Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-05-1991 ~ . y ~ ~ . R ° Reqular Meeting - AuQUSt 5, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on August 5, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by Commissioner Zika, Vice Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zika, North, Barnes,X and Rafanelli; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Dennis H. Carrington, Senior Planner; David • Choy, Associate Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Bob Schubert, Project Consultant; Harold Ritter, Fire Chief; and Sandie Hart, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Burnham * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of July 1, 1991 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of New Office Assistant Mr. Tong introduced Fawn Holman, a new Office Assistant in the Planning Department. He explained that Fawn comes to the City with several years of experience in the clerical area and is a resident of Dublin. He joined the Commission in welcoming Fawn to the Staff. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None Regular Meeting PCM-1991-76 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] . • • ~ ~ Y PUBLIC HEARINGS A request was made to move items 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, 8.11 to the front of the Public Hearings. Cm. Zika questioned the audience as to the items they were there to address. Since their items were items at the front of the original agenda, Cm. Zika decided in order to commit to the City's new slogan, "Commitment to Community Service," the items would be taken in the order as shown on the agenda. SUBJECT: PA 91-041 Dublin Auto Bodv Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review to allow an automobile storacte lot and the construction of a fence located at 6878-6894 Village Parkwav Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. O'Halloran presented the staff report to the Commission. Cm. North questioned whether this would be a new use for this area? Was the Highway Patrol asking to store cars at this location? Ms. O'Halloran said it was a new request, but to her knowledge the CHP was not currently having them tow or store cars. Cm. Zika asked if the 3 barbed wire would be visible from the street. Ms . O' Halloran responded that she did not think it would be seen since the proposed lot is in the rear of the property and the driveway is narrow. Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant was in the audience. Bill Solano, the Applicant, stated that there were no problems with the terms or conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. He felt it would be an improvement. The location has always been a parking area. Cm. North stated that he had gone by the location that day and he found two cars in northeast corner in need of repair with auto parts in the southwest corner. He asked if this was a normal occurrence. Mr. Solano explained that the vehicles will be moved. The cars will be in and out in three days time. Cm. North noted that there was a narrow driveway leading to the lot and he expressed concern that if there was a fire, that it would be hard for the fire department to get to the property. Mr. Solano indicated that a red curb will help that situation and that at night the cars are inside. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-77 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] , . . ' ~ ~ " Cm. Zika asked if the cars will be behind the structure with the sheet metal being inside the structure. Cm. North questioned that if the cars are there a short time, then what happens to them. Mr. Solano explained that the cars would be taken to another lot or a lien sale. Cm. North asked if this was a new deal with the highway patrol. Mr. Solano explained that the abandoned cars used to be store at service stations, but that was no longer being done. The cars would be moved within three days to head elsewhere. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 028 APPROVING PA 91-041 DUBLIN AUTO BODY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHIKENT AND USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE STORAGE LOT LOCATED AT 6878-6894 VILLAGE PARKWAY and RESOLUTION NO. 91-029 APPROVING PA 91-041 DUBLIN AUTO BODY SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHIKENT AND USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE STORAGE LOT AT 6878-6894 VILLAGE PARKWAY SUBJECT: PA 91-036 Bav Area Car Rentals Conditional Use Permit rectuest to continue operation of an existing vehicle rental lot and office at the Howard Johnson Hotel located at 6680 Rectional Street Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian presented the staff report. The applicant Christine Stephen was present, but had no comments. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. There were no questions from the Commissioners. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 4- 0, the Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1991-78 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] . . . • ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91 -030 APPROVING PA 91-036 BAY AREA RENTALS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A VEHICLE RENTAL LOT AND OFFICE AT THE HOWARD JOHNSON HOTEL LOCATED AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET SUBJECT: PA 91-039 Lvon's Brewerv Conditional Use Permit reauest for an existina beer and wine pub and a commercial recreation use of a dance floor for dancincr and live music located at 7294 San Ramon Road (Stroud's Plaza) Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Kachadourian presented the staff report. Mr. Zika asked if the neighbors had been notified of the request for a dance floor with live music. Mr. Kachadourian responded that owners within 300 feet of the establishment had been notified. Doug Geis, an employee from Lyon~s Brewery, explained that Hana Japan, a neighboring business, was open the same hours and that the other neighbor was a beauty salon that would be closed during those hours. Cm. Zika questioned where the dance floor would go. Mr. Geis explained that it would be in front of the stage and that the number of people inside the establishment would be regulated. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the Dublin Police had reviewed the request and approved the request as long as 120 square feet was designated for the dance floor. Cm. Zika questioned whether a bouncer would be used to control the crowds. Mr. Geis explained that one was already being used and as Lyon~s Brewery had already been declared a non-smoking pub that customers had to go outside to smoke. They already have a person patrolling the premises. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4- 0, the Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1991-79 August 5, 1991 (8-5min] _ . . ~ • RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 031 APPROVING PA 91-039 LYONS BREWERY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN EXISTING BEER AND WINE PUB AND EXPAND THE USE TO INCLUDE A CONII+~RCIAL RECREATION USE (DANCE FLOOR) FOR DANCING AND LIVE MUSIC AT 7294 SAN RAMON ROAD SUBJECT: PA 91-037 Universal Custom Promotions/Soroptimist International of Dublin Conditional Use Permit request for a two dav Arts and Craft/Music festival at the Dublin Place Shoppina Center at 6900-7300 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. As the Applicant had a prior commitment and could not be available until 8:30 p.m., Mr. Choy requested that the item be moved to a later part of the meeting, Cm. Barnes moved to have the item addressed later in the meeting. After the Applicant, Bonnie Carrow, President elect of the Soroptimist International of Dublin arrived, Mr. Choy presented the staff report. Ms. Carrow explained that the event was going to be used to promote the Soroptimist International of Dublin, as well as help seniors and women in the re-entry program. Cm. Zika asked if this was the first annual event for the group. Ms. Carrow agreed that it was and the Soroptimists hoped to have it become an annual summer festival for the community. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4- 0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 035 APPROVING PA 91-037 UNIVERSAL CUSTOMER PROMOTIONS/ SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL OF DUBLIN CONDITIONAL USL PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW A TWO DAY ART & CRAFT/MUSIC FESTIVAL AT DUBLIN PLACE SHOPPING CENTER Regular Meeting PCM-1991-80 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] . , . ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 91-026 Two Pesos Restaurant Conditional Use Permit/Site development Review for the addition of a drive-thru window, an outdoor dinincr area, on-site circulation and parkincr modifications, and exterior chancres to an existing restaurant located at 6568 Villaae Parkwav. Imposition of a traffic impact mitiaation fee will be considered as a condition of approval. Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Choy presented the staff report. Cm. North questioned the amount being charged Two Pesos Restaurant. In the spring Shamrock Ford was charged $6,000. $13,000 seemed high for this Applicant. Mr. Choy explained that the figure was arrived at by utilizing traffic count figures given to TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineer, generated from an existing Two Pesos restaurant in Texas . He also explained that the proposed restaurant would have a drive-thru and be open 24 hours. Michael Johnstone, architect for Two Pesos, indicated that the rent would start this month and if possible, they would like the approval at this meeting. Cm. Rafanelli questioned how many cars would it take before a problem developed in the drive-thru area. Mr. Johnstone responded 14 cars. Cm. North asked the Applicant if he agreed with the traffic count figures. Mr. Johnstone felt the figure was excessive. Cm. North agreed that he felt the figures seemed high. Mr. Johnstone agreed, but explained that the Texas restaurant was one of their busiest restaurants. Cm. North wondered why the Applicant would furnish such high volume figures. Mr. Johnstone explained that they did not know what the figures would be used for. Cm. North indicated that because the figure seemed so high, would it be possible to take a traffic count in 4-6 months so actual figures could be used to determine the impact fee. He felt that it would be better to count the cars after the business gets started rather than estimate the traffic count. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-81 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] . ~ ~ ~ Mr. Tong responded that this situation was similar to McDonald's rather than Shamrock Ford. An $11,987 Traffic Impact Fee was charged to McDonald's. An additional traffic study would cost the Applicant and the City time and money. McDonald's recently performed a traffic recount which verified the original traffic study figures. Cm. Rafanelli asked if the Applicant felt the figure was too high, could the Applicant come back. Mr. Tong responded that there could be a future recount performed, but it would be more costly to the Applicant. Cm. North asked if Staff had done a study or used the information from the Applicant. Mr. Tong explained that a traffic study rather than a traffic count had been done. Cm. Barnes felt uncomfortable using the place in Texas to determine the impact fees here. She felt it was not a fair comparison. Mr. Tong indicated that an additional traffic study could be done in the future and be so stated within the Site Development Review Resolution. Cm. Zika closed and then reopened the public hearing stating that he was concerned about the cost. He questioned whether the Applicant would be willing to post the $13,679 for the impact fee. A recount would be performed within 6- 9 months, the cost of which would be incurred by the Applicant. A new Traffic Impact Fee would be determined IF the new Traffic Impact Fee plus the processing fee is less than the $13,679 posted, the Applicant is entitled to a refund. IF, however, the new Traffic Impact Fee plus the processing fee is more than the $13,679 posted, the Applicant is responsible for paying the balance. It was a gamble. Mr. Sephri, Senior Civil Engineer in the Public Works Department, said that additional traffic counts may cost between $500 -$1,000. Mr. Johnstone stated that they would like to have that option. Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, felt that the Applicant did not understand what Staff was asking for when the Applicant prepared the report. He felt it was unfair and that the Applicant should not be stuck with the bill. Cm. Zika responded that since the architect is being paid by the Applicant, the Architect should be responsible for the information given. Mr. Kahn concurred that that made sense. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-82 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] , . . • ~ ~ Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would bring this item back at the next meeting, with the requested revisions. Mr. North felt that it was not fair to hold up the Applicant and that the modifications should be done that night. Mr . Tong concurred and said Staf f would work on wording and bring back later in the meeting. Later in the meeting Staff brought the following new wording back to the Commissioners to revise condition #2 and add a new #3 and renumber the other Conditions in the Draft Resolution for SDR approval. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, development of the proposed project drive-thru addition at 6568 Village Parkway shall be subject to a traffic impact fee. The Applicant shall deposit a traffic impact fee of $13,679.00 in cash to the City of Dublin. The ultimate traffic impact fee to be imposed on the project shall be determined once a new traffic study, which depicts daily traffic counts for the drive-thru addition, is taken, no sooner than six to nine months after occupancy of the new drive-thru addition is complete. 3. The new traffic study, depicting daily traffic counts at the drive- thru, taken at least six to nine months after occupancy or operation of the drive-thru addition, shall be performed by TJKM. All costs incurred as a result of the additional study (including traffic study, consultant time and staff time) shall be borne by the Applicant. The percentage increase in traffic shall be deemed to be due to the addition of the drive-thru and that percentage shall be used to calculate the final amount of the traffic impact fee, based on the formula for calculating the fee set forth in the memorandum from TJKM to the City of Dublin, dated June 21, 1991. If the final amount of the fee is less than the amount deposited, the difference together with accrued interest shall be returned to the Applicant. If the final amount of the fee is greater than the amount deposited, the Applicant shall be required to pay an additional fee amount. Cm. Zika asked the Applicant if they understood the revised wording. The Applicant indicated that they did understand. Cm. Zika thanked Staff for making the City motto work "Commitment to Community Service." On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4- 0, the Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1991-83 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] ~ • ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91- 036 APPROVING PA 91-026 TWO PESOS~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW AND AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA TO AN EXISTING RESTAURAN'P FACILITY AT 6568 VILLAGE PARKWAY RESOLUTION NO. 91- 037 APPROVING PA 91-026 TWO PESOS' SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW, AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA, AND CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERIOR AND ON-SITE IMPROVEN~NTS TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 6568 VILLAGE PARKWAY RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 038 IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA91-026 TWO PESOS RESTAURANT AT 6568 VILLAGE PARRWAY SUBJECT: PA 91-042 Douahertv Recxional Fire Authoritv General Plan Amendment. Rezone and Conditional Use Permit recruest at 7494 Donohue Drive and Rezone and Conditional Use Permit reauest for a portion of 7601 Amador Vallev Boulevard Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Choy presented the staff report. Harold Ritter, Fire Chief of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority gave a brief update on the progress of the Fire Station No. 1. The selection of the construction manager had been made. The selection of the Architect will be made within the next two weeks. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4- 0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 032 RECONII~IENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT PA 91-042 DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Regular Meeting PCM-1991-84 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 033 RECONII~AENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST CONCERNING PA 91-042 DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY REZONING APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 034 RECONIIKENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 91-042 DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7494 DONOHUE DRIVE AND 7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (PORTION) The Commission took a 10 minute break. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-001: Amendment to the HousinQ Element of the General Plan to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a reauirement bv Housing Element Policv IIIE which reguires a_percentaae of units in larae multi-familv proiects (i.e., ~ ~ro-iects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified period of time (Citvwide) continued from the July 1, 1991 PlanninQ Commission meetinal SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-p01: Adoption of an ordinance to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a reauirement that a percentaae of units in larqe multi-familv pro-iects be rented for a specified period of time lCitvwide) [continued from the July 1, 1991 Planninq Commission meetincrl SUBJECT: PA 88-009.1 Dublin Meadows Planned Development Rezone to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a minimum of 10~ of multi-familv units be maintained as rentals for a period of five vears located at 7081 Dublin Meadows Street [continued from the Julv 1, 1991 Planninct Commission meetinql Cm. Zika opened the public hearing on the three items and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report for items 8.7, 8.8, and 8.9 as a group. Mr. Carrington pointed out several corrections that needed to be made on the various agenda items . ( 8. 7 pg . 8 of 25 ; 8.$ pg . 15 of 15; 8.9 pg. 4 of 10 and pg. 10 of 10; 8.11 pg. 10 of 39; pg. 17 of 39; pg. 21 of 39; pg. 29 of 39; and pg. 30 of 39. Cm. North pointed out an error on page 7 of 15 in item 8.8 in that the City's current vacancy rate was 3.9~ rather than 1.8~. Cm. North questioned who had put the bond issue up for vote. Mr. Tong responded that he believed that it had been Countywide. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-85 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] . ~ • ~ ~ Cm. Zika questioned why an additional increase of 5~ could not be made in the second year. Mr. Carrington presumed that the 5~ would remain constant. Mr. Carrington suggested that Staff could bring back to the Commission on an annual basis. Cm. Zika responded that he would prefer to just raise 5$ each year. Mr. Carrington cautioned that the City had to be careful in placing exactions on development. Figures had to be provided to establish the nexus between the 5~ and the impacts of development. Mr. North questioned why the same 5~ increase could not be charged in the second year based on the first year study. Mr. Carrington responded that there was no objection to a flat 5$ in lieu fee, but language would need to be built into the Housing Element. He also indicated that the study could be done at more frequent intervals than every two years so that the Commission~s concerns could be addressed. Cm. Zika indicated that it was not necessary to do a survey every year, that every two years would be fine. The percentage would be determined based on the survey and just raise that percent in the intervening year. Cm. North expressed concern that there was a lot of confusing language. He wanted some clear, concise way to define the numbers. Mr. Carrington explained that this was a specific project. There had to be a means of determining the charge if the developer did not rent the required number of units, so that 10$ of the 206 units in this specific project was 21 units. Cm. North asked if some units had been rented as yet. Mr. Carrington responded that yes, some of the units had been leased. Cm. North asked if the developer rented the units and then decided to pay in-lieu fees, what would happen. Cm. Zika responded that if the Commission denied the request, the developer would have to rent for a 5 year period. If the developer paid the money, the developer can do whatever he wanted to do. It would be all or nothing, the developer could not rent 10 and sell 11. Mr. Carrington indicated that the Applicant was not present. Mr. Bob Harris, a Planning Consultant from Pleasanton, stated that the Commission had received a letter from Building Industry Association which requested that the items be continued for a matter of time. The builders wanted to go over the issues. Mr. Harris stated that he represented Mr. Marty Inderbitzen who was asking that item 8.11 be Regular Meeting PCM-1991-86 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] ' . . • • continued so that a building task force could be formed. He felt that the Commissioners~ decisions could have an impact on future housing in the City and that more time was needed to make suggestions to the Housing Element. He questioned whether the 10~ rental requirement was part of a City Ordinance. Mr. Carrington responded that it would be part of the Rental Availability Ordinance. Cm. Zika responded that if the Commission did delay the action, it would just cause having the Contractors screaming at the Commission. Mr. Harris recognized the need for affordable housing, but wanted time to suggest changes to simplify the Ordinance and try to keep the costs within bounds. Cm. North asked if Mr. Harris had a timeframe. Mr. Harris responded 60 days that it would take a minimum of 30 days to form a group. Cm. Zika asked what kind of timeframe did the City have from the State? Mr. Carrington felt it was not necessary to continue the three items. This was a request from a specific applicant who had asked for a change to the Housing Element. Mr. Carrington felt that it was a fairly straight forward change with a straight forward methodology for determining the cost if the Applicant did not provide the rental housing. Bob Shubert, Consultant for the City, indicated that there was no timeframe for the 10$ rental units, but there was a timeframe for the density and inclusionary issues in the adopted Housing Element. Cm. Zika responded that he felt the Commission could not fulfill the request of the Applicant unless all three items were addressed. Cm. Zika closed the public hearings. Cm. North stated that the notification had been done and that there had already been one month in order to comment on the items. Mr. Carrington indicated that BIA had been sent the agenda items. Cm. Zika felt that there was not a specific plan as to what would happen to the money collected as in-lieu fees. He felt that rental units were needed. Cm. North asked what was the purpose of 8.9. Mr. Tong indicated that there had to be three affirmative votes from the Commission in order for the item to go to the City Council. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-87 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] . . ~ ~ ~ Cm. North expressed his concern that the Applicant did not have representation at the meeting. Cm. North questioned what would happen if the in-lieu fees were held for seven years and not used, would they have to be given back to the Applicant. Mr. Carrington responded that the monies could be used to subsidize rents that the City did have the Dublin Housing Authority. Ms. Silver indicated that the money would be either returned to the owner or it could be contributed to a non-profit organization such as the Dublin Housing Authority. The Dublin Housing Authority was a legal entity and consisted of the five City Councilmembers and two tenant Commissioners. The City contracts with the Alameda County Housing Authority to provide staffing for the public entity. Cm. North still expressed concern over no specific plan for the in-lieu fees. It was recommended that each item be voted on separately. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3- 0(Cm. Barnes abstained), the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 039 RECOr~Il~1ENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-001 , INCLUDING THE AME1+TDI~NT TO THE HOUSING TLEMENT, THE RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 91-001), THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCL RESOLUTION N0. 91 - 040 RECONII~NDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN On motion from Cm, North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3- 0(Cm. Barnes abstained), the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 041 RECONII~~NDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE Regular Meeting PCM-1991-88 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] ~ . . ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 042 RECONIIKENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 0- 3(Cm. Barnes abstained), the Commission recommended actainst the adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 043 RECONIl~~NDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING PA 91-001 TO AMEND CONDITION #54 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 32-89 (PA 88-009) TO ALLOW THE OPTION OF PAYING AN IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE RATHER THAN PROVIDING RENTAL UNITS FOR HERITAGE COMMONS - J. L. CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-001: Adoption of an ordinance permitting a densitv bonus program as permitted bv Sections 65913.4, 65913.4, 65915 and 65917 of the Government Code Citvwide) [continued from the Julv 1, 1991 Planninq Commission meetinql Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. Cm. North questioned the definitions on pg. 7 of 17 (First Time Home Buyer: A person who has not held an ownership interest in a residence within the past three years pg. 8 of 17 ("Senior Citizen: A person at least 62 years of age"; and pg. 12 of 17 ("Al1 purchasers of restricted units shall be senior citizens or first time home buyers." Cm. North was concerned if a person lost their spouse and was forced to sell, they would not be able to qualify as a first time buyer by this definition. He also stated that the City defines a"Senior" as 55 years of age . Mr. Carrington responded that the State determined 62 years of age as a "Senior." Cm. North wanted the "First Time Home Buyer" thrown out because he felt it made it too restrictive. He questioned why it should be restricted to low income. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-89 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] ' . . . ~ Mr. Carrington responded that the City was trying to keep someone with several income properties from participating in the program. The program was designed to help those who really needed it. Cm. Zika questioned how income was defined by gross. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3- 0(Cm. Barnes abstained), the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 044 RECONII~NDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-001: Adoption of an ordinance allowina an INCLUSIONARY housinq policv as permitted bv Proaram IB of the Housincr Element. The ordinance allows for the pavment of a fee in-lieu of providina inclusionarv housing ~Citvwide) [continued from the Julv 1, 1991 Planning Commission meetinal Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. Cm. North expressed concern that Mr. Interbitten~s letter inferred that the City had not asked for input from developers. Mr. Carrington responded that two economic consultants, Jim Musbach and Tony Hurt were contacted for their responses. Staff reports were sent to BIA for comment, but no committee had been set up. Cm. North stated that he felt that input had been requested by the City. Mr. Carrington stated that Pleasanton has a growth management policy, but Dublin does not have growth management policy so there would be no way of coming up with a comparable number for Dublin. Mr. Harris stated that it was a complex ordinance. He felt that by becoming landlords to reduce in-lieu fees upsets the market further. If developer was building units under size restrictions, the builder would rather pay fee than build subsidized unit or would build wrong size unit. He felt that builders needed to get involved. There are developers, but the City needed to talk to builders who put up actual units. He felt the Commission had done the right thing by reducing the fee. Cm, Zika stated that developers needed to sell land to put up affordable housing. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-90 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] . - • ~ ~ Cm. North questioned that if the Commission tabled the item, what length of time would be needed. Mr. Harris stated 60 days. Cm. Zika questioned what damage would be done to the City if this item was tabled. Mr. Tong indicated that it could be adopted by the end of the year. Mr. Carrington stated that a letter had been received from the State Department and Community Development indicating that the City had turned in the Housing Element within the time limits and was in substantial conformity with State laws. The State felt that the City had not provided enough land to meet the housing goal and encouraged the City to use higher densities. Cm. North recognized the need to pass the Ordinance, but he felt that it did not have an effect on the existing land in Dublin so he felt there would be nothing wrong in delaying a decision for 60 days. Cm Zika concurred that there was no need to rush that the Commission could wait 60 days. Cm. North moved, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3- 0, the Commission agreed to table item 8.11 and have it brought back to the second meeting in October. Cm. Barnes and Cm. North will be out of town for the October 7, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Zika will be gone on the October 21, 1991 meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS None. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Barnes questioned what was required of the Commissioner if the Commissioner was absent from a meeting. Do the rules state that the Commissioner must listen to the tape of the missed meeting in order to vote on those items. Ms. Silver responded that she would check the rules and write a memorandum to the Commissioners. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-91 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] ~ i ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. Respecti ely su itted, Planning ommi ion Chairperson La rence L. Tong Planning Director C:MINUPL85 Regular Meeting PCM-1991-92 August 5, 1991 [8-5min]