He felt that Staff time should not be spent on other goals at the expense of Goal #6 even though both are listed as a high priority. Cm. Schaub stated he wanted to discuss how, as the City moves closer to build-out, displacing cows and grass will not be a problem, but when there are people living close by to a development and the development will affect them he felt the meetings will become more intense. He would like to explore how that will change what the Commission does. He felt that the Commission needs to be more specific when it comes to making findings. He felt that if the Commission makes a finding that a project does not comply with the General Plan then they should have the General Plan there to verify it. Ms. Ram suggested Cm. Schaub's topic would be a good discussion at the League of California Cities meeting. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Schaub and reminded the Commission that in their binder there is the Planning Commissions Rules of Procedure which she reviewed and was reminded of the process for findings. She also mentioned the Planning Commissioners Handbook that is a good reference as well. Ms. Ram stated that several Staff members recently completed training on writing findings and Staff can help the Commissioners by going over each finding during their discussions. Cm. Schaub mentioned that a few years ago they had a meeting and discussed what had gone well and what didn't and how they could change things for the better. He also suggested that before the Commission starts meeting regarding the Downtown Specific Plan, he would like to take an afternoon to drive around the City and talk about commercial architecture. Cm. King agreed. Ms. Ram mentioned that the Planning Division is working with Mike Porto, Consulting Planner to take the Commissioners attending the Planner's Institute on a field trip for residential but we could easily do an architectural tour. Cm. Schaub felt that since the Downtown Specific Plan Planning Commission January 27, 2009 WsgularWeeting 34 will be submitted to the Commission within the next few months they should focus more on Commercial development in Dublin. Cm. Schaub suggested the Commission take some time to tour Dublin to see what they like and what they don't like in the projects that they approved. Ms. Ram stated that Staff could arrange a field trip on commercial architecture for the Commission. Cm. Schaub suggested having Larry Cannon attend the field trip and explain some commercial terminology for the Commission. Chair Wehrenberg asked about Item #10 from the 2008-09 Goals and Objectives regarding "Briefings to the Planning Commission regarding proposed signif Leant redevelopment..." Ms. Ram answered it refers to a monthly update that Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager had provided to the Commission regarding any new applications in the downtown area. Planning Commission Goals and Objectives Rankings: Item #1- Implementing residential planned development... '"he Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #2 - Complete Camp Parks General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments. The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #3 - Update Downtown, West Dublin BART and San Eamon Specific Plans into one... The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #4 -Complete Scarlett Court Specific Plan. The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - medium; Cm. Swalwell - low; Chair Wehrenberg - low; Cm. King - low; Cm. Schaub - low. Item #5 - Participate in 2010 Census. The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #6 - Examine Zoning Ordinance... The Commission voted: Tfanning Commission ,7anuary 27, 2009 4?SgufarWeeting 35 Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #7 - Update City's General Plan Cm. Brown - low; Cm. Swalwell - low; Chair Wehrenberg - low; Cm. King - low; Cm. Schaub - delete. Item #8 - Develop policy regarding play areas... The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - medium; Cm. Swalwell - medium; Chair Wehrenberg - low; Cm. King - medium; Cm. Schaub - medium. Additional Planning Commission Objectives: 1) Amend Streetscape Master Plan to include enhanced entry feature designs at gateways. Cm. Brown - high; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenber; - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. 2) Hold Planning Commission Study Session to review parking standards and re-evaluate Parking Ordinance. Cm. Brown - high; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Housing Committee Goals and Objectives Ms. Ram gave an overview of the Housing Committee's Goals and Objectives meeting and how they ranked each item. Item #1 - Evaluate potential renovation/ redevelopment of Arroyo Vista. This has been as a high priority for the City Council. The Housing Committee retained the priority as high. Item #2 - Process 15 First Time Homebuyer Loans. The Housing Committee agreed to delete this objective and added a new objective that states "Process 15 First Time Homebuyer Loan Applications." She explained that it was assumed the objective meant process the loan applications but this change would clarified that. Item #3 - Develop a Program to assist large employers interested in locating within Dublin with housing for their employees in tandem with the Economic Incentive Program under development. This program would be designed to work with'. ielping businesses relocate to the community. They gave that Goal a priority of medium/high. Item #4 - the 2nd goal added is - Develop a procedure to combine the Community Grant Process and the Community Development Block Grant Process. Ms. Ram explained the Community Development Block Grant Process. She stated that the City is given a limited amount of money Tranning Commission January 27, 2009 WegularWeeting 36 which is funded through the Alameda County for City programs and for certain types of Capital Improvement Projects as long as they serve a certain segment of the community. These Organizations ask the Council for grant money at different times. She continued this goal would allow the Council to approve grants at one time. She stated this program would require developing criteria, outreach to the groups and it can be done el Staff level. She stated that Staff could accept the applications all at once and then figure out the best way to direct the applications. The Housing Committee agreed and gave it a high priority. Ms. Ram stated the Housing Committee added another goal - "Hold three large employee outreach meetings to educate and market the City's Housing Programs." She explained that Staff visited 3 or 4 different large employers for an informational meeting regarding the types of programs available in Dublin. She stated the Housing Committee wanted to know how effective the outreach was. She stated Staff received good feedback from Housing Committee and will be doing some additional tracking and making some changes to the forms. The Housing Committee gave this a high priority. Cm. Schaub mentioned that he sent an email to City Council that suggested looking into an incentive program that the City could provide to help people buy homes in Dublin similar to the program for businesses. He continued the City Council could look at programs that would help residential developers sell houses. He felt that one way would be to eliminate affordable housing. He suggested taking those affordable housing dollars that the developer gives the City for in-lieu fees, which would be approximately $60,000 Fer house, and give it as a rebate for with the purchase of a home. He stated that the City could offer $30,000 as a rebate and still have $30,000 left in the Affordable Housing Fund. He felt that because the City of Dublin has this program there is an opportunity to encourage homebuye rs. He felt that the City Council needs find a way to jumpstart the housing market. He felt that the City needs people buying homes just as much as the businesses coming to the community. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is an impact on funding from the federal government for affordable housing. Cm. Schaub felt that the City Council should have a goal to look into whatever the City can do to sell houses. He felt that it was just as costly to the City not to sell homes as it is not to sell cars. Cm. Swalwell felt that Cm. Schaub wanted to create a housing incentive program. Cm. Schaub felt that affordable housing is an implied tax and it is a large amount of money. Cm. King felt that Cm. Schaub was not advocating one particular idea but wanted the broad question to be asked about how to bring incentives to help the housing market. The Commission had a discussion regarding incentive programs for home buyers and how that would impact home sales for the City. They agreed that the housing incentive program would be for all houses not only low income and would include how to help the development community get new homebuyers to buy a home in Dublin. Tranning Commission January 27, 2009 ftularMeeting 37 Ms. Ram asked how the program would work. Cm. Schaub gave this example: There are 100 homes, 12 of those are affordable. He stated the developer looses about $300K/house. He continued if the affordable housing was eliminated they would have 100 homes X $300,000 which would be $3 million, half of which could be applied to the affordable housing fund and the other half passed on to anyone that buys a home in the form of a rebate. Cm. King felt that the purpose of the affordable housing program was to enable police officers, teachers and local employees to be able to afford to live in Dublin. Cm. Schaub stated there are 1,200 affordable homes that are not sold as yet. Cm. King asked if Dublin is meeting their affordable housing need. Ms. Ram stated there are things that must be weighed by Council. She stated that the City received $1.2 million in grant money for the Shannon Center because the Housing Element is in compliance. She continued whether the Commission agrees with affordable housing they must understand the pros and cons. She agreed that Staff could bring the conversation forward and discuss it. She explained how the Housing Element is certified. She continued that the City uses the Housing Element certification to apply for grant money. Therefore, if the Housing Element is not certified the City and Eden Housing may not, for example, be able to apply for grant money for Arroyo Vista. Cm. King asked how the City used the money. Ms. Ram answered that the City received it over a 3 year period and used it to build the new Shannon Center. Cm. King responded that Cm. Schaub was trying to create a way to make it easier for people to buy homes in Dublin. Cm. Schaub felt that the price for the grant money was more than that $1.2 million. Cm. King asked if any of the in-lieu fees from the Affordable Housing Fund has been used and what it was used for. Ms. Ram answered that some of the fund has been used for processing Arroyo Vista, Wicklow Square, and the Groves. She continued that the City must shcw support for affordable housing which is one of the many requirements tied to grants. She continued that some of the in-lieu fees pay her salary and the salaries of the housing staff. She stated the City Council weighs these factors when setting City policy. Cm. Swalwell felt that Cm. Schaub was not focusing on one t rpe of incentive and asked if Staff could present a list of items that they think would be feasible and that would not cost the City very much money. Planning Commission January 27, 2009 Wfgular `.Meeting 38 Ms. Ram asked if this program would be for both the home buyer and the developer. Cm. Schaub stated the incentive program would be for the home buyer. Mr. Baker suggested the goal could state: "Develop a new horne buyer incentive program." The Commission agreed. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that he would be very interested in learning about future planning 1) how the affordable housing projects were planned and the effect it has on the resale of surrounding homes; 2) the safety of living close to affordable housing; 3) learn what is available in Dublin; and 4) whether there is a correlation between increased crime and the ability or inability to sell your home in neighborhoods with affordable housing. He was also interested to learn of new laws that have been enacted that give further discretion in evicting persons in affordable housing projects if the tenant has been arrested. Ms. Ram stated that Staff may not have access to that information. She mentioned that on the City of Dublin website there will be a section that shows all the crime activity, but was unaware as to how that would affect the value of a home. There was a discussion regarding the difference between affordable housing and rentals that accept Section 8 vouchers. Ms. Ram stated that the only area in the City that accepted Section 8 vouchers was the Arroyo Vista project. She stated that rentals of affordable housing are located throughout the City and mentioned the developments they are located in. Cm. King asked if the City has made an effort to spread the affordable housing throughout the City rather than having it in one concentrated location. Ms. Ram answered that the Affordable Housing Ordinance requires that it be spread throughout a development but several developers have asked the Council for the ability to build them all in one location. Ms. Ram mentioned that in Silvera Ranch and Fallon Crossings the City worked with the developer to build smaller units among the bigger units, duets on the corners, and different ways of clustering the houses. She felt that clustering of the product works effectively if there is a non-profit organization managing it. She felt there are more problems at the developer run projects. Cm. Schaub asked if one of the things the Planning Commission should be reviewing is who will run the affordable housing area of a development. Ms. Rain answered yes. Cm. Schaub also was concerned that the City goes outside DL.blin to find people to move into the affordable housing. He stated there are organizations go:.ng all over the state looking for individuals to move into these developments. He stated that was not his intention when the Planning Commission worked on the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Planning Commission January 27, 2009 WfgufarWeeting 39 Cm. Swalwell asked if the Commission should hold a study session on housing without making it part of the Goals and Objectives. Ms. Ram suggested that Cm. Swalwell look at the new crime tool on the website as it should answer his questions. She suggested having John Lucero, Housing Specialist give a presentation on the housing programs at a study session or as an item on the agenda. An added goal for Planning Commission - "New home buyer incentive program." Cm. Brown suggested that, after reading the minutes from the previous meeting, there was a need to identify where a boarding; house can be located in a City. Cm. Schaub mentioned that (from his notes from the last meeting) if Dublin needs boarding house style housing, which is a new type of housing, then they need to properly plan for their placement into neighborhoods and review how they fit into our public policy. He stated that if there is another application for a boarding house he suggested having a study session before the next hearing. Ms. Ram suggested tabling the discussion of the boarding house issue. She stated it is permitted under a Conditional Use Permit, which means that it is evaluated on a site specific basis. She stated boarding houses are allowed in residential areas on a site specific basis. She felt the Commission may feel they can never find a residential area in Dublin that would be appropriate for a boarding house. She felt it was similar to a n indoor recreation use and may be appropriate in some places on Sierra Court but not be appropriate in other areas. She stated that the first time they saw that type of application they were concerned about traffic and safety, but it worked out, but it was still reviewed on a site specific basis. She felt they should do the same with the boarding house which can be denied by the Commission. Cm. King asked that just because the Zoning Ordinance permits a boarding house in residential areas the Commission could judge it on an individual basis. Ms. Ram answered yes. Cm. Schaub felt the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to take out the boarding house as an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit in a residential district. Ms. Ram proposed that the Commission wait until the Housing Element is submitted because there are things in that document that the Commission might find challenging such as some new State laws and other items that they might want to address together. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that the Applicant for the boarding house has another application in the system and asked if Staff could consolidate the projects so that they are heard together. Ms. Ram responded that Staff must comply with state laws regarding how quickly an application is processed. She stated that it was not possible to bring both applications at the same time due to Staff workload. She also stated concerns about having two neighborhood groups at the same meeting. She also mentioned that the Applicant had decided to postpone the other boarding house until a decision had been rendered regarding on the first is completed. Pranning Commission January 27, 2009 fgnfar9Keeting 40 Cm. Swalwell asked when the Commission would see the Housing Element. Mr. Baker stated there would be a study session in the near future and they are preparing the administrative draft currently. There was further discussion regarding the Housing Element and the process for reviewing it. Item #1 - Complete evaluation of Arroyo Vista housing site. Tl le Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #2 -Process 15 homebuyer loans Delete #2 Unanimous and add 5C: - Process 15 First Time Homebuyer Loan Applications The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #3 - Develop a program to assist Large employers... The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #4 - Develop a procedure to combine Community Grant Process and the CDBG... The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. Item #5C - Hold 3 large employer outreach meetings to educate... The Commission voted unanimously to delete this item. Additional Objectives Item #5C - New Homebuyer Incentive Program. The Commission voted: Cm. Brown - High; Cm. Swalwell - high; Chair Wehrenberg - high; Cm. King - high; Cm. Schaub - high. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Schaub shared that the Housing Committee elected officers. Planning Commission ,'anuary 27, 2009 &gufarWeeting 41 10.3 Downtown update: Custom Fireplace is now doing additional work. They obtained funding to make the building withstand the wet weather and are working on getting more funding to complete the project. 10.4 Mr. Baker reminded the Commission regarding Mandatory Ethic's training, Monday February 2, 2009 at 6:00pm. 10.5 Mr. Baker mentioned that all the Planning Commissioners will be attending the Planner's Institute in Anaheim. 10.6 Mr. Baker reminded the Commission about the Volunteers Dinner on Friday, February 20, 2009, at the Dublin Senior Center. 10.7 There was a discussion regarding the BART garage, Mervyn and the closing of Home Depot. ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L Doreen Wehrenberg Chair Planning Co ATTEST: Jeff a r Acting Planning Manager G: \ MINUTES \2009\ PLANNING COMMISSION\ 1.13.09.doc (Planning Commission January 27, 2009 fgularWeeting 42