Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutII Draft Minutes 1-3-96 e e DC'Z. ~ Regular Meeting ~ Janwuy 3, 1996 A special Study Session of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, Janwuy 3, 1996, in the Dublin Regional Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 by Commissioner Zika. .......... ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasba Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. City Consultants: Elizabeth (Libby) Seifel, Seife! Associates and Christine (Chris) Gouig, CGMS IncOlporated. Absent: Commissioner Jennings .......... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. .......... ADDmONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None . *......... ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None .......... WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None .......... STUDY SESSIONIWORKSHOP Commissioner Zika asked for the staff report. Tasba Huston, Associate Planner, gave a brief outline on how the study session would work. She indicated. that the study session was to review Dublin's Housing Programs as they relate to the Inc1usionary Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Huston said that State Law required that the City of Dublin establish a Housing Program which provided for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. She gave a summary on the housing needs and production, based on the annual report the City received regarding income categories. Ms. Huston used the overhead projector to show various charts including typical salaries by Income Categories, Income Categories according to family size and Affordable Monthly Housing Cost. em. Johnson asked if information was available from tax revenue on what Dublin saIaI)' ranges. He wanted to know how many families in Dublin were considered very low income, low income, etc. ~_______________.___________________________~~._____________~.________w________.__________~________._____ P1maiDg Commission Study Session [1-3pcss] January 3, 1996 ~ e e Ms. Seifel stated the most accurate information on income was the U.S. Census information from April, 1990, based on wbat people earned in 1989. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA G) does their own projections on what they feel income levels are. Cm. Johnson asked how many low income families were in Dublin. Ms. Huston stated that the City had a limited amount of Census information, and Staff would need to research the census data to determine this. Ms. Seifel stated that definition of a median assumes, half of the people in the County earn below 100% of median income and half of the people earn above the 100% median income. She stated that Dublin was slightly more aflluent than the County as a whole, and Dublin would have a slightly lower amount of very low and low income families. Ms. Huston stated ABAG does put out a report and she showed a chart of the City of Dublin's Fair Share Goals based upon ABAG projected regional housing needs (what the City of Dublin is expected to provide) by income category. She also showed what Dublin actually produced compared to ABAG Regional Fair Share Goals. Also, Ms. Huston showed comparisons between housing production and ABAG Regional Fair Share Goals, 1988-1995 in the City of Dublin. Cm Zika asked if these figures were based on new units. Ms. Seife! answered yes. Cm. Zika asked if the need was based on estimated income of the population rather than the jobs that are available in the area, or was it a combination ofboth. Ms. Gouig answered that it was a complex model that takes into account jobs and job growth in the 8rea, housing prices, income levels and other factors. She added that wbat she had seen ABAG look at, in terms of the number of units a community was supposed to produce, was not only current physical boundaries, but sphere of influence. They probably looked at Eastern Dublin as an area that we were considering bringing into the City and that also was reflected in the projection numbers. Mr. Tong stated ABAG numbers would have also assumed a certain amount of housing production in western Dublin, and when ABAG came out with the Housing Needs Report, the City thought it was a bit ambitious, and commented so. However, ABAG thought that their numbers were the ones that they wanted to keep as a goal for the City of Dublin. em. Johnson asked what was the current status of low, moderate and aflluent houses in Dublin. Ms. Seifel stated that there were 186 very low income rental units available in the City of Dublin. She asked if the City of Dublin had any Section 8 Certificate holders. Ms. Huston stated. that we may, however, we do not administer that program so were unaware of how many and where they were. em. Zika asked ifpeop1e using Section 8 Certificates rented a house that was not reserved for a Section 8 user, then does that not count because we do not know about it Ms. Seifel stated most private housing is not rented to low income people. Typically, existing older buildings are rented to lower income and at the bottom of moderate income. Cm. Johnson asked what was the base for the City of Dublin. _______.._______________________________________._~_____________________________~~___________.w__________ Planning c-i...ion Study Session [1-3pc::a] 2 January 3, 1996 . . . . e e Ms. Gouig stated the census projects forward to know how many units are renting at various levels. Cm. Johnson wanted to know exact figures. Ms. Seifel stated a survey was done by a consultant for market rate developments, the rents in Dublin currently are affordable to persons of low to moderate income levels, not at very low income. The lowest for a studio was $700, up to $1,300 for a 3 bedroom. and based on the income categories, there was not data available for very low income level, except for the 186 units at Arroyo Vista. Ms. Huston indicated that in general there was a shortage of production of low income housing, and the charts show the evidence that we were behind in our affordable housing production. Cm. Johnson stated his question was where are we today and do we bave real solid numbers to take a look at He said without those numbers there was not a way to project the future and tell what our real needs were, other than the numbers that ABAG has given us and ABAG's numbers may be completely wrong. .-/--1 Ms. Seifel stated that they would give an accurate estimate at the ne:{~~13ased on the census data and updating the information produced in 1990, they could give how units we bave existing, based on census information Cm. Zika asked for the number offamilies that fit within the income base. Ms. Seifel stated they would be able to tell as of 1990, and could estimate numbers through 1995. Cm. Zika asked for those numbers to be available at the next meeting, showing number offamilies in the income ranges, number ofunits currently available and how many units we would potentially need. Ms. Huston stated that the background data discussed to this point demonstrated the need to continue efforts for an Affordable Housing Program, and our Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was one aspect of the Affordable Housing Program. She asked the Commission if they wanted to go into a discussion on some of the issues and principles that will need to be looked at surrounding that Ordinance, or they could continue to discuss the ovenill housing situation. Cm. Zika stated he would like to wait until he could see some of the numbers before detailed issues are discussed. Ms. Gouig gave a presentation regarding some of the general issues involved with Inclusionary Zoning. She explained that Inclusionary Housing intends to include affordable units within housing developments so that some units are renting or selling to very low or low income people, and/or at below maIket rates or sales prices. 54 cities and 10 counties in California have Inclusionary Ordinances. She went through the guiding principles for Inclusionary Housing, which Fremont is looking at now. Ms. Seifel mentioned the City of Fremont was looking at a Program, in which they wanted to encowage the development of mixed income housing in that City. In the course of putting together a program for them, she came up with a set of value principles. She went over the principles that were outlined in the staffreport, and noted that these would depend on the goals of the program for an individual City. They mayor may not be appropriate for Dublin. The Commissioners asked for clarification on several items. Ms. Seifel discussed the possibility of in-lieu fees for at least part of the Program. Prices for affordable units should be significantly below those market rate units in order to attract ownership participation. She gave some samples of how the housing prices could be and how much we would have to target houses in _.~_______~~_________._________..______________________.______________________.__________..~.________R.__ Planning o-mi_on Study Seaion [1-3pc1l1] 3 January 3, 1996 '. " e -- order to attract very low to low income families. She stated that a $140,000 house was typically wbat a moderate to low income family could afford. Cm. Zika asked if once the units were rented to 100% low income people and their income goes up, was there a provision to get the people out of the units and how would we find out if their income went up. Both consultants stated that for ownership tax credit projects, there was no way to find out. They said they would look into that. Cm. Zika stated he had looked into this, and that there was not a provision to get a tenant out even if their income goes up 140%. He said if it was partially rented to low income, then the next available unit must be made available to low income, but if its 100% low income occupied, there was not a provision to get them out. He stated if there was a way, he would like a copy of how it was done. Ms. Gouig stated that in ownership tax credit projects, there could be a provision that once they go to sell, it kicks in a particular condition, however, as long as they stay, their income to go up and there was nothing they could do about it. Ms. Seifel showed a sumnwy of Inclusionary housing requirements in other Bay Area cities, including Standards for minimum project size, affordability percentage, targeted income level, term of affordability and in -lieu fees. A discussion took place regarding whether contractors that bave already pulled permits should be required to comply with 'this program or whether only future projects were subject to the requirements, where in the approval process would the Ordinance would apply. Ms. Seifel concluded her presentation and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Cm. Zika asked questions about how the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore implement their programs. Ms. Gouig gave an example of how developers can take advantage of the permit process if they have 25% or more entry level housing units available to people earning 120% of the medium level income, for their housing programs. Ms. Gouig stated that the chart indicated. most communities were targeting moderate income families. Cm. Johnson asked if Livermore or Pleasanton had met their ABAG numbers. Ms. Seifel gave the ABAG housing production goal figures for Livermore and Pleasanton, but indicated that most cities in California have not obtained their goals. Cm. Zika asked if there was a penalty for not meeting our goals. Ms. Gouig stated from time to time the State will introduce legislation to withhold certain types of grants to cities and counties that don't bave a certified housing element, which Dublin did not have. To date, no legislation had been successful as far as she knows. Mr. Tong stated. that it was Staff's view that we should be providing affordable housing because the City wants to do this, for economic development, and to provide housing for our residents. Cm. Zika stated he wanted to see how this could work, to build a unit and include school fees, sewer and water fees, etc., of up to $30,000 to $50,000, and still make the unit affordable to targeted income levels. Ms. Gouig stated that some cities or counties create these types of programs to actually just generate fees and never expect the units to be built, but use the money to subsidize non~profits and developers for tax pwposes. .________~_____.~.__________.._______~_____________._____________.____________________~H.______~______~__ P18Dlli11g ComDU.aion Study Session [1-3pc::ss] 4 JanlW')' 3, 1996 e e Ms. Seifel stated an advantage of putting an Inelusionary Ordinance in place prior to an area being urbanized was that before land prices are solidified land owners and developers know wbat regulations to expect, and it can limit the upside of land prices. Ms. Gouig stated that most of the communities that are looking at affordable housing are already built out, and the fact that Dublin has vacant land available is a real opportunity. Cm. Lockhart asked if the other units in a project that are not affordable would suffer and people would have to pay the higher cost, because a percentage is lower income, in order to offset the difference. Ms. Seifel stated that it really goes back to the cost of the land, and the developer would consider that when they are considering the purchase of the land and will figure that in their start up costs. Cm. Johnson asked if the federal government (Camp Parks) had surplus land and built low income housing, could they land lease back to the City and would that count towards our goals. Ms. Gouig stated that she knew of local governments leasing properties, but she knew of no federal governments who did so. She stated they usually tIy to sell their land. Today cities and counties have to look at all sorts of alternatives and ideas. Cm. Johnson stated that years ago, they used to build two story homes and only finish the first floor, and bave people buy it unfinished and ,finish it on their own over the next 10 years or so. Ms. Gouig stated that in the Stockton area, they were doing something like that. Ms. Huston stated that when developing the Ordinance, it is important that there be the flexibility to allow developers to offer solutions or suggestions in the future that we may not think about now for examples such as this. Ms. Gouig asked if the Commission would be interested in Staff drafting a sample Ordinance to bring back to the Planning Commission. There were some limitations on wbat the Ordinance must contain due to the housing element, which spelled some things out. She stated that some issues they were looking at were minimum project size, what percentage of unit should be InclusioJUUy or below market, who is being targeted. how rents or sales prices are set, what length or term of affordability do they want, etc. Cm. Johnson said a sample Ordinance would be better to review, to give the Commissioners something to ,respond to, rather than making decisions off the top of their heads. Matt Koart, from J{smfman and Broad, stated he had some questions, such as deed restrictions. and how the Ordinance would address them. With very low and low income units the difference between the cost of market rate units versus affordable units makes the project unfeasible. It may work with moderate income, but low and very low income as a target does not work. As options to the Inclusionary Housing idea., there are tax credits available to large developers, if that was something the city might take a look at. How does a Rental Housing Ordinance fit into the program. em. Johnson indicated most developers do not like the idea of an InclusioJUUy Housing Ordinance. Mr. Koart stated that was because it was not profitable, and does not work. He felt that it should not be the responsibility of the developer to have to pay to meet the entire cities needs to low income housing, it should be the responsibly of the entire society, and should not fall on the new development. Bob Harris clarified a comment made earlier that land annexed in Eastern Dublin was not purchased at agricultural prices, but at the higher price. --------------------~-~-----------------------_.__.~-_.--------------------------_...--._--.~------------ Planning Commission Study SclsiOD [1-3pc:ss] s JanlW)' 3, 1996 '. e e Cm. Johnson stated that the land was purchased at a 10 year old price, and not at 1995 prices. And he agreed, we do bave a problem with low income housing. Ms. Seife1 stated it was a Bay Area wide problem for providing low income housing, not just in Dublin. Cm. Lockhart wanted to hear from more of the developers. He wanted to know if they would want to pay in~lieu fees, wbat would be considered as a fair price, what other options could there be. He asked whether there were cities which were collecting fees, but not using them for low income units. Ms. Seifel stated she had not seen that situation. Communities typically collect the fees over a period of time and do use it for low income housing eventually, although they are still not meeting their ABAG goals. Cm. Geist asked Mr. Tong what the City thought were more realistic goals than those figures that ABAG projected, and were those figures disproportionate throughout other cities as well. Mr. Tong stated that at the time when those figures came out, they seemed disproportionate. Ms. &eife1 gave some figures to how many units Pleasanton and Livermore have provided through their assisted. housing programs for 10% of the units in a new development to be affordable and Cm. Johnson wanted those figures compared to ABAG figures. ~ were just based on the requirement in part through Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance but did n~~~G goal. In Dublin. City~assisted housing production is zero, but the other cities are at least trying &ose goals. Cm. Lockhart asked if senior housing counts towards this project, could low income seniors count also. Ms. Gouig stated that yes, they would if they were low and very low. em. Lockhart wanted to get a lot more input before they did anything. Mr. Tong asked if the Planning Commissioners wanted another study session, where Staffprepared a draft Ordinance for the Planning Commission to review. em. Johnson requested that at the next meeting the consultants provide actual numbers compared to the ABAG numbers, and also come up with a draft Ordinance that the Commission could look at, with guidelines to follow. Ms. Gouig indicated. that the Ordinance would be a lauuclJing point for discussion. Cm. Lockhart asked ifwe were on a time line, and how long had the Inclusionary Ordinance process been in progress. Ms. Huston stated. the last Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1991. Mr. Tong stated. we would like to have the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance fimlli7ed in the next 3-4 months. The consensus of the Commissions was they preferred another study session to allow for public input. Cm. Johnson asked if any developers were into attempting affordable housing. Ms. Gouig stated yes, some developers focused on affordable housing and tax credits. Many had some type of arm within their organization that dealt with affordable housing. ----~--.._-----------------------_...-.---------------------~-----------------_..------------------------ PJanoing Commission Study Scssioo [1-3pcss] 6 January 3, 1996 e . Mr. Tong stated that we would get some information together in 2-3 weeks on Janwuy 22 at 7:00. or alternate date on Monday, January 29th. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. .......... Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Laurence L. Tong Planning Director P1anning Cnmm;"';QD Study Session [1-3p<:ss] 7 ..___________._..~_________..._M___________..~.___________...------------------------------.~------------ January 3, 1996