HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.5 Inclusionary Zoning
e
.
-
CITY CLERK
File # D[9J~[QJ-Bl~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 1,2005
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing - P A-OI-038 Amendments to the Inclusionaxy
Zoning Regulations Clarifying the Sales Price for very Low-Income
Units, Adding Additional Priorities for Selection of Occupants of
Inclusionary Affordable Units, and Other ClarifYing Amendments
and authorize changing the "Layperson's Guide to the Inclusionary
Ordinance Regulations" to reflect the changes in the Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations
Report Prepared by: Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 8.68 of the
Dublin Municipal Code Relating to the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations
Excerpts ftom Layperson '$ Guide to the Indusionary Zoning
Ordinance Regulations
Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on
February 8, 2005 reconunending City Council adopt the.
proposed amendments to the Inclusionat")' Ordinance Zoning
Regulations
Minutes for the February 8, 2005 Planning Conunission
2.
3.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open Public Hearing
Hear Staff Presentation
Take Public Testimony
Close Public Hearing
Deliberate
Waive the Reading and introduce the Ordinance amending
Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to
amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
Authorize changing the "Layperson's Guide to The
Indusional)' Zoning Ordinance Regulations" to reflect the
amended ordinance.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No fiscal impact in the listed amendments to the Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations
BACKGROUND:
On May 21, 2002, the City Council introduced an Ordinance amending the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations (Chapter 8.68) of the Dublin Municipal Code requiring developer(to construct 12.5% of each
residential as affordable housing. On January 7,2003, the City Council made certainly clarifying
COPIES TO: In·House Distribution
G:\PAIroOO1\O\-()38 Jnoh,.ionary ZOA \CClCC StaffR"",rtJncl OnLAmonds 3- '()5.DOC
\ e>-ü ~
Co.s
'ITEM NO.
amendments to the Regulations to the priorities used in the selection of occupants for Inclusionary
Affordable Units; the percentage of household income allowed for housing expenses; and the land
dedication requirements.
On February 8, 2005 the Planning Commission unanimously approved a resolution (Attachment 3)
recommending to the City Council the changes outlined in this Staff Report.
e
Staffhas been working with the existing Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for over two years. Staff's
experience in applying the Regulations during this period has made it evident that several sections in the
existing Regulations need refinement or adjustment. At the same time that Staffrecornmends amending
the Ordinance to clarifY the items listed below, Staff would also like to update the "Layp~rson 's Guide to
the Indusional)' Zoning Ordinance Regulations" to reflect the amended OrdinaJ:1ce.
Sales Prices of Ve11l Low-Income Unit$
Under the Regulations, the sales prices of Inclusionary Units are established by direct reference to the
income level of the prospective purchaser. Basically, the Regulatlons provide that sales prices are set at
an amount that would result in no more than 35% of annual household income being devoted to housing
expenses.
This meai:J.s of establishing sales prices for Inclusionary Units works well in the moderate-income and
low-income categories. However, because the very-low income category has no minimum income level,
this means of establishing sales prices could result in requiring Inclusionary Units to be sold at prices that
are unrealistically low. The very low-income category is made up of those households with incomes of
50% or less of median income. Thus, a household with a household income of $5,000 (or approximately
6% of the median income in Alameda County) would be a very low-income household. Because sales.
prices are a direct function of household income, as some developers have pointed out, this could reswt in
anInclusionary Unit being sold at a price that is unrealistically low, such as $20,000 or less.
e
To resolve this issue, Staff recommends that, within the very low-income category', the sales prices be
based on the maximum income level in the very low-income category, not on the household's actual
income. The 2004 very low-income levels published by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development are as follows:
One person
Two people
Three people
Four people
Five people
Six people
$29,000
$33,100
$37,250
$41,400
$44,700
$48,000
To give an example if the developer was selling a 3-bedroom unit to a very low-income family of 4, a
developer could sell the unit at a "fixed" sale price up to the price that would result by using the income at
the top of the very low-income category. For a family offour, the sales price would be approximately
$118,005 (based on the $41,400 maximum income level in the very low-income category). Households
with incomes ofless than the maximum income level within the very low-income category would still be
qualified to purchase the units, but the price would Ilot be based on their income level. The result would
be that some households would be unable to qualifY for financing at the resulting sales prices, although
they may have been able to qualifY for such financing if the price was based on their income level.
Staff considered other mechanisms for dealing with this issue. For example, staff considered establishing . ..
a minimum income level for the very low-income category, such as 30% of median. We concluded that ..
using the maximum is preferable because using incomes as low as 30% of the area median still results in
2 C5b")
sale prices that would not give the developer an acceptable retUrn on their investment in developing the
unit.
Additional Priorities for Occuvant Selection.
·
The Regulations include a provision that gives preferences in the occupant selection process to. certain
categories of households. Households earn "priority points" for each criteria met by the household. For
example, if an applicant household contains a person that works in Dublin 3 priority points are provided
to the applicant. Priority points are also granted to Dublin residents (3 points, one per household), seniors
(1 point, one.per household), and to the permanently disabled (I point, one per household).
Staff is recommending adding two new preference categories. The first would grant one priority point to
applicant households (one per household) who is a member of the immediate family of a person that lives
in Dublin and has lived in Dublin for over a year. Immediate family is defined as a mother, father,
brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild. Staffhas been receiving phone calls for over a year ITom
interested Dublin residents inquiring about residency requirements on the senior affordable projects in
Dublin. A large number of these inqUiries are ftom residents interested in providing housing for an aging
parent or grandparent. The purpose of this provision is to acconunodate such needs. The two proposed
preference categories will be added to the following sections òf the Layperson's Guide to the Zoning
Ordinance Regulations: Section 3.4, Section 5.4 and Exhibit 2.
The ·second additional preference category recommendation would grant one priority point to very low-,
low- and moderate-income households that would be required to relocate due to proposed demolition of
their housing or its conversion to condominiums.
·
Rental Unit ReffUlatorv Aweement$,
The Regulations require that developers of projects containing rental units enter into agreements with the
City that restrict occupancy to those whose incomes do not exceed certain income levels. (See Dublin
MUll. Code, §8.68.050.B.) The section contains a typographical error in that it only mentions the
moderate-income. category. Section 8.68.050.B would be amended to indicate that the agreement should
contain language that restricts occupancy to those whose monthly income level does not exceed
very low-, low- or moderate-income levels as the case may be.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council I) Open Public Hearing 2) Hear Staff Presentation, 3)Take
Public Testimony, 4) Close Public Hearing, 5) Deliberate 6) Waive the Reading and introduce the
Ordinance amending Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to amendments to the
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, and 7) Authorize changing the "Layperson's Guide to The Indusional)'
Zoning Ordinance Regulations" to reflect the amended ordinance.
·
3~<:)
\ c\ ,_.
--! ;
I ,,~,")
I~
e
ORDINANCE NO. - OS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68
OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS)
RELATING TO SALES PRICES OF VERY LOW-INCOME UNITS AND PREFERENCES FOR
OCCUPANCY OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS
The City COlU1cil of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section I. Amendment of Section 8.68.020: Subdivision A of Section 8.68.020 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"A. "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental-housing unit, including senior housing,
affordable to households with very-low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this chapter.
1. Rental units are deemed affordable units if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of
maximum income level for low- and moderate-income households, adjusted for
household size and as defmed below.
2.
OWner~occupied units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in annual
housing expenses that do not exceed 35% ofincome level for very-Iow-, low-, and
moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below. FBI:îi
!~!F'¡~' !'~"'»;;' ."1,": ·'I'·¡'ï:'W'1)~'~ ''".'·''·'f·
." "'" ,'" e\ü"'1!it
.
Section 2. Amendment of Section 8.68.050. Subdivision B of Section 8.68.050 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is amended to rcad as follows:
"General Procedures for Implementing Inclusionary Zoning Requirements
A. Agreements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an affordable unit, resale
restrictions or rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement
between the City and the developer, in a form consistent with the City Council-adopted foro)
agreement, which agreement shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable
units. The agreement shaH be executed by the City Manager, and its requirements shall run
with. the land and bind the applicant's successors.
B.
Rental Units; Occupancy; Annual Report. Agreements involving rental units shall require
the owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose
monthly income levels do not exceed Øl'M1œm moderate income levels~~~
1/;î;lJ,:~:and shall precludc tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit. The agreement shall
also require the owner ofthc affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager,
G,:) A1rfŒHMENT \
1
.
~ D
;;, CYb \ <:0
in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to the following .
informanon: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly rents
charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly
income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year.
C. Ownership Units; Occupancy; City's Right of First Refusal. Agreements for ownership
units shall specifY that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and
may not be leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions
shall provide that in the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to
purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to
an eligible household.
D.
Selection Criteria. No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under
this chapter to be affordable unless the City or its designee has approved the household's
eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of
household income, the median combined household income statistics for Alameda County
published periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development, all sources of household income and assets, the relationship between household
size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by law. The developer
shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this
chapter. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children. Selection of
qualified person should be based on priorities established using the point system described
below:
.
· Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin (3 points, one per household)
· Public Service employce working in the City of Dublin (1 additional point)
· Dublin resident (3 points, one per household)
· Seniors (I point, one per household)
· Permanently disabled (1· point, one per household)
· !fa11l!E~I)CI~;WEl~~~rmf~_~~?~!t"~:~:~~~~I~~l'~'æ¡~?zm11t!~'1I!'~~J~~7i¡1üf:)\:
~~IJ\!I!IIJIU.IIWIf_~!!I!)M¡¡¡_!!!"¡¡]!Sæ!_\iM!iI!ii<~~~,.+II! !\I~,,,!'!1ì!W'I.
·
To qualifY as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Dublin", the person shall have
been employed with the City of Dublin for at least six months.
To qualifY as a "Dublin resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Dublin
for at least a one-year period prior to the eligibility detennination."
.
2
:3 ')
. '), iG
. ,-,r
'...'
_ Section 3. Complianæ with California Environmental QuaUtyAct ("CEQA 'J: The City Council
~eclares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the following findings: This ordinance is not a
"project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. 'This ordinance does not, in itself,
allow the construction of any building or structure. This ordinance, therefore, has no potential for resulting
in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.
Section 4. Severability: In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined
invalid or Ullconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or
portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5: Savings Clause: All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in conflict
with the provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are
substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter shall be construed as
restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations,
rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the' effective date of this ordinance, under any
chapter, ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of
sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability or
appeal.
Section 6. Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shalJ cause the
.ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section
6933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _ day of_
2005, by the foJlowing votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
eG:\PAJI\2001101'()3B ~lcl",ionmy ZOA\PCIPC Onlinance AmOlldiD& lnol Ord 2-8-05 (Z).DOC
3
y D;-)\~l,
Excerpts from Layperson's Guide to the Inclu,yional)' Zoning Ordinance Regulations t
4.1 Sales Price of Affol"dabJe Units
·
The Inclusionary Ordinance (Section 8.68.020A.2) states that the price at which the
Inclusionary Units are to be offered is the price that would allow an applicant in the
pertinent category to pay no more than 35% of their income toward housing expenses.
This requires that each and every qualified buyer pay no more than 35% of his or her
individual household income toward housin ex enses. -
1+
As described below, a number of assumptions are used to calculate the maximum sale
price for inc1usionary units. An individual homebuyer's actual expenses may differ from
the assumptions. For example, the actual interest rate may be lower if the homebuyer
obtains a variable interest rate mortgage. In addition, the actual downpayment may be
more or less than the assumed 5%, and the mortgage term may be less than 30 years.
The assumptions are used for the purpose of establishing a standardized method of
arriving at a sales price, and are not intended to limit the choices that a buyer may utilize
or to limit the mortgage products or downpaymentsthat a developer may accept.
Following lending industry standards, housing expenses consist of "PIT I," or principal,
interest, taxes and insurance. The City of Dublin also includes Homeowner Association
dues as a housing expense.
·
The maximllin sale price is the price that will allow the homebuyer to purchase an
inclusionary unit by paying no more than 35% of their household income for PITI and
Homeowners Association Dues, based upon the following assumptions:
· Downpayment (For the purpose of calculating the sale price of a home or
- condominium, it is assumed that the prospective buyer will make a 5%
downpayment. The developer may accept alternate amounts for actual
downpayments. )
· Interest (Based on the weekly 30-year fixed rate published by the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, (703) 903-2446. The actual interest
rate may vary.)
· Mortgage Term (A 30-year term is assumed. The actual term may differ.)
· Taxes (Calculated using 1.25% of the estimated sale price of the unit.)
· Insurançe (Includes Private Mortgage Insurance (PMl), if any, and
homeowners hazard insurance.
·
ATTACHMENT 2
~"" (j', ' 'f!
~ '.'.;-- ~ ,.,,)
..)
PMI - For the purposes of calculating sale price,PMI may be calculated at 2% of the
. estimated loan, or the amount actually required by a given loan product being offered.
o Homeowner's Insurance - The cost ofhomeowner's insurance
may be calculated based on information rescarched by each
developer, as to what an actual policy may cost a new homeowner.
(If the homeowner insurance is covered by a homeowner
association structure, homeowners insurance need not be included,
but it must be documented that the HOA will provide adequate
insurance. )
. Homeowners' association dues, if any.
The City has an Excel spreadsheet, available for public use, which can assist in the
calculation of the final sales price, based on the listed criteria and housing expenses
(Exhibit No 5). Each Inclusionary Unit may sell at a different sale price, depending on
the household income of the selected household.
Figure 8 shows how the sales price is calculated (see following page).
e
.
2
,~
Lo CJD \ ,¿,
FIGURE 8
·
This example is of a four-person household qualifying to purchase a two-bedroom unit. This
household's gross income is $89,000.
The maximum income for a four-person $98,650
moderate income household (using State HCD
2004 income limits)
Househo.ld's annual income (hypo.thetical) $89,000
Monthly income available for housing $2,595.83
expenses:
(35% of $89,000 = $31,150; $31,150 divided
by 12 = $2,595.83)
Developer wishes to sell home at: $300,000
Down Payment (for caiculation of sales price $ 15.000
on1y - 5%)
Mortgage Required $ 285,000
Calculation.'
Monthly mortgage payment (based on
$285,000, 30-year fixed at 6% interest)
Other Monthly Ho.using Expenses:
· Private Mortgage Insurance
· Property Tax (1.25% of sales price)
· Homeowners Insurance (based on
demonstrated market rates)
· Homeowners Association Dues
Total monthly expenses:
$1,708.72
·
$ 191.43
$ 312.50
$ 166.67
$ 200.00
$2,589.75
$2,589.75 is less than the buyer's monthly income available for housing expenses o.f$2,595.83,
therefore, the sales price is in accordance with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requirements.
·
3
e
.
e
/""¡ IT \ '2
o '
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (THE
INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS) RELATING TO SALES PRICES OF VERY LOW-
INCOME UNITS AND PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS
WHEREAS, the citizens ofDu.blin are experiencing a hou.sing shortage for very low-, low- and
moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, a goal of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan is to achieve a balanced
community with housing available for hou.seholds at a range of income levels; and
WHEREAS, people with very low, low, and moderate incomes that currently live and/or work in
the City are increasingly unable to locatc housing at affordable prices, and often become excluded from
living in the City; and
WHEREAS, Federal and State housing subsidy programs are insufficient, by themselves, to
satisfY the housing needs of very low-, low- and moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, the high cost of newly constructed housing does not, to any appreciable extent,
provide housing affordable by very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, and continued new
development that does not inelude affordable housing will serve to further aggravate the current housing
shortage by reducing the supply of developable land; and
WHEREAS, it is a public purpose of the City, and a public policy of the State as mandated by the
requirements for a housing element ofthe City's General Plan, to make available an adequate supply of
housing for persons of all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the City has adopted the Inelusionary Zoning Regulations ("the
Regulations"), set forth at Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code, which Regulations generally
require developers of residential housing in excess of 19 units in the City of Dublin to set aside 12.5% of
such units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, as defined; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that the Regulations are in need of certain clarifYing
amendments and has presented a draft ordinance amending the Regulations to the Planning Commission
at a public hearing for a recommendation to the City Council;
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all rcspects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on February 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve an Ordinance of the City of Dublin amending Chapter 8.68 of
the Dublin Municipal Code relating to Inelusionary Zoning regulations as set forth in Exhibit A.
t
ATTACHMENT
.3
'6 troiS
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, on this 8th day
ofPebruary 2005, by the foliowing votes:
AYES:
NOES:
Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg
.
ABSENT: Cm. Fasulkey
ABSTAIN:
Planning ComnJission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
2
e
.
.
CJChi¿
[Q)~@VŒ
œfanning Commission !Minutes
e CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planrring Comnù9sion was held on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, in
the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioner's Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Planrring Manager;
Richard Ambrose, City Manager; Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Pierce
Macdonald, Associate Planner; Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Fasulkey.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA-
Chair Schaub moved item 7.2 to the end of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATION -
At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s)
of iIlterest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item, which is
NOT on the Plannirlg Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made
.. . e or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.
. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a
future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00 a.m., on the
Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next
regular meeting.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The January 25, 2005 minutes were approved with amendment
that Cm. King liked the idea ofUC Davis students monitoring the Golden Eagle.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -
7.1 Goals and Objectives
Ms. Ram presented the staff report. She explained that in January of 2004 the City Council held a
Strategic Planning Workshop. During the Strategic Planrring Workshop, the City Council developed a
Mission, Vision, and Value Statements for the City of Dublin. The Mission, Vision and Value Statements
were slightly revised in January 2005. The primary focus of the Strategic Planning Workshop was the
development of strategies that would provide a focused framework for City's Goals and Objective
program and the ultimate allocation of resources for the City over the next 10 years. The City useS these
strategies to develop the Goals and Objectives for each fiscal year. These Goals and Objectives are used
as part of the City's Budget Process.
e
The Strategies provide an opportunity to see what the City Council wants to achieve. The adopted FY
2004-2005 Goals and Objectives included 26 objectives that were assigned to the Planning function. One
æ(,¡mritrø C""""ù"""
1JJø·~
29
'l'.6rtu:ry 6. ZOO.f
ATTACHMENT 4
@)~@œ¿'
objective was added during the year for a total of 27 objectives. Of those objectives, 19 were given high
priority by the City Council, 9 were given medium priority and the new objective was not prioritized.
Of the 27 objectives, 10 are complete or will be complete by the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2005). Of a
the remaining 17 projects, some of the projects are multi-year projects, with 9 projects currently -
underway and will be carried over to next fiscal year and 8 projects have had no progress. Every year
the City goes through this process and tweaks the Strategic Plan and goes over the Goals and Objectives.
Ms. Ram explained that she meets witl1 the Plarming Commission to review the Planning function to get
input from the Commission. After meeting with the Commission, Staff prepares a summary, which gets
forwarded to the City Council. In preparation for the City Council Goals and Objectives Study Session
and in order to have a dialogue with the City Commissions, the City Council has scheduled a
Council/ Commission Workshop for Saturday February 26. 2005. The purpose of the workshop is to
provide the Commission with an opportunity to discuss Goals and Objectives under their purview and
the reason(s) for their respective Goals and Objectives rankings with the City Council.
Chair Scha.ub stated that with the Commission being new, there are issues they are not familiar with.
Mr. Ambrose stated that it may be appropriate for Staff to go through this year's list, objective by
objective, to allow the Commission to become familiar with the items. Mr. Ambrose stated that for the
last 20+ years the City has had a Goals and Objectives program. for the entire City, which includes a
number of departments such as Police and Fire. He explained that it is a very short term Goals and
Objectives program and has encouraged the City COU11cil to think of a longer term program. The
Strategic Plan would allow the City Council to focus a portion of the Goals and Objectives program into
the overall strategic plan. A consultant was hired to help develop strategies and help accomplish parts
of the City's Mission Statement. Some of the items that need to be accomplished are going to take some
time such as creating a city of villages. It is going to take a number of significant Planning actions on the a
part of the City. _
01air Schaub suggested adding a column to the Goals and Objectives table, which states the difficulty
level of the project.
Mr. Ambrose stated there is an area that indicates the additional resources required for the project.
There are things that come up especially in Plarming. Planning is an evolving field. There are regulatory
agencies at the State and Federal level that have made development a lot more difficult. There aTe things
that come up that are difficult to predict that cause things to slow down. For example - the Army's oWn
process on Camp Parks slowed that project down because they have to follow certain Federal regulations
in the way they surplus land.
Chair Schaub asked if that is something the Corrunission should kIIOW.
Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council knows.
Chair Schaub stated for example the West Dublin BART Station is a high priority and nothing is getting
done because it is really hard to accomplish.
Mr. Ambrose stated that is a project that the City does not entirely control. The City does not own the
property, which is a joint arrangement between a private developer and BART. The BART board will
not move ahead with the station U11til they are sure there is adequate funding. The City cannot enter the
process until BART says they are ready to develop. That is something that could change tomorrow or it e
couJd drag on for a few more months. The fact that there are too many high objectives, the City Council
~Ì1J¡]Cøm-
~.9døeting
30
1£.6nwy 8, ;/005
ATTACHMENT 4
[Q)~~1m D
likes them that way. The City Council has an understanding with Staff that they do not expect 100% of
them accomplished. He stated that the City Council also gives him discretion to which ones Staff works
eon.
Cm. Biddle stated that he was also concerned because of the 17 proposed objectives, 12 are listed as high
priority .
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff waS able to negotiate with the City Council this past year to identify the top
ten. Of the high priorities, those are the top ten. That was as much as Staff could get them to narrow it.
He stated he was available to answer any questions.
Ms. Ram reviewed the Goals and Objectives for last year, their current status, the adopted Goals and
Objectives and the ones coming forward.
Chair Schaub stated he is most concerned with the top 10.
Cm. Biddle suggested going over all 17.
Ms. Ram stated she will give an update on last year's Goals before discussing the upcomirlg goals.
Ms. Ram and the Planning Commission discussed in great detail the Goals and Objectives for the City.
The Planning Conunission suggested the following additional objectives:
.
· Implement a Housing Committee
· Prepare global transportation plan for the City (JMulti Modal)
· A report on the present status of an Open Space Plan
· A Dublin Blvd. Specific Plan from Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
· A Dougherty Road Specific Plan from 1-580 to Arroyo Vista
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 P A 04-050 Richardson Utility/Garden Shed Conditional Use Permit with an Exception
from Side Yard Setback Requirements - The Applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, are
requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure with a modified side
yard setback, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.40.020(F)(2). The shed has a side
yard setback of two (2) feet and two (2) incl1es where five (5) feet is required.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Pierce Macdonald, Associate PlaIUler presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. The
applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a utility shed
accessory structu.re with a modified side yard setback, pursuant to Section 8.40.020(F)(2) of the Zmring
Ordinance. In 2004, the utility shed's non-conforming setback was identified during a plan check review
of an addition to the Richardson residence on the site. The shed was constructed on the lot with a side
yard setback of two (2) feet and two (2) inches where five (5) feet in required pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance requirements in Section 8.40.020(F)(2)(h).
. According to the Applicant's Written Statement, Mr. Richardson believed that when he began the project
in 2002, the shed met all City requirements because of the information in a pamplùet he obtaffied from
œfim..mg C-Mtuttm
'R.IØuW~
31
'F.6rwtry 8, 200$
ATTACHMENT 4
Ir\\ I-¿"'C~
&J~@lru
the Building and Safety Division. The pamphlet on residential accessory structures that he referred to
references only Building Division requirements for construction and permitting of accessory structures,
and recommends that Applicants contact the Planning Division for zoning regulations. Pursuant to .
Zoning Ordinance Section 8.40.020, a Conditional Use Permit may be granted to allow an exception to
setback requirements if the findings for a Conditional Use Permit can be made.
In reviewing the project application, Staff has reviewed issues of design and health and safety relative to
the location of the shed on the property. Structures that are less than 8 feet in height have a zero setback
requirement. Structures that are over 8-feet to a maximum of 15~feet require a 5-foot setback. Currently
tlùs structure is 2 feet too tall and 3 feet to close to the side property line. If the structure was 8-feet in
height it would meet setback requirements.
The Building and Safety Division reviewed the application and determined that a Building permit is not
required for construction of the shed as it is under 120 square feet in size; however the southern wall
does not meet fire code requirements of the Uniform Building Code as it is not a 1-hour fire-rated wall
and is located too close to the adjacent property for fire safety purposes.
Because the shed does not meet minimum fire safety requirements and the shed is higlùy visible from
Dover Court public right~of-way, Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit. She stated she
was available for questions as well as the Applicant.
Cm. Biddle asked how th.e building could be modified to meet the one-hour fire code rating.
Ms. Macdonald stated that according to the Building Official, 5/8 inch sheetrock would have to be put
on the side of the building between the siding and the frame.
.
Cm. Biddle asked if the sheetrock would have to be put inside the building.
Ms. Macdonald stated that it would need to be on the outside of the building, outside of the framing, but
underneath the siding.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if that is required on the entire building.
Ms. Macdonald stated only on the south side of the building.
Cm. Biddle asked if it would be acceptable if the shed was lowered to 8~feet.
Ms. Macdonald stated that if it was 8-feet in height it would not be subject to a Conditional Use Permit
and would meet setback requirements.
Chair Schaub asked why there are setback regulations.
Ms. Macdonald stated that when the Oty reviewed the Accessory Structure regulations in 2002, the main
intent of setback requirements was to protect the adjacent properties from bulk and massing along the
property lines.
Chair Schaub asked how long the Accessory Structure brochure generated from the Planning
Department has been available to the public.
.
Œ'IMmin¡¡ (:imuoi:>Úm
'R1¡J1ÚM~
32
'Eefinutry 8, 200!
ATTACHMENT 4
[0~@ffir
Ms. Macdonald stated that the infonnation in the pamphlet was updated in the Fall of 2002 and Staff
estimates that it was created in 2003.
. Chair Schaub asked for the Applicant's testimony. He reminded everyone that the issue being discussed
is about appropriate land use. He explained that when a Conditional Use Pennit is approved it runs
with the land and stays with the property. He asked for the Applicant to help the Commission with the
facts. He also reminded everyone that once the public hearing is closed, he will not re~open it unless the
Commission votes as a majority to reopen it.
Darren Richardson, 7230 Dover Court stated he has lived in his house since 1996. He stated that the shed
is used for storing gardening and construction tools. In 2002 he spoke to a Planner about adding On to
his home. The Planner spoke with him and directed him to some handouts in the lobby to help him with
his addition. He picked up a handout from the Building Department on residential accessory structures.
This included requirements for building a shed. They built a shed and have not had any complaints
ITom any of his neighbors. In 2004 they submitted a smaller addition plan for a bathroom and closet.
When the City came by the house to review the lot as part of their approval process they were notified
that the shed height was above the allowed height. He stated that if there were further requirements
other than not needing a permit, the pamphlet should have referenced such requirements. If aware of
such requirements they would have complied completely. He stated they are good citizens of Dublin
and good neighbors of the community and do not believe in disregarding rules and regulations that
have been set in place. He stated that they understand that it was an honest mistake. He understands
that the City is a_sking them to comply but they believe it is unfair to put the burden on them financially
when they built the shed in good faith based on guidelines handed out by the City of Dublin.
. Mr. Richardson stated that in the staff report under Project Description it states that the pamphlet on
residential acce~sory structures references only Building Division requirements for construction and
pennitting of accessory structures, and recommends that the Applicants contact the Planning Division
for zoning regulations. He stated that Attachment 3 actually states in bold letters that Rer;idential
Accesr;ory Structures states t/w.! it is highly recommended for the applicant to verify t/w.t all zoning regulations aTe
in compliance prior to filing for a building permit application. Please contact the Pùmning Divir;ion for specific
information regarding your lot r;ize and 11lI1ximum height and r;etback dimensions. Further down on the
pamphlet it refers to Dublin Municipal Code: 7.28.290 - Exception: No permit shall be required for the
following - one story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and
similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 sq.ft. Based on the pamphlet, he did not need a
permit and was doing in good faith what the pamphlet instructed. He stated that the staff report
indicates the shed is 7 feet and 9 inches from the room addition with valid building permits and 2 feet
and 6 inches from the original portion of the residence. He stated that is a mistake and is actually 4 'i2
feet from the addition. He stated that he was not aware of the health and safety issue with the Fire
Deparhnent because that was not on the pamphlet either. He does not have a problem trying to bring it
up to fire safety and wants it to be safe. It will be difficult to remove the outside wall and put sheetrock
in. If there is a way he could do it from the inside, he wouid prefer doing that. He submitted several
letters of support from his neighbors and pictures for the Planning Commission's review demonstrating
the landscaping that screens the shed. He concluded his presentation and thanked Staff for all their help.
Cm. King asked Mr. Richardson which part of the brochure he found misleading.
.
Mr. Richardson stated the statement on the pamphlet that states that nO permit is required provided the
floor area does not exceed 120 sq. ft.
\I'fanniJI¡¡ Cø1/miuiøJI
~fMætirr¡¡
33
'l!e6nuIry 8, ZOOS
ATTACHMENT 4
[Q)d@~ G
Cm. Biddle stated that he has concerns with the firewall requirement and the height. He explained that
the Commission has to consider sheds that come before them in the future. He stated that, if the shed is
modified to put the firewall On and lowered two feet, the problem goes away completely. .
Mr. Richardson stated he understands that but it is an issue of cost and time. If he would have known
about the regulations, he would have followed those guidelines. He followed in good faith what the
City put before him.
Chair Schaub dosed the public hearing. He stated that he has documentation that the information is
available. This Commission represents 40,000 people. The fire issue is huge issue and needs to be
solved.
Cm. King asked Staff if the permit requirements are separate from the zoning regulations.
Ms. Macdonald stated the Building Department implements the Uniform Building Code and the
Planning Department implements the Zoning Ordinance.
em. King stated for clarity that eVen though a building permit is not required, it still requires an
applicant to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Schaub stated that it is made very clear in the Accessory Structure brochure available in the
Planning Department.
Cm. King stated that the Applicant has some great letters from the neighbors and is not a question of
whether he was acting in good faith or not. There are certain risks that are taken when we take on
projects"'ourselves rather than hiring a professional company that is familiar with the zoning and permit
requirements. He stated that in his opinion he does not see how they could approve the project.
.
Cm. Biddle stated that meeting the Fire code would be pretty easy to correct but has concerns with this
shed setting a precedent for future sheds being built.
On motion by Cm. King ,seconded by em. Biddle, by a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the
Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
WITH AN EXCEPTION FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
LOCATED AT 7230 DOVER COURT, APN 941-0197-056 (PA 04-050)
-----------~"
Ms. Ram explained the appeal process to the Applicant.
8.2 P A 04-024 Alameda County Auto Auction Vehicle Storage and Use Expansion -
Conditional Use Permit - Continued to a date uncertain.
.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
~ c....misJUm
'BIguW !ld.enitIg
34
P.6rIl#ry 8, zoos
ATTACHMENT 4
I 5 ðt"1 " '6
[Q)~@œ
Ms. Ram explained that Alameda County Auto Auction is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Staff
. needs addition.al time to fully analyze the project. Staff recOJI\lT\ends that the PlanrUng Commission
open the public hearing and take testimony from the public and continue the item to a date uncertain.
Jennifer Mosel, 6653 Spruce Lane asked if she should contact the Planrring Department if she has
questions.
Ms. Ram responded yes; and told Ms. Mosel to contact Janet Harbin.
Ms. Mosel stated that for the record she purchased the property fully aware that Alameda County
Auction was behind their house. They were not expecting their mode of security to be a series of dogs.
They have tried talking to the manager but he was rude and did not want to listen. They have taken
videos of the dog barking. They have called the Police Department and received excellent service from
Officer Bowman (sp) who worked with them to help resolve the issue. The dog barking has not
stopped. They have upgraded their win.dows to double pane, which has helped with the noise. They
are asking that Staff and the Planrring Commission to look at the big picture of their entire property.
. Chair Schaub thanked Ms. Mosel and closed the public hearing.
The PlanrUng Commission agreed to continue the item to a date uncertain.
8.3
P A 01-038 A Resolution recolTl1l\ending changes to the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.68 (lnclusionary Zoning Regulations) - regarding changes to
priorities used in the selection of occupants for InclusionaT)' Affordable Units, a floor on
household income in calculating housing expenses for very low-income households in ownership
units and correcting wording on current Inc1usionary Zoning Regulations to comply with the policy
direction adopted by the City Council.
.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider Staff's
reconunendation for changes to the Inclusionary Ordinance. Staff's experience in applying the
regulations during this period has made it clear that several sections in the existing regulations need
refinement or adjustment. There are three specific changes that Staff is recommending. The first is sales
prices of very low income units which basically states that sales prices are set at an amount that would
result in no more than 35% of annual household income being devoted to housing expenses. Calculating
sales prices is complicated because of the numerous variables - such as mortgage terms, interest rates,
household income and size, insurance, and hOIT1.eowners' association dues.
She explained that establishing sales prices for Inclusionary Urùts works well in the moderate-income
and low-income categories. However, because the very~low income category has nO minimum income
level, establishing sales prices could result in requiring Inclusioriary Units to be sold at prices that are
unrealistically low. To solve that issue, the City came up with a cap for the very low income that would
be a little more reasonable for the developer. The income that is actually used to determine the price
would be the top of the very low income category. The categories that are used in the Inclusionary
Ordinance have been developed by the State of California Housing and Community Development.
.
Œ'limnin¡¡ C"",miuIøn
'b¡ .~
35
1J'e6rruuy 8, 2005
ATTACHMENT 4
lQ)~~ffir
The second item is additional priorities of occupant selection. Staff is recommending adding two J:lew
preference categories. The first wouJd graJ:lt oJ:le priority point to applicant househoJds (oJ:le per .
househoJd) who is a member of the immediate family of a persoJ:l that lives in Dublin and has lived in
Dublin for over a year. Staff has been receiving phone calls for over a year from interested Dublin
residents inquiring about residency requirements on the senior affordable projects in Dublin. A large
J:lumber of these inquiries are from residents interested in providing housing for a1:1 aging parent. The
purpose of this provision is to accommodate such needs. The second additioJ:lal preference category
recommendation would grant one priority point to very Jow-Jow-and moderate-income househoJds that
would be required to reJocate due to proposed demolition of their housing or its conversion to
condominiums.
The third change is for rental UIÙt reguJatory agreements to add documentation on Jow-very, low- and
moderate. The section contains a typographicaJ error in that it only mentions the moderate-income
category. Section 8.68.050.B would be amended to indicate that the agreement should contain language
that restricts occupancy to those whose monthly income level does not exceed vel)' low-, low- Or
moderate-income levels as the case may be.
Staff recommends that the PJanrring Commission adopt the resoJution and recommend adding these
amendments to the Inclusionary Ordinance. She stated she was available to answer any questions.
Cm. Schaub stated that with the point system, you may end up with everyone at the same alIlount of
points.
Ms. Abdala stated she is not sure with the Senior Housing development because it is the first one in the
City. She stated that it has not been the case for the for-sale units (Dublin Ranch Villages) in east Dublin .
but they will find out if that is" the case once it goes through.
Cm. Biddle complimented the guide and thought it WaS well prepared.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the California State Housing Community Development is the omy source used
to establish the median income.
Ms. Abdala stated yes. It is used to establish the median mcome and the categories for all the income
levels.
Cm. Schaub closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg by a 4-0-1, with Cm. FasuIkey absent, the
Plannillg Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICJP AL CODE (THE
INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS) RELATING TO SALES PRICES OF VERY LOW-
INCOME UNITS AND PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS
.
iPI4mIiIIø ~
'll.lgukrM.mi#g
36
tF.~ 8, 2f)(}$
ATTACHMENT 4
[Q)~~OOIÓ
_7.2
Ms. Ram stated the Planning Commission is very unique in that it approves its 0WI'\ bylaws. The other
Conurrissions bylaws are approved by the City Council. She stated that the Planning Commission ChaIT
has asked that certain changes to the bylaws be considered. Amending the bylaws need to be voted on
by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
Ms. Ram explained that the amended Rules of Procedure incorporate the $Uggestions of the Chairperson
to make the meetings run more smoothly. The majority of the changes to the Rules are contained in the
"Public Hearing Section" of the document. This Section is now more specific in terms of how the
meeting is run. Although the "marked to show changes" version attached shows that the majority of the
Section is changed - the changes involve moving many of the items to provide better organization.
These changes are not substantive. One change is the inclusion of a new Rule on reopening public
hearings. This Amendment would require a majority vote of the Planning Commission to reopen the
public hearing. Additionally, it would be at the discretion of the Chairperson as to whether to allow
someone to speak more than once during the public hearing. She concluded her presentation and stated
if there were any questions to please ask Chair Schaub.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated there was a bit of confusion on reopening the Public Hearing with Mr.
Richardson because the Planning Commission did not get a chance to ask the speaker questions.
Chair Schaub stated that reviewing the minutes from previous meetings there have been runaway trains.
. The Planning Commission should only be asking clarifymg questions. To get into a group discussion
with someone at the podium is inappropriate. He stated that the minutes from the Toyota project a few
months ago had discussion about stuff that had nothing to do with the use of the property and the public
hearing waS opened and closed several times. He explained that is one of the reasons why he chose to
amend the bylaws and the other reason was the lack of documentation on how to run a good meeting.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated it would help if the Planning Commission could review the speaker slips prior
to them speaking. She would also like to have any pictures or documentation submitted by the
Applicant prior to them speaking.
Chair Schaub stated the letters submitted for the Richardson shed were not a part of the facts to base a
decision on.
Ms. Ram explained that Staff usually receives comment letters before the meeting. Staff will make copies
to give to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting.
On. Biddle stated that, as a Commission they need to try and pull out of the speaker everytlùng they
need to say before they sit down. He stated they don't want to engage into a debate either.
Ms. Ram stated that the correct way to ask a question is to say "through the Chair" and then ask the
question. She explained that when the Planning Commission is deliberating, they should be looking at
one another and not at the audience.
.
There was discussion between the Planning Commission and Staff on running a good meeting and
adopting the amended bylaws.
œliumirr¡¡ C...IIIÛSÎMI
37
1£.6rwry 8, 200S
ATTACHMENT 4
~~
[Q)&@œ~
On rnotion by Crn Biddle, seconded by Crn. King, with Crn. Fasulkey absent the Planning CormniSsion
adopted by a vote of 4-0-1 .
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDING AND ADOPTING 1HE DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION
RULES OF PROCEDURE
, ,
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports)
ADJOURNMENT - The rneeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted,
.
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
e
Œ'óm..mw eom_
œsøllfttr~
38
'1'.6nwy8,200S
ATTACHMENT 4