Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-03-1996 Study Session . _ • • Special Study Session - January 3, 1996 A special Study Session of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, January 3, 1996, in the Dublin Regional Meeting Room. The mceting was-called to order at 6:00 by Commissioner Zika. ss***s**** ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Flanner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. City Consuitants: Elizabeth (Libby) Seifel, Seifel Associates and Christine (Chris) Gouig, CGMS Incorporated. Absent: Commissioner Jennings :**s***s** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Comxnission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. s**s***•** ADDTTIONS OR REVISIONS TO TI~ AGENDA None s*s******* ORAL COMMU1vICATIONS None s*s:****** WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ***s****** STUDY SESSION/WORKSHOP Commissioner Zika asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, gave a brief outline on how the study session would work. She indicated that the study session was to review Dublin'sAousing Programs as they relate to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Huston said that State Law required that the City of Dublin establish a Housing Program wluch provided for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. She gave a summary on the housing needs and produc6on, 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. Cm. Johnson asked if information was available from tax revenue on what Dublin salary ranges. He wanted to know how many families in Dublin were considered very low income, low income, etc. Planning Commission Study Session Y January 3, 1996 [1-3P~1 . . • • Ms. Seifel stated the most aecurate informadon on income was the U. S. Census information from April, 1990, based on what people earned in 1989. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) dces 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 ckfinition 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 affluent 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 dces 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. Seifel answered yes. Cm. Zika asked if the need was based on estimated income of the population rather than the,~obs that aze available in the area, or was it a combination of both. Ms. Gouig answered that it was a complex model that takes into account jobs and jab gowth in the area, housing prices, income levels and other factors. She added that what she had seen ABAG look at, in terms of the nwnber of units a oommunity was supposed to produce, was not only current physical boundaries, but sphere of influence. They prd~ably lookeci 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, an~d 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. Cm. Johnson asked what was the current status of low, moderate and affluent houses in Dublin. Ms. Seifel stated that there were 186 very low income rental units available ut the City of Dublin. She asked if the City of Dublin h~ 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. Cm. Zika asked if people using Section 8 Certifxcates rented a hous~ that was not reserved for a Section 8 user, then dces that not count because we do not know about it. Ms. Seifel stated most private housing is not rented to low income people. Typically, e~usting 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. Plaaning Commission Study Session 2 Jan 3, 1996 ~1'3P~~ . • • • Ms. Gouig stated the census projects forward to know how many units are renting at various levels. Cm. 7ohnson wanted to know earact 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 51,300 for a 3 bedroom, and based on the inco~ 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 have real ~lid numbers to take a look at. He said without those numbers there was not a way to project the future and tell what aur real needs were, other than the numbers that ABAG has given us and ABAG's numbers may be completely wrong. Ms. Seifel stated that they would give an accurate estimate at the next meting. Based on the census data and updating the information produced in 1990, they could give how many units we have existing, based on census informadon Cm. Zika asked for the number of families that fit within the income base. Ms. Seifel stated they would be able to tell as of 1990, and c~:ild estimate numbers through 1995. Cm. Zika asked for those numbers to be available at the ne~ct meedng, showing number of families in the income ranges, number of units currently available and how many units we would potentially nced. Ms. Huston stated that the background data discussed to ttus point demon~trated the need to continue efforts for an Affordable Housing Program, and our Inclusionary Zoning ardinance was one aspect of the Affordable Housing Program. She asked the Commission if they wanted to go into a diseussion on some of the issues and principles that will nced to be looked at surrounding that Ordinance, or they could continue to discuss the overall housing situation. Cm. Zika stated he would like to wait until he could see some of the numbers before detail~ issues are discussed. Ms. Gouig gave a presentation regarding some of the general issues involved with Inclusionary Zoiung. She explained tt~at 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 market rates or sales prices. 54 cities and 10 couttties in California have Inclusionary Ordinances. She went through the guiding principles for Inclusionary Housing, which Fremont is lookang at now. Ms. Seifel mentioned the City of Fremont was looking at a Program, in which they wanted to encourage the development of mixed income housing in that City. In the course of putting together a program far them, she came up with a set of value principles. She went over the principles that were outlined in the staff report, and noteti that these would depend on the goals of the program for an individual City. They may or 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 significanfly 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 Planning Commission Study Session 3 Janu 3,1996 [1-3pcss] . • • . order to attract very low to low income families. She stated that a~140,000 house was typically what a moderate to low income family could afford. Cm. Zika asked if once the units were rented to 100°/a low income people and their income gces 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 ta~c 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 neart 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 ta~c 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 summary of Inclusionary housing re~uirements in other Bay Area cities, including Standards for minimum project size, affordability percentage, targeted in~me level, term of affordability and in -lieu fces. A discussion took place regarding whether contractors that have already pulled permits should be requireii to comply witth this program or whether only future projects were subject to the requirements, where in the appmval process would the Ordinance would apply. Ms. Seifel concluded her presentation and asked the Commissioners if they had any quesdons. 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 incame, for their housing programs. Ms. Gouig stated that the chart indicated most communides 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 tbat 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 certaixi types of grants to cities and counties that don't have a certified housing element, which Dublin did not have. To date, no legislation had been successful as faz 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 f~s, 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 taar P~ses. Plaming Coamuasiai Study Sessioa 4 January 3, fl996 [1-3P~1 o • ~ • Ms. Seifel stated an advantage of putting an Inclusionary Ordinance in place prior to an area being urbanized was that before land prices are solidified land owners and developers know what regulations to expect, and it can limit the upside of land prices. Ms. Gouig stated that most of the communities that aze loaking 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 lrigher 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 consi~ring the purchase of the land and will figure that in their start up costs. Cm. 7ohnson 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 ccbuunt 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 try to sell their land. Today cities and coundes 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 have 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 fleaubility to allow developers to offer solutions or suggestions in the future that we may not thinlc about now for examples such as tlus. 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 what the Ordinance must contain due to the housing element, which spelled some things out. She stated that some issues tt~y were looking at were minimum project size, what percentage of unit should be Inciusionary 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. 7ohnson 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 Kaufman 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 vers~s affordable units makes the project unfeasible. it may woric with moderate income, but low and very law 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 sometlung the city might take a look at. How dces a Rental Housing Ordinance fit into the program. Cm. Johnson indicated most developers do not like the idea of an Inclusionary 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 respc~nsibly of the entire society, and should not fail 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 Conunission Study Session S------------°-----------------°------ January 3,1946 ~1-3P~s] ` . ~ ~ Cm. 7ohnson stated that the land was purchased at a 10 year old price, and not at 1995 prices. And he agreed, we do have a problem with low income housing. Ms. Seifel stat~ 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, what 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 proje,cted, 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. Seifel gave some figures to how many units Pleasanton and Livermore have provided through their assisted housing programs for 10°fo of the wuts in a new development to be affordable and Cm. Johnson wanted those figures compared to ABAG figures. The figures were just based on the requirement in part through Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance but did not met the ABAG goa1. In Dublin, City-assisted housing production is zero, but the other cities are at least trying to met those goals. Cm. Lockhart asked if senior housing counts towards this project, could low income seniors count a1so. Ms. Gouig stated that yes, they would if they were low and very low. Cm. Lockhart wanted to get a lot more input before they did anytlung. Mr. Tong asked if the Planning Commissioners wanted another study session, where Staff prepared a draft Ordinance for the Planning Commission to review. Cm. Johnson requested that at the ne~ct mceting 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 launching point for discussion. Cm. Lockhart asked if vve were on a dme line, and how long had the Inclusionary Ordinance process been in progress. Ms. Huston statal the last Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 199L Mr. Tong stated we would like to have the Inclusionary Housing Ordinanee finalized 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. Plaming Commission Study Session 6 Jaa 3,1996 ~1-3P~~ _ , , - ~ • Mr. Tong stated that we would get some information together in 2-3 weeks on January 22 at 7:00. or alternate date on Monday, January 29th. NEW OR UNFIlVISI~D BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:i5 p:m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commiss on Chairperson ATTEST: Laurence L. Tong Planning Director pl~ing co~issi~ sa,ay seasion 7 Januazy 3, 1996 ~1'3P~1