Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2002 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Jennings, Musser, and Fasulkey; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Nassar; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from April 9, 2002 were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Peabody introduced Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner to the Planning Commission and explained that Ms. Macdonald will be working on Advanced Planning projects for the Community Development department. Planning Commission Regular Meeting 124 April 23, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 01-038 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Priority Areas for Affordable Housing Policy - An Ordinance to increase the percentage of affordable units and related changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in an amount not to exceed 15% of all new housing units and to prohibit in lieu fees for more than one-half of the affordable Inclusionary units. Included with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Amendment will be a policy and map identifying Priority Areas for Affordable Housing. Cm. Johnson asked for staff report. Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director presented the staff report. Mr. Peabody gave a brief history on the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peabody explained that in 1996 the City Council adopted an Inclusionary Housing element as part of the Zoning Ordinance, which stated that all new residential development should provide affordable units. He explained that the adopted policy required a 5% provision of affordable units. However, the developer had the choice of paying an in-lieu fee rather than constructing the affordable units. Since 1996, with the exception of Kauffman and Broad and Park Sierra, none of the new developments have provided affordable units. He explained that the City Council in 2001 directed Staff to amend the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations so as to require developers to provide affordable units. He further explained that the presentation before the Commission is two folded, one to review and adopt the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations amendment and two to review and adopt the new Affordable Housing Priority Area Policy, as per Council's direction. The City is currently in the process of updating the Housing Element and it was the City Council's direction that Staff prepare a map allocating priority areas for affordable housing. He explained that Staff, in order to comply with the City Council's intention of increasing the affordable unit requirement to 15% from 5% and paying an in-lieu fee up to 7 1/2 %, worked with an Inclusionary Work Group comprised of representatives of Developers, representatives from Home Builders Association, representatives from major Builders in the community, to draft an amended Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. In November 2001 City Council instructed the inclusion of Council members Claudia McCormick and Tony Oravetz to the Work Group to ensure Council representation. On March 5, 2002, City Council in a Study Session approved the proposed amendments to the Ordinance and directed Staff to hold public hearings. He gave a brief synopsis about the present Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peabody, through a power point presentation, explained the methodology used to draft the amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and the proposed increase in the in-lieu fee. Planning Commission 125 April23, 2002 q(egular gdeeting Mr. Peabody reviewed the proposed changes in the Ordinance with the Commission. All new residential development must provide 15% of the total units as affordable. The developer is required to construct 7 1/2 % as affordable units and additionally, the developer will be charged an in-lieu fee up to 7 1/~ % for those units that are not built. If affordable units cannot be built at the site, the City Council may allow land dedication to the City or dedication to the City designated local non-profit developer of a site, which is large enough to accommodate the number of units that the individual developer is required to build. Mr. Peabody addressed the issue of 30-year rental restriction for the affordable units raised by Allison Brooks, representative of the Tri Valley Vision 2020. He explained that the present ordinance has a rental restriction of 30 years since it was targeting moderate-income households as well as due to the fact that the mortgage payments are for a 30-year term. With that he concluded his presentation and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending the City Council adopt the amendments to the Ordinance as noted in the Exhibit. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone had any questions for Staff. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Peabody the page number for the waiver of requirements. Mr. Peabody stated that it was on Page 4 (Exhibit for Attachment 2) sub-section E. Cm. Jennings asked if there was a number for the units that have to be built as affordable. Mr. Peabody said it is 7 1/2 % out of the required 15%. Cm. Jennings stated that there should be a better way to state the number of required units as affordable since stating it as a percentage gives an impression that the requirement is much larger than it really is. Cm. Musser wanted to know how were some of the percentages calculated, especially the 15% requirement for affordable units and how were the breakdown for very low and low income units calculated. Additionally, how did they compare with the surrounding cities particularly Pleasanton and Livermore. Mr. Peabody stated that the 15% requirement was the City Council requirement. The breakdown for the different levels of households was based on a Study conducted by Staff of various Ordinances. Furthermore, it was found that the Bay Area required percentages for affordable units for very low, low and moderate-income households were 30%, 20% and 50% respectively and hence were included in the proposed Ordinance. He stated that Livermore's required percentage for &~annin~ Commission 126 ~pri£ 2 3, 2002 ~au(ar Y~leetinB constructing affordable units is 10% with no in-lieu fee and is connected with a growth management program. Pleasanton's requirement is similar to Livermore. Union City has a 15% requirement. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Peabody if any of these cities have a provision for the developer to construct half of the required percentage and pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining half. Mr. Peabody responded that most of the cities have a 'must-build' requirement. Cm. Jennings wanted to know if there were any discussions within the City Council for not having the in-lieu fees and having the 'must-build' requirement in the Ordinance. Mr. Peabody responded that there was a little discussion but primarily there were discussions to mandate half as must build and half as in-lieu fee. Cm. Johnson wanted to know what percentage of units Toll Brothers were providing as affordable in their Area G project. Mr. Peabody responded that they were providing 7 1/2 % of the total units as affordable. He further added that Toll was in a unique situation since they were already in design when the City Council adopted the Ordinance for Affordable Housing. Cm. Johnson asked based on the previous Ordinance what was the revenue that was generated through the 5% affordable unit requirement. Mr. Peabody stated that it was approximately $6 million. The City Council has budgeted to spend the money in various programs such as new construction, senior housing, acquisition rehabilitation, and first time homebuyers program for the city. Cm. Johnson wanted to know if there were any questions raised at the City Council meeting to lower the requirement percentage from 15% to 10%. Mr. Peabody responded that discussions were held within the Inclusionary Work Group as well as the Council to lower it from 15% to 10%. Cm. Jennings sought clarifications regarding Design Modifications listed on page 6 section B of the Exhibit to Attachment 2. Mr. Peabody stated that a for-sale affordable housing unit for a moderate- income household would be similar to the other units in the same building from the exterior. The interior of the unit may lack some of the amenities. Similarly the affordable units for the very low and low-income households are rental units and would be similar looking units in relation to the neighboring units. The design modifications listed on Page 6 provides the developer an opportunity to lower some of the costs. Cm. Jennings asked if there is a section in the Ordinance, which deals with the architecture for the affordable units. Mr. Peabody stated that there wasn't a section for architecture but it would be Plannin~ Commission 127 April23, 2002 q(egular Meeting similar to the market rate unit. Ms. Macdonald pointed out that this issue has been addressed on Page 3 section E. Cm. Fasulkey asked how would the City monitor the rental units to ensure its availability to those in need of them. Mr. Peabody explained that Park Sierra, which currently has some affordable below market rate units, provides yearly reports to the City about the units and the financial positions of those who rent it. Mr. Peabody stated that the City would work in the future with the new Developers and the agency such as the Housing Authority, to monitor these units more closely to ensure its availability to those in need. Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing and asked those present to fill out the speaker forms if they wished to speak. Marty Inderbitzen, representative of Dublin Ranch said that he had some specific issues on the Ordinance. His first issue was the required percentage for the Inclusionary units. He opined that 15% was three times more than the current requirement. In addition, the City is proposing 7 1/2 % must-build as well as an in-lieu fee. He explained that when the Council was deciding on the percentage the decision was not consensus. Therefore, he suggested, that the Planning Commission must convey their decision to the City Council, so that it would help them in deciding on the appropriate percentage for the inclusionary units. He suggested having 7 1/2 % must-build and no in-lieu fees. He then walked through the Ordinance point-by-point listing the issues he had. The following were the issues: Deletion of sub-section D on Page 2. "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." Deletion of the last sentence in sub-section E on Page 3. "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 unit 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. 3. Adding the word "shall" to section 8.68.040 first sentence ~fanning Commission 128 ~1~ri£ 23, 2002 qLegu~ar ~ffeeting "8.68.040 Exceptions to 15% Affordability Requirement. Developers of projects subject to 8.68.030.A construct 15% 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." Deletion of points 3 & 5, Section B on Page 3. "That it would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site." "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). Adding the word "waived" to point 2 on Page 4 last sentence. "that the dedicated land is large enough and appropriately zoned to accommodate the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by section 8.68.030.A, 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." Waive fees referred on Page 6. Fee Deferral. 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. 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. 7. Waive administrative charges for administering the In-Lieu Fee fund. "8.68.080 Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Fund. (Planning Commission 129 .,~pri£ 23, 2002 qLegu[ar ~Meeting 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." Mr. Peabody stated that as background information, the Ordinance had been reviewed by the City Attorney's office several times and he responded to Mr. Inderbitzen's issues as follows: Staff's major concern is that the Developer starting a project may not be the one completing it. Therefore it is important that the affordable units are constructed concurrently with the market rate units. Listing this point in the Ordinance is a provision for the City to ensure that the Developer constructs the affordable units concurrently with the market rate units. The words "shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project" are a reasonable way of ensuring that the affordable units are not concentrated at one location. Point 3 in section B on Page 3 has been legally approved by the City Attorneys that it is the reasonable way to deal with the issue. Addressing the issues on Point 5 Mr. Peabody explained that the reason Staff wants "reasonable period (not to exceed 5 years)" is to ensure the construction of the affordable units off-site and is not put on the back burner by the Developer. "Waiving" of development-impact fees is a policy decision for the City Council. The Planning Commission cannot institute this change. Mr. Peabody explained that as per the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan all new development in Eastern Dublin is required to pay the fees, hence only the Council can change the Specific Plan requirements now on the books in order to waive the fees. Fee Deferral is again a policy decision for the City Council, Mr. Peabody explained. The idea to defer the development impact fee is to help the developer in paying these fees over a period of time. It is the policy of the City that the Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu fees are used to pay the housing programs for the City. Cm. Johnson asked if anyone had any other questions. Ms. Allison Brooks, representing Tri-Valley Vision 2010 asked if the resale restriction and rental restriction could be separated so as to have a 30-year resale restriction and a longer rental restriction considering the percentage of units being built are very Iow. Mr. Peabody responded that the Inclusionary Work Group used the 30-year resale restriction since it was in the previous Ordinance and it is connected to the mortgage payments. ~Pfannintt Commission 130 .~p~£ 23, 2002 ~gufar tMeetintt Dale Gehrand, resident of 7254 Tina Place Dublin suggested that the Planning Commission consider lowering the Inclusionary unit percentage. Cm. Johnson closed the public hearing. Cm. Johnson stated that 15% Inclusionary unit requirement is high and would recommend 10% with 7 1/2 % 'must-build' requirement and 2 1/2 % as in-lieu fees. Furthermore, he stated that the City should waive any and all fees. Cm. Musser concurred with Cm. Johnson. He said that the goal is to provide affordable housing than paying an in-lieu fee. Cm. Johnson asked for staff report for the Affordable Housing Priority Areas Policy. Pierce Macdonald presented the staff report. She explained that in July 2001 City Council directed Staff to review priority areas for affordable housing in new developments in the City. Therefore Staff reviewed undeveloped and underdeveloped land subject to the new amended Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and concurrently began to prepare the land inventory chapter for the General Plan 2002 Housing Element. She explained the Priority Areas are defined as sites without entitlements under subdivision map act or other approval as of October 16, 2001. Priority Areas are defined as sites with approved medium-, medium-high-, and high density residential and are commercial sites that allow mixed-use development pursuant to Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan or Amendments. Staff also included locations near public transportation, including Wheels and BART, services etc. thereby reducing automobile dependence as well as reducing the development cost associated with parking facilities to encourage inexpensive and non polluting alternative transportation to provide efficient medical care to residents of City of Dublin and to provide public open space amenities to those living in multi-family housing. Job sites were also targeted to create a balance between jobs and housing. The main purpose was to represent these qualifies on a map. Ms. Macdonald showed a map to the Commissioners identifying the priority areas and the number of units identified as affordable for that area. Ms. Macdonald stated that the total number of units that Staff was able to come up with after research is 10,084 units including the areas that are subject to annexation. Therefore if the Inclusionary unit requirement is 15% then the total projected number of inclusionary units is approximately 1500 and half of 1500 is approximately 750 inclusionary units. Ms. Macdonald stated that the ABAG requirement for very-low- and low- income housing is 1,327. She explained that through Staff's analysis the Inclusionary requirement is not going to be enough to satisfy ABAG's Regional Needs Assessment. Mr. Peabody explained that the map was prepared keeping in mind the longevity of development in the City. ~P[anning Commission 131 a~pti£23, 2002 ~ettuFar ~7ffeeting Cm. Johnson asked if Staff has an inventory of the current Iow cost housing. Ms. Macdonald responded that it would be part of the Housing Element that Staff is working on. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the ABAG requirement included moderate-income housing. Mr. Peabody stated that it includes very-low-, Iow- and moderate-income housing. Cm. Jennings asked if there is a penalty for not meeting the requirements. Mr. Peabody stated that there are none. In conclusion to her presentation, Ms. Macdonald explained how the policy would affect future residential projects. Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Marty Inderbitzen raised some concerns that the map may not include those areas that maybe redeveloped in the future or those areas that have not been identified currently. Mr. Peabody and Ms. Macdonald responded that the areas that the map shows as the priority areas are the ones that are currently identified as the sites for affordable housing. The areas that have not been identified yet will be included in the future depending on the type of development that occurs. The map will then be updated to include these areas. Hearing no additional comments, Cm. Johnson closed the public hearing and asked the Commissioners for their comments. Cm. Johnson stated that he is in favor of having affordable housing in the City but he would like the requirement percentage to be reduced to 10% with 7 1/2 % 'must-build'. Cm. Jennings stated that she would prefer to see the required inclusionary units in numbers rather than in percentage but she is in favor of 15%. Cm. Fasulkey concurred with Commissioners Johnson and Musser that 15% was high. In addition he stated that the word "shall" in the sentence "shall be reasonably dispersed" in section 8.68.030 subsection E is too strong and should be modified. He further stated that there should be better accountability in managing the affordable rental units. ~[anning Commission 132 ~pri£ 23, 2002 ~ettufar ~ffeeting Cm. Musser gave his reasons for supporting 10% inclusionary units. He stated that he would like to see more information on the Commercial Linkage fee to determine if that could make up the difference between 10% and 15%. Cm. Johnson asked for a motion for approval. On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, in the absence of Cm. Nassar, with Cm. Jennings opposing and by a vote of 3-1, and with the following amendments to the Ordinance as well as instructing Staff to prepare a memo to Council to consider waiving development fees: 8.68.030. General Requirements A. 10% Affordability Requirement. All new residential development projects of 20 units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 10% 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. 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 will be reasonably dispersed throughout the project. Section 8.68.040 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 one quarter of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to section 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. the Planning Commission adopted: ®[anning Commission 133 .glari£ 23, 2002 ~gufar Ydeeting RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITY AREAS POLICY NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Peabody discussed the upcoming agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ATTEST: Community Development ~)irec[tor ResoeC'[f~ly submitted, / Planning C~tission Chairperson g:\ minutes\02\4-23-02 pc minutes qYanning Commission 134 ~pr//23, 2002 qLetIu[ar ?deetint]