Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-01-1991 i ~ ~ 1 ~ Reqular Meetinq - July 1, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on July 1, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Zika, North, and Rafanelli; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Dennis H. Carrington, Senior Planner, Bob Schubert, Project Consultant; and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary Absent: Commissioner Barnes * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham 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 June 17, 1991 were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-001: Amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement by Housinq Element Policy IIIE which requires a percentaqe of units in larqe multifamily projects (i.e., projects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified period of time (Citywide) General Plan Amendment 91-001: Adoption of an ordinance to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a percentaqe of units in large multifamily x~ro~ects be rented for a specified period of time (Citywide) Regular Meeting PCM-1991-66 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] • • . 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 multifamily units be maintained as rentals for a period of five years located at 7081 Dublin Meadows Street Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington indicated that the first three items were closely related and suggested the Commission hear the staff reports for all three items at one time. He suggested to the Commission that items 4 and 5 be heard separately. The Commission concurred. Mr. Carrington presented the first three staff reports to the Commission. Mr. Carrington indicated that the request to amend the housing element to allow in-lieu fees was initiated by JL Construction. He described the methodology of calculating the in-lieu fees and indicated that Staff was recommending the Commission consider fees that would be based on an overall flat fee basis. Mr. Carrington clarified an error on the staff report for item 8.2. He stated that the ordinance would allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that 10% of the units in large multi-family projects be rented for five years. Cm. Zika had concerns regarding the 4~ yearly rental adjustment figure and asked who had come up with the low percentage rate. Mr. Carrington explained that this figure could vary with the market. Presently, according to the Alameda County Housing Authority and Alameda County Housing and Community Development Program, this figure would be a typical rental increase. Cm. North questioned if there had been an investigation with the rental units in Dublin if these figures hold true. He felt rents had increased at a much higher percentage. Mr. Carrington stated that the 4~ was a typical Tri-Valley increase, according to HUD. He stated if they do want to pay an in-lieu fee to avoid providing the rental housing, that they should pay the full amount that it would cost to provide that housing on the open market for these families. Cm. Zika reiterated that he felt the 4~ figure seemed low. Cm. North agreed. Cm. Zika stated since we have a low vacancy rate in Dublin, this allows landlords to ask a little more. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-67 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] • • Mr. Carrington stated the vacancy rate was currently at 3.9~ which was ' based on the 1990 census. Cm. Zika stated he felt this was fairly low. Mr. Carrington agreed, although historically, it has been lower. Cm. Zika felt that if someone was going to pay an in-lieu fee, they should be paying at the top of the market. Mr. Carrington stated that the 4~ figure was only an example and that it was based on an analysis of six months ago. He stated that as developers come in and the Commission/City Council elect to use this methodology, we can update the figure. Cm. North questioned if rents increase considerably over a period of time, where would the additional money come from to subsidize the rent or will we lower the subsidy? Mr. Carrington stated that once we make a condition of approval in writing, this would be the methodology that would be used. Cm. North stated we may want to consider a higher percentage with the provision that if rents did not increase too high during a certain period, that the excess money would be returned to the developer. This could be done in order to protect the City and/or low occupant. Mr. Carrington stated he understood the Commission's concerns; however, the City needs to be very careful in light of recent court decisions that an exaction must be related to the impact of the project. Mr. Tong stated there is no one direct method of subsidy and that the funds would be utilized in various indirect means of providing rental housing. He suggested we strive to simplify the methodology for the Applicant. He agreed with the Commission's concerns and would double check the current rental rates for the Dublin rental projects. Cm. Zika stated he did not want to be locked into a certain percentage. Mr. Carrington continued with the staff report, explaining the strategy of the fees that would be gathered by the City in lieu of the provision of rental units. Cm. North requested clarification. Mr. Carrington indicated the intent of policy III-E of the Housing Element is the provision of rental housing. This would have no reflection on income. Agenda items 1-3 relate to in-lieu fees for rental housing which is not low income housing. The confusion may come from the income level used to determine an in lieu participation fee. Our concern is the provision of rental housing, not necessarily low income housing. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-68 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] • • Cm. North questioned Paragraph 3 on page 3 of Item #8.2 which indicates income restrictions for the rental housing. Mr. Carrington indicated that Commissioner North was right and that this paragraph should be deleted. He stated that if we are providing rental housing, there should be no requirement relating to income. Cm. North requested clarification of Condition #54, page 8 of Item #8.3 whereas 10~ of the units shall be rental units. City Attorney Silver explained that was the existing condition. She gave a brief overview of the three separate issues, all relating to rental housing and low income housing. Cm. Burnham expressed concern that if the developers paid the in lieu fees, where is the advantage to the City to implement this program? Mr. Carrington explained that should the Commission/City Council approve the rental availability ordinance, fees that are gained through the in-lieu process could be used to provide permanent rental or multi-family housing. Cm. Zika questioned if there were any monies in that fund at present . Mr. Carrington stated no, the fund has not been established yet. Cm. Zika asked if the City has plans to allot any funds for moderate or low income housing. Mr. Carrington stated not at the present time. Cm. North questioned paragraph F on page 8, Item 8.2 regarding qualifying residents. Mr. Tong stated that section needed to be deleted as well. Cm. North was concerned that the market rate of rentals in Dublin was much higher than, for example, Pleasanton and Livermore. The Commission and Staff discussed the current Dublin rental costs. Cm. North indicated that the in-lieu fees were based on 3 bedroom units. What would happen if someone wanted a 2 bedroom units. He asked if the City was restricted to 3 bedroom units. Mr. Carrington indicated that Staff elected to look at 3 bedroom units based on a typical family's needs and was only a basis for calculating the fees. Staff could elect any type or size of dwelling. Mr. Carrington indicated that Dublin residents would have first priority on the available rental housing. Second priority would go to individuals who work in Dublin, third priority would go to individuals moving to the Dublin area to be near Dublin residents, and fourth priority would go to those living outside of Dublin. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-69 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] ~ ~ . Mr. Carrington continued his staff report presentation. Mr. Carrington suggested that the Commission consider a flat fee instead of calculating fees case by case, which would be very time consuming. He described a typical flat fee methodology to the Commission. Cm. North referred to page 6 of item 8.2 and asked what was the meaning of "operation of law". He felt that this was a confusing legal term. Ms. Silver stated that this would include step-parents, step-children, for example. Adoption would also come under that title. Guardianships would also be included. Mr. Tong indicated that the flat fee methodology could be reviewed every two years in order to keep the fees current. If the fees were calculated on a case-by-case basis, Staff would have to go through specific project calculations. The traffic impact fees, for example, would be a similar situation. Mr. Tong indicated that when the extended planning areas start developing, if Staff had to calculate the fees for every individual project, it would be very time consuming. The developer would prefer as well to know ahead of time what their in-lieu fees were going to be. Mr. Carrington described several different formulas in order to calculate the flat in-lieu fees which would establish the methodology used every two years. Cm. North asked if there were any State mandated requirements the City had to follow for rental housing. Mr. Carrington indicated that the market rate housing would not be affected by any State requirements. Cm. Zika was concerned the methodology was too complicated and would like to see it simplified. He felt that a simple requirement, for example, requiring the developer to rent l0~ of the units for five years or pay a flat in-lieu fee for each unit not rented sounded fairly straight forward. Cm. North concurred. Mr. Tong concurred with the Commission. The formulas were complicated and their point was well taken. Whatever way we can simplify it and still stay within our legal requirements would be beneficial. Ms. Silver stated that the ordinance provides for the appropriateness of in-lieu fees. The findings need to be made to justify the fees. Cm. Burnham asked Staff what the advantages/disadvantages were to the City in accepting in-lieu fees. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-70 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] ~ ~ Mr. Carrington indicated the advantages would be that the City could use the funds to subsidize permanent rental housing. Cm. Burnham asked if the City could receive grants for senior housing. Could the City use the in-lieu funds to subsidize senior housing. Mr. Carrington indicated yes, if it was rental housing. Cm. Burnham asked what the advantages to the developer were by paying in-lieu fees. Mr. Carrington indicated that the developer could sell the property and move onto other projects. The developer would not have to worry about rental units for five years. The advantage to the City is that we would have long term housing. Cm. Zika was concerned that the developer could allot certain types of units to be rentals, like all one bedroom units. He wanted to make sure that there were a variety of unit sizes available. Mr. Tong indicated that there were no provisions in the current Housing Element specifying that there needed to be a variety of unit sizes. We might need to go back and amend the Housing Element to reflect this provision. In terms of the in-lieu rental, it might make it more complicated. Ms. Silver referred to page 8 of item 8.2, subparagraph (e} of the ordinance which required the rental units to be dispersed throughout the entire development with a variety of types and sizes of units. Cm. North referred to page 10 of item 8.2, subparagraph (f). He had concerns regarding the City's commitment to use the funds in 5 years or the funds are returned to the property owner. Ms. Silver indicated that there were similar provisions for developer fees, which fees were under State regulations. There were no specific requirements for in-lieu fees. The 5 year commitment could be changed. She recommended, however, some type of time limit should be set. Mr. Tong indicated that establishing a time limit gives the City incentive to use the funds quickly and appropriately. Cm. North preferred to see a 7 or 8 year commitment for using the funds and delete the requirement of returning the monies to the current property owner if not used. Mr. Carrington continued his presentation on Item #8.3. Staff recommended the Commission continue the hearing on Items #8.1 through #8.3 to a future meeting date whereby the Commission's comments could be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Cm. Burnham asked what the advantages would be to the Dublin Meadows project. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-71 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] • • Mr. Carrington indicated that this fee would allow the developer to finish the project without any additional obligations to it. The Commission was concerned that the developer would be allowed to rent the units for possibly two years and then only be required to pay a prorata share of the in-lieu fees. They felt that the developer should be required to pay the full amount or have rental units available. Mr. Tong referred to page 10 of item #8.3 (Exhibit C} and indicated that paragraph #1 or #2 should take care of the Commissioner's concerns. Cm. Zika asked if the fees were retroactive for units that were already rented or would the ordinance be effective the date of adoption. Would the units that were already leased count towards the 10~? Mr. Tong indicated that the provisions would be in force on the day of adoption. The developer could not go back and say that they had rental units which would decrease the required 10~. Cm. Burnham asked if the Applicant was present. Mr. Carrington indicated that he had called the Applicant and had not received a response from them. They have a copy of the staff report. Ms. Joyce Pasco, resident of Heritage Commons, indicated that the units are presently being rented. Cm. North requested that Staff incorporate the Commission's revisions, comments and/or adjustments to the documents before the next public hearing meeting. Mr. Tong recommended that the public hearing be left open and continued to the August 5th meeting in order to give Staff sufficient time to incorporate the Commission's requests. The Commission felt that a 7-year commitment to funds would be more appropriate than the 5 year time limit stated in the staff report. The Commission unanimously voted to continue Items #8.1 through #8.3 to the August 5th Planning Commission meeting. The Commission took a 15 minute break. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-001; Adoption of an ordinance p_ermittinq a density bonus proqram as permitted by Sections 65913.4, 65915 and 65917 of the Government Code (Citywide) Mr. Carrington presented the staff report to the Commission. Mr. Bob Schubert indicated that there was a State density bonus law that requires the City to develop ordinances implementing this State law. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-?2 July 1, 1991 [7-1minJ ~ . ~ Staff recommended the Commission continue the public hearing to the August 5th meeting. Cm. North referred to page 7, subparagraph (h). He felt that there should be clarification made to enable single individuals the opportunity of subsidy rentals. Ms. Silver indicated that the language was not intended to not include single individuals. Cm. Burnham questioned if there was a legal discrimination when given priority to Dublin residence versus other individuals. Ms. Silver indicated no. This was a rationally based distinction which creates a housing/job balance for the City. Cm. North referred to page 9, subparagraph 3 and page 10. He felt that the language should be modified to specify that the units be required to be built by the building code regulations. Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding Section 8.16.060 whereby zoning standards could be modified or waived. Mr. Carrington indicated that the individual would need to give sufficient information to show that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the units economically feasible. This is a State law. Ms. Silver and Mr. Schubert discussed the State regulations and options with the Commission. Ms. Silver suggested that when the Commission meets again at the August 5th meeting that everyone should take a look at the language. She noted that the language was very technical. The State is very strict on the regulations regarding this statute. Cm. North referred to Section 8.16.100, subparagraph (c) and indicated that he had concerns with the language for transferring title. Ms. Silver noted that Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions would continue to run with the land. The Commission continued the item to the August 5, 1991 meeting. Cm. Zika requested that the staff reports be delivered to the Commission a week early in order for them to have more time to decipher the complexity of the items. Cm. North concurred. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-001: Adoption of an ordinance allowinq an inclusionary housinq policy as permitted by Program IB of the Housinq Element. The ordinance allows for Regular Meeting PCM-1991-73 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] • ~ , the payment of a fee in-lieu of providinq inclusionary J housinq (Citywide) Mr. Carrington presented the staff report to the Commission. Cm. Zika asked what other cities were basing their fees on. Mr. Carrington indicated that other Tri-Valley cities' calculations/ formulas were very confusing and referred the Commission to the staff report. Staff was recommending that a flat fee be considered for both single and multi-family dwelling units. Staff was recommending the Commission leave the public hearing open and continue the item to the August 5th meeting. Cm. Zika referred to the $8,400 figure for the single-family residential designation shown on page 2 of the resolution. He felt that this was a ridiculous amount. Cm. North asked if this figure was based on homes that were more than 1600 square feet. Mr. Carrington explained that for all new units built over 1600 square feet in size, the developer would be charged the fees mentioned. Mr. Tong suggested that Staff look into some type of flat rate or alternative way of accessing the in-lieu fees. Ms. Silver indicated that the City of Pleasanton has incorporated in their General Plan the requirement to provide low-income housing or in-lieu fees. Cm. North referred to page 12, subparagraph (p). He felt that the language was misleading. Mr. Carrington referred Cm. North to page 19, Section 8.08.110. The Commission continued Items #8.1 through #8.5 to the August 5th Planning Commission meeting. They requested that the staff reports be delivered a week ahead of schedule with all mentioned revisions incorporated into the new documents. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that he had spoken with the Zoning Investigator who indicated that warning notices have been sent out to Shadow Creek and Heritage Developments regarding their illegal signs along Dougherty Road. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that at the next City Council meeting Staff would be discussing the East Dublin situation. The County and City have come to an agreement regarding the land use designation of the County's property. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-74 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin] . • ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~NERS' CONCERNS Cm. North requested a copy of San Ramon's report regarding the Tassajara Road development. He was concerned with the impact this development might have on the East Dublin project. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was in the process of analyzing the report which was only in a draft format at the present time. Cm. Rafanelli asked what the status was regarding the Gateway development in San Ramon. Mr. Tong indicated that there had been a meeting today in San Ramon which discussed the mitigation measures of the project. Cm. Zika referred to the soundwall on I-680 and indicated that the design was not very pleasing to look at. Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council adopted a resolution on June 27th requiring that Caltrans make improvements to the soundwall. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectively submitted, ~ ~ ~ lanning ommissio airp rson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1991-75 July 1, 1991 [7-lmin]