Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 IncluAffordUnitsAmend CITY CLERK File # I ~~ _r~-~-~--~-~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 17, 2002 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - PA-01-038 Amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations regarding changes to priorities used in the selection of occupants for Inclusionary Affordable Units, the percentage of household income allowed for housing expenses; and land dedication requirements in lieu of building affordable units Report Prepared by: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director and Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to household income, affordable household priorities and land dedication requirements 2. Examples of Housing Task Force Recommended Priorities For Selection of Occupants for Affordable Units 3. Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of these amendments 4. Planning Commission draft minutes of the November 26, 2002 meeting RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing A/31 Hear Staff Presentation Take Public Testimony 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Deliberate 6. Waive the Reading and introduce Ordinance as recommended by Staff (Attachment 1) with changes to Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to household income, affordable household priorities and land dedication requirements FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Increase in developer subsidy to dedicate land in lieu of building required affordable units COPIES TO: Inclusionary Work Group In-House Distribution ITEM NO. ~ BACKGROUND: On May 7, 2002 the City Council introduced an Ordinance amending the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68) of the Dublin Municipal Code. Specific elements of this Ordinance included the requirement of 12.5% of any residential project to be affordable for a period of 55 years. Up to 5% of the total 12.5% of affordable units may pay an in lieu fee. If affordable units cannot be built on site, the City Council may allow land dedication, construction of required affordable units off site and the possible waiver of requirements and approval of alternative methods of compliance. Before the City Council tonight are three proposed changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance: · A financial change in the required household income necessary to qualify for Inclusionary units. (Section 8.68.020A) · A change in the priorities of various affordable housing groups in the selection of new Inclusionary units as recommended by the City's Housing Task Force (Section 8.68.050D) · At the SPecific request of the City Council in May, 2002, a specific new Land Dedication requirement in lieu of building affordable units that can occur when the City Council determines that this option should be taken (Section 8.68.040 C new subsection 3) Specific changes recommended by Staff are found in Attachment 1; an annotated strike out version with old provisions and new provisions is found in the Planning Commission recommended Ordinance (Attachment 3). ANALYSIS: Standards for Household Income Attributable to Affordable Housing Staff has researched the prevailing percentage of required household income necessary to qualify for new Inclusionary housing. Staff has determined that a correction is necessary under Section 8.68.020A.2 "Definitions". While rental units are deemed affordable if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of maximum household income, owner-occupied, or for-sale units may be considered affordable with a slightly higher amount of household income directed to the mortgage payment. Review of standard underwriting criteria in the lending industry and a poll of Bay Area Cities has demonstrated that it is reasonable to increase the household income directed toward housing expenses to 35%. The new Section 8.68.020A.2 would read: "Owner-occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in housing expenses that do not exceed 35% of income level for very-low, low, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as definedbelow." New Priorities for Various Housing Groups in the Selection Process for New Inclusionar¥ Units The City's Housing Task Force has recommended new priorities for various classes of affordable housing groups who should qualify for new Inclusionary housing. The second requested amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is in reference to Section 8.68.050D, Selection Criteria. The City of Dublin's Housing Task Force reviewed the priorities listed in the Inclusionary Ordinance and has recommended changes. ' Currently the Priorities in selecting occupants of Inclusionary units are as follows: ~ 1. Dublin residents that are seniors ' 2. Dublin residents that are permanently disabled 3. Dublin residents and non-residents who are members of Dublin's workforce 4. Dublin residents with children 5. Other Dublin residents 6. Non-residents that are seniors 7. Non-residents that are permanently disabled 8. Other non-residents. The Housing Task Force has unanimously recommended that priority be given for individuals employed within the boundaries of Dublin, residents of Dublin, seniors, and permanently disabled individuals. Each of these categories would receive a given point or number of points. A given household may belong to more than one category in which case, the number of points would be the total of the points for all the categories to which they belong. Category Points for category_ Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin 3 points All other Dublin residents 3 points Seniors 1 point Permanently disabled 1 point These points would be cumulative, so households fitting into more than one category could have points from several categories. See Attachment 2 for examples. The benefit of this system is the simplicity while still giving priority to those who live and work in the City of Dublin and some priority for seniors and permanently disabled households. The Housing Task Force further recommended a three-tiered process in the selection of eligible occupants for rental and for- sale Inclusionary units. The first step would be to qualify by income all who applied to ascertain if they meet the necessary income category (moderate, low, or very-low income) The second step would be to establish that the number of members of the household would be eligible for the size units that were being developed and dedicated as Inclusionary. A studio apartment would allow no more than one occupant, a one bedroom unit would allow for a one or two member household, a two bedroom unit would allow for a two, three or four member household, and a three bedroom unit would allow for a three, four, five or six member household. The third step would be to establish the priorities, given the above scoring system, within the various income categories. From this established list, the developer would be able to offer the rental units to those households, or on an ownership project, to those households that would qualify for a loan. New Land Dedication Requirements (Section 8.68.040 C3) Staff has also prepared three options for new Land Dedication requirements as well as a specific recommendation for the City Council's consideration. On May 21, 2002 the City Council instructed staff to return with an amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that would allow the City Council to permit land dedication in lieu of building required Inclusionary units. The issue is to ensure that the value of the property dedicated to the City or non-profit developer covers both the cost of the land on which to build the required units and the cost to build the Affordable Units. Staff has prepared three specific options and the details follow. Option 3 is the recommendation of Staff and is included in the proposed Ordinance change. Staff will verbally discuss these options in detail at the public hearing. All options include as an example of land dedication: A 200-lot subdivision with an average 4,000 sq. ft. lot size Option 1 - Land Dedication based on size of lots in the subdivision Builder dedicates land in lieu of building required units as follows: · Dedicates land based on size of lots built in subdivision equal to required Affordable Units that should have been built (7.5%) · Pays 5% InClusionary Fee Example If required to build 15 units (7.5% of a 200 lot subdivision) and the average lot size was 4,000 square feet, the land dedication would'be 4,000 sq. ft. x 15 = 1.37 acres Payment of In lieu fee would be: 10 units (5% of a 200 lot subdivision) Fee is $72,176 per unit $72,176 x 10 = $721,760 Option 2 - Land Dedication to build all required Inelusionary units on multi-family zoned land Builder would dedicate land in lieu of building required units as follows: · Dedicates land based on amount of land needed to build Affordable Units on site with average density of 22 units per acre, which would accommodate both very low and low (rental units) and for sale or rental units for moderate units and · Pays 5% In lieu Fee Example If required to build 15 units (7.5% of a 200 lot subdivision). Dedication is based on 15 units on a site that can support up to 22 units per acre. For 15 units on a site designed at 22 units per acre, the land dedication would be: 15 = .68 acre 22 Payment of In lieu fee would be: 10 units (5% of a 200 lot subdivision) Fee is $72,176 per unit $72,176 x 10 = $721,760 Option 3 - Land Dedication based on size of lots in the subdivision and the difference between market rate (1,200 square foot unit) and comparable affordable unit of the same size Builder would dedicate land in lieu of building required units as follows: · Dedicates land based on size of lots built in subdivision to required Affordable Units that should have been built (7.5%) and · Dedicates land equivalent to the difference between the market rate of 1,200 square feet for-sale units and the affordable price per unit ($72,176) for the number of units required · Pays 5% In lieu Fee Example If required to build 15 units (7.5% ora 200 lot subdivision) and the average lot size was 4,000 square feet, the first land dedication would be: 4,000 x 15 = 1.37 acre (1st dedication) The second dedication would be the difference between the market rate for a unit and the affordable rate of a unit translated into an average unit. The difference between a market rate and affordable unit as adjusted as a part of the in lieu fee ($72,176) would be multiplied by the number of units required (15) ' and then divided by the average cost assumed in the market rate/affordable unit land cost adopted as a part of the in lieu fee. $72,176 x 15 (number of units required) divided by the assumed land cost per acre ($864,000 previously determined as a part of the adopted in lieu fee calculation) = 1.25 Acres (Second dedication) Payment of in lieu fee would be: 10 units (5% of a 200 lot subdivision) Fee is $72,176 per unit $72,176 x 10 = $721,760 Comparison of Options Below is a chart covering land dedication requirement (7.5% of units) and in lieu fee charges (5% of units) for the example of a 200-lot subdivision of 4,000 average square foot properties. A brief comparison of the options is presented below: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Land Dedication Requirements 1.37 acres .68 acre 2.62 acres In lieu fee charges $721,760 $721,760 $721,760 Advantages and disadvantages of the options on a subdivision of 200 units with 4,000 square foot lots are: Pros Cons Option 1 Moderate could be built Low/very low units would need to be consolidated on the required dedication with the Inclusionary requirements of other (1.37 acres - 7 units) projects on a larger site to insure an economical project (i.e. more than 8 units on one site) Option 2 .68 acre dedication Both moderate and low/very-low units would have to be consolidated with other projects elsewhere .68 acre too small by itself Option 3 2.62 acre dedication large The largest dedication requirement for the developer enough to build all required units. Addresses both land to build units and subsidizes the difference in cost between market and affordable costs to build the units Conclusion Staff believes that Option 3 is the best land dedication solution. It more closely relates the land needed to build required affordable units and recovers some of the difference the cost between market and affordable units costs for the units that could have been built by the developer on site. Plannin~ Commission Action Copies of the Staff analyses were distributed to members of the earlier Inclusionary Zoning Task Force prior to the Planning Commission hearing. On November 26, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on these proposed amendments and unanimously recommended approval of Staff s recommended changes (Resolution 02-43, Attachment 3) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council open the public heating, take the public testimony, close the public hearing, and waive the reading and introduce the ordinance as recommended by Staff (Attachment 1). GSPA~X2001 \01-038\ccsr 12-17.doc / ORDINANCE NO. - 02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings: The City of Dublin finds that: A. The citizens of Dublin are experiencing a housing shortage for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. B. A goal of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan is to achieve a balanced community with housing available for households of a range of income levels. C. Persons with very low, low, and moderate incomes that currently live and/or work in the City are increasingly unable to locate housing at prices they can afford, and often become excluded from living in the City. D. Federal and State housing subsidy programs are insufficient by themselves to satisfy the housing needs of very low-, low- and moderate-income households. E. The high cost of newly constructed housing does not, to any appreciable extent, provide housing affordable by very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, and continued new development that does not include affordable housing will serve to further aggravate the current housing shortage by reducing.the supply of developable land. F. It is a public purpose of the City, and a public policy of the State as mandated by the requirements for a housing element of the City's General Plan, to make available an adequate supply of housing for persons of all economic segments of the community. Section 2. Amendment of Chapter 8. 68: Chapter 8.68, entitled "Inclusionary Zoning Regulations," of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 3. 'Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA '): The City Council declares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following findings: This ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. This ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure. This ordinance, therefore, has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. Section 4. Severability: In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. ATTACHMENT 1 Section 5: Savings Clause: All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter shall be construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations, rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, under any chapter, ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability or appeal. Section 6. Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 17th day of December 2002, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK GSPA#L2001 \01-038\cc ord. 12-17.doc EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 8.68 INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS 8.68.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low, low, and moderate income. B. assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs. 8.68.020. Definitions. As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows: A. "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental-housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to households with very-low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this chapter. 1. Rental units are deemed affordable units if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of maximnm income level for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below. 2. Owner-occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in annual housing expenses that do not exceed 35% of income level for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below. B. "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities that seeks city real property development permits or approvals. C. "Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household. D. "Very-low-, low-, and moderate-income levels" means those income and eligibility levels determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development based on Alameda County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of dependents, income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of household income and will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and state and federal housing law. 1. "Very-low income" means 50% or less of the median income, adjusted for actual household size. 2. "Low income" means more than 50% to 80% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size. 3. "Moderate income" means more than 80% to 120% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size. E. "Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 55 years. With respect to rental units, such rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the-applicable property. F. "Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multiple- dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public. 8.68.030. General Requirements A. 12.5% Affordability Requirement. All new residential development projects of 20 units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this chapter. The foregoing requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development (and generally at the tentative map stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the development, provided the total number of units does not change. In applying and calculating the affordability requirement, any decimal fraction less than or equal to 0.50 may be disregarded, and any decimal fraction greater than 0.50 shall be construed as one unit. B. Alloeation of Units to Income Levels. Affordable units provided pursuant' to this section shall be allocated to households with very-low, low-, and moderate-income levels as follows: Very-low-income households 30% Low-income households 20% Moderate-income households 50% Where the calculation of the allocation results in fewer units that would otherwise be required pursuant to subdivision A above, one additional unit should be allocated to the income level with a decimal fraction closest to 0.50. C. Conditions of Approval: Any tentative map, conditional use permit, or site development review approving residential development projects subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the applicant's manner of compliance with this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units. D. Coneurrent Construction. All affordable units in a project or phase of a project shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that extenuating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical. 2 E. Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole and shall not be distinguished by exterior design, construction, or materials. Affordable units may be of smaller size than the units in the project and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. Ail affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project. 8.68.040. Exceptions to 12.5% Affordability Requirement. Developers of projects subject to 8.68.030A shall construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, unless subject to an exception set forth in this section. All exceptions require City Council approval, which shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for the project. A. Payment of Fees In-Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units.. Upon request of the applicant, the City ~ Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to 40% of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to Section 8.68.030A. The amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which may be amended from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In-lieu fees shall be paid at and the time and in the amount set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. B. Off-Site Projects. An applicant may construct the affordable units not physically within the development in lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the development, with the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds: 1. that construction of the units off-site in lieu of constructing units on-site is consistent with the chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. 2. that the units to be constructed off site are consistent with Section 8.68.030E above 3. that it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site. ~ 4. that conditions of approval for the project require that the off-site affordable units would be governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units. 5. that the conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within a reasonable period (not to exceed 5 years). C. Land Dedication. An applicant may dedicate land to the City or city-designated local non-profit housing developer in lieu of construction of some or ail of the required affordable units, if the Council finds that: 1. that dedication of land in-lieu of constructing units is consistent with the chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very-low, low- and moderate- income households. 3 2. that the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and contaminated soils, and is fully improved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and all development-impact fees paid excluding any inclusionary zoning ordinance fees. 3. that the proposed land dedication is of sufficient size to meet the following requirements: a. the dedication includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 8.68.030.A} based on the size of lots in the subdivision for which the applicant is meeting its obligation; and b. in addition, the dedication includes such additional land the market value for which is equal to or exceeds the difference between the value of a market-rate, 1200-square foot unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an Affordable Unit ($72,176) times the number of units required. D. Credit transfers. An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of Section 8.68.030A through the use of transfer credits created pursuant to Section 8.68.060. Credit certificates shall be presented to the Community Development Director, who shall note at the time of project approval the credit certificate by number. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy the requirements for Inclusionary Units for the income category (i.e., very low, low, or moderate) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. E. Waiver of Requirements. The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this Chapter. 8.68.050. General Procedures for Implementing Inclusionary Zoning Requirements A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement between the City and the developer, in a form consistent with the City Council-adopted form agreement, which agreement shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable units. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall nm with the land and bind the applicant's successors. B. Rental Units; Occupancy; Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units shall require the owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income levels do not exceed moderate income levels and shall preclude tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit. The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to the following information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year. C. Ownership Units; Occupancy; City's Right of First Refusal. Agreements for ownership units shall specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and may not be 4 leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions shall provide that in the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible household. D. Selection Criteria. No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has approved the household's eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income, the median combined household income statistics for Alameda County published periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources of household income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by law. The developer shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children. Selection of qualified person should be based on priorities established using the point system described below: · Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin (3 points, one per household) · Dublin resident (3 points, one per household) · Seniors (1 point, one per household) · Permanently disabled (1 point, one per household) To qualify as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin", the person shall have been employed with the City of Dublin for at least six months. To qualify as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Dublin for at least a one-year period prior to the eligibility determination. 8.68.060. Affordable Unit Credits. A. Creation. Affordable unit credits may be created by the City Council. One affordable unit credit certificate shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable units required to be constructed for the project by Section 8.68.030A. The certificate shall designate a specific income category (i.e., very-low, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. B. Ownership and use of credits. Affordable unit credit certificates are issued to and become the possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this chapter for another project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall first obtain the consent of the Community Development Director, who will document the transfer by certificate number. 8.68.070. Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units. The City may, but shall not be required to, offer incentives or financial assistance to encourage the on-site construction of affordable units in excess of 12.5% of the total number of units in the project to the extent resources for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City Council or City Manager. Such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: 5 A. Fee Deferral. 1. Development Processing Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City processing fees applicable to the review and processing of the project. The terms and paymem schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. 2. Development Impact Fees. The City Council may authorize the deferred payment of development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility. The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees. B. Design Modifications. The City Council may approve design modifications to affordable units that increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Reduced lot size. 2. Reduced setback requirements. 3. Reduced open space requirements. 4. Reduced landscaping requirements. 5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities. 6. Reduction in parking requirements. 7. Height restriction waivers. 8.68.080. Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Fund. In-lieu Fees shall be deposited into a fund known as the "Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fees FUnd'' ("Fund"). A. Use. All monies in the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing very-low, low-, and moderate-income ownership or rental housing in the City of Dublin. B. Annual report. The City Manager shall prepare an annual report to the City Council identifying the balance of monies in the Fund and the affordable units provided and any monies committed to providing very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. The annual report shall also include a review of administrative charges. 8.68.090. Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, parmership or other entity that is subject to this ordinance pursuant to section 8.68.030A to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. A violation of any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor; except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, any such violation constituting a misdemeanor under this chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction under the prOvisions of this Code shall be punishable as provided by the Government Code of the State of California. 8.68.100. Enforcement. A. General. The City Manager shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City Manager may suspend or revoke any building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this chapter. No land-use approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residential development unless exempt from or in compliance with this chapter. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval. B. Excessive rents/legal action. If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those allowed by operation of this chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may take appropriate legal action to recover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant, or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged. 8.68.110.. Appeals. Decisions of the City Manager under this Chapter may be appealed as provided in Chapter 8.136. G:~PA~2001\01-038\cc ord. 12-17.doc 17 EXAMPLES OF RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR SELECTION OF OCCUPANTS FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS A person lives in Dublin and 3 points Works in Dublin 3 points = total of 6 points A household with tw° members, live outside the City of Dublin 0 points One of which is a senior 1 point And one of which works within the City of Dublin 3 points = total 0£4 points A single person who lives outside the City of Dublin 0 points Is permanently disabled 1 point And is a senior 1 point = total of 2 points A single person who is a senior 1 point And lives in the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 4 points A household that rents in the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 3 points A senior 1 point Who lives outside the City of Dublin 0 points = total of 1 point A fireman who lives elsewhere 0 points Works within the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 3 points A household with two members living in the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 3 points And works outside the City of Dublin A household with two members living in the City of Dublin 3 points And works within the City of Dublin 3 points = total of 6 points ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS PA 01-038 WHEREAS, the citizens of Dublin are experiencing a housing shortage for very low-, low- and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, a goal of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan is to achieve a balanced community with housing available for households of a range of income levels; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted major changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations of the City Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002 the City Council instructed Staff to provide further definition for a land dedication option for developers to fulfill the Inclusionary Ordinance requirements, and WHEREAS, on further review by Staff of Bay Area Inclusionary Ordinances and standard industry underwriting criteria revealed that the percentage of household income directed toward housing costs for ownership units may be higher than 30% and therefore allow for more lower income households to qualify for affordable units, and WItEREAS, the City of Dublin Housing Task Force reviewed the priorities established in the current Inclusionary Ordinance and made recommendations for changing these priorities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this matter on November 26, 2002; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted a Negative Declaration for the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance on June 11, 1996. The Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. These amendments do not change the General Plan or zoning density for any site. These amendments would not have impacts on the environment that were not addressed by the adopted Negative Declaration. The current amendments are within the scope of the Negative Declaration adopted on June 11, 1996 and no further environmental review is required; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve an Ordinance of the City of Dublin amending Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code relating to Inclusionary Zoning regulations as set forth in Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, on this 26th day of November 2002, by the following votes: Page 1 ATTAONMENT AYES: Cm. Johnson, Jennings, Musser, Fasulkey and Nassar NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: planning Manager G:XPA/~2001\01-038\pc reso 11-26.doc Page 2 EXHIBIT A NOVEMBER 26, 2002 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.68 INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS 8.68.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low, low, and moderate income. B. assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs. 8.68.020. Definitions. As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows: A. "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental-housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to households with very-low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this chapter. 1. Rental units are deemed affordable units if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of maximum income level for very-low-, low-, and mOderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below. 2. Owner-occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in annual --^~ ........... ~" housing expenses that do not exceed gO 35% of income level for very- low-, iow-, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below. B. "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities that seeks city real property development permits or approvals. C. "Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household. D. "Very-low-, Iow-, and moderate-income levels" means those income and eligibility levels determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development based on Alameda County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of dependents, income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of household income and Will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and state and federal housing law. 1. "Very-low income" means 50% or less of the median income, adjusted for actual household size. 2. "Low income" means more than 50% to 80% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size. 3. "Moderate income" means more than 80% to 120% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size.. E. "Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 55 years. With respect to rental units, such rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property. F. "Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multiple- dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general 'public. 8.68.030. General Requirements A. 12.5% Affordability Requirement~ All new residential development projects of 20 units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this chapter. The foregoing requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development (and generally at the tentative map stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the development, provided the total number of units does not change. In applying and calculating the affordability requirement, any decimal fraction less than or equal to 0.50 may be disregarded, and any decimal fraction greater than 0.50 shall be construed as one unit. B. Allocation of Units to Income Levels. Affordable units provided pursuant to this section shall be allocated to households with very-low, low-, and moderate-income levels as follows: Very-low-income households 30% Low-income households 20% Moderate-income households 50% Where the calculation of the allocation results in fewer units that would otherwise be required pursuant to subdivision A above, one additional unit should be allocated to the income level with a decimal fraction closest to 0.50. C. Conditions of Approval: Any tentative map, conditional use permit, or site development review approving residential development projects subject to this chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the applicant's manner of compliance with this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units. D. Concurrent Construction. All affordable units in a project or phase of a project shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units, unless the City Manager determines in writing that extenuating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical. 2 E. Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole and shall not be distinguished by exterior design, construction, or materials. Affordable units may be of smaller size than the units in the project and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project. 8.68.040. Exceptions to 12.5°,4 Affordability Requirement. Developers of projects subject to 8.68.030.A construct 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, unless subject to an exception set forth in this section. All exceptions require City Council approval, which shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for the project. A. Payment of Fees In-Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon request of the applicant, the City Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to 40% of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to section 8.68.030.A. The amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which may be amended from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In-lieu fees shall be paid at and the time and in the amount set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. B. Off-Site Projects. An applicant may construct the affordable units not physically within the development in lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the development, with the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds: 1. that construction of the units off-site in lieu of constructing units on-site is consistent with the chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. 2. that the units to be constructed off site are consistent with section 8.68.030.E above 3. that it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site. 4. that conditions of approval for the project require that the off-site affordable units would be governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units. 5. that the conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development or within a reasonable period (not to exceed 5 years). C. Land Dedication. An applicant may dedicate land to the City or city-designated local non-profit housing developer in lieu of construction of some or all of the required affordable units, if the council finds that: 1. that dedication of land in-lieu of constructing units is consistent with the chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very-low, low- and moderate- income households. 2. that the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and contaminated soils, and is fully improved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and all development-impact fees paid excluding any inclusionary zoning ordinance fees. that the proposed land dedication is of sufficient size to meet the following requirements: a. the dedication includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 8.68.030.A, based on the size of lots in the sUbdivision for which the applicant is meeting its obligation; and b. in addition, the dedication includes such additional land the market value for which is equal to or exceeds the difference between the value of a market-rate, 1200-square foot unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an Affordable Unit ($72,176) times the number of units required. D. Credit transfers. An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of section 8.68.030.A through the use of transfer credits created pursuant to section 8.68.060. Credit certificates shall be presented to the Community Development Director, who shall note at the time of project approval the credit Certificate by number. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy the requirements for Inclusionary Units for the income category (i.e., very low, low, or moderate) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. E. Waiver of Requirements. The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this chapter. 8.68.050. General Procedures for Implementing Inclusionary Zoning Requirements A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement between the City and the developer, in a form consistent with the City Council-adopted form agreement, which agreement shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable units. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall run with the land and bind the applicant's successors. B. Rental Units; Occupancy; Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units shall require the. owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income levels do not exceed moderate income levels and shall preclude tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit. The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to the following information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly 4 rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year. C. Ownership Units; Occupancy; City's Right of First Refusal. Agreements for ownership units shall specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and may not be leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions shall provide that in the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible household. D. Selection Criteria. No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has approved the household's eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income, the median combined household income statistics published periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources of household income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by law. The developer shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish betWeen adUlts and children. SeleCtion of qualified person should be based on priorities established using the point system described below: · EmPloyed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin (3 points, one per household) · Dublin resident (3 points, one per household) · Seniors (1 point, one per household) · Permanently disabled (1 point, one per household) To qualify as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dub]in"i the person shall have been employed with the City of Dublin for at least six months. To qualify as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Dublin for at least a one-year period prior to the eligibility determination. 5 8.68.060. Affordable Unit Credits. A. Creation. Affordable unit credits may be created by the City Council. One affordable unit credit certificate shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable units required to be constructed for the project by Section 8.68.030.A. The certificate shall designate a specific income category (i.e., very-low, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. B. Ownership and use of credits. Affordable unit credit certificates are issued'to and become the possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this chapter for another project in' the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall first obtain the consent of the Community Development Director, who will document the transfer by certificate number. 8.68.070. Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units. The City may, but shall not be required to, offer incentives or financial assistance to encourage the on-site construction of affordable units in excess of 12.5% of the total number of units in the project to the extent resources for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City Council or City Manager. Such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. Fee Deferral. 1. Development Processing Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City processing fees applicable to the review and processing of the project. The terms and payment schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. 2. Development Impact Fees. The City Council may authorize the deferred payment of development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility. The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees. B. Design Modifications. The City Council may approve design modifications to affordable units that increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Reduced lot size. 2. Reduced setback requirements. 3. Reduced open space requirements. 4. Reduced landscaping requirements. 5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities. 6. Reduction in parking requirements. 7. Height restriction waivers. 8.68.080. Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Fund. In-lieu Fees shall be deposited into a fund known as the "Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fees Fund" ("Fund"). A. Use. All monies in the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing very-low, low-, and moderate-income ownership or rental housing in the City of Dublin. B. Annual report. The City Manager shall prepare an annual report to the City Council identifying the balance of monies in the Fund and the affordable units provided and any monies committed to providing very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. The annual report shall also include a review of administrative charges. 8.68.090. Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity that is subject to this ordinance pursuant to section 8.68.030.A to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. A violation of any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute amisdemeanor; except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, any such violation constituting a misdemeanor under this chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of this Code shall be punishable as provided by the Government Code of the State of California. 8.68.100. Enforcement. A. General. The City Manager shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City Manager may suspend or revoke any building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this chapter. No land-use approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any residential development unless exempt from or in compliance with this chapter. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval. B. Excessive rents/legal action. If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those allowed by operation of this chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may take appropriate legal action to recover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant, or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged. 8.68.110. Appeals. Decisions of the City Manager under this Chapter may be appealed as provided in Chapter 8.136. G:XPA#L2001\01-038\pc reso 11-26.doc A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2002, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Jennings, Musser, Fasulkey, and Nassar; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist; Janet Harbin, Senior planner; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - The Agenda was revised to move Item 8.3 (PA 02-050) to be heard before Item 8.1. The Minutes of October 22, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.3 PA 02-050 - Sybase Master Sign Program Amendment - Request of Master Sign Program · Amendment approval fOr the additional exterior sign on pre-cast panel above 6th floor on south side of Sybase Building A at 5050 Hacienda Drive &fannin~ Commission 184 9~rovem~er 26, 2002 ~eaufar Y~leetina ATTACHMENT q Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Mr. Porto presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project. Cm. Johnson asked if the applicant, Mr. Ernest Piccone, Director of Facilities for Sybase, Inc., had any comments. Mr. Piccone stated that there was a need for westbound traffic on Dublin Boulevard and northbound on Hadenda Drive to be able to view both buildings and recognize them as Sybase buildings. He stated that the traffic from those directions could not see any signage on the Sybase Building A, and that it was their desire for traffic to have visibility of Sybase signage on both buildings. Mr. Piccone discussed the design of the sign that Sybase would like to have approved, and Said that they worked with both the architect who designed the building and the sign designer who designed the signage currently on the building. He stated that because the location of the area for the sign and the shape of the building were awkward to deal with, they worked on several schemes before they designed the sign presented to the City. He stated that they objected to Staff's recommendation because it reduced the size of the sign compared to the existing sign by 33%, and they are concerned that the new sign would be out of proportion and not readable from a distance. He requested that the Commission consider the proposal for the sign and approve it as presented by Sybase. Cm. Johnson asked, since the new sign would n9t have the logo, if it would it conform to the copyright rules and regulations of the Corporation. Mr. Piccone stated that Sybase could use the name without the logo, and had confirmed it with their department who handled the program. Cm. Johnson asked if Sybase had monument signs. Mr. Piccone replied that there were small directional signs leading to and from the parking lots, and a sign mounted on the ground at the corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and another sign at the corner of Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway. Cm. Johnson asked if the proposed sign was for the building on the eastern corner of the Sybase property and was it visible from Hacienda. Mr. Piccone stated that it faced Dublin Boulevard, and it had been verified that the area for the sign was visible to traffic. Planning Commission 185 Hcwera6er 26, 2002 ~egular Meeting Cm. Johnson asked if there were any questions from the Commission or Staff. There were no further questions. Cm. Jennings stated that she agreed with Staff, and believed that the sign is of sufficient size as proposed by Staff since Sybase had other signs that clearly identified the buildings. Cm. Johnson stated that he also agreed with Staff, and found that the smaller sign would be more appropriate. Cm Jennings mentioned that Staff had discussed options with the applicant and made their recommendation. Mr. Piccone explained the existing signs and that they were expensive due to the shape and design of the building. Cm. Nassar asked Staff if there had been consideration for a change in the color of the sign. Mr. Porto stated that there had been no recommendation for change in style or color to allow Sybase to maintain their Corporate identification. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission; hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing and requested a motion. On motion by Cm. Jenrdngs, seconded by Cm. Nassar, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved: RESOLUTION NO. 0242 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 02-50, AMENDMENT TO SYBASE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (PREVIOUS PA 99-062) PA 02-050 ®fanning Commission 186 ~Covem6er 26, 2002 ~Legufar Sleeting 8.1 PA 02-015 - Hansen HillfRanch Fire Buffer Zone Relocation (Dan Pistone) - Site Development Review to Relocate Fire Buffer Zone within residential lots to a location adjacent to residential lots in the Hansen Hill/Ranch development in the West Dublin hillside area. Site addresses: 10872, 10876, 10880, 10884, 10888, 10890, 10894, & 10898 Inspiration Circle, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 941-2808-1 & -2; 941-2808-10 to -15 Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Ms. Harbin presented the Staff Report, gave an overview of the project and explained the map of the sites under consideration. She discussed the fact that the property owners were currently restricted from installing any improvements in the firebreak areas, and that if the Commission would approve the site development review, the Homeowners' Association would take this action for a vote by all the residents in the development. She explained that the site development review, even if approved by the Commission, would not take effect until the Homeowners' Association voted on the action. Cm. Musser expressed concern that if the CommiSsion would approve the site deveIopment request, the Homeowners' Association could reject it. : Ms. Harbin answered that if the Homeowners' Association rejected it, then the approval of the Planning Commission would not be valid, and the applicant would have to remove the improvements made to his yard in the fire buffer zone. Mr, Dan'Pistone stated that he was the applicant and that he also represented the eight homeOWners (eight lots) who are requesting the site development review as a joint community. He emphasized the fire safety issue, which was the primary concern for the homes in this area, the Homeowners' Assodation, the members and the City. He explained that currently these eight homes have existing fences within the firebreak, and said that there was a fire condition that does not meet the City's Fire Management Code. He stated that, in addition to the ability to improve and fully utilize their properties, they would like to reestablish a boundary that clearly outlined the fire buffer Zone and would not infringe on their properties. He advised the Commission that he and the other homeowners in the action would like to put the firebreak on the perimeter of the property as required by the City's Revised Appealable Action Letter dated July 10, 1997 (which outlined the plan to have a firebreak on the perimeter of the property for the original subdivision). Cm. Johnson asked if the fences were in place prior to the firebreak, and if the firebreak area was maintained by the Homeowners' Association. ®fanning Commission 187 3~roverager 26, 2002 qLegufar ~4eeting Mr. Pistone said that in some areas the firebreak zigzags'inside the fence of four of the properties. Cm. Johnson asked for confirmation from Mr. Pistone that, despite whether the firebreak zigzags, the fence was there at the time the homes were purchased and the homeowners were made aware that the firebreak was 15 feet and would be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Cm. Johnson remarked that this type of firebreak is common in the City and other residential tracts, such as Koopman, also have firebreaks like theirs. Ms. Jennings asked if Mr. Pistone knew about the firebreak when he bought the property. Mr. Pistone said that he was provided with a map, but that the map was "skewed" in relation to the actual property. He believed he could improve his property, yet discovered that the Jacuzzi 'was in the firebreak area when he had surveying work performed. Cm. Johnson asked 'if he had permits for ail the work performed on his property. Mr. Pistone said that he did not have permits for all of the work, but had permits for the pool and the Jacuzzi. He commented that the reason for not obtaining all the permits was likely due to his contractor's oversight or attempt to cut costs. Cm. Jennings asked the audience if there was a spokesperson present from the Homeowners' Association. Mr. David Larsen, Attorney for Hansen Ranch Homeowners' Association, spoke and explained that his firm represented the Board of Director's of the Homeowners' Association. He stated that the Board does not oppose the application and had cooperated with the Association members who had filed the application. He advised the Commission that the full Board was present at the hearing. Mr. Larsen discussed the fact that the Hansen Ranch subdivision was originally approved with some firebreaks located inside the back yards of individual lots. However, the CC&R's appear to assume that all firebreaks are located outside the back yards as they prohibit individual members from building structures or making improvements including landscaping therein and require the Homeowner's Association to maintain the firebreak. He gave instances of individuals who have removed fences to make improvements, noting that one of these cases involved mediation during which the Association agreed to several items with respect to the application. Planning Commission 188 Hovember 26, 2002 Regular Meeting Mr. Larsen noted that one agreement by the Association was to conduct an informal poll of the association membership to determine the degree of interest in the firebreak issues. He mentioned that the poll was conducted in May 2002, and at that time there were 19 votes in favor of and 63 votes against allowing portions of the firebreaks to be moved from private property to Association common areas (with a total of 180 possible). Mr. Larsen stated that as part of the mediation, the Association also agreed that in the event that the City approved the application, the Board would conduct a formal vote of the association membership to determine if the membership wanted to amend the CC&Rs in order to implement the City approval. In exchange, the involved property owner agreed to obtain City approval of the application. Cm. Jennings asked about the responsibility of the fees that would be incurred by the filing and recording of the new CC&Rs to the County and questioned whether these costs would be paid for out of the homeowners' dues. Mr. Larsen said that the Board had taken the position that the costs to make these changes would be the responsibility of the applicants; thereby no costs would be paid from the Association dues for this action and the costs would be assessed against the eight property owners making the application. · .. Cm. Jennings asked if the cost of moving the fences would also be the responsibility of the eight property owners making the application. Mr. Larsen stated that was correct. Cm. Johnson asked how many lots were in the entire project and how many had the possibility of moving their fences to the fire buffer zone. Mr. Larsen stated that of the 180 homes, approximately 40 homes would have the possibility of moving their fences. Cm. Johnson questioned if there would be 15 feet beyond any fence line that would allow a fire buffer zone. Mr. Larsen said, at this point, they did not know that answer. He stated that if this application were approved, this would open the door to future property owners to apply to the planning Commission for a site design review and also to apply to the Homeowners' Association on a case- &Fanning Commission 189 ~fovem6er 26, 2002 qLegufar ~4eeting by-case basis. During that process, if there were not adequate room beyond the fence to move the fire buffer zone, those applicants would not be approved. Ms. Jennings asked abOut the previous poll regarding moving the firebreak, and questioned whether there had been another vote since last summer to determine if there had been a large change in sentiment. Mr. Larsen confirmed that there had only been one vote taken. Cm. Fasulkey asked how conditional was the case by case, and would that apply to these lots in the application. Mr. Larsen stated that these eight lots were applying together to the City, and the Association would review it in the same way. If one of the eight lots were removed, the flow of fence line would be broken up. Therefore, the eight lots were a joint application and would be treated as one applicant. Cm. Nassar asked if the Board supported moving the firebreak. Mr. Larsen said that the Board did not oppose the application and had agreed during mediation to cooperate with the processing of the application. He stated that among the Board members there was a division about how these issues should be handled. Cm. Nassar asked if the City's approval would affect the Board's vote. Mr. Larsen stated that it was the Board's responsibility to conduct the vote as in any other case without influencing the membership, and that the membership would ultimately decide to go forward with the application. Cm. Johnson began to call the speakers. Mr. Sheldon Schachter spoke and explained where his lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. He stated that he was in favor of moving the firebreak but that he is not a combative person in this application. He said that, beyond the fence, there was a steep hill and his property extended fifteen feet beyond his fence into the steep hill, which he was not aware of at the time he purchased his home. Planning Commission 190 Hovember 26, 2002 Regular gdeeting Mr. Schachter stated that a neighbor had already built out orr this steep incline and this may have clouded the reasons why he and the other applicants wanted to move the firebreak. He stated that he would like to have the fence moved so that he could reach the area to keep it cleane~ than it is currently kept by the Scheduled clean up and maintain his own property for the safety of his family. Cm Johnson said that if the firebreaks were moved, the speaker would be responsible to keep the area clean. Mr. Schachter said he would like to have the responsibility to care for his own property. Mr. Mark Foster spoke and explained where his lot was in relafion to the applicants' lots. He stated that he was in favor of moving the firebreak and that by moving it, he would be able to improve the area. Mr. Rob McGee spoke and explained where his lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. He said that he was not involved in this application, but was in favor of moving the firebreak. He stated that he was not affected by having a firebreak within his property line, but expressed concern that firebreaks contained within property lines affect the safety of the whole community by bringing the fire buffer zone that much closer to the combustible material, their homes. He also stated that he felt that property values would be affected since he had not realized during the purchase of his home that the firebreak would run through yards, and felt that potential buyers may not be inclined to buy a home with a firebreak running through the yard. Cm. Johnson said that many homes in Dublin had firebreaks and kept them clean and thereby, improved the areas. Ms. Ligaya MacGregor spoke and related where she lived in Hansen Ranch. She stated that she was not a combatant in this issue since she did not live in the specific area in review, but stated that she was against moving the firebreak. She said she felt that this was a rules and regulations problem, not just a fire safety issue. She expressed concern that some of the homeowners have not obtained permits and then wanted to use this applicafion as a way to go around the system. Mr. David Kruss, President of Hansen Ranch Homeowners' Association, spoke and explained that the Board had a mediation meeting last year to have Mr. Pistone resolve his issues with the City regarding the requirement for him to obtain permits for his construction. He felt they had given him enough time to have him resolve these issues. However, the City had found there to be more issues than just permits, and worked very hard to reach a compromise for this type of problem. Planning Commission 191 HoveraSer 26, 2002 Regular Meeting Mr. Kruss stated that as a homeowner, and not the President of the Board, he was opposed to having the firebreak moved, and that he had a problem with someone who signed a contract, accepting the CC&R's, and then would not adhere to it. He stated that Mr. Pistone had been doing construction for two years, and had not abided by the rules, in particular the rule that prevented any improvements in the firebreak (even within the property line). Mr. Kruss said that he had statements and concerns regarding Conditions 13, 14, and 15 that outline a process that would allow amendments to the CC&Rs. He stated that he felt the language in the conditions was restrictive. Mr. Kruss also disCUssed Condition 17, stating that there was concern about the side fences. Cm. Johnson stated that the issue at hand was whether the Commission would decide if the firebreak should be moved back to the property line or not. He said, at that point, it would be up to the Homeowners' Association to decide whether they would be willing to accept it or not. Ms. Ram confirmed that point, and clarified that Staff normally does not have a timeline in their conditions. She stated that Staff works with people, and that when the Homeowners' Association has a draft of the language they want to implement, they should submit it to Staff for review to ensure agreeable language. Ms. Lisa Alfar spoke and explained where her lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. She stated that she was in favor of moving the firebreak. She informed the Commission that she had removed her fence in August of 2001 and had planted and irrigated the area. However, she stated that the Homeowners' Association brought an enforcement action against her for lowering the fence and planting the area, and forced her to remove the fence. She stated that now that her home is for sale, she was having disclosure Problems since there were issues with the Homeowners' Association. She also noted that potential buyers have expressed the desire to use the land down to the property line, and there was concern that the firebreak runs through her back lawn. Mr. James Jarzub stated that he had at one time intended to buy a home in this area, but due to disclosures of the firebreak, he bought elsewhere where there were no firebreaks to maintain. As a professional Planner who worked 12 years for a Regional Planning Commission in Illinois and the Vice-President of the Homeowners' Association, he expressed his concerns that with such steep hills near a fault line, there were fire and earthquake safety issues. He agreed that homeowners should be able to use all the property on their lots, but when there are easement regulations such as firebreaks, they should be adhered to. He stated that there is not enough information from the studies conducted .to determine the true fire and earthquake safety requirements to make a decision at this time and that he was opposed to moving the firebreak. Planning Commission 192 Hovember 26, 2002 Regular g~leeting Ms. Helen Ivanov spoke and explained where her lot was in relation to the applicants' lots. She explained that her lot had unusable area and that the firebreak area had not been maintained. Cm. Johnson explained that all maintenance of the firebreak was the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association, and that any issues should be directed to them. Ms. Ram stated that the homeowners were often unable to determine where the property line was in relation to the fire buffer zone, because in some cases the firebreak followed the fence and other times it would not. Cm. Johnson recalled Mr. Pistone for questions about the sloping of his property. Mr. Pistone stated that he did have a slope, and that they installed a vanishing-edge pool, which required grading of the property. There was additional grading to install retaining wails on the property. Other homeowners from the area confirmed that they also had slopes on their properties. There was a general discussion about hill steepness and sloping. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions or comments. He asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak and hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing. He stated that the Commission would deliberate on the issue Upon deliberation, Cm. Johnson stated that he did nOt object to moving the fence lines and the firebreaks, and recommended that the Commission approve this application. Cm. Nassar stated that the City would approve the apPlication, but that the Homeowners' Association must then decide whether or not to approve the fire buffer zone change. He questioned if there would be any negative impact by the fire buffer zone change. Ms. Harbin stated that the change would not have any negative environmental or fire safety impact. Cm. Johnson asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Nassar, and a vote of 4-1, the Planning Commission approved: Planning Commission 193 Hovember 26, 2002 Regular Meeting RESOLUTION NO. 0241 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE HANSEN HILL RANCH FIRE BUFFER ZONE (DANIEL PISTONE) PA 02-015 8.2 PA 01-038 - A Resolution recommending changes to the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Section 8.68 (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations) regarding changes to priorities used in the selection of occupants for Inclusionary Affordable Units, the percentage of household income allowed for the housing expenses; and land dedication requirements in lieu of building affordable units CTM. Johnson opened the public hearing, Mr. Peabody Jr. presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project, t-Ie then introduced Ms. Abdala. Ms. Abdala discussed the amendments to the Inclusionary Ordinance: The first amendment would change, on ownership units, the amount of household income allowed for consideration to 35% percent. She stated that all Bay Area dries with Inclusionary Ordinances had been contact~ed and it was determined that many of them used 35% for ownership I_nclusionary units. Ms. Abdala stated that the second amendment would change the qualification requirements, and referenced Attachment 1 of the Staff Report for examples of qualification. She asked if there were questions. Cm. Fasulkey asked if children were factored into the equation for income qualification. Ms. Abdala said that they are factored into as part of the household size, so larger bedroom units would be for families with children or larger households. Cm. Jennings asked if the Task Force had considered providing extra points toward qualification for teachers, firemen, policemen, public employees, etc. who lived in Dublin. She stated that she &fanning Commission 194 ~rovem6er 26, 2002 C~Legufar ~eeting would have expected these positions would have had special consideration due to their service- based status. Ms. Abdala stated that those positions did not receive extra points, but that Staff had taken the recommendation of the Task Force and those experienced with Inclusionary housing, and simplified the categories. Examples were shown on Attachment 1. Mr. Peabody discussed the third amendment to the Inclusionary Ordinance, and referenced the Staff report. He reminded the Commission of the adoption of the Inclusionary program by the City Council (Council) this year; and discussed the Land Dedication program in-lieu of building under the Inclusionary Ordinance. He advised the Commission that the Council had directed Staff to prepare different options for consideration by the Commission and the Council for amendment of the Land Development section. Mr. Peabody provided a presentation and discussed the three options for consideration, and the respective advantages & disadvantages. He stated that the Council would ultimately decide about the Iand dedication, but informed the Commission that Staff recommended approval of the Option 3 from the Staff report for amendment to the Land Development section of the Ordinance. There was general discussion by the Commissioners regarding the options for land dedication, and there was an understanding that land dedication would not be used frequently, as builders would opt to build affordable housing except in the highest price home developments or extremely small projects. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the land dedication facilitation, and if it would require the City to find ~ites for the land dedication and be involved in acquisition costs that include cleanup (such as asbestos) or preparation. Mr. Peabody stated that if a developer wanted to build, they would need to find a .68-acre of land to ensure that they could proceed with their project. He acknowledged that the City Would work with the developers to locate land for dedication, combining several projects that could be done in concert to develop a larger project of affordable housing. Mr. Peabody advised the Commission that the City was currently partnering to provide 48 units of senior housing behind the library. efanning Commission 195 175ovem6er 26, 2002 tLegufar ~eeting Cm. Johnson said that in order to accomplish the goals of the City, Option 3 appeared to be the best option, and reaffirmed that this option would only be applicable in the case where the affordable housing could not be built on the site of the development. Mr. Peabody stressed the fact that it is the City's priority to provide affordable housing, and that ultimately, the Council will decide whether or not to have a land dedication program. There was discussion regarding the response from builders, and whether these units would be "scattered" to prevent stigma attached to projects, or concentrating one income group in housing development. Staff and the Commissioners agreed that it would be in the best interest of the community to "scatter", and build affordable homes within the moderate and high priced homes. Mr. Peabody mentioned that there could be situations where, by necessity for cost and use of land, there could be concentrated affordable housing, but agreed that would be the exception when possible. He stated that the City would obtain a non-profit organization's assistance once land had been obtained for dedication use. Cm. Jennings expressed interest in the success of the land dedication program. Cm. Musser expressed approval of the program and stated that he would like the developers to have the tools required to provide affordable housing. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Mr. Bob Harris stated that Option 3 was considerably a more expensive option than building the units, and stated that, in his opinion, developers would not utilize this as an option due to the high cost inVoled. Cm. Johnson closed the public hearing and requested a motion to approve. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved: ~[anning Commission 196 ~l~[ovember 26, 2002 ~Legufar ~eeting RESOLUTION NO. 0243 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS PA 01-038 Cm. Johnson asked if there is any other new or unfinished business. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Ram mentioned approval of the changes of Planning Commissioner term limits effective the date of the last Council meeting, and the bylaws that were changed. There were questions regarding whether the term limits would be retroactive, and Ms. Ram stated that she would follow up and respond to each of the Commissioners by memo. Ms. Ram discussed the future City Council and Planning CommisSion meeting items. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G: \ MINUTES \ 2002 \ Planning Commission \ 11-26-02 pc rain. doc &finning Commission 197 lhrovemSer 26, 2002 ~Legufar ~eeting