Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-2006 PC Minutes Planning 111111ission lv11 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 14,2006 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, and King; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney; Leah Peachy, Associate City Attorney; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The October 10, 2006 minutes were approved as submitted. Cm. Fasulkey abstained from the vote due to his absence during the October 10, 2006 meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Study Session on the Proposed Ordinance Amending Density Bonus Regulations - A second Study Session to acquaint the Planning Commission with the proposed revisions to the Density Bonus Regulations. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Leah Peachey, Associate City Attorney, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if the equity-sharing agreement is only for moderate income levels, and Ms. Peachy, Assistant City Attorney, said yes. Chair Schaub asked about the prospect of in-fill in the Downtown area of the City. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, explained that it is unknown exactly how the Downtown would be 117 )\/>cftn6cr 1;{ 20!}(l affected; however, there are current in-fill density bonus opportunities of which developers have not taken advantage. She further explained that with the upcoming Downtown Specific Plan, the land use designators and densities for the Downtown area may be changed. Chair Schaub cautioned that Staff should keep the Density Bonus Regulations in mind when determining the densities for the Downtown area. Ms. Wilson pointed out that Staff is trying to put as many protection measures in place, as allowed by the State Statute, in order to exercise some control over potential outcomes. Cm. Biddle asked if the City could modify the proposed Density Bonus Regulations Ordinance if problems arose while it was being utilized. Mr. John Baker, Assistant City Attorney, explained that once a project is approved, developers typically seek vested rights to proceed with the project as it was approved. He further explained that the City; however, could amend the Zoning of a property as it deems necessary. Cm. King asked about other ways to obtain vested rights. Mr. Bakker explained that vested rights could also be obtained with a Vesting Tentative Map or a Development Agreement. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the readiness of Staff to adequately analyze and interpret a pro- forma. Ms. Wilson explained that Staff could work with consultants and the City Attorneys as needed to assist in analyzing a pro-forma. Mr. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner, pointed out that the proposed ordinance includes a provision that requires applicants to pay the costs for Staff to hire a Consultant, as needed, to assist in reviewing a pro-forma. Mr. Bakker stated that the way the proposed ordinance is drafted, if the developer can not demonstrate a need for a Density Bonus, Staff can recommend denial to the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub expressed concern over the requirement of a document with which the Staff may not be familiar. Ms. Wilson pointed out that Staff has implementing documents that outline application requirements. She reiterated that Staff has the ability to determine the sufficiency of documents submitted for an application. Chair Schaub expressed concern that the term "pro-forma" may be too vague. He suggested that the proposed ordinance require a more explicit set of information. Chair Schaub asked if the pro-forma would be included in the Planning Commission packet if such an item is brought before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bakker stated that the pro-forma could be included in the Planning Commission packet as evidence presented with the project application. He stated that since Staff determines whether the evidence presented is adequate, the form in which the evidence is required is flexible. Cm. Fasulkey sought clarification on whether the proposed ordinance allows for a consultant to be retained at the developer's expense, and Ms. Peachy said yes and pointed it out in the draft ordinance. Chair Schaub suggested that either the term "pro-forma" or "financial report" be carried throughout the entire document, and Staff agreed. Chair Schaub suggested that the proposed ordinance state that the pro-forma would be made a part of the public record. Ms. Wilson explained that it is inherently stated in the draft ordinance, and Mr. Bakker agreed. 118 ]v'{1'f/wlfdje{ } -I, 2006 Chair Schaub asked about the bond requirement for Child Care Facilities. He expressed concern about whether the concept of "the time value of money" is being considered. Mr. Bakker stated that the Child Care Facility requirement is a part of the State Statute and explained that Staff continues to work on this issue, and Ms. Wilson agreed. Cm. Fasulkey questioned whether a child care facility would be needed for the specified time required. He stated that he would like to allow options for the redirection of use for a child care facility that is no longer needed. Mr. Bakker explained that Staff must remain consistent with the State Statute. Mr. Bakker and Ms. Wilson agreed that it is unlikely that a developer would utilize the Child Care Facility option for a Density Bonus. Cm. Fasulkey asked about the practicality of the Enforcement (sub-section A) of the draft ordinance if a violation occurs after the building permits have been finaled. Mr. Bakker explained that after-permit conditions typically require a bond. Cm. Fasulkey suggested including a reference to the bond requirement in the draft ordinance. Mr. Bakker explained that the bond is self-executing and that ordinance authority is not needed. Chair Schaub suggested referencing the bond as a performance bond in the proposed ordinance, and Staff agreed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked how the City Manager would determine sub-section B of the Enforcement section. Mr. Bakker explained that the Housing Division routinely audits affordable housing units. Cm. Biddle asked if the proposed ordinance could read "up to 30 years" for the child care facility instead of" at least 30 years." Ms. Peachy explained that the State Statute explicitly states that that the child care facility" shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the Density Bonus units are required to remain affordable. . ." Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff contacted other cities for comments on their experience with in-fill Density Bonus projects. Mr. Baker explained that surrounding cities were contacted and the comments received were fairly positive. Chair Schaub asked about concession or incentive requests that are in violation of the public health and safety, and Mr. Bakker explained that the draft ordinance allows Staff to reject or mitigate such requests. Chair Schaub asked about environmental requirements for Density Bonus projects. Ms. Wilson explained that Density Bonus projects are not exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). She further explained that a CEQA study would be conducted on the ultimate density of the project. Mr. Baker pointed out the CEQA requirement is also called out in the draft ordinance. Chair Schaub asked if the City Council could direct Staff to modify the existing Inclusionary Ordinance to require fewer or no Inclusionary Units when the Density Bonus Ordinance is invoked if it was found that having both the Inclusionary and Density Bonus Ordinances provided more than enough Affordable or Below Market Rate housing, and Ms. Wilson said yes. 119 ~\,~}'p;mEcr l-lJ ::'006 Chair Schaub suggested that PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) be included in the Definitions of Affordable Housing Cost, and Ms. Peachy explained the origin of the definitions. Cm. Biddle asked if this proposed ordinance would have affected a past project that invoked the current Density Bonus Ordinance. Mr. Bakker said yes and explained that the current Ordinance does not state that Inclusionary Units could not be counted toward Density Bonus; therefore, the project may not have been entitled to a Density Bonus. Vice Chair Wehrenberg sought clarification on cost reductions. Ms. Peachy explained that a concession or incentive must result in a cost reduction to the project as proven in the pro-forma. Chair Schaub commented that Staff should be aware of explicit and incremental costs when reviewing a pro-forma. The Planning Commission complemented Staff on the Study Session and stated that it was very hel pful. 10.2 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). Chair Schaub pointed out that no one from the Housing Committee attended tonight's meeting. Chair Schaub informed Staff that Vice Chair Wehrenberg would not attend the next Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4/~ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: 120 -/Vof'cmEtY J-t 2006