HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2008 PC Minutes--'" Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
28, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the
meeting to order at 7:00p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg and Biddle; Mary Jo
Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; John Lucero, Housing Specialist; and
Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner King
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm.
Tomlinson the minutes of the October 14, 2008 meeting were approved.
RAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment to require 50% of the units within the Medium Density
Land Use Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties provide private yards, and
a PD - Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan to
establish revised private yard standards within -:he Medium Density Land Use
Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the size of the common area is defined in the resolution. Mr. Baker
answered the Council did not define the common area, but it would be studied with the Stage 2
PD and SDR as part of the development application process as is our current practice.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the SDR process would be handled if the developers cannot meet
the requirements and would it be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Baker answered that
was correct; they would be required to meet these standards and if they could not they would
have to request an exception; a General Plan Amendment ;f they could not meet the 50%
requirement or a PD amendment if they could not meet the development standards for private
yards which would require further action from the Planning Commission.
t';>,utar i9 >;n1 127
Cm. Wehrenberg commented the Planning Commission will have another opportunity to
review this during the SDR process and it would be determined at that point what type of
product will be submitted. Mr. Baker answered in order for these sites to be developed they
would be required to obtain approval of a Stage 2 PD and SDR which would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Cm. Biddle commented the Stage 2 PD and SDR are still forthcoming and there could still be the
option of a study session if needed.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there are findings that must be made on the resolutions being
reviewed at this meeting.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered yes; the Planning Commission could recommend
the findings in the GPA Resolution and the PD OrCinance; they could make the
recommendation in the positive to allow the City Council to follow the Commission's action to
approve or not.
Cm. Biddle stated the description does not restrict the yard to a rear yard, but there are
restrictions on what can be done in the front yards such as no privacy fence, etc. Mr. Baker
stated that through the PD process it allows the flexibility for -where to locate the yards, but the
City has typically not allowed privacy fences in front yards.
Chair Schaub mentioned that it is sometimes difficult to determine where the front of the house
is because they are not traditional square houses. Mr. Baker stated the Planning Commission
would have the opportunity to review the SDR to ensure that it meets the requirements of the
resolution.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the Council's intent was to have private yards and felt it would
most likely be either rear yards or side yards.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments, closed the public hearing.
Chair Schaub stated that he feels this resolution is a perfect exz_mple of the City Council and the
Planning Commission trying perfect a policy. He felt this resolution solves the problem by not
splitting the density and creating; fewer restrictions on the very small lots. He continued with
50% of yards, which is half of what is there, then half of the homes will be above midpoint with
plenty of land for the yards. He felt it was a tribute to the City Council that they rethought the
issue and came to this resolution.
Cm. Biddle stated that at some point the City Council and the Planning Commission members
all had concern with some aspect of the issue and felt the Council and Commission worked
through it together.
Cm. Tomlinson felt the beauty of the resolution is its simplicit ?. He stated the Council had the
goal of private, usable rear yards and felt that this resolution allows for a variety of product
lrrr?n t`•=mrrrassatm (Vtober 2n 2008
j<c r <9feetrrr 128
types with different ways of creating them and also offset what cannot be built with the
common area requirement. He stated he was in support of the resolutions.
On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Biddle, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
King absent, the Planning Commission approved the following;:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY
OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE THAT 50%
OF THE UNITS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK
AND JORDAN PROPERTIES PROVIDE PRIVATE YARDS
(APN 985-0027-007,905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 34
A RESOLi TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
ESTABLISH REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE YARDS WITHIN THE
MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES
(APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002)
PA 07-056
8.2 PA 08-041 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) of the Dublin Municipal
Code modifications to establish set sale prices for owner-occupied Inclusionary units,
eliminate the requirement for owner-occupied very-] ow income units, amend the for-
sale Inclusionary unit income ratios and allow for more frequent updates to the Lay
Person's Guide to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Legislative).
John Lucero, Housing Specialist presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub felt that the expenses that will be incurred by the applicant have not been taken
into consideration when calculating the price of the home; which includes the mortgage
payment, HOA fees, GHAD fees and Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). He stated the
maintenance costs for a detached unit are higher than an attached unit where there would be
higher HOA dues in order to cover maintenance costs. He felt the model that was used by the
Housing Division was not realistic as to the actual costs of owning a home. He stated the City
L nni C'? mnrissi n Oaofier48, 008
E ,r;tr'-teet,arrt 129
should rethink the detached versus attached units, particularly in the lower income units, so
that when we provide the housing assistance they are not set up to fail.
Mr. Lucero answered the HOA fees for the developments ar-2 taken into account when doing
the calculations for the unit price. He stated that when the developer comes to the City with
their proposal, the HOA fees are taken into consideration and would be included at that time.
He stated the HOA fee amount mentioned in the Staff Report is an example. He continued that
there are HOA fees that range from $100 - $275 per month depending on the development. He
stated PMI is not used in these calculations. The price is set based on 70% of the Area Median
Income (AMI). He continued when looking at AMI for the individuals in the low category they
look for individuals in the 50%-80% of AMI range. He stated to assist individuals with a
manageable mortgage payment, the City offers the First Time Homeowner Loan Program
(FTHLP). He stated that this program makes funds available which can be used as a down
payment to lower their mortgage payment. He continued the FTHLP is a 30 year deferred loan,
therefore the applicant would not have to pay back the loan for 30 years or until they sell the
unit.
Chair Schaub asked how many loans can the City fund in the course of the year.
Mr. Lucero responded last fiscal year (07/08) the City funded a total of 15 First Time
Homebuyer Loans -14 for BMR units and 1 for a market rate unit. Currently there is not much
development in below market rate units. He stated the City has funded two loans for market
rate units since the beginning of this fiscal year and the average FTHB loan is $37,000. He felt
the Program has been a success and they are able to help individuals with lower mortgage
payments so they are not being strapped with payments they can't afford. He stated there is
also assistance available from the State of California throuph the CAHFA who provide 3%
down payment assistance. He continued there is assistance from Alameda County with a
Mortgage Tax Credit also, and feels the City is ensuring that t ze individuals buying these units
are set up so that they can succeed and not set up for failure.
Chair Schaub was concerned that the program is focused on mortgage payments and does not
take into consideration the cost of maintenance of a home versus maintenance costs for
condominiums. He felt the size of the house increases maintenance costs. He felt that the
maintenance issue has been a problem and he did not see it being addressed in this resolution
and felt the City should address the maintenance cost issue of attached versus detached units.
Cm. Tomlinson commented that the utility costs are dramat:.cally different between attached
and detached units, particularly if the detached home is large.
Mr. Lucero stated the City uses the current national mortgz ge industry standard of 35% of
income for housing to qualify the applicants. He stated the ratios have changed over the year
but currently the mortgage industry will accept no more thar. 35% of gross household income
towards a mortgage payment, and no more than 40% of total income to go towards mortgage
plus all other debt. He stated the City is confident that in using; these ratios they are using ratios
that have been adopted by the housing industry and are prudent. He stated these are not the
ratios that allowed individuals to obtain mortgages with a 30-60% debt to income ratio, he
stated the ratios being used by the City are the ones he personally used in 1991 when he first
;?fl nning ("'enrruiown C aoficr28, 2008
friar t9 E>tiny 130
joined the mortgage industry, pre-subprime lending. These ratios are conservative in
calculating what a household can afford.
Cm. Biddle suggested including a line on the calculation sheet for a maintenance fund.
Mr. Lucero stated that Staff is recommending that when calculating the total housing payment it
would include: homeowners insurance, property taxes and HOA fees. He stated that with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission, Staff could include additional line items such
as the maintenance fund.
Cm. Biddle stated a reserve fund could not be established for utilities, but it could be done for a
maintenance reserve fund.
Mr. Lucero responded that the Planning Commission could recommend that Staff include a line
item on the calculation sheet that includes any special assessments at the time the prices are
calculated.
Chair Schaub asked if the statement in the Staff Report that states "FHA loans and other mortgage
loan programs now require a dozen payment of at least 3-5%" is a correct statement. He felt that the
requirement is for a much larger down payment.
Mr. Lucero answered that FHA requires a down payment w3% to 5%, and Ca1HFA is now
requiring a 5% down payment.
Cm. Biddle wanted to clarify if the developer, despite how many units available, creates a
calculation sheet for each unit before they go on sale so the developer and the buyer will know
what the price of the unit is before the sale.
Mr. Lucero answered yes, when the developer comes to Staff they would be able to give them a
set number based on today's interest rate, but would calculate the sales price of the house when
the City entered into the Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA).
Cm. Biddle asked if the prices are based on the unit and not household income and family size.
Mr. Lucero answered Staff completes a calculation sheet for each individual that applies for a
Below Market Rate (MBR) unit. Staff includes the annual household income into the formula
which creates the sales price. Mr. Lucero stated they have solc.124 BMR units and the prices all
varied.
Cm. Biddle asked if the adjustments are made according to the family income, etc., at the time of
the application and then are told what type/ size house they would qualify for.
Mr. Lucero answered yes, Staff would assume, when calculating the price, if the family
purchased a 2 bedroom unit, the sales price would assume a household size of 3 but there could
be 4 people living in the house. He stated these are only assumptions to base the sales price on
at the time. He stated that the information regarding the minir. ium and maximum occupancy of
the home is in The Lay Persons Guide to Inclusionary Zoning.
t'ejp" '7 :7 ef' if'_( 131
Cm. Biddle asked if the estimates are made for each unit whether for sale or rental. Mr. Lucero
answered yes. Cm. Biddle asked about what the rule is for a change of ownership, will the same
rules apply.
Mr. Lucero answered yes; if the unit is earmarked as a modera =e unit it would have to be sold to
a moderate income family which would mean the maximum household income would be 120%
of the Area Median Income and the resale price is based on :he Area Median Income. As an
example, for the past three years, during the first year the Area Median Income went up 2% and
the second year it went up 0% and then this year it went up 2.68%. He stated that each time
there is a rise in the AMI then there is a rise in the equity of the BMR units, Staff would multiply
that percentage by the base price and that would become the new sales price of the house.
Cm. Biddle asked who defines income and households and what is defined by the City and
what is defined by other regulations. Mr. Lucero answered the City uses the California State
Income Guidelines specifically for Alameda County which come from HUD, down to the State,
and then to the County. He stated the numbers are published every year in April.
Cm. Wehrenberg complemented Mr. Lucero on his presentation, and stated she was also
concerned about the other expenses in homeownership for BM R units and stated she would also
be concerned about foreclosures.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if there were representatives from the rental industry at the developer
meeting. Mr. Lucero answered no; there were representatives from D.R. Horton, Citation
Builders (Arroyo Vista), Pinn Brothers and from the Tri Valley Housing Opportunity Center
(TVHOC) representing Braddock & Logan.
Cm. Tomlinson stated he has associates who manage BMR rental units in other communities
who are having trouble finding qualified renters for the very low income category. He asked if
there had been any thought to making adjustments to that category. Mr. Lucero answered the
greatest need is in the very low income rentals and Staff feels comfortable with the ratios as they
are for rental units.
Chair Schaub stated there are 1201 total affordable units in some stage of either being sold or
entitled but no construction started and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Lucero answered yes. Chair Schaub continued that 818 of that number are rental units, and
383 are for-sale units, and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Lucero answered yes; there are 818 rental units. At the time the chart was developed
Positano had 130 BMR for-sale units with a combination of detached homes, secondary units
and rentals. The number will be changed when the City Council approves the Affordable
Housing Agreement to show how the 130 units will be allocated.
Chair Schaub asked if that would make 130 less units than the 383. Mr. Lucero answered yes;
there would be 253 units left.
f IvZ.t7 #Y ,? i ;7':r„777?,4';>It?3i 7 iefi£r(.v 8, 0f)
I:,,,pn 132
Chair Schaub asked how many units have been sold. Mr. Lucero answered there have been 124
units sold and currently have 30 for-sale units on the market. Chair Schaub asked if that is the
current inventory of affordable for-sale units. Mr. Lucero responded there are 30 moderates, 18
low and 25 very-low income units which add up to 73 units available. Chair Schaub asked if
they were built and looking for buyers. Mr. Lucero answered most are not finished but the
developers are in an open-ended application period where they would accept applications for
the units. He stated the units are part of a Phase of the develOF ment and have not been built.
Chair Schaub asked how many units are available and unso..d currently. He was concerned
about the inventory of unsold units for the City and the developers. Mr. Lucero stated the
unsold inventory would be 5 units that will be closing within 9) days.
Chair Schaub asked if there is a large inventory of unsold, affo:°dable, for-sale units. Mr. Lucero
answered no, Elan has one moderate unit for sale, Silvera Ra:1ch has one moderate, three low
and five very low units.
Chair Schaub asked if there are only five for-sale units in inventory, what problem is the City
trying to solve by changing the Ordinance. He felt the report showed a large problem in the
very-low category but with only five units in inventory it doesn't seem like a very big problem.
Mr. Lucero commented that Tralee is proposed to have four very low income units, and Cantara
will have another four very low income units, so there will be eight very low income units that
will come on the market soon.
Chair Schaub felt the action was proactive and that it is good `o think about this issue before it
becomes a problem.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the prospective buyers and renters are Dublin Residents or is the City
drawing in people with from other communities.
Mr. Lucero explained how the owners for the BMR units are chosen. He gave an overview of
the open application period and the preference points system that is used. He explained that
applicants with the largest number of preference points go to -.he top of the list and are offered
the unit first; if they don't qualify the developer then would €;o down the list that was created
during the application period. All of the developers the Cily is currently working with are
using TVHOC to take in the applications, qualify the applicant3 and submit them to the City for
final review. He continued the developer brings their markel ing plan to the housing division
for approval. The developers use local marketing and a local :-ion-profit to help the developers
with sales of the units.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City has a designated employee to coordinate the process. Mr.
Lucero answered there is a staff of 2 full time employees in the Housing Division that share the
job duties. He stated there are annual monitoring reviews to assure that the individuals are still
living in the units.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comment closed the public hearing.
tnvn.rx;, t'cr rw:sicg t:;L. ,Fr z5, 3008
,r,;: ;, .§eetincj 133
Cm. Biddle asked if when the worksheet is developed for each unit, it would be known exactly
the costs of homeowner's insurance, taxes, HOA fees, and PMI. Mr. Lucero responded the
Private Mortgage Insurance would not apply. There woulc. only be costs for homeowner's
insurance, taxes and HOA fees and if there is a recommendation to add another item to the
worksheet we would use that as well.
Cm. Biddle asked if the City recommends an insurance company to the applicants for
homeowners insurance. Mr. Lucero stated no that is up to the homeowner.
Cm. Biddle felt the maintenance fund suggestion may be something the Commission would
want to review at a later date.
Chair Schaub felt the City should differentiate between attached versus detached homes and the
HOA fees and other fees that are associated with them. The condo/townhome fees will be
higher due to the reserve funds, but the maintenance costs of living in a single family home are
much higher and can be an unknown cost for a first time homebuyer.
Cm. Tomlinson felt the program is consistent with current loan underwriting standards. He
stated the marketing plan would include explaining what is included in the HOA fees for a
condo/townhome, such as roof replacement and landscaping. They would also explain the
HOA fees for single family homes where the responsibility to maintain their home falls to the
homeowner.
Cm. Biddle stated he had some experience with Habitat for Humanity which establishes a
maintenance reserve fund to replace a water heater, etc. He felt the problem is that someone
would need to manage the fund and keep track for each homeowner.
Chair Schaub felt that taking the very-low income category o at of the program is helpful. He
felt that a very-low income family would find it hard to buy the things needed to maintain a
house.
Cm. Tomlinson felt that the resolution would bring certainty to the numbers because of the fact
that the developers are calculating the price of each home individually based on who the
applicant which could be a disincentive for that developer. He felt there was a larger issue and
wondered if the City Council would want the Commission to review the program. He was
concerned with the appropriateness of a developer selling a lzrge single family home to a low-
income family which could be an economic burden to them. He felt it was noble to provide
housing for residents but the more problematic issue comes with the expense of maintaining a
larger home.
Mr. Lucero stated that the City Council assigned a goal to the Housing Division to evaluate the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and the effectiveness of it.
Chair Schaub asked if that would be part of the Housing Element and when that would be
presented to the Commission.
{fr, itq('z;mwis.ion CL,'Sr28,2008
4,1q;dar le ribs 134
Ms. Wilson answered Staff hoped to have a draft Housing Element before the Joint Study
Session with the Planning Commission and the Housing Committee in early December 2008.
She further stated that the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is 3 separate and distinct item from
the Housing Element.
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated the goal is to examine the City's Affordable
Housing Programs in general and Staff is planning to bring that to the City Council the early
part of next year.
Chair Schaub asked if the Affordable Housing Programs would be reviewed with the Housing
Element. Ms. Wilson answered no; the effectiveness of the fffordable Housing Program is a
part of the Housing Element but a separate project.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson regarding the financial burdens and the
effectiveness of the program. She stated she has read the report and the selection criteria, and
asked if that would be addressed when studying the effectiveness of the Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Lucero answered Staff would be reviewing the overall effectiveness of the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. Biddle felt the resolution was an improvement, and :.t is a good idea to review the
Ordinance periodically because conditions change and the Cite must change with them.
Chair Schaub commended Staff on being proactive and helping the developers and residents
with housing and felt the City should continue to review the Ordinance.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
King absent, the Planning Commission approved the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 08-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (TB E INCLUSIONARY ZONING
REGULATIONS) RELATING TO ESTABLISHING FIXED SALES PRICES FOR OWNER-
OCCUPIED INCLUSIONARY UNITS; ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT TO
CONSTRUCT OWNER-OCCUPIED VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; AND, ALTERING THE
FOR-SALE INCLUSIONARY UNIT INCOME RATIOS
(PA 08-041)
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
Chair Schaub felt, in order to move a project forward, Staff could use some flexibility to make
decisions that create moderate changes to projects. He felt that Staff understands what the
Planning Commission is looking for and can approve changes in a timely manner so that the
project can move forward.
?'t='tr;s <y 'amrrtiss'2tj October ,N, 2006
l,'sgfpi,a* WeelilIy 135
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub but felt Staff could add a request to the agenda if
there was a request that needed to be approved quickly.
Ms. Wilson answered that many times Staff has to make judgments based on what the
Commission has acted on in the past but there are times when Staff needs to send it back to the
Commission for approval according to the codes and previous approvals. There are times
when Staff may need to be slightly quicker to approve projects and will continue try to meet the
needs of the developers. She continued there are still changes that would need to come before
the Planning Commission and City Council. She explained the changes that would need to
come before the Commission are changes that Staff would not feel comfortable approving
without the Commissions input. She stated the Commission could go back and address the
SDR chapter at a later discussion is they felt it was necessary tc expedite projects.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she would be willing to accept less of a package and less discussion if
there was something that needed immediate response. Chair Schaub agreed.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff must still do analysis for the Commission. There would have to be
written documentation for the record as well as the noticing p:-ocess. Therefore, while Staff can
try to get things to the Commission quickly, there is still a lot of work that goes into providing
the information to the Commission.
Chair Schaub felt that if Staff has done the analysis on a project and still would like to bring it to
the Commission, whatever Staff had at that point is okay with him. Ms. Wilson stated Staff
would take that into consideration and agreed to respond to the Commission when a process
has been established if they decide to do that.
Chair Schaub stated the Commission does not want to "hang-tip" anything unless need be. He
continued that the Commission wants to do everything they can to help the developers
move/sell houses.
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Ilanning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Downtown Update - No new applications.
10.3 Mervyns is closing.
10.4 PC Rules and Procedures will be brought to Planning Commission in January 2009.
10.5 The City Council will consider Planning Commission stipends on 11-4-08.
10.6 Holiday schedule for upcoming Planning Commission meetings:
11-12 - on Wednesday because of Veterans day.
11-25 - Study session will begin at 6 p.m., with regular rrteeting to follow at 7:00 p.m.
12-9 - Joint Planning Commission/ Housing Committee Study Session on the Housing
Element.
12-23 - possibly canceled because of closeness to holiday.
_??.r?? sty=;=E 136
10.7 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Ms. Wilson knew of a new Ordinance for LEED standards that
will become effective in 2010, but the City level has the option of adopting it before then
and is the City considering that. Ms. Wilson agreed to look into it.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting; was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Respectf ally submitted,
Bill a ub
Chair Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Mary Jo lon AICP
Planning er
G:\ MINUTES \ 2008\ PLANNING COMMISSION ? 10.28.08.doc
gj'arming C'0m1,11Vsi n L)cto r 2 t, ytii,
W!rfp br lfeeti1 q 137