HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.4 East Dub SP Infrastructure Seq Prog
STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
File #420-20
CITY COUNCIL
DATE:December 4, 2012
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to Eliminate the Requirement for
Development Agreements and related Financing Plans and Infrastructure
Sequencing Programs
Prepared by Kit Faubion, City Attorney's Office
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) requires that Applicants for development in the
specific plan area enter into a mutually acceptable development agreement with the City. The
EDSP also requires the development agreements to include detailed financing plans and
infrastructure sequencing programs. The City’s original purpose for these requirements in the
EDSP was to ensure the adequate provision of infrastructure needed by planned development.
There are now other implementation measures in place that insure the provision of infrastructure
and payment of fees, so these requirements are no longer necessary. City staff is
recommending that the EDSP be amended to eliminate the above requirements because they
are no longer needed and because the City would then have the opportunity to negotiate for
community benefits when developers desire the certainty provided by a voluntary development
agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5)
Adopt a Resolution amending the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to eliminate the requirement for
development agreements and related financing plans and infrastructure sequencing programs.
Submitted By Reviewed By
City Attorney Assistant City Manager
ITEM NO. 6.4
Page 1 of 4
DESCRIPTION
Section 11.3.1 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) requires all Applicants for
development in the Specific Plan area to enter into a “mutually acceptable development
agreement” with the City. The EDSP also requires the development agreements to include
detailed financing plans and infrastructure sequencing programs. On May 15, 2012, following a
staff presentation on the matter, the City Council directed that staff prepare and present, to the
Planning Commission and City Council, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that
eliminates the development agreement requirement. The proposed amendment would delete
the development agreement requirement from the Specific Plan, and would also delete the
related requirements for financing plans and infrastructure sequencing programs. The proposed
amendments are shown in strikethrough and underline in Attachment 1, a resolution approving
the amendments.
ANALYSIS
Authority for Development Agreements
Under the common law of California, the approval of a development project does not give the
developer a right to proceed to complete the project. Rather, the local agency can change the
rules and regulations at any point up until the developer has been issued a building permit and
incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the permit. Even then, the vested right
only gives the developer the right to complete the development described in the building permit.
To provide relief from this rule, the Legislature has developed two means by which a developer
may protect its project from subsequent changes in regulations. The first is a vesting tentative
map, which gives the developer the right to proceed with development in substantial compliance
with the rules and regulations in effect at the time the map application was deemed complete.
(See Gov. Code, § 66498.1(b).) The second is a development agreement between the local
agency and the developer. A development agreement vests the developer’s right to proceed
with the approved project and, unless otherwise specified in the agreement, locks in the rules
and regulations applicable to the property. The local agency normally has no obligation to enter
into a development agreement, and therefore it can negotiate for consideration (community
benefits) in exchange for giving the developer vested rights.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Requirement for Development Agreements
In contrast to a typical voluntary development agreement, Section 11.3.1 of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan requires all Applicants for development in the Specific Plan area to enter into a
“mutually acceptable development agreement” with the City.
As further directed by the EDSP, the City Council adopted a standard master development
agreement on October 10, 1994 and amended it on November 28, 1995. Over the years, the
City Council has unofficially established five years as the time for specific plan required
development agreements. However, because the Specific Plan requires a development
agreement, the City cannot bargain for consideration from the developer in exchange for the
development agreement. For this reason, the standard Specific Plan development agreements
have not been used by the City to exact benefits the City cannot otherwise obtain.
Page 2 of 4
Purpose of Eastern Dublin Development Agreements
The Specific Plan identifies the following purposes of the development agreement requirement:
(1) augment the City's standard development regulations for specific projects; (2) spell out the
precise financial responsibilities of the developer; (3) ensure the timely provision of adequate
public facilities; (4) streamline the development approval process by coordinating various
discretionary approvals; (5) provide the terms for reimbursement when a developer advances
funding for specific facilities which have community wide area benefits; and (6) provide for
mutuality to the City and the developer regarding entitlements to the developer in return for
commitments for public improvements. (Section 11.3.1.)
At this point in the development of Eastern Dublin, none of these purposes offers a compelling
rationale to maintain the requirement. This is because some level of entitlement has been
approved for virtually all specific plan properties and major infrastructure has been constructed
or planned for construction through these approvals. Additionally, when the Plan was first
adopted, there were not administrative or formal procedures in place to ensure these purposes
could be accomplished. The development agreement temporarily filled that need and is no
longer necessary.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Development Agreement Requirements
The specific plan development agreement requirement has advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages of the specific plan development agreement requirement are that (1) the
agreements satisfy the Specific Plan requirement for “financing plans” and “infrastructure
sequencing programs”; (2) the agreements secure project conditions that cannot be satisfied at
final map; and (3) the agreements can clarify conditions of approval. The disadvantages of the
specific plan development agreement requirement are that (1) the City, since it effectively gives
away five years of vested rights, cannot bargain for community benefits in exchange for
providing vested rights; and (2) the requirement, by adding another required city approval,
increases the developers’ costs to process their projects.
The advantages are not significant. The requirements for a “financing plan” and an
“infrastructure sequencing program” are facilitated by the development agreement, but in light of
the City’s comprehensive impact fee program and extensive body of development standards
and ordinances, these requirements are no longer necessary. Further, development agreements
would not be needed to clarify conditions if the conditions are clearly written. Finally, project
conditions that cannot be satisfied at final map can be secured by a separate agreement prior to
final map approval.
On the other hand, the disadvantages of the requirement are significant. First, most developers
in Eastern Dublin apply for vesting tentative maps and are thereby able to obtain vested rights.
These rights may be adequate for many developers. For developers who desire development
agreements, eliminating the requirement will give the City the ability to bargain for consideration
in exchange for providing vested rights to the developer. There are no restrictions on what the
City can ask for or receive, other than what the developer will agree to provide. Any future
development agreements for properties in Eastern Dublin would be freely negotiated. Second,
over the years many developers, particularly those that are ready to immediately proceed with
development, have expressed displeasure about the need to enter into a development
agreement. These developers have expressed concern both about the costs and time
associated with drafting, negotiating, and processing the development. Thus, eliminating the
Page 3 of 4
requirement will have an economic development benefit in that it will reduce the expense of and
expedite the processing of development in Eastern Dublin.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed EDSP amendments on
November 13, 2012. There were no speakers on the proposal. The Planning Commission
adopted Resolution 12-41 recommending approval of the amendment on a 3-0 vote (2
Commissioners absent). The Planning Commission Resolution is included as Attachment 2; the
draft minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment 3.
CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, APPLICABLE SPECIFIC PLANS
The development agreement requirement and its related financing plan and infrastructure
sequencing program is unique to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan There is no comparable
provision in the General Plan, nor is there any General Plan direction that the EDSP include
these requirements. As amended by the Project, the EDSP would remain internally consistency
because other existing City processes insure adequate infrastructure will support development,
including impact fees, PD-Planned Development zoning and other application reviews that apply
adopted development standards and ordinances.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at
several locations throughout the City. A notice of this hearing was mailed to those requesting
such notice ten days before the hearing and the Staff Report and attachments were made
available for public review prior to the public hearing in accordance with Government Code
Sections 65090 and 65091. A notice of this Public Hearing was also sent to active developers
within the Specific Plan area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and when applicable, environmental documents be prepared. Staff recommends that the
Project be found exempt under the general rule in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) that
CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility for a
significant effect on the environment. There is no such possibility for the Project since all
applicable development standards and ordinances, including payment of impact fees, would
continue to apply to development projects to ensure they are supported by needed infrastructure
and public utilities.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution amending the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
to eliminate the requirement for development agreements and
related financing plans and infrastructure sequencing programs.
2. Planning Commission Resolution 12-41 recommending that the City
Council amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to eliminate the
requirement for development agreements and related financing plans
and infrastructure sequencing programs.
3. Draft minutes of the November 13, 2012 Planning Commission
meeting
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. XX-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
______________________________________________________________________
AMENDING THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND RELATED FINANCING PLANS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SEQUENCING PROGRAMS
WHEREAS,
in 1993, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) to guide future
development of approximately 3,300 acres of undeveloped lands east of Camp Parks over a 20-30 year
planning period. Subsequent amendments have increased the size of the specific plan area, and most
of the most of the basic infrastructure has been constructed or is planned for construction through
annexation agreements, PD-Planned Development zoning, vesting tentative map approvals, and/or other
development entitlements; and
WHEREAS,
the EDSP area was largely undeveloped when the plan was adopted; therefore, an
important goal of the plan was to ensure that infrastructure improvements and public utilities were
provided as needed by potential urban development. Among the implementation tools for this goal were
requirements that developers in the specific plan area prepare detailed financing plans and infrastructure
sequencing programs to identify necessary capital improvements, including public facilities, streets and
utilities and insure their timely financing through related development agreements. The EDSP
development agreements typically vest development rights for a 5-year term and specify the precise
financial responsibilities of each developer; and
WHEREAS,
originally intended to ensure that infrastructure would be guaranteed as development
proceeded in Eastern Dublin, the requirement for development agreements is no longer needed for that
purpose and also constrains the City’s ability to negotiate voluntary agreements that provide certainty to
developers in exchange for community benefits; and
WHEREAS,
the specific plan amendment will remove development agreements, and related
financing plans and infrastructure sequencing programs from the EDSP implementation requirements
(hereafter, “Project”). All development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will continue to be
subject to previously adopted EIRs and other CEQA reviews and mitigations, EDSP development
policies and standards, zoning and development review, and all applicable subdivision and development
ordinances; and
WHEREAS,
a Planning Commission staff report, dated November 13, 2012 and incorporated
herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project; and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission considered the staff report and all written and oral
testimony submitted at a noticed public hearing on November 13, 2012, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard, and adopted Resolution 12-41 recommending adoption of the
proposed Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS,
a City Council staff report dated December 4, 2012 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project; and
1
WHEREAS,
the City Council considered the staff report, the Planning Commission
recommendation, and all written and oral testimony submitted at a noticed public hearing on December
4, 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the City Council finds the Project exempt under the general
rule in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility for a significant effect on the environment. There is no such
possibility for the Project since all previously adopted EIRs and other CEQA reviews and mitigation
measures, EDSP development policies and standards, zoning and development review, and all
applicable subdivision and development ordinances, including payment of impact fees, would continue to
apply to development projects to ensure they are supported by needed infrastructure and public utilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the City Council approves the following Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is consistent with the Dublin General
Plan and that the Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent (edit markings will be
removed from the adopted amendments).
A. Amend the Summary, Section 3.9.2, Financing Goals and Policies, to read as follows:
3.9.2 FINANCING GOALS AND POLICIES
The Specific Plan states that new development should pay the full cost of infrastructure
needed to serve the area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse impacts to the
City's existing infrastructure and services.
B. Amend the Summary, Section 3.9.3, Implementation, to read as follows:
3.9.3 IMPLEMENTATION
Various actions are specified to carry out the financing policies of the Specific Plan,
including adoption of area of benefit ordinances, creation of a
special assessment or Mello-Roos District, establishment of a landscaping and lighting
district and geologic hazards abatement district, evaluation of Marks-Roos bond
pooling, reviewing the need for a builder impact fee system, and coordinating efforts
with the school district and CalTrans on public improvements.
C. Amend the Summary, Section 3.10.1, Key Implementing Actions, to delete the last bullet “Preparation
of Financing Plans”, as follows:
3.10.1 KEY IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
• EIR Certification
• Adoption of CEQA Findings
• Amendment of the General Plan
• Adoption of the Specific Plan
• Prezoning
• Conclude Property Tax Exchange with the County
• Annexation of the Specific Plan area to the City of Dublin
• Preparation of a Plan for Services
• Annexation of Specific Plan area into DSRSD
• Preparation of Subarea Planned Development Plans
• Filing of Tentative Maps
• Site Development Review/Design Review
2
• Preparation of Public Improvement Plans
• Filing of Final Map
• Preparation of Park Improvement Plan
D. Amend the Summary, Section 3.10.2, Other Implementing Actions, to delete the first bullet “Entering
into Development Agreements”, as follows:
3.10.2 OTHER IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
In addition to the procedural steps given above, the following actions will assist in
implementing the Specific Plan.
• Adoption of Area of Benefit Ordinance
• Analysis of Financing Techniques
• Analysis of Feasibility of Marks-Roos Bond Pooling
• Analysis of Feasibility of Citywide Builder Impact Fee System
E. Amend the Summary, Section 3.10.3, Administration of the Specific Plan, to read as follows:
3.10.3 ADMINISTRATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN
Responsibility for administering the Specific Plan will be a joint effort of the City of
Dublin and developers in Eastern Dublin. The City will review and approve projects in the Planning Area.
F. Amend Section 4.4.1, Location and Diversity, Action Program: Location and Diversity, to delete
Program 4D, as follows, and renumber subsequent programs as appropriate:
G. Amend Section 10.1, Introduction to read as follows:
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The two primary purposes of this financing chapter are 1) to show how the major
infrastructure costs of new eastern Dublin development will be financed and 2) to show that measures
have been taken to ensure that new development will not drain existing City resources.
H. Amend Section 10.4, Goals and Policies, to delete the Goal statement at the top of p. 209, as follows:
I. Amend Policy 10-6 on p. 209 to read as follows:
Policy 10-6: Require developers who proceed ahead of any applicable infrastructure phasing plans to
pay the costs of extending the backbone infrastructure to their project subject to future reimbursement.
rd
J. Amend the 3 full paragraph on p. 211 to read as follows:
The generally accepted standard is that total annual assessments (ad-valorem property taxes plus Mello-
Roos or other assessments) should be less than two percent of property value. Since one percent is
already accounted for in the ad-valorem property tax, the assessments should not exceed one percent.
Note that in Table 10.4 all of the residential and commercial units would have annual assessments equal
or below one percent. In short, this financing approach would spread the debt burden amongst the
various land uses without placing any undue burden on any one land use.
K. Amend the Action Program: Financing, on p. 211 to remove the first bullet, as follows:
3
L. Amend the bulleted list in Section 11.1 on p. 219 to delete the last two bullets as follows:
11.1 SUMMARY: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The following shows the approximate sequence of the key implementing steps that should be followed by
the City to effectively implement this Specific Plan.
• Certify the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report
• Adopt findings as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
• Amend the General Plan
• Adopt the Specific Plan
• Adopt prezoning for the Specific Plan area
• Conclude property tax exchange agreement with the County
• Annex currently unincorporated Specific Plan areas into the City and DSRSD service
area
• Prepare a Plan for Services
• Adopt development review procedures for projects in the Specific Plan area
• Adopt Subarea Planned Development Plans
• Approve Master Grading, Utility and Drainage Plans
• Review and approve individual Tentative Subdivision maps
• Adopt Public Improvement Plans
M. Amend Section 11.2.7, second paragraph, to read as follows:
"Planned Development Plans" shall be prepared in greater detail than the Specific Plan, in keeping with
zoning ordinance requirements. The plan shall show the location and
arrangement of all proposed uses, specify the circulation system, define parcels, refine the design
standards, specify the infrastructure requirements, reflect the applicable mitigation measures of the Final
EIR, include master neighborhood landscape plans, and note neighborhood park location. Planned
Development plans shall also include a written statement which discusses affordable housing and any
other such material or information required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin General Plan,
and/or needed for the type of development proposed. Action programs within the Specific Plan provide
specific requirements.
N. Amend 11.2.10, Public Improvement Plans, to read as follows:
11.2.10 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS
The on-site and off-site public improvements necessary to serve the eastern Dublin planning area need
to be specifically de- signed. The applicants should prepare for City review and approval Public
Improvement Plans, consisting of detailed engineering designs and documents for all utilities necessary
to develop the land uses identified in the Specific Plan.
O. Delete Section 11.2.13, Financing Plans, as follows, and renumber subsequent sections as
appropriate:
P. Amend Table 11.2, Responsibilities for Key Implementing Actions, to delete the last line referencing
“Financing Plans”, as follows:
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR KEY IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
Key Implementing Actions Responsibility for Document Preparation Adoption by
EIR Certification City City
CEQA Findings City City
4
General Plan Amendments City City
Specific Plan Adoption City City
Prezoning City City
Annexation City/DSRSD City
Subarea Plans Developers City
Tentative Map Developers City
Site Development/Design Review City City
Public Improvement Plans Developers City
Final Subdivision Map Developers City
Park Improvement Plans City City
Q. Delete Section 11.3.1, Development Agreements, as follows and renumber subsequent sections, as
appropriate:
R. Amend Table 11-3, Responsibilities for Other Implementing Actions, as follows:
Table 11-3
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OTHER IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
Responsibility
For Document
Other Implementing Actions Preparation Adoption by
Individual Development Agreement City City
Area of Benefit Ordinance City City
Special Assessment District or Mello-Roos CFD Developers City
Landscaping and Lighting District Developers City
Geological Hazards Abatement District Developers City
Marks-Roos Bond Pooling City City
Citywide Builder Impact Fee System Developers City
S. Amend Section 11.4.1, Responsibilities for Administration of the Specific Plan, to read as follows:
11.4.1 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN
Administration of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be a joint effort of the City of Dublin and
developers in Eastern Dublin .
T. Amend Action Program: Location and Diversity, on p. A5-2 to delete Program 4D, as follows, and
renumber subsequent programs as appropriate:
U. Amend Appendix 5 to delete the second Goal statement on p. A5-33 as follows:
V. Amend Policy 10-6 on p. A5-34 to read as follows:
Policy 10-6: Require developers who proceed ahead of any applicable infrastructure phasing plans to
pay the costs of extending the backbone infrastructure to their project subject to future reimbursement.
W. Amend Action Program: Financing, on p. A%-34 to remove the first bullet, as follows:
5
X. Make necessary conforming amendments to the EDSP for consistency with the above amendments,
including revisions to the table of contents, renumbering or relettering provisions, as appropriate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days after passage.
th
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED
this 4 day of December, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
6
RESOLUTION 12-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND
RELATED FINANCING PLANS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SEQUENCING PROGRAMS
WHEREAS,
the specific plan amendment will remove development agreements, and
related financing plans and infrastructure sequencing programs, from the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) implementation requirements (hereafter, “Project”). All development in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will continue to be subject to previously adopted EIRs and
other CEQA reviews and mitigation measures, EDSP development policies and standards,
zoning and development review, and all applicable subdivision and development ordinances;
and
WHEREAS,
originally intended to ensure that infrastructure would be guaranteed as
development proceeded in Eastern Dublin, the requirement for development agreements is no
longer needed for that purpose and also constrains the City’s ability to negotiate voluntary
agreements that provide certainty to developers in exchange for community benefits; and
WHEREAS,
a Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 13, 2012 and
incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project; and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission considered the Staff Report and all written and
oral testimony submitted at a noticed public hearing on November 13, 2012, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council find the Project exempt under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility for a significant effect on the environment. There is no such
possibility for the Project since all previously adopted EIRs and other CEQA reviews and
mitigation measures, EDSP development policies and standards, zoning and development
review, and all applicable subdivision and development ordinances, including payment of impact
fees, would continue to apply to development projects to ensure they are supported by needed
infrastructure and public utilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
1
th
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED
this 13 day of November, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, Schaub, Brown
NOES:
ABSENT: O’Keefe, Bhuthimethee
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:\PA#\2012\EDSPA DA PC 11.13.12\pc reso recommending edsp amendment to eliminate da requirement.doc
2
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Tuesday, November
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on
13, 2012
, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called
the meeting to order at 7:00:24 PM
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub and Brown; Jeff Baker, Assistant
Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal
Planner; Linda Smith, Economic Development Director; and Debra LeClair, Recording
Secretary.
Absent: Vice Chair O’Keefe and Cm. Bhuthimethee
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDANONE
–
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS –
Vice Chair O’Keefe and Cm. Bhuthimethee were
absent from the meeting and Cm. Schaub was absent from the October 9, 2012 meeting,
therefore, the minutes of the October 9, 2012 meeting were not approved as there was no
quorum.
On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded Chair Wehrenberg the minutes from the October 30,
2012 Study Session were approved as written.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE
–
CONSENT CALENDAR NONE
–
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONSNONE
–
PUBLIC HEARINGS –
8.1 PLPA 2011-00003 – Moller Ranch
(Braddock & Logan Services, Inc.) General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract 8102, a Development Agreement and a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, briefly discussed the project and
recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date uncertain in order to
finish the response to comments on the Supplemental EIR.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and having no speakers, closed the public
hearing.
On a vote of 3-0-2, with Vice Chair O’Keefe and Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning
Commission voted to continue the item to a date uncertain.
Planning Commission November 13, 2012
148
Regular Meeting
DRAFT DRAFT
8.2PLPA-2012-00060 Community Benefit Agreement and Development Agreement for
the Kingsmill Group
Mixed-Use Retail/Residential project at the former Crown Chevrolet site in
Downtown Dublin.
Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, presented the project as outlined in the Staff
Report.
Cm. Brown asked about income qualifications of the applicants for the affordable housing
portion of the project.
Ms. Smith answered that she did not have income level information but stated the project would
primarily serve special needs veterans, as well as those veterans eligible for housing vouchers
through the Alameda County Housing Authority.
Cm. Brown asked if the 76 affordable housing units will continue to be affordable housing
restricted to veterans.
Ms. Smith responded that there is a typical 55 year deed restriction on the affordable units. She
added that the project will be primarily marketed to special needs veterans and veterans and
their families. She stated that they will also ensure there will be a supply of multi-bedroom
apartments for veterans with families, not only those veterans in transition.
Cm. Schaub asked how many units are planned for the Dublin Blvd side of the project.
Ms. Smith answered, there are 314 units planned.
Cm. Schaub asked, with this type of development agreement, would a future Planning
Commission be able to reduce the number of units in the project if they felt it was too dense for
Dublin Blvd or would they be bound by the number of units mentioned in the agreement. He
was concerned with the number of units in a nearby project and asked what the unit count was
for that project.
Ms. Smith answered the Essex project has 309 units on 3.8 acres.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with building units close to Dublin Blvd and asked if a future
Planning Commission could reduce the number of units in the project or would the development
agreement lock in the number of units.
Mr. Baker answered that the unit count would be allocated to the developer but the design of the
building would not. He compared this project to the Essex project which is 3.8 acres with 309
units; this project is 314 units on 5 acres, which is a larger site.
Cm. Schaub felt the design could be stepped back to keep the units back from the street.
Mr. Baker referred to Cm. Brown’s question regarding income requirements for the affordable
units; Section 6.2.2 of the agreement states “…restricts the use of Parcel B to the provision of
Planning Commission November 13, 2012
149
Regular Meeting
DRAFT DRAFT
affordable housing for low-income households whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent
(80%) of the area median income as adjusted for actual household size…”
Cm. Schaub felt that it may be harder to rent to veterans in the future, but the units could be
offered to other low-income residents who are not veterans.
Ms. Smith agreed and stated that while the project will be marketed to veterans, the goal would
be to ensure that the units are occupied with low-income residents.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Woodie Carp, Senior Project Developer, Eden Housing, spoke in favor of the project. He stated
that Eden housing was asked to participate in the project and was happy to. He stated that the
project will primarily serve veterans and the families of veterans as a rental project. The project
will be restricted to residents with income at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI) but stated
that EDEN Housing targets populations with incomes which are much lower and could be below
50% AMI, with some units as low as 30% of AMI. He stated that the specific funding program
being requested would be to serve a special needs population, which in this situation would be
disabled veterans. The specific program requires that at least 50% of the total units be rented to
the special needs population. The units may be rented to veterans and their families but will
also be offered to low-income households.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if they would be offering any other services to the veterans other than
housing.
Mr. Carp answered no; Eden has executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
Sentinels of Freedom, an organization that works with disabled veterans for on-site services.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the project would be strictly housing with no group rooms for
meetings or for the resident’s use.
Mr. Carp responded that all their projects are designed to include a services office as well as a
counseling office that would be available for the Sentinels of Freedom or other service providers
to utilize. He stated there is also a community room for the residents to use for other programs
as well as programs provided by Eden. He stated that through the tax credit program, Eden is
required to provide services for the residents.
Ms. Smith added that the project is located across from the Chabot/Las Positas College site that
has done work with returning veterans. She stated Staff has started initial discussions with
Chabot/Las Positas College regarding how the college can support the project.
Cm. Brown asked how mobility/accessibility issues will be dealt with in the project.
Mr. Carp answered that the concept will be a 4-story structure with an elevator and an adjacent
4-story garage structure that will be accessible from every level. Every unit will be built so that it
can be converted to a fully accessible unit and there will be fully equipped, ADA accessible units
per the code. He stated Eden will determine how many additional accessible units will be built
in order to meet the needs of the population.
Planning Commission November 13, 2012
150
Regular Meeting
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Schaub felt the project was located in an ideal area which is close to amenities and
transportation. He asked if active service members and their families would also be eligible for
this project and given priority.
Mr. Carp answered yes; it is being evaluated and Eden will work closely with the Fair Housing
Attorney to ensure compliance with all fair housing rules and regulations. If possible, Eden
would consider a priority for families of veterans and families of active service members, but
stated that a minimum of 50% of the units would have to be reserved for the special needs
population.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed that the project is in a perfect location, and stated she is in support of
the project.
Cm. Brown felt this was the first Community Benefit Agreement in the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan (DDSP).
Ms. Smith stated this project is the first agreement under the adopted DDSP.
Cm. Brown felt this is a good model and is in support of the project.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Vice Chair
O’Keefe and Cm. Bhuthimethee absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A COMMUNITY BENEFIT/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DIAMOND HEIGHTS INVESTMENTS IV, LLC. FOR A
MIXED-USE RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
8.3PLPA-2012-00061 Commercial Corridor Design Guidelines.
Creation of design
guidelines for commercial and industrial properties, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
(Chapter 8.33 and Chapter 8.104), and an amendment to the Zoning Map for the purposes of
project implementation.
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and having no speakers, closed the public
hearing.
The Planning Commission was in support of the project and the revisions made at the Planning
Commission Study Session on October 30, 2012.
Planning Commission November 13, 2012
151
Regular Meeting
DRAFT DRAFT
On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 3-0-2 with Vice Chair
O’Keefe and Cm. Bhuthimethee absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 40
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
DESIGN GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 8.33 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING
ORDINANCE) ESTABLISHING THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONING
DISTRICT AND AMENDING SECTION 8.104.040 RELATING TO THE COMMERCIAL
CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONING DISTRCT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP TO ADD AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO THE
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AREA
8.4Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
to Eliminate the Requirement for
Development Agreements and related Financing Plans and Infrastructure Sequencing
Programs.
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
The Planning Commission was in support of the project.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and having no speakers, closed the public
hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Vice Chair
O’Keefe and Cm. Bhuthimethee absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION 12 - 41
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND
RELATED FINANCING PLANS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SEQUENCING PROGRAMS
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
Planning Commission November 13, 2012
152
Regular Meeting
DRAFT DRAFT
Brief INFORMATION ONLY
10.1 reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Mr. Baker mentioned there will be a Study Session regarding the Economic Development
Element of the General Plan scheduled for Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
10.3 Mr. Baker discussed the upcoming agendas for future Planning Commission meetings.
10.4 Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that the Downtown Regional Sign Appeal will be heard at
th
the November 20 City Council meeting. Mr. Baker agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
– The meeting was adjourned at 7:34:05 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Doreen Wehrenberg
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:\MINUTES\2012\PLANNING COMMISSION\11.13.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx
Planning Commission November 13, 2012
153
Regular Meeting