Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-07-1996 i a ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting May 7, 1996 . A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Jennings. * ROLL CALL , Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, and Johnson; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioners Lockhart and Zika ' * : PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA ~ The minutes of the Special Study Session of Apri18, 1996, and the Regular Meeting of April 16, 1996, were ; approved as submitted. One change was made to April 16, 1996 meeting minutes, page 32. A notation was added regarding a comment made by Commissioner Jennings about her meeting with Matt Koart prior to ~he April 16, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. * : ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None • * PUBLIC HEARING None • NEW_OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 96-018 City of Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The City Council and Planning Commission have held two special study sessions on the City's Affordable Housing Program, and have provided staff with direction on several major issues re~ated to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The draft Ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning II Commission and a recommendation will be made to the City Council. ,I Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. I, ~ Regulaz Meeting 40 May 7, 1996 [5-7pcmi] I ~ ~ ~ Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a brief history on what has led us up to this meeting. She stated that the Inclusionary Zoning Ordir?ance was developed in response to the direction from City Council and the Planning Commission at two previous study session meetings. She responded to two questions that were raised during the previous study session. One question was in regards to offering deferral of City impact fees and the other question was the option for administering the Ordinance. She gave the 8 major components of the proposed Ordinance. 1) It is required that 5% of the units in the new residential prAjects must be affordable to very low, low and moderate incomes; 2) the Inclusionary unit requirements will apply to both rental and ownership projects; 3) in order to maintain long term affordability, some restrictions and recapture mechanisms will be necessary; 4) options will be available for developers to meet the Ordinance requirements; 5) incentives will be available to encourage Inclusionary units to be constructed; 6) the City will use the Department of Housing and Urban Development data to determine affordability; 7) an affordable housing agreement approved by the City Manager will demonstrate how a project complies with the requirements of the Ordinance; and 8) the chapter was not intended to replace any provisions of the City's Density Bonus Ordinance or any other City Ordinances. She showed on an over head exhibit of cities which allow fee deferral and reduction or waivers in-lieu of building affordable units. She also showed on an overhead the options for administering the Ordinance. She stated that the proposed Ordinance was written so that if an applicant requested a deferred processing fee the approval of that request would need to be granted by the City Manager. If the applicant was requesting deferral of development impact fees that would have be approved by the City Council. She stated that in both of these cases a fee payment agreement would have to be entered by the developer to establish the method for payment and recovering costs for projects that were not completed. She explained some options available for administering the Ordinance. In the initial stages of implementation the City Staff time would be minimal. She stated that they expect most developers would choose to pay the fee in lieu of constructing the units. If development projects do construct units, the City would need to monitor the provisions of those affordable units. Eventually when the City gener2tes funds through developer contributions of the in-lieu fees, the City would need to determine the best use of the funds. She stated that a non profit housing developer may have the administration capacity to run the program. She stated City Staff recommended that monitoring compliance with the Ordinance should be handled by City Staff. City Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 96-14 recommending City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve of ttie draft Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Geist asked about options for people who own an Inclusionary unit but are unable to occupy for more than one yeaz. T Ms. Huston stated that the City Manager would have to determine if it was an extreme financial hardship case, but there is a clause stating the City Manager may approve rental of the units to households meeting the same income qualifications. Cm. Geist asked if there could be an exemption to the 12 month period? Ms. Huston stated that the clause stating the City Manager may approve the rental could apply to the exemption to the 12 month period. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. Matt Koart, Kaufinan & Broad asked about the concept of affordability by design built in to the Ordinance. If the market rate for homes were substantially below the maximum affordable price, what would be referred to as substantially below market and would that be considered at the City Council level? Also, what about partial compliance if a developer meets the moderate income or the low income category. Ms. Huston responded to Mr. first question. She stated that the Inclusionary units must be maintained as the housing market changes and that was what was referred to as substantially lower prices. The units would not expect to increase in value where they would lose their affordability to that income category. Regular Meeting 41 May 7, 1996 [5-7pcmi] ' • ' • ~ Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director stated we would have to establish guidelines in administering this Ordinance. There would have to be some very specific definitions on how the program would operate. Ms. Huston, in response to Mr. Koart's second question, stated that how the City addressed partial compliance with the Ordinance would be covered in the administrative guidelines, or that it may be addressed, at a different time, such as in the Affordable Housing Agreement. Mr. Koart responded that because this was an important issue, maybe the Ordinance should mention it Cm. Jennings asked for any other comments from the public. Cm. Jennings asked Staff to make a note of the issues raised by Mr. Koart, to be addressed when the Ordinance was administered. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 3-0, with Cm. Lockhart and Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 96-14 APPROVING PA 95-018 RECONIlVIENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF AN INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE 10. OTHER BUSINESS (,Commission/Staff Informational Onlv Reports 10.1 Staff discussion on upcoming projects and Commission scheduling. (next tt~ree month probable agenda items) Mr. Peabody gave a brief summary of fhe upcoming projects that will be brought before the Planning Commission. He gave the Commissioners a copy of our agenda to review of upcoming projects. Cm. Jennings asked about flood control maps from FEMA, when would they be available? Mr. Peabody stated very soon, we were working on them now. It will be coming before the City Council sometime in June. 10.2 Staff discussion on possible new project Pianning Commission field trip. Mr. Peabody asked the Planning Commission if they had an interest in a field trip throughout the various Cities showing the similar projects that would either be coming before the Planning Commission or have already been approved by the Planning Commission. Cm. Johnson stated it was OK with him. Cm. Geist and Jennings agreed. Regular Meeting 42 May 7, 1996 [5-7pcmi] • ~ . Mr. Peabody asked if June 8, 15, or 22 would be OK June 15 was good for Cm. Jennings Cm. Johnson and Cm. Geist , Mr. Peabody would talk to the other two Commissioners on their availability. ~ Cm. Johnson stated he was at the cleaners at the San Ramon Village Plaza and talked to a couple of truck drivers who left their big rigs parked there and they said there was no place to park large trucks if they live in Dublin. One. driver suggested the City have parking permit to park in an industrial area during the night hours and the City could get the revenue. If they park on Sierra Court, they get a ticket now, but that seems like a better place than the Lucky's parking lot. One driver said he lives in Dublin, but his warehouse was in San Jose, and it was a shame to have to drive late at night to San Jose, just to park the truck for the night. Cm. Johnson asked Staff to look in to some options. Mr. Peabody stated he would look in to the issue. Mr. Peabody asked about availability at the next few Planning Commission meetings due to the large agenda's. Cm. Jennings will be out of town June 4, 1996. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , ~ Planning Commissio hairperson A EST: ~ Community Development irec r Regulaz Meeting 43 May 7, 1946 [5-7pcmi]