HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Inclu Afford Units Amend CITY CLERK
File # I ~~ _r~-~-~--~-~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 17, 2002
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - PA-01-038 Amendments to the Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations regarding changes to priorities used in the
selection of occupants for Inclusionary Affordable Units, the
percentage of household income allowed for housing expenses; and
land dedication requirements in lieu of building affordable units
Report Prepared by: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development
Director and Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 8.68 of the
Dublin Municipal Code related to household income,
affordable household priorities and land dedication
requirements
2. Examples of Housing Task Force Recommended Priorities
For Selection of Occupants for Affordable Units
3. Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of
these amendments
4. Planning Commission draft minutes of the November 26,
2002 meeting
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing
A/31 Hear Staff Presentation
Take Public Testimony
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Deliberate
6. Waive the Reading and introduce Ordinance as
recommended by Staff (Attachment 1) with changes to
Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to
household income, affordable household priorities and land
dedication requirements
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Increase in developer subsidy to dedicate land in lieu of building
required affordable units
COPIES TO: Inclusionary Work Group
In-House Distribution
ITEM NO. ~
BACKGROUND:
On May 7, 2002 the City Council introduced an Ordinance amending the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations (Chapter 8.68) of the Dublin Municipal Code. Specific elements of this Ordinance included
the requirement of 12.5% of any residential project to be affordable for a period of 55 years. Up to 5% of
the total 12.5% of affordable units may pay an in lieu fee. If affordable units cannot be built on site, the
City Council may allow land dedication, construction of required affordable units off site and the possible
waiver of requirements and approval of alternative methods of compliance.
Before the City Council tonight are three proposed changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance:
· A financial change in the required household income necessary to qualify for Inclusionary units.
(Section 8.68.020A)
· A change in the priorities of various affordable housing groups in the selection of new
Inclusionary units as recommended by the City's Housing Task Force (Section 8.68.050D)
· At the SPecific request of the City Council in May, 2002, a specific new Land Dedication
requirement in lieu of building affordable units that can occur when the City Council determines
that this option should be taken (Section 8.68.040 C new subsection 3)
Specific changes recommended by Staff are found in Attachment 1; an annotated strike out version with
old provisions and new provisions is found in the Planning Commission recommended Ordinance
(Attachment 3).
ANALYSIS:
Standards for Household Income Attributable to Affordable Housing
Staff has researched the prevailing percentage of required household income necessary to qualify for new
Inclusionary housing. Staff has determined that a correction is necessary under Section 8.68.020A.2
"Definitions". While rental units are deemed affordable if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of
maximum household income, owner-occupied, or for-sale units may be considered affordable with a
slightly higher amount of household income directed to the mortgage payment. Review of standard
underwriting criteria in the lending industry and a poll of Bay Area Cities has demonstrated that it is
reasonable to increase the household income directed toward housing expenses to 35%. The new Section
8.68.020A.2 would read:
"Owner-occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in housing expenses that do
not exceed 35% of income level for very-low, low, and moderate-income households, adjusted for
household size and as definedbelow."
New Priorities for Various Housing Groups in the Selection Process for New Inclusionar¥ Units
The City's Housing Task Force has recommended new priorities for various classes of affordable housing
groups who should qualify for new Inclusionary housing.
The second requested amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is in reference to Section
8.68.050D, Selection Criteria. The City of Dublin's Housing Task Force reviewed the priorities listed in
the Inclusionary Ordinance and has recommended changes. '
Currently the Priorities in selecting occupants of Inclusionary units are as follows:
~ 1. Dublin residents that are seniors
' 2. Dublin residents that are permanently disabled
3. Dublin residents and non-residents who are members of Dublin's workforce
4. Dublin residents with children
5. Other Dublin residents
6. Non-residents that are seniors
7. Non-residents that are permanently disabled
8. Other non-residents.
The Housing Task Force has unanimously recommended that priority be given for individuals employed
within the boundaries of Dublin, residents of Dublin, seniors, and permanently disabled individuals. Each
of these categories would receive a given point or number of points. A given household may belong to
more than one category in which case, the number of points would be the total of the points for all the
categories to which they belong.
Category Points for category_
Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin 3 points
All other Dublin residents 3 points
Seniors 1 point
Permanently disabled 1 point
These points would be cumulative, so households fitting into more than one category could have points
from several categories. See Attachment 2 for examples.
The benefit of this system is the simplicity while still giving priority to those who live and work in the
City of Dublin and some priority for seniors and permanently disabled households. The Housing Task
Force further recommended a three-tiered process in the selection of eligible occupants for rental and for-
sale Inclusionary units.
The first step would be to qualify by income all who applied to ascertain if they meet the necessary
income category (moderate, low, or very-low income)
The second step would be to establish that the number of members of the household would be eligible for
the size units that were being developed and dedicated as Inclusionary.
A studio apartment would allow no more than one occupant,
a one bedroom unit would allow for a one or two member household,
a two bedroom unit would allow for a two, three or four member household, and
a three bedroom unit would allow for a three, four, five or six member household.
The third step would be to establish the priorities, given the above scoring system, within the various
income categories.
From this established list, the developer would be able to offer the rental units to those households, or on
an ownership project, to those households that would qualify for a loan.
New Land Dedication Requirements (Section 8.68.040 C3)
Staff has also prepared three options for new Land Dedication requirements as well as a specific
recommendation for the City Council's consideration. On May 21, 2002 the City Council instructed staff
to return with an amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that would allow the City Council to
permit land dedication in lieu of building required Inclusionary units. The issue is to ensure that the value
of the property dedicated to the City or non-profit developer covers both the cost of the land on which to
build the required units and the cost to build the Affordable Units. Staff has prepared three specific
options and the details follow. Option 3 is the recommendation of Staff and is included in the proposed
Ordinance change. Staff will verbally discuss these options in detail at the public hearing.
All options include as an example of land dedication:
A 200-lot subdivision with an average 4,000 sq. ft. lot size
Option 1 - Land Dedication based on size of lots in the subdivision
Builder dedicates land in lieu of building required units as follows:
· Dedicates land based on size of lots built in subdivision equal to required Affordable Units that
should have been built (7.5%)
· Pays 5% InClusionary Fee
Example
If required to build 15 units (7.5% of a 200 lot subdivision) and the average lot size was 4,000 square feet,
the land dedication would'be 4,000 sq. ft. x 15 = 1.37 acres
Payment of In lieu fee would be:
10 units (5% of a 200 lot subdivision)
Fee is $72,176 per unit
$72,176 x 10 = $721,760
Option 2 - Land Dedication to build all required Inelusionary units on multi-family zoned land
Builder would dedicate land in lieu of building required units as follows:
· Dedicates land based on amount of land needed to build Affordable Units on site with average
density of 22 units per acre, which would accommodate both very low and low (rental units)
and for sale or rental units for moderate units and
· Pays 5% In lieu Fee
Example
If required to build 15 units (7.5% of a 200 lot subdivision). Dedication is based on 15 units on a site that
can support up to 22 units per acre. For 15 units on a site designed at 22 units per acre, the land
dedication would be:
15 = .68 acre
22
Payment of In lieu fee would be:
10 units (5% of a 200 lot subdivision)
Fee is $72,176 per unit
$72,176 x 10 = $721,760
Option 3 - Land Dedication based on size of lots in the subdivision and the difference between
market rate (1,200 square foot unit) and comparable affordable unit of the same size
Builder would dedicate land in lieu of building required units as follows:
· Dedicates land based on size of lots built in subdivision to required Affordable Units that should
have been built (7.5%) and
· Dedicates land equivalent to the difference between the market rate of 1,200 square feet for-sale
units and the affordable price per unit ($72,176) for the number of units required
· Pays 5% In lieu Fee
Example
If required to build 15 units (7.5% ora 200 lot subdivision) and the average lot size was 4,000 square feet,
the first land dedication would be:
4,000 x 15 = 1.37 acre (1st dedication)
The second dedication would be the difference between the market rate for a unit and the affordable rate
of a unit translated into an average unit. The difference between a market rate and affordable unit as
adjusted as a part of the in lieu fee ($72,176) would be multiplied by the number of units required (15) '
and then divided by the average cost assumed in the market rate/affordable unit land cost adopted as a part
of the in lieu fee.
$72,176 x 15 (number of units required) divided by the assumed land cost per acre ($864,000 previously
determined as a part of the adopted in lieu fee calculation) = 1.25 Acres (Second dedication)
Payment of in lieu fee would be:
10 units (5% of a 200 lot subdivision)
Fee is $72,176 per unit
$72,176 x 10 = $721,760
Comparison of Options
Below is a chart covering land dedication requirement (7.5% of units) and in lieu fee charges (5% of
units) for the example of a 200-lot subdivision of 4,000 average square foot properties. A brief
comparison of the options is presented below:
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Land Dedication Requirements 1.37 acres .68 acre 2.62 acres
In lieu fee charges $721,760 $721,760 $721,760
Advantages and disadvantages of the options on a subdivision of 200 units with 4,000 square foot lots are:
Pros Cons
Option 1 Moderate could be built Low/very low units would need to be consolidated
on the required dedication with the Inclusionary requirements of other
(1.37 acres - 7 units) projects on a larger site to insure an economical
project (i.e. more than 8 units on one site)
Option 2 .68 acre dedication Both moderate and low/very-low units would have
to be consolidated with other projects elsewhere
.68 acre too small by itself
Option 3 2.62 acre dedication large The largest dedication requirement for the developer
enough to build all required
units. Addresses both land
to build units and subsidizes
the difference in cost between
market and affordable costs
to build the units
Conclusion
Staff believes that Option 3 is the best land dedication solution. It more closely relates the land needed to
build required affordable units and recovers some of the difference the cost between market and
affordable units costs for the units that could have been built by the developer on site.
Plannin~ Commission Action
Copies of the Staff analyses were distributed to members of the earlier Inclusionary Zoning Task Force
prior to the Planning Commission hearing. On November 26, 2002, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on these proposed amendments and unanimously recommended approval of Staff s
recommended changes (Resolution 02-43, Attachment 3)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council open the public heating, take the public testimony, close the
public hearing, and waive the reading and introduce the ordinance as recommended by Staff (Attachment
1).
GSPA~X2001 \01-038\ccsr 12-17.doc
/
ORDINANCE NO. - 02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD
PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings: The City of Dublin finds that:
A. The citizens of Dublin are experiencing a housing shortage for very low-, low- and
moderate-income households.
B. A goal of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan is to achieve a balanced
community with housing available for households of a range of income levels.
C. Persons with very low, low, and moderate incomes that currently live and/or work in the
City are increasingly unable to locate housing at prices they can afford, and often become excluded from
living in the City.
D. Federal and State housing subsidy programs are insufficient by themselves to satisfy the
housing needs of very low-, low- and moderate-income households.
E. The high cost of newly constructed housing does not, to any appreciable extent, provide
housing affordable by very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, and continued new
development that does not include affordable housing will serve to further aggravate the current housing
shortage by reducing.the supply of developable land.
F. It is a public purpose of the City, and a public policy of the State as mandated by the
requirements for a housing element of the City's General Plan, to make available an adequate supply of
housing for persons of all economic segments of the community.
Section 2. Amendment of Chapter 8. 68: Chapter 8.68, entitled "Inclusionary Zoning Regulations," of
the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 3. 'Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA '): The City Council
declares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following findings: This ordinance is not
a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. This ordinance does
not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure. This ordinance, therefore, has no
potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.
Section 4. Severability: In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined
invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or
portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
ATTACHMENT 1
Section 5: Savings Clause: All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in conflict with
the provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are substantially
the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter shall be construed as restatements
and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations, rights accrued,
liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, under any chapter,
ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of sustaining
any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability or appeal.
Section 6. Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause
the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with
Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 17th day of
December 2002, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
GSPA#L2001 \01-038\cc ord. 12-17.doc
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 8.68 INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS
8.68.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment
of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households
of very low, low, and moderate income.
B. assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner
consistent with the City's housing policies and needs.
8.68.020. Definitions. As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows:
A. "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental-housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to
households with very-low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this chapter.
1. Rental units are deemed affordable units if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of maximnm
income level for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household
size and as defined below.
2. Owner-occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in annual housing
expenses that do not exceed 35% of income level for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income
households, adjusted for household size and as defined below.
B. "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any
entity or combination of entities that seeks city real property development permits or approvals.
C. "Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household.
D. "Very-low-, low-, and moderate-income levels" means those income and eligibility levels
determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
based on Alameda County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be
calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of
dependents, income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of
household income and will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and state and federal housing
law.
1. "Very-low income" means 50% or less of the median income, adjusted for actual household
size.
2. "Low income" means more than 50% to 80% of the median income, adjusted for actual
household size.
3. "Moderate income" means more than 80% to 120% of the median income, adjusted for actual
household size.
E. "Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall
be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very-low-, low-, or moderate-income
households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 55 years. With respect to rental units, such
rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable
property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale
restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the-applicable property.
F. "Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multiple-
dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium
conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and
residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public.
8.68.030. General Requirements
A. 12.5% Affordability Requirement. All new residential development projects of 20 units or more
designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 12.5% of the total number of
dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this
chapter. The foregoing requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development
(and generally at the tentative map stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of
the development, provided the total number of units does not change. In applying and calculating the
affordability requirement, any decimal fraction less than or equal to 0.50 may be disregarded, and any
decimal fraction greater than 0.50 shall be construed as one unit.
B. Alloeation of Units to Income Levels. Affordable units provided pursuant' to this section shall be
allocated to households with very-low, low-, and moderate-income levels as follows:
Very-low-income households 30%
Low-income households 20%
Moderate-income households 50%
Where the calculation of the allocation results in fewer units that would otherwise be required
pursuant to subdivision A above, one additional unit should be allocated to the income level with a
decimal fraction closest to 0.50.
C. Conditions of Approval: Any tentative map, conditional use permit, or site development review
approving residential development projects subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient
to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of
affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the
applicant's manner of compliance with this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement
imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units.
D. Coneurrent Construction. All affordable units in a project or phase of a project shall be constructed
concurrently with market-rate units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that extenuating
circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical.
2
E. Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of
numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole and shall not be distinguished by exterior
design, construction, or materials. Affordable units may be of smaller size than the units in the project
and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. Ail affordable units shall be
reasonably dispersed throughout the project.
8.68.040. Exceptions to 12.5% Affordability Requirement. Developers of projects subject to 8.68.030A
shall construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable
units, unless subject to an exception set forth in this section. All exceptions require City Council
approval, which shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for the project.
A. Payment of Fees In-Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units.. Upon request of the applicant, the City ~
Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to 40% of the affordable
units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to Section 8.68.030A. The
amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which may be amended
from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In-lieu fees
shall be paid at and the time and in the amount set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the
time of issuance of the building permit.
B. Off-Site Projects. An applicant may construct the affordable units not physically within the
development in lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the development, with
the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds:
1. that construction of the units off-site in lieu of constructing units on-site is consistent with the
chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low-, low-
and moderate-income households.
2. that the units to be constructed off site are consistent with Section 8.68.030E above
3. that it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site.
~ 4. that conditions of approval for the project require that the off-site affordable units would be
governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that
used for the on-site affordable units.
5. that the conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond,
or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units
concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within
a reasonable period (not to exceed 5 years).
C. Land Dedication. An applicant may dedicate land to the City or city-designated local non-profit
housing developer in lieu of construction of some or ail of the required affordable units, if the
Council finds that:
1. that dedication of land in-lieu of constructing units is consistent with the chapter's goal of
creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very-low, low- and moderate-
income households.
3
2. that the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and
contaminated soils, and is fully improved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and
all development-impact fees paid excluding any inclusionary zoning ordinance fees.
3. that the proposed land dedication is of sufficient size to meet the following requirements:
a. the dedication includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the
applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 8.68.030.A} based on
the size of lots in the subdivision for which the applicant is meeting its obligation; and
b. in addition, the dedication includes such additional land the market value for which is
equal to or exceeds the difference between the value of a market-rate, 1200-square
foot unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an Affordable Unit
($72,176) times the number of units required.
D. Credit transfers. An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of Section 8.68.030A
through the use of transfer credits created pursuant to Section 8.68.060. Credit certificates shall be
presented to the Community Development Director, who shall note at the time of project approval the
credit certificate by number. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy the requirements for
Inclusionary Units for the income category (i.e., very low, low, or moderate) and number of
bedrooms for which they are issued.
E. Waiver of Requirements. The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the
requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this Chapter if the
applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of
this Chapter.
8.68.050. General Procedures for Implementing Inclusionary Zoning Requirements
A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or
rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement between the City and
the developer, in a form consistent with the City Council-adopted form agreement, which agreement
shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable units. The agreement shall be
executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall nm with the land and bind the applicant's
successors.
B. Rental Units; Occupancy; Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units shall require the
owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income
levels do not exceed moderate income levels and shall preclude tenants from subletting or subleasing
the unit. The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report
to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to
the following information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly
rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly
income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year.
C. Ownership Units; Occupancy; City's Right of First Refusal. Agreements for ownership units
shall specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and may not be
4
leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions shall provide that in
the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable
owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible household.
D. Selection Criteria. No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this
chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has approved the household's eligibility.
Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income,
the median combined household income statistics for Alameda County published periodically by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources of household income
and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further
criteria required by law. The developer shall use an equitable selection method established in
conformance with the terms of this chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults
and children. Selection of qualified person should be based on priorities established using the point
system described below:
· Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin (3 points, one per household)
· Dublin resident (3 points, one per household)
· Seniors (1 point, one per household)
· Permanently disabled (1 point, one per household)
To qualify as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin", the person shall have been
employed with the City of Dublin for at least six months.
To qualify as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Dublin for at
least a one-year period prior to the eligibility determination.
8.68.060. Affordable Unit Credits.
A. Creation. Affordable unit credits may be created by the City Council. One affordable unit credit
certificate shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable
units required to be constructed for the project by Section 8.68.030A. The certificate shall designate
a specific income category (i.e., very-low, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for
which they are issued.
B. Ownership and use of credits. Affordable unit credit certificates are issued to and become the
possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this chapter
for another project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall
first obtain the consent of the Community Development Director, who will document the transfer by
certificate number.
8.68.070. Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units. The City may, but shall
not be required to, offer incentives or financial assistance to encourage the on-site construction of
affordable units in excess of 12.5% of the total number of units in the project to the extent
resources for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City Council or City
Manager. Such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
5
A. Fee Deferral.
1. Development Processing Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City
processing fees applicable to the review and processing of the project. The terms and
paymem schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager.
2. Development Impact Fees. The City Council may authorize the deferred payment of
development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive
requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility.
The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees.
B. Design Modifications. The City Council may approve design modifications to affordable units that
increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units, including but not limited to, the
following:
1. Reduced lot size.
2. Reduced setback requirements.
3. Reduced open space requirements.
4. Reduced landscaping requirements.
5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities.
6. Reduction in parking requirements.
7. Height restriction waivers.
8.68.080. Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Fund. In-lieu Fees shall be deposited into a fund known as
the "Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fees FUnd'' ("Fund").
A. Use. All monies in the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable
administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing
very-low, low-, and moderate-income ownership or rental housing in the City of Dublin.
B. Annual report. The City Manager shall prepare an annual report to the City Council identifying the
balance of monies in the Fund and the affordable units provided and any monies committed to
providing very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. The annual report shall also include a
review of administrative charges.
8.68.090. Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, parmership or other entity that
is subject to this ordinance pursuant to section 8.68.030A to violate any provision or to fail to
comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. A violation of any of the provisions or
failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor;
except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, any such violation constituting a
misdemeanor under this chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and
prosecuted as an infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction under the prOvisions of this
Code shall be punishable as provided by the Government Code of the State of California.
8.68.100. Enforcement.
A. General. The City Manager shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all
agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City Manager may suspend or revoke any
building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this chapter. No land-use
approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residential development
unless exempt from or in compliance with this chapter. The City may institute any appropriate legal
actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions
to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.
B. Excessive rents/legal action. If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those allowed
by operation of this chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may
take appropriate legal action to recover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant,
or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged.
8.68.110.. Appeals. Decisions of the City Manager under this Chapter may be appealed as provided in
Chapter 8.136.
G:~PA~2001\01-038\cc ord. 12-17.doc
17
EXAMPLES OF RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR SELECTION OF
OCCUPANTS FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS
A person lives in Dublin and 3 points
Works in Dublin 3 points = total of 6 points
A household with tw° members, live outside the City of Dublin 0 points
One of which is a senior 1 point
And one of which works within the City of Dublin 3 points = total 0£4 points
A single person who lives outside the City of Dublin 0 points
Is permanently disabled 1 point
And is a senior 1 point = total of 2 points
A single person who is a senior 1 point
And lives in the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 4 points
A household that rents in the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 3 points
A senior 1 point
Who lives outside the City of Dublin 0 points = total of 1 point
A fireman who lives elsewhere 0 points
Works within the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 3 points
A household with two members living in the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 3 points
And works outside the City of Dublin
A household with two members living in the City of Dublin 3 points
And works within the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 6 points
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 43
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.68
OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME,
AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
PA 01-038
WHEREAS, the citizens of Dublin are experiencing a housing shortage for very low-, low- and
moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, a goal of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan is to achieve a balanced
community with housing available for households of a range of income levels; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted major changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
of the City Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002 the City Council instructed Staff to provide further definition for a
land dedication option for developers to fulfill the Inclusionary Ordinance requirements, and
WHEREAS, on further review by Staff of Bay Area Inclusionary Ordinances and standard
industry underwriting criteria revealed that the percentage of household income directed toward housing
costs for ownership units may be higher than 30% and therefore allow for more lower income households
to qualify for affordable units, and
WItEREAS, the City of Dublin Housing Task Force reviewed the priorities established in the
current Inclusionary Ordinance and made recommendations for changing these priorities; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this matter on November 26,
2002; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Negative Declaration for the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance on June 11, 1996. The Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. These
amendments do not change the General Plan or zoning density for any site. These amendments would not
have impacts on the environment that were not addressed by the adopted Negative Declaration. The
current amendments are within the scope of the Negative Declaration adopted on June 11, 1996 and no
further environmental review is required; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve an Ordinance of the City of Dublin amending Chapter 8.68 of
the Dublin Municipal Code relating to Inclusionary Zoning regulations as set forth in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, on this 26th day
of November 2002, by the following votes:
Page 1
ATTAONMENT
AYES: Cm. Johnson, Jennings, Musser, Fasulkey and Nassar
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
planning Manager
G:XPA/~2001\01-038\pc reso 11-26.doc
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 8.68 INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS
8.68.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment
of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households
of very low, low, and moderate income.
B. assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner
consistent with the City's housing policies and needs.
8.68.020. Definitions. As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows:
A. "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental-housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to
households with very-low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this chapter.
1. Rental units are deemed affordable units if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of maximum
income level for very-low-, low-, and mOderate-income households, adjusted for household
size and as defined below.
2. Owner-occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in annual
--^~ ........... ~" housing expenses that do not exceed gO 35% of income level for very-
low-, iow-, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined
below.
B. "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any
entity or combination of entities that seeks city real property development permits or approvals.
C. "Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household.
D. "Very-low-, Iow-, and moderate-income levels" means those income and eligibility levels
determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
based on Alameda County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be
calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of
dependents, income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of
household income and Will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and state and federal housing
law.
1. "Very-low income" means 50% or less of the median income, adjusted for actual household
size.
2. "Low income" means more than 50% to 80% of the median income, adjusted for actual
household size.
3. "Moderate income" means more than 80% to 120% of the median income, adjusted for actual
household size..
E. "Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall
be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very-low-, low-, or moderate-income
households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 55 years. With respect to rental units, such
rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable
property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale
restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property.
F. "Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multiple-
dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium
conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and
residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general 'public.
8.68.030. General Requirements
A. 12.5% Affordability Requirement~ All new residential development projects of 20 units or more
designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 12.5% of the total number of
dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this
chapter. The foregoing requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development
(and generally at the tentative map stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of
the development, provided the total number of units does not change. In applying and calculating the
affordability requirement, any decimal fraction less than or equal to 0.50 may be disregarded, and any
decimal fraction greater than 0.50 shall be construed as one unit.
B. Allocation of Units to Income Levels. Affordable units provided pursuant to this section shall be
allocated to households with very-low, low-, and moderate-income levels as follows:
Very-low-income households 30%
Low-income households 20%
Moderate-income households 50%
Where the calculation of the allocation results in fewer units that would otherwise be required
pursuant to subdivision A above, one additional unit should be allocated to the income level with a
decimal fraction closest to 0.50.
C. Conditions of Approval: Any tentative map, conditional use permit, or site development review
approving residential development projects subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient
to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of
affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the
applicant's manner of compliance with this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement
imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units.
D. Concurrent Construction. All affordable units in a project or phase of a project shall be constructed
concurrently with market-rate units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that extenuating
circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical.
2
E. Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of
numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole and shall not be distinguished by exterior
design, construction, or materials. Affordable units may be of smaller size than the units in the project
and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. All affordable units shall be
reasonably dispersed throughout the project.
8.68.040. Exceptions to 12.5°,4 Affordability Requirement. Developers of projects subject to 8.68.030.A
construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units,
unless subject to an exception set forth in this section. All exceptions require City Council
approval, which shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for the project.
A. Payment of Fees In-Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon request of the applicant, the City
Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to 40% of the affordable
units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to section 8.68.030.A. The
amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which may be amended
from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In-lieu fees
shall be paid at and the time and in the amount set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the
time of issuance of the building permit.
B. Off-Site Projects. An applicant may construct the affordable units not physically within the
development in lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the development, with
the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds:
1. that construction of the units off-site in lieu of constructing units on-site is consistent with the
chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low-, low-
and moderate-income households.
2. that the units to be constructed off site are consistent with section 8.68.030.E above
3. that it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site.
4. that conditions of approval for the project require that the off-site affordable units would be
governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that
used for the on-site affordable units.
5. that the conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond,
or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units
concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within
a reasonable period (not to exceed 5 years).
C. Land Dedication. An applicant may dedicate land to the City or city-designated local non-profit
housing developer in lieu of construction of some or all of the required affordable units, if the council
finds that:
1. that dedication of land in-lieu of constructing units is consistent with the chapter's goal of
creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very-low, low- and moderate-
income households.
2. that the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and
contaminated soils, and is fully improved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and
all development-impact fees paid excluding any inclusionary zoning ordinance fees.
that the proposed land dedication is of sufficient size to meet the following
requirements:
a. the dedication includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the
applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 8.68.030.A, based
on the size of lots in the sUbdivision for which the applicant is meeting its
obligation; and
b. in addition, the dedication includes such additional land the market value for
which is equal to or exceeds the difference between the value of a market-rate,
1200-square foot unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an
Affordable Unit ($72,176) times the number of units required.
D. Credit transfers. An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of section 8.68.030.A
through the use of transfer credits created pursuant to section 8.68.060. Credit certificates shall be
presented to the Community Development Director, who shall note at the time of project approval the
credit Certificate by number. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy the requirements for
Inclusionary Units for the income category (i.e., very low, low, or moderate) and number of
bedrooms for which they are issued.
E. Waiver of Requirements. The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the
requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this chapter if the
applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of
this chapter.
8.68.050. General Procedures for Implementing Inclusionary Zoning Requirements
A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or
rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement between the City and
the developer, in a form consistent with the City Council-adopted form agreement, which agreement
shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable units. The agreement shall be
executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall run with the land and bind the applicant's
successors.
B. Rental Units; Occupancy; Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units shall require the.
owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income
levels do not exceed moderate income levels and shall preclude tenants from subletting or subleasing
the unit. The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report
to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to
the following information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly
4
rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly
income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year.
C. Ownership Units; Occupancy; City's Right of First Refusal. Agreements for ownership units
shall specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and may not be
leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions shall provide that in
the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable
owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible household.
D. Selection Criteria. No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this
chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has approved the household's eligibility.
Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income,
the median combined household income statistics published periodically by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources of household income and assets,
the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria
required by law. The developer shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance
with the terms of this chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish betWeen adUlts and children.
SeleCtion of qualified person should be based on priorities established using the point system
described below:
· EmPloyed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin (3 points, one per household)
· Dublin resident (3 points, one per household)
· Seniors (1 point, one per household)
· Permanently disabled (1 point, one per household)
To qualify as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dub]in"i the person shall have been
employed with the City of Dublin for at least six months.
To qualify as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Dublin for at
least a one-year period prior to the eligibility determination.
5
8.68.060. Affordable Unit Credits.
A. Creation. Affordable unit credits may be created by the City Council. One affordable unit credit
certificate shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable
units required to be constructed for the project by Section 8.68.030.A. The certificate shall designate
a specific income category (i.e., very-low, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for
which they are issued.
B. Ownership and use of credits. Affordable unit credit certificates are issued'to and become the
possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this chapter
for another project in' the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall
first obtain the consent of the Community Development Director, who will document the transfer by
certificate number.
8.68.070. Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units. The City may, but shall
not be required to, offer incentives or financial assistance to encourage the on-site construction of
affordable units in excess of 12.5% of the total number of units in the project to the extent
resources for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City Council or City
Manager. Such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
A. Fee Deferral.
1. Development Processing Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City
processing fees applicable to the review and processing of the project. The terms and
payment schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager.
2. Development Impact Fees. The City Council may authorize the deferred payment of
development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive
requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility.
The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees.
B. Design Modifications. The City Council may approve design modifications to affordable units that
increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units, including but not limited to, the
following:
1. Reduced lot size.
2. Reduced setback requirements.
3. Reduced open space requirements.
4. Reduced landscaping requirements.
5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities.
6. Reduction in parking requirements.
7. Height restriction waivers.
8.68.080. Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Fund. In-lieu Fees shall be deposited into a fund known as
the "Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fees Fund" ("Fund").
A. Use. All monies in the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable
administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing
very-low, low-, and moderate-income ownership or rental housing in the City of Dublin.
B. Annual report. The City Manager shall prepare an annual report to the City Council identifying the
balance of monies in the Fund and the affordable units provided and any monies committed to
providing very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. The annual report shall also include a
review of administrative charges.
8.68.090. Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity that
is subject to this ordinance pursuant to section 8.68.030.A to violate any provision or to fail to
comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. A violation of any of the provisions or
failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute amisdemeanor;
except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, any such violation constituting a
misdemeanor under this chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and
prosecuted as an infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of this
Code shall be punishable as provided by the Government Code of the State of California.
8.68.100. Enforcement.
A. General. The City Manager shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all
agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City Manager may suspend or revoke any
building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this chapter. No land-use
approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residential development
unless exempt from or in compliance with this chapter. The City may institute any appropriate legal
actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions
to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.
B. Excessive rents/legal action. If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those allowed
by operation of this chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may
take appropriate legal action to recover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant,
or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged.
8.68.110. Appeals. Decisions of the City Manager under this Chapter may be appealed as provided in
Chapter 8.136.
G:XPA#L2001\01-038\pc reso 11-26.doc
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26,
2002, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLLCALL
Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Jennings, Musser, Fasulkey, and Nassar; Eddie Peabody Jr.,
Community Development Director; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist;
Janet Harbin, Senior planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Autumn McGrath,
Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag..
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -
The Agenda was revised to move Item 8.3 (PA 02-050) to be heard before Item 8.1.
The Minutes of October 22, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING
8.3 PA 02-050 - Sybase Master Sign Program Amendment - Request of Master Sign Program
· Amendment approval fOr the additional exterior sign on pre-cast panel above 6th floor on
south side of Sybase Building A at 5050 Hacienda Drive
&fannin~ Commission 184 9~rovem~er 26, 2002
~eaufar Y~leetina
ATTACHMENT q
Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Porto presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project.
Cm. Johnson asked if the applicant, Mr. Ernest Piccone, Director of Facilities for Sybase, Inc., had
any comments.
Mr. Piccone stated that there was a need for westbound traffic on Dublin Boulevard and
northbound on Hadenda Drive to be able to view both buildings and recognize them as Sybase
buildings. He stated that the traffic from those directions could not see any signage on the Sybase
Building A, and that it was their desire for traffic to have visibility of Sybase signage on both
buildings. Mr. Piccone discussed the design of the sign that Sybase would like to have approved,
and Said that they worked with both the architect who designed the building and the sign designer
who designed the signage currently on the building. He stated that because the location of the area
for the sign and the shape of the building were awkward to deal with, they worked on several
schemes before they designed the sign presented to the City. He stated that they objected to Staff's
recommendation because it reduced the size of the sign compared to the existing sign by 33%, and
they are concerned that the new sign would be out of proportion and not readable from a distance.
He requested that the Commission consider the proposal for the sign and approve it as presented
by Sybase.
Cm. Johnson asked, since the new sign would n9t have the logo, if it would it conform to the
copyright rules and regulations of the Corporation.
Mr. Piccone stated that Sybase could use the name without the logo, and had confirmed it with
their department who handled the program.
Cm. Johnson asked if Sybase had monument signs.
Mr. Piccone replied that there were small directional signs leading to and from the parking lots, and
a sign mounted on the ground at the corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and another
sign at the corner of Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway.
Cm. Johnson asked if the proposed sign was for the building on the eastern corner of the Sybase
property and was it visible from Hacienda.
Mr. Piccone stated that it faced Dublin Boulevard, and it had been verified that the area for the sign
was visible to traffic.
Planning Commission 185 Hcwera6er 26, 2002
~egular Meeting
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any questions from the Commission or Staff. There were no
further questions.
Cm. Jennings stated that she agreed with Staff, and believed that the sign is of sufficient size as
proposed by Staff since Sybase had other signs that clearly identified the buildings.
Cm. Johnson stated that he also agreed with Staff, and found that the smaller sign would be more
appropriate.
Cm Jennings mentioned that Staff had discussed options with the applicant and made their
recommendation.
Mr. Piccone explained the existing signs and that they were expensive due to the shape and design
of the building.
Cm. Nassar asked Staff if there had been consideration for a change in the color of the sign.
Mr. Porto stated that there had been no recommendation for change in style or color to allow
Sybase to maintain their Corporate identification.
Cm. Johnson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission; hearing no requests, he closed the
public hearing and requested a motion.
On motion by Cm. Jenrdngs, seconded by Cm. Nassar, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 0242
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 02-50, AMENDMENT TO SYBASE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
(PREVIOUS PA 99-062)
PA 02-050
®fanning Commission 186 ~Covem6er 26, 2002
~Legufar Sleeting
8.1 PA 02-015 - Hansen HillfRanch Fire Buffer Zone Relocation (Dan Pistone) - Site
Development Review to Relocate Fire Buffer Zone within residential lots to a location
adjacent to residential lots in the Hansen Hill/Ranch development in the West Dublin
hillside area. Site addresses: 10872, 10876, 10880, 10884, 10888, 10890, 10894, & 10898
Inspiration Circle, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 941-2808-1 & -2; 941-2808-10 to -15
Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing.
Ms. Harbin presented the Staff Report, gave an overview of the project and explained the map of
the sites under consideration. She discussed the fact that the property owners were currently
restricted from installing any improvements in the firebreak areas, and that if the Commission
would approve the site development review, the Homeowners' Association would take this action
for a vote by all the residents in the development. She explained that the site development review,
even if approved by the Commission, would not take effect until the Homeowners' Association
voted on the action.
Cm. Musser expressed concern that if the CommiSsion would approve the site deveIopment
request, the Homeowners' Association could reject it. :
Ms. Harbin answered that if the Homeowners' Association rejected it, then the approval of the
Planning Commission would not be valid, and the applicant would have to remove the
improvements made to his yard in the fire buffer zone.
Mr, Dan'Pistone stated that he was the applicant and that he also represented the eight
homeOWners (eight lots) who are requesting the site development review as a joint community. He
emphasized the fire safety issue, which was the primary concern for the homes in this area, the
Homeowners' Assodation, the members and the City. He explained that currently these eight
homes have existing fences within the firebreak, and said that there was a fire condition that does
not meet the City's Fire Management Code. He stated that, in addition to the ability to improve
and fully utilize their properties, they would like to reestablish a boundary that clearly outlined the
fire buffer Zone and would not infringe on their properties. He advised the Commission that he
and the other homeowners in the action would like to put the firebreak on the perimeter of the
property as required by the City's Revised Appealable Action Letter dated July 10, 1997 (which
outlined the plan to have a firebreak on the perimeter of the property for the original subdivision).
Cm. Johnson asked if the fences were in place prior to the firebreak, and if the firebreak area was
maintained by the Homeowners' Association.
®fanning Commission 187 3~roverager 26, 2002
qLegufar ~4eeting
Mr. Pistone said that in some areas the firebreak zigzags'inside the fence of four of the properties.
Cm. Johnson asked for confirmation from Mr. Pistone that, despite whether the firebreak zigzags,
the fence was there at the time the homes were purchased and the homeowners were made aware
that the firebreak was 15 feet and would be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Cm.
Johnson remarked that this type of firebreak is common in the City and other residential tracts,
such as Koopman, also have firebreaks like theirs.
Ms. Jennings asked if Mr. Pistone knew about the firebreak when he bought the property.
Mr. Pistone said that he was provided with a map, but that the map was "skewed" in relation to the
actual property. He believed he could improve his property, yet discovered that the Jacuzzi 'was in
the firebreak area when he had surveying work performed.
Cm. Johnson asked 'if he had permits for ail the work performed on his property.
Mr. Pistone said that he did not have permits for all of the work, but had permits for the pool and
the Jacuzzi. He commented that the reason for not obtaining all the permits was likely due to his
contractor's oversight or attempt to cut costs.
Cm. Jennings asked the audience if there was a spokesperson present from the Homeowners'
Association.
Mr. David Larsen, Attorney for Hansen Ranch Homeowners' Association, spoke and explained
that his firm represented the Board of Director's of the Homeowners' Association. He stated that
the Board does not oppose the application and had cooperated with the Association members who
had filed the application. He advised the Commission that the full Board was present at the
hearing.
Mr. Larsen discussed the fact that the Hansen Ranch subdivision was originally approved with
some firebreaks located inside the back yards of individual lots. However, the CC&R's appear to
assume that all firebreaks are located outside the back yards as they prohibit individual members
from building structures or making improvements including landscaping therein and require the
Homeowner's Association to maintain the firebreak. He gave instances of individuals who have
removed fences to make improvements, noting that one of these cases involved mediation during
which the Association agreed to several items with respect to the application.
Planning Commission 188 Hovember 26, 2002
Regular Meeting
Mr. Larsen noted that one agreement by the Association was to conduct an informal poll of the
association membership to determine the degree of interest in the firebreak issues. He mentioned
that the poll was conducted in May 2002, and at that time there were 19 votes in favor of and 63
votes against allowing portions of the firebreaks to be moved from private property to Association
common areas (with a total of 180 possible).
Mr. Larsen stated that as part of the mediation, the Association also agreed that in the event that the
City approved the application, the Board would conduct a formal vote of the association
membership to determine if the membership wanted to amend the CC&Rs in order to implement
the City approval. In exchange, the involved property owner agreed to obtain City approval of the
application.
Cm. Jennings asked about the responsibility of the fees that would be incurred by the filing and
recording of the new CC&Rs to the County and questioned whether these costs would be paid for
out of the homeowners' dues.
Mr. Larsen said that the Board had taken the position that the costs to make these changes would be
the responsibility of the applicants; thereby no costs would be paid from the Association dues for
this action and the costs would be assessed against the eight property owners making the
application. · ..
Cm. Jennings asked if the cost of moving the fences would also be the responsibility of the eight
property owners making the application.
Mr. Larsen stated that was correct.
Cm. Johnson asked how many lots were in the entire project and how many had the possibility of
moving their fences to the fire buffer zone.
Mr. Larsen stated that of the 180 homes, approximately 40 homes would have the possibility of
moving their fences.
Cm. Johnson questioned if there would be 15 feet beyond any fence line that would allow a fire
buffer zone.
Mr. Larsen said, at this point, they did not know that answer. He stated that if this application
were approved, this would open the door to future property owners to apply to the planning
Commission for a site design review and also to apply to the Homeowners' Association on a case-
&Fanning Commission 189 ~fovem6er 26, 2002
qLegufar ~4eeting
by-case basis. During that process, if there were not adequate room beyond the fence to move the
fire buffer zone, those applicants would not be approved.
Ms. Jennings asked abOut the previous poll regarding moving the firebreak, and questioned
whether there had been another vote since last summer to determine if there had been a large
change in sentiment.
Mr. Larsen confirmed that there had only been one vote taken.
Cm. Fasulkey asked how conditional was the case by case, and would that apply to these lots in the
application.
Mr. Larsen stated that these eight lots were applying together to the City, and the Association
would review it in the same way. If one of the eight lots were removed, the flow of fence line
would be broken up. Therefore, the eight lots were a joint application and would be treated as one
applicant.
Cm. Nassar asked if the Board supported moving the firebreak.
Mr. Larsen said that the Board did not oppose the application and had agreed during mediation to
cooperate with the processing of the application. He stated that among the Board members there
was a division about how these issues should be handled.
Cm. Nassar asked if the City's approval would affect the Board's vote.
Mr. Larsen stated that it was the Board's responsibility to conduct the vote as in any other case
without influencing the membership, and that the membership would ultimately decide to go
forward with the application.
Cm. Johnson began to call the speakers.
Mr. Sheldon Schachter spoke and explained where his lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. He
stated that he was in favor of moving the firebreak but that he is not a combative person in this
application. He said that, beyond the fence, there was a steep hill and his property extended fifteen
feet beyond his fence into the steep hill, which he was not aware of at the time he purchased his
home.
Planning Commission 190 Hovember 26, 2002
Regular gdeeting
Mr. Schachter stated that a neighbor had already built out orr this steep incline and this may have
clouded the reasons why he and the other applicants wanted to move the firebreak. He stated that
he would like to have the fence moved so that he could reach the area to keep it cleane~ than it is
currently kept by the Scheduled clean up and maintain his own property for the safety of his family.
Cm Johnson said that if the firebreaks were moved, the speaker would be responsible to keep the
area clean.
Mr. Schachter said he would like to have the responsibility to care for his own property.
Mr. Mark Foster spoke and explained where his lot was in relafion to the applicants' lots. He stated
that he was in favor of moving the firebreak and that by moving it, he would be able to improve the
area.
Mr. Rob McGee spoke and explained where his lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. He said
that he was not involved in this application, but was in favor of moving the firebreak. He stated
that he was not affected by having a firebreak within his property line, but expressed concern that
firebreaks contained within property lines affect the safety of the whole community by bringing the
fire buffer zone that much closer to the combustible material, their homes. He also stated that he
felt that property values would be affected since he had not realized during the purchase of his
home that the firebreak would run through yards, and felt that potential buyers may not be
inclined to buy a home with a firebreak running through the yard.
Cm. Johnson said that many homes in Dublin had firebreaks and kept them clean and thereby,
improved the areas.
Ms. Ligaya MacGregor spoke and related where she lived in Hansen Ranch. She stated that she
was not a combatant in this issue since she did not live in the specific area in review, but stated that
she was against moving the firebreak. She said she felt that this was a rules and regulations
problem, not just a fire safety issue. She expressed concern that some of the homeowners have not
obtained permits and then wanted to use this applicafion as a way to go around the system.
Mr. David Kruss, President of Hansen Ranch Homeowners' Association, spoke and explained that
the Board had a mediation meeting last year to have Mr. Pistone resolve his issues with the City
regarding the requirement for him to obtain permits for his construction. He felt they had given
him enough time to have him resolve these issues. However, the City had found there to be more
issues than just permits, and worked very hard to reach a compromise for this type of problem.
Planning Commission 191 HoveraSer 26, 2002
Regular Meeting
Mr. Kruss stated that as a homeowner, and not the President of the Board, he was opposed to
having the firebreak moved, and that he had a problem with someone who signed a contract,
accepting the CC&R's, and then would not adhere to it. He stated that Mr. Pistone had been doing
construction for two years, and had not abided by the rules, in particular the rule that prevented
any improvements in the firebreak (even within the property line).
Mr. Kruss said that he had statements and concerns regarding Conditions 13, 14, and 15 that outline
a process that would allow amendments to the CC&Rs. He stated that he felt the language in the
conditions was restrictive. Mr. Kruss also disCUssed Condition 17, stating that there was concern
about the side fences.
Cm. Johnson stated that the issue at hand was whether the Commission would decide if the
firebreak should be moved back to the property line or not. He said, at that point, it would be up to
the Homeowners' Association to decide whether they would be willing to accept it or not.
Ms. Ram confirmed that point, and clarified that Staff normally does not have a timeline in their
conditions. She stated that Staff works with people, and that when the Homeowners' Association
has a draft of the language they want to implement, they should submit it to Staff for review to
ensure agreeable language.
Ms. Lisa Alfar spoke and explained where her lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. She stated
that she was in favor of moving the firebreak. She informed the Commission that she had removed
her fence in August of 2001 and had planted and irrigated the area. However, she stated that the
Homeowners' Association brought an enforcement action against her for lowering the fence and
planting the area, and forced her to remove the fence. She stated that now that her home is for sale,
she was having disclosure Problems since there were issues with the Homeowners' Association.
She also noted that potential buyers have expressed the desire to use the land down to the property
line, and there was concern that the firebreak runs through her back lawn.
Mr. James Jarzub stated that he had at one time intended to buy a home in this area, but due to
disclosures of the firebreak, he bought elsewhere where there were no firebreaks to maintain. As a
professional Planner who worked 12 years for a Regional Planning Commission in Illinois and the
Vice-President of the Homeowners' Association, he expressed his concerns that with such steep
hills near a fault line, there were fire and earthquake safety issues. He agreed that homeowners
should be able to use all the property on their lots, but when there are easement regulations such as
firebreaks, they should be adhered to. He stated that there is not enough information from the
studies conducted .to determine the true fire and earthquake safety requirements to make a decision
at this time and that he was opposed to moving the firebreak.
Planning Commission 192 Hovember 26, 2002
Regular g~leeting
Ms. Helen Ivanov spoke and explained where her lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. She
explained that her lot had unusable area and that the firebreak area had not been maintained.
Cm. Johnson explained that all maintenance of the firebreak was the responsibility of the
Homeowners' Association, and that any issues should be directed to them.
Ms. Ram stated that the homeowners were often unable to determine where the property line was
in relation to the fire buffer zone, because in some cases the firebreak followed the fence and other
times it would not.
Cm. Johnson recalled Mr. Pistone for questions about the sloping of his property.
Mr. Pistone stated that he did have a slope, and that they installed a vanishing-edge pool, which
required grading of the property. There was additional grading to install retaining wails on the
property.
Other homeowners from the area confirmed that they also had slopes on their properties. There
was a general discussion about hill steepness and sloping.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions or comments. He asked if anyone else from
the public wished to speak and hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing. He stated that
the Commission would deliberate on the issue
Upon deliberation, Cm. Johnson stated that he did nOt object to moving the fence lines and the
firebreaks, and recommended that the Commission approve this application.
Cm. Nassar stated that the City would approve the apPlication, but that the Homeowners'
Association must then decide whether or not to approve the fire buffer zone change. He
questioned if there would be any negative impact by the fire buffer zone change.
Ms. Harbin stated that the change would not have any negative environmental or fire safety
impact.
Cm. Johnson asked for a motion.
On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Nassar, and a vote of 4-1, the Planning Commission
approved:
Planning Commission 193 Hovember 26, 2002
Regular Meeting
RESOLUTION NO. 0241
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF
THE HANSEN HILL RANCH FIRE BUFFER ZONE (DANIEL PISTONE)
PA 02-015
8.2 PA 01-038 - A Resolution recommending changes to the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) regarding changes to priorities
used in the selection of occupants for Inclusionary Affordable Units, the percentage of
household income allowed for the housing expenses; and land dedication requirements in
lieu of building affordable units
CTM. Johnson opened the public hearing,
Mr. Peabody Jr. presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project, t-Ie then
introduced Ms. Abdala.
Ms. Abdala discussed the amendments to the Inclusionary Ordinance: The first amendment would
change, on ownership units, the amount of household income allowed for consideration to 35%
percent. She stated that all Bay Area dries with Inclusionary Ordinances had been contact~ed and it
was determined that many of them used 35% for ownership I_nclusionary units.
Ms. Abdala stated that the second amendment would change the qualification requirements, and
referenced Attachment 1 of the Staff Report for examples of qualification. She asked if there were
questions.
Cm. Fasulkey asked if children were factored into the equation for income qualification.
Ms. Abdala said that they are factored into as part of the household size, so larger bedroom units
would be for families with children or larger households.
Cm. Jennings asked if the Task Force had considered providing extra points toward qualification
for teachers, firemen, policemen, public employees, etc. who lived in Dublin. She stated that she
&fanning Commission 194 ~rovem6er 26, 2002
C~Legufar ~eeting
would have expected these positions would have had special consideration due to their service-
based status.
Ms. Abdala stated that those positions did not receive extra points, but that Staff had taken the
recommendation of the Task Force and those experienced with Inclusionary housing, and
simplified the categories. Examples were shown on Attachment 1.
Mr. Peabody discussed the third amendment to the Inclusionary Ordinance, and referenced the
Staff report. He reminded the Commission of the adoption of the Inclusionary program by the City
Council (Council) this year; and discussed the Land Dedication program in-lieu of building under
the Inclusionary Ordinance. He advised the Commission that the Council had directed Staff to
prepare different options for consideration by the Commission and the Council for amendment of
the Land Development section.
Mr. Peabody provided a presentation and discussed the three options for consideration, and the
respective advantages & disadvantages. He stated that the Council would ultimately decide about
the Iand dedication, but informed the Commission that Staff recommended approval of the Option
3 from the Staff report for amendment to the Land Development section of the Ordinance.
There was general discussion by the Commissioners regarding the options for land dedication, and
there was an understanding that land dedication would not be used frequently, as builders would
opt to build affordable housing except in the highest price home developments or extremely small
projects.
Cm. Fasulkey asked about the land dedication facilitation, and if it would require the City to find
~ites for the land dedication and be involved in acquisition costs that include cleanup (such as
asbestos) or preparation.
Mr. Peabody stated that if a developer wanted to build, they would need to find a .68-acre of land
to ensure that they could proceed with their project. He acknowledged that the City Would work
with the developers to locate land for dedication, combining several projects that could be done in
concert to develop a larger project of affordable housing.
Mr. Peabody advised the Commission that the City was currently partnering to provide 48 units of
senior housing behind the library.
efanning Commission 195 175ovem6er 26, 2002
tLegufar ~eeting
Cm. Johnson said that in order to accomplish the goals of the City, Option 3 appeared to be the best
option, and reaffirmed that this option would only be applicable in the case where the affordable
housing could not be built on the site of the development.
Mr. Peabody stressed the fact that it is the City's priority to provide affordable housing, and that
ultimately, the Council will decide whether or not to have a land dedication program.
There was discussion regarding the response from builders, and whether these units would be
"scattered" to prevent stigma attached to projects, or concentrating one income group in housing
development. Staff and the Commissioners agreed that it would be in the best interest of the
community to "scatter", and build affordable homes within the moderate and high priced homes.
Mr. Peabody mentioned that there could be situations where, by necessity for cost and use of land,
there could be concentrated affordable housing, but agreed that would be the exception when
possible. He stated that the City would obtain a non-profit organization's assistance once land had
been obtained for dedication use.
Cm. Jennings expressed interest in the success of the land dedication program.
Cm. Musser expressed approval of the program and stated that he would like the developers to
have the tools required to provide affordable housing.
Cm. Johnson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Bob Harris stated that Option 3 was considerably a more expensive option than building the
units, and stated that, in his opinion, developers would not utilize this as an option due to the high
cost inVoled.
Cm. Johnson closed the public hearing and requested a motion to approve.
On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved:
~[anning Commission 196 ~l~[ovember 26, 2002
~Legufar ~eeting
RESOLUTION NO. 0243
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.68
OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME,
AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
PA 01-038
Cm. Johnson asked if there is any other new or unfinished business.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ram mentioned approval of the changes of Planning Commissioner term limits effective the
date of the last Council meeting, and the bylaws that were changed. There were questions
regarding whether the term limits would be retroactive, and Ms. Ram stated that she would follow
up and respond to each of the Commissioners by memo.
Ms. Ram discussed the future City Council and Planning CommisSion meeting items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G: \ MINUTES \ 2002 \ Planning Commission \ 11-26-02 pc rain. doc
&finning Commission 197 lhrovemSer 26, 2002
~Legufar ~eeting