Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 GP Amendment Housing Element (2) CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: General Plan Amendment to revise the Housing Element REPORT PREPARED BY: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner Robert Schubert, Contract Planner EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Resolution certifying Negative Declaration for GPA 91-001, including the amendment to the Housing Element, the Rental Availability Ordinance, the Planned Development Rezoning (PA 91-001) , the Density Bonus Ordinance and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Exhibit B: Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment to the Housing Element Attachment 1: Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 5, 1991 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-039 Attachment 3 : Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-040 Attachment 4 : Negative Declaration and Initial Study Attachment 5: Existing General Plan �yii Hosing Element Strategy III.E RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing for this item T in conjunction with Rental Availability Ordinance 2) Receive Staff Report and testimony from Applicant and the public 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public 4) Close public hearing and deliberate 5) Adopt resolution certifying the Negative Declaration for GPA 91-001 6) Adopt resolution approving General Plan Amendment to revise Strategy III .E of the Housing Element FINANCIAL STATEMENT: This change to the Housing Element would not increase staff costs during review of development projects. Revenues could be gained by the City for use in providing rental housing through the payment of in-lieu rental fees. DESCRIPTION: On August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission by a 3-0 vote with one commissioner abstaining and one commissioner absent recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the Negative Declaration for GPA 91-001 and that it adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to revise Strategy III.E of the Housing Element. ITEM No. COPIES TO: Agenda/General File Housing Element' File /GPAC29-5 Applicant/Owner Project Planner CITY CLERK Section 6. 3 (Strategy III.E) of the Housing Element requires that a percentage of the units in large multi-family projects be maintained as rental units for a specified period of time. A goal of the Housing Element is to achieve a balanced community with housing available for households over a range of income levels. The City is experiencing a shortage of rental housing. The City's Housing Element identified a 5% vacancy rate as necessary to permit rental mobility whereas the City's 3 .9% rental vacancy rate falls far below that goal. In addition, rental housing is an important source of affordable housing since down payment requirements and the high cost of new housing limit new ownership housing as an affordable housing source. Also, some households choose to rent for reasons other than affordability. Recently, the JL Construction Company requested that Strategy III.E be amended to allow developers the option of paying an in-lieu fee rather than providing, rental units. In response to this request, the City Council initiated this General Plan Amendment. The proposed in-lieu rental fee would be a flat fee for every required rental unit. The fee would be determined by the City Council in the form of a resolution at least every two years and would be increased annually during the years that the City Council does not determine an in-lieu rental fee by an amount equal to the rental rate increase used by the City Council in determining the current in-lieu rental fee. The associated Rental Availability Ordinance agenda statement contains an example of how the in-lieu fee is proposed to be calculated. The attached Draft General Plan Amendment (Attachment 1 of Exhibit B the resolution approving the general plan amendment) requires that any new multi-family residential development involving more than ten (10) dwelling units, which is approved on or after the effective date of the Rental Availability Ordinance, shall be conditioned to provide ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units within the development as rental units for a period of five (5) years. The obligation to provide rental units may be satisfied by the applicant's payment of in-lieu rental fees. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution the certifying the Negative Declaration for GPA 91-001, and adopt the resolution approving the General Plan Amendment to revise Strategy III.E of the Housing Element. RESOLUTION NO. - 91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN --------------------------------------------------------------------- ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-001, INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 91-001) 1 THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment to revise Strategy III .E of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requested General Plan Amendment by JL Construction to revise Strategy III .E of the Housing Element, the City of Dublin has prepared a Rental Availability Ordinance; and WHEREAS, JL Construction Company has requested approval of a Planned Development Rezoning to amend Condition #54 of City Council Resolution No. 32-89 to allow the option of paying an in-lieu fee rather than providing rental units; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Housing Element Strategy I .B. , the City of Dublin has prepared an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Housing Element Strategy I .A and Government Code Section 65915, the City of Dublin has prepared a Density Bonus Ordinance; and WHEREAS, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, notice of the preparation of the Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and posted in public buildings to provide for a 21-day public review period in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, notice of the preparation of the Negative Declaration was posted in the County Clerk' s Office for a period of 30 days in accordance with Section 21092 . 3 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002 , was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of the requested General Plan Amendment 91-001; and U.N-, 1 .BJ; T WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment 91-001 does not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council did review and adopt the Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan at a public "hearing on February 11, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a noticed public hearing on said application on August 5, 1991, and did adopt Resolution No. 91-039 recommending the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council finds that: A. General Plan Amendment 91-001 will not have any significant environmental impacts and is consistent with the information in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Dublin General Plan and the Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment 91-001 . B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guidelines regulations and that it is adequate and complete. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 1991 . AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk hsngreal - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. - 91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN -------------------------------------------------- APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment to revise Strategy III .E of the General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City' s General Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the local newspaper and posted in the City Clerk' s Office and in other public buildings in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the proposed revision to the Housing Element has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002 , was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of General Plan Amendment 91-01 including the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment to revise the Housing Element does not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-039 recommending City Council certification of the Negative Declaration as adequate and complete; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-040 recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment to revise the Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on September 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be approved; and WHEREAS, data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the housing for which the in-lieu rental fee is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the housing, including General Fund revenues were made available to the public at least 10 days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council approves the proposed revision to Strategy III .E of the Housing Element, as shown on Attachment 1 attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council direct Staff to edit, format, and print the revised Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th of September, 1991 . AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk hsngrea2 ATTACHMENT 1 III E . Require that ten ( 10) percent of the units in multi-family projects with more than 10 units be rented for a period of five years or that a flat in-lieu rental fee be paid for every rental unit that would be determined by the City Council in the form of a resolution at least every two years and would be increased annually during the years that the City Council does not determine the in-lieu rental fee by an amount equal to the rental rate increase used by the City Council in determining the current in-lieu rental fee. The difficulties of first-time home buying make rental units the only affordable housing for many households that do not have the assets to make a down-payment on a home. Other households may choose to rent for other reasons . Policy Objective: Insure availability of rental units in Dublin. Action Needed: Require that a minimum of 10% of the units in multi-family projects with more than 10 units be maintained as rental units for a period of five years or that in-lieu rental fees be required that would be determined as set forth above. Financing: No cost to City. Implementation Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Responsibility: Council . Time Frame: Ongoing Implementation hsngrea2 RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 033 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST CONCERNING PA 91-042 DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY REZONING APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 034 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 91-042 DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7494 DONOHUE DRIVE AND 7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (PORTION) The Commission took a 10 minute break. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91 -001 • Amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to allow fees to be paid in lieu of a requirement by Housing Element Policy IIIE which requires a percentage of units in large multi-family projects ( i .e. , ro'ects with more than 10 units) be rented for_ a specified period of time (c tywid ) fcontinued from the July 1 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting] SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91 -001 : Ado tion of an ordinance to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a percentage of units in large multi-family projects be rented for a specified period of time (Citywide) [continued from the July 1 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting] SUBJECT: PA 88-009 . 1 Dublin Meadows Planned Development Rezone to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a minimum of 10% of multi family units be maintained as rentals for a period of five years located at 7081 Dublin Meadows Street [continued from the July 1 , 1.991 Planning Commission meeting Cm. Zika opened the public hearing on the three items and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report for items 8 . 7, 8 . 8, and 8 . 9 as a group. Mr. Carrington pointed out several corrections that needed of be made on the various agenda items . (8 . 7 pg. 8 of 25 ; 8 . 8 Pg.of 39 ; 15; 8 . 9 pg. 4 of 10 and pg. 10 of 10 ; 8 . 11 pg. 10 of 39 ; pg. pg. 21 of 39; pg. 29 of 39 ; and pg. 30 of 39 . Cm. North pointed out an error on page 7 of 15 in item 8 . 8 in that the City' s current vacancy rate was 3 . 9% rather than 1 . 8% . Cm. North questioned who had put the bond issue up for vote . Mr. Tong responded that he believed that it had been Countywide . � � =t�x F� - a-%a"tf,f p -------------------------------------------- a igrPCM-1991 -85 Regular Meeting [8-5min] Cm. Zika questioned why an additional increase of 5% could not be made in the second year. Mr. Carrington presumed that the 5% would remain constant. that Staff could bring back to the Commission Mr. Carrington suggested on an annual basis . Cm. Zika responded that he would prefer to just raise 5% each year. Mr. Carrington cautioned that the City had to be careful in placing exactions on development . Figures had to be provided to establish the nexus between the 5% and the impacts of development. Mr. North questioned why the same 5% increase could not be charged in the second year based on the first year study . Mr. Carrington responded that there was no objection to a flat 5% in lieu fee, but language would need to be built into the Housing Element . He also indicated that the study could be done at more frequent intervals than every two years so that the Commission' s concerns could be addressed. Cm. Zika indicated that it was not necessary to do a survey every year, that every two years would be fine. The percentage would be determined based on the survey and just raise that percent in the intervening year. Cm. North expressed concern that there was a lot of confusing language . He wanted some clear, concise way to define the numbers . Mr. Carrington explained that this was a specific project . There had to be a means of determining the charge if the developer did not rent the required number of units, so that 10% of the 206 units in this specific project was 21 units . Cm. North asked if some units had been rented as yet. Mr. Carrington responded that yes, some of the units had been leased. Cm. North asked if the developer rented the units and then decided to pay in-lieu fees, what would happen. Cm. Zika responded that if the Commission denied the request, the developer would have to rent for a 5 year period. If the developer paid the money, the developer can do whatever he wanted to do. It would be all or nothing, the developer could not rent 10 and sell 11 . Mr. Carrington indicated that the Applicant was not present . Mr. Bob Harris, a Planning Consultant from Pleasanton, stated that the Commission had received a letter from Building Industry Association which requested that the items be continued for a matter of time . The builders wanted to go over the issues . Mr. Harris stated that he represented Mr. Marty Inderbitzen who was asking that item 8 . 11 be ----- Regular Meeting ------------------------------PCM-1991 -86 August 5, 1991 [8-5minl continued so that a building task force could be formed. He felt that the Commissioners' decisions could have an impact on fu ure hu i g tin the City and that more time was needed to make suggestions Housing Element. He questioned whether the 10% rental requirement was part of a City Ordinance. Mr. Carrington responded that it would be part of the Rental Availability ordinance. Cm. Zika responded that if the Commission did delay the action, it would just cause having the Contractors screaming at the Commission. Mr. Harris recognized the need for affordable housing, but wanted time to suggest changes to simplify the Ordinance and try to keep the costs within bounds . Cm. North asked if Mr. Harris had a timeframe. Mr. Harris responded 60 days that it would take a minimum of 30 days to form a group. Cm. Zika asked what kind of timeframe did the City have from the State? Mr. Carrington felt it was not necessary to continue the three items . This was a request from a specific applicant who had asked for a change to the Housing Element . Mr. Carrington felt that it was a fairly straight forward change with a straight forward methodology for determining the cost if the Applicant did not provide the rental housing. Bob Shubert, Consultant for the City, indicated that there was no timeframe for the 10% rental units, but there was a timeframe for the density and inclusionary issues in the adopted Housing Element. Cm. Zika responded that he felt the Commission could not fulfill the request of the Applicant unless all three items were addressed. Cm. Zika closed the public hearings . Cm. North stated that the notification had been done and that there had already been one month in order to comment on the items . Mr. Carrington indicated that BIA had been sent the agenda items . Cm. Zika felt that there was not a specific plan as to what would happen to the money collected as in-lieu fees . He felt that rental units were needed. Cm. North asked what was the purpose of 8 . 9 . Mr. Tong indicated that there had to be three affirmative votes from the Commission in order for the item to go to the City Council . Regular Meeting PCM-1991 -87 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] Cm. North expressed his concern that the Applicant did not have representation at the meeting. Cm. North questioned twused,o would ptheylfhave to in-lieu g fees iven w held back to the seven years and Applicant. Mr. Carrington responded that the monies could be used to subsidize rents that the City did have the Dublin Housing Authority. Ms . Silver indicated that the money would be either returned to the owner or it could be contributed to a non-profit organization such as the Dublin Housing Authority . The Dublin Housing Authority was a legal entity and consisted of the five City Councilmembers and two tenant Commissioners . The City contracts with the Alameda County Housing Authority to provide staffing for the public entity. Cm. North still expressed concern over no specific plan for the in-lieu fees . It was recommended that each item be voted on separately . On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3 - 0 (Cm. Barnes abstained) , the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 039 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-001 , INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 91-001 ) , THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 040 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 3 - 0 (Cm. Barnes abstained) , the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 041 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, OF A RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE -----------------------------------------------------I------ ------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991 -88 August 5, 1991 [8-5min] RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN --------------------------------- RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-001 , INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 91-001) , THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment to revise Strategy III .E of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requested General Plan Amendment by JL Construction to revise Strategy III.E of the Housing Element, the City of Dublin has prepared a Rental Availability Ordinance; and WHEREAS, JL Construction Company has requested approval of a Planned Development Rezoning to amend Condition #54 of City Council Resolution No. 32-89 to allow the option of paying an in-lieu fee rather than providing rental units; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Housing Element Strategy I.B. , the City of Dublin has prepared an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Housing Element Strategy I .A and Government Code Section 65915 , the City of Dublin has prepared a Density Bonus Ordinance; and WHEREAS, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations , require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, notice of the preparation of the Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and posted in public buildings to provide for a 21 day public review period in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, notice of the preparation of the Negative Declaration was posted in the County Clerk's Office for a period of 30 days in accordance with Section 21092 .3 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002 , was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of the requested General Plan Amendment 91-001; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment 91-001 does not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council did review and adopt the Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan at a public hearing on February 11 , 1985; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on August 5, 1991 , did review the requested General Plan Amendment 91-001 relative to the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin General Plan and relative to the Negative Declaration prepared for the subject General Plan Amendment 91-001 and considered all comments received during the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider said Negative Declaration at its meeting on August 5 , 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that: A. General Plan Amendment 91-001 will not have any significant environmental impacts and is consistent with the information in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Dublin General Plan and the Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment 91-001. B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guidelines regulations and that it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991 . AYES: Commissioners North, Rafanelli and Zika NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Burnham ABSTAINED:Commissioner Barnes Planning Commission► Chairpe 9tn' ATTEST: Planning Director hsngreal RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 040 A RESOLUTION OF .THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------- RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment to revise Strategy III.E of the General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the local newspaper and posted in the City Clerk's Office and in other public buildings in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the proposed revision to the Housing Element has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002 , was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11 , 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of General Plan Amendment 91-01 including the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment to revise the Housing Element does not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on August 5 , 1991 , the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-039 recommending City Council certification of the Negative Declaration as adequate and complete; and WHEREAS, data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the housing for which the in-lieu rental fee is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the housing, including General Fund revenues were made available to the public at least 10 days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing. _ 3 L R NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revision to Strategy III.E of the Housing Element, as shown on Attachment 1 attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council direct Staff to edit, format, and print the revised Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th of August, 1991 . AYES: Commissioners North, Rafanelli and Zika NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Burnham ABSTAINED:Commissioner Barnes Planning Commission pfiairperson ATTEST: Planning Direc or hsngrea2 ATTACHMENT 1 III E. Require a that ten (10) percentage of the units in large multi-family projects t}-e-;-pre3eets with more than 10 units} be rented for a speei€ied period of five years time or that a flat in- lieu rental fee be paid for every rental unit that would be determined by the City Council in the form of a resolution every two years.eemp�ted-bp-the-eitp-Manager-as-€ellews=--the-req��red-nember-ef rental-snits-shall-be-milt}plied-times-the-amesnt-neeessarp-te subsidise-the-rental-ef-a-three-bedreem-market-rate-apartment-snit-€er fire-pears-feb-s-family-of-fire-earning-88%-e€-the-Alameda-ee�ntp median-ineeme-fas-determined-bp-the-H-S--Hepartment-et-He�sing-and Hrban-He�elepment};-where-ne-mere-than-38%-ef-ineeme-is-to-be-spent-en rent---the-ame�nt-ef-the-in-lies-rental-fee-will-be-determined—sing the-felle�ing-table-fthe-numbers-in-the-table-are-ill�strati�e;-the market-rent-and-eeuntp-Median-ineeme-in-the-table-will-be-these-in effeet-at-the-time-ef-appre�al-ef-the-pre�eet}- Femilp-ef-Fire---Alameda-2e�ntp-Median-ineeme-ef-$46;856- Pereent--Market--hfferdable--Hifferenee--}�-Mee.---5prs-the-�al�e-ef ef-------Rent-------Rent-------------------------------the-first Median -------------------pearls-rent lneeme-------------------------------------------------pluso4-pears -------------------------------------------------------at-4%-pearly --------_--------_------------------------------------- ed��stments-far -------------------------------------------------------rent-inereases --86%----$1;106---$937--------$}63------$1;956--$9; 88---$16 594 The difficulties of first-time home buying make rental units the only affordable housing for many mederate-ineeme households that do not have the assets to make a down-payment on a home. other households may choose to rent for other reasons. Policy objective: Insure availability of rental units in Dublin. Action Needed: Require that a minimum of 10% of the units in large multi-family projects with more than 10 units be maintained as rental units for a period of five years or that in-lieu rental fees be re uired that would be determined as shown above. Financing: No cost to City. Implementation Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Responsibility: Council . _ 62 CITY OF DUBLIN . ,�'� PO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 Ci,y Offices. 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, California 94568 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 , et seq. ) LOCATION• Citywide and assessors parcels 941-2765-82 to 296 DESCRIPTION: 1 • Adopt Volume textnchangesptoethetBackgroundfsectionnofathelan and make appropriate General Plan. 2 • Correct typographical/editorial errors in the Background section of the General Plan; the Parks and Recreation and Circulation and Scenic Highways Elements lof the General Plan and the Technical supplement to the 3 . Add statutory discussion and references to the Public introductions of the Land Use; Parks and Open Space; Utilities; Circulation and Scenic Highways; Conservation; Seismic Safety and Safety; and Noise Elements of the General Plan. Add notation where statutory requirements do not apply to Dublin. 4 . Add implementation policies reflecting existing City programs in the Parks and Open Space Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element and the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the General Plan. 5. Add text to the Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element to reflect recent statutory changes. 6 . Amend maps dnUserElementftohmakectheoGenneraltPlanointernallyGeneral Plan and the Lan consistent. 7 . Amend the Housing Element of the General Plan to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement by Housing Element Policy IIIE which requires a percentage of units in large multifamily projects ( i .e. , projects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified period o;=^ time. 8 . Adoption of an ordinance to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a percentage of units in large multifamily projects be rented for a specified period of time. i51 833-665L • Gty Council F n nce 415 833.6640 • Building Inspection (415) 833.6620 Adrniniscration (4 n d (415) 833 6605 2 Ccde Eniorcernen[ (415) 833-6620 • Engineering (s i5) 833.6630 Planning (415) 833.66'0 ooi;Ce (1151 E33.6670 • Public Works 015) 33.6630 • P-ecreaT:on (=15) 833.66.15 9 . Adoption of an ordinance allowing an inclusionary housing policy and payment of in-lieu fees as permitted by Program IB of the Housing Element. 10 . Adoption of an ordinance permitting a density bonus program as permitted by Program IA of the Housing Element and Sections 65913 . 4 , 65915 and 65917 of the Government Code. 11 . Planned Development rezone for Dublin Meadows PA 91-001 to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a minimum of 10% of multifamily units be maintained as rentals for a period of five years . NAME OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-01 , related implementing actions and Planned Development Rezone (Dublin Meadows) PROPONENT: City of Dublin. FINDINGS• The project will not have a significant impact on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the following environmental component. 1) Housing PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff , ( 415) 833-6610 . SIGNATURE: •Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director DATE: February 25 , 1991 LLT/DHC: /JLGPAND Application Name : General Plan Amendment 91-01 APPENDIX D -- (PART I) INITIAL STUDY (ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM) (To be completed by Applicant pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines Section 1 . 6 ) Date Filed: GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 ( 415) 833-6610 and JL Construction, 5966 La Place Court, Carlsbad, CA 92008 ( 619 ) 431-9844 . 2 . Address of Project : Citywide 3 . Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Dennis Carrington, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 ( 415) 833-6610 . 4 . List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional , state and federal agencies : None . 5 . Existing zoning district: Citywide . 6 . Description of Project: ( Include site area, uses , size and number of buildings , parking, number of dwelling units , scheduling, and any other information necessary or helpful to understand project . This attached description must be complete and accurate . Exhibits or photographs should be identified and attached) . 7 . Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES NO ✓ 1 . Change in existing features of any bays , tidelands , beaches , lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours . ✓ 2 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads . ✓ 3 . Change in pattern, scale or character of general area / of project . 4 . Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. ✓ 5 . Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ,✓ 6 . Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns . 7 . Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ✓ 8 . Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent ( 10% ) or more . ✓ 9 . Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials , such as toxic substances , flammables or explosives . 10 . Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc . ) . 11 . Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil , natural gas , etc . ) . ,✓ 12 . Relationship to a larger project or series of projects . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 8 . Briefly describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals , and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects . Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures . If necessary, attach photographs of the site . Citywide . JL Construction/Dublin Meadows , 206 built condominiums on a level site adjacent to Stagecoach Drive, Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Creek. 9 . Briefly describe the surrounding properties , including information on plants and animals , any cultural , historical or scenic aspects and the type of land use . Citywide . Areas adjacent to Dublin Meadows : South - vacant; East - Village I (Crosscreek) and Arroyo Vista homes , North - Dublin Hills Development and Open Space; West - Heritage Commons . Vacant mean anenatureao� grassyahalDsughNotknownHills Park. These areas are rip cultural, historical or scenic areas are adjacent to the site . CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the byltrue, anddcorrecthto facts , statements , and information presented are the best of my knowledge and belief . Dated: Signature Dennis H Carrington Print Name City of Dublin, Senior Planner Title/Company APPLICATION NO. : Ordi a nancesandmPlanned DevelpmentoRezone INITIAL STUDY (ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM) (Completed pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, Section 1 . 6 ) I . BACKGROUND 1 . Name, Address and Phone Number of Proponent : City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 ; ( 415) 833-6610 2 . Agency Requiring Checklist : City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 3 . Name of Proposal , if applicable : General Plan Amendment 91-01, Associated Ordinances and Planned Development Rezone 4 . Description of Project: A. Adopt Volume 2 , Technical Supplement as part of the General Plan and make appropriate text changes to the Background section of the General Plan. B. Correct typographical/editorial errors in the Background section of the General Plan; the Parks and Recreation and Circulation and Scenic Highways Elements of the General Plan and the Technical Supplement to the General Plan. C. Add statutory discussion and references to the introductions of the Land Use; Parks and Open Space; Schools , Public Lands and Utilities ; Circulation and Scenic Highways ; Conservation; Seismic Safety and Safety; and Noise Elements of the General Plan. Add notation where statutory requirements to not apply to Dublin. -1- D. Add implementation policies reflecting existing City programs in the Parks and Open Space Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element and the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the General Plan. E. Add text to the Schools , Public Lands and Utilities Element to reflect recent statutory changes . F . Amend maandntherLandtUse Elementktoomake section h the General G eneral Plan Plan G internally consistent . G. Amend the Housing Element of the General Plan to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement by Housing Element Policy IIIE which requires a percentage of units in large multifamily projects ( i .e . , projects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified period of time. H. Adoption of an ordinance to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a percentage of units in large multifamily projects be rented for a specified period of time . I . Adoption of an ordinance allowing an inclusionary housing policy as permitted by Program IB of the of the Housing Element . J. Adoption of an ordinance permitting a density bonus program as permitted by Sections 65913 . 4 , 65915 and 65917 of the Government Code . K. Planned Development rezone for Dublin Meadows PA 88-009 . 1 to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a minimum of 10% of multifamily units be maintained as rentals for a period of five years . -2- II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS YES MAYBE NO SOURCE 1 . EARTH. Will the proposal result in: ✓ 2� a . Unstable earth conditions or in changes of geologic substructures? Z b. Disruptions , displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? ?7, C . Change in topography or ground surface relief features? v d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? �— e . Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? f . Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? / y g . Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes , landslides , mud slides , ground failure, or similar hazards? 2 . AIR. Will the proposal result in: a . Substantial air emissions of deterioration of ambient air quality? 'L— b . The creation of objectionable odors? v C . Alteration of air movement, moisture o: temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Construction or alteration of a facility within one-fourth of a mile of a school which might emit hazardous air emissions? If Yes , school district must be consulted and must be given written notification of the project not less than 30 days prior to approval of EIR or Negative Declaration (Pub. Res . Code 21151 . 4 ) . -3- 3 . WAT,,ER. Will the proposal result in: ✓ Z a . Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? ✓ ?i b . Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? V/ 2 C . Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ✓ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e . Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ✓ "� f . Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? v g . Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? .7— h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓ i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4 . PLANT LIFE . Will the proposal result in: ✓ a . Change in the diversity of species , or number of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , and aquatic plants) ? .,i b . Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Z C . Introduction of new species of plants in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? -4- 5 . ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: y a . Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 12— C . Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? -2— d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6 . NOISE . Will the proposal result in: a . Increases in existing noise levels? v b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? v 7 . LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce —'� new light or glare? v g . LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a S ubstantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. 9 . NATURAL RESOURCES . Will the proposal result in: a . Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? -v b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? 10 . RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve : ,/ Z a . A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances ( including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? y b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? -5- ✓ 11 . POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12 . H0U,SING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional hoesing? 13 . TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a . Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? y b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? -2— C . Substantial impact upon existing transportation and traffic systems? '2 - d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? -rte e . Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Z f , Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? 14 . PUBLIC SERVICES . Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas? I/ z a . Fire protection? 2 b. Police protection? 2 C . Schools? 2 d . Parks or other recreational facilities? 2 e . Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? -� f . Other governmental services? 15 . ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a . Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -6- 'Z- b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? 16 . UTILITIES . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities : ✓ v a. power or natural gas? 2 b. Communications systems? C . Water? Z d. Sewer or septic tanks? -z� e . Storm water drainage? f . Solid waste and disposal? 17 . HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: Z a . Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ? '�-- b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 'y 18 . AESTHETICS . Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 2 19 . RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20 . CULTURAL RESOURCES . Z a . Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? -2— b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric, historic , or architecturally significant building, structure, or object? -7- C . Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? �i d. will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE . -v a . Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) . y C . Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively, considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant) . y d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? J Z 22 . EIR REQUIRED BY STATUTE . Does the project involve construction of any facility which burns municipal waste or refuse-derived fuel? NOTE : If the answer is yes , then an EIR must be prepared and certified under Public Resources Code Section 21151 . 2 (a) unless. subsections (b) and (c) make that section inapplicable . -8- III . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (see attached) IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on he environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that State statute requires that an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT be prepared and certified. Senior Planner Signature Title Dennis H February 25 , 1991 Carrington Date Printed Name ( 1) Determination based on location of project . (2) Determination based on staff office review. ( 3) Determination based on field review. ( 4 ) Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan. ( 5) Determination based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance . ( 6 ) Determination based on Specific Plan. (7 ) Not applicable ( 8) Other ( state data) . -9- CtAiJ �Iv U$ 1 N G ELF"i EN7 STKA-T E . Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects ( i . e . , projects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified period of time . The difficulties of first-time home buying make rental units the only affordable housing for many moderate income households that do not have the assets to make a down-payment on a home . Other households may chose to rent for other reasons . Policy Objective : Insure availability of rental units in Dublin Action Needed: Require that a minimum of 10% of the units in large multi-family projects be maintained as rental units for a period of five years . Financing : No cost to City Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame : Ongoing implementation