Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2014 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 25, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:03:18 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do, and O'Keefe; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Kohli and Vice Chair Goel ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-0, with Cm. Kohli and Vice Chair Goel being absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the February 11, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — NONE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PLPA-2013-00031 General Plan Housing Element Update Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, introduced Veronica Tam, Consultant, who presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a definition of urban core in the Bay Area. Ms. Tam responded that the urban core area would be San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that, after a different presentation regarding economic development, it seemed that the population of Dublin is projected to increase, but the RHNA allocation would be decreasing and she felt that the allocation was not reflective of the population growth. She asked Ms. Tam to explain. Ms. Tam responded that the RHNA is based on the projected growth for the entire State of California and allocated to each region. She stated that it is not necessarily based on job growth in your city, but is based on future growth projection for the entire state. ciranning Commission Te6rurny 25,2014 I(cgurarMeeting P'a g e 35 Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that Ms. Tam had spoken regarding a deficit in the number of units in the lower income category and he asked her to provide the Planning Commission with additional details. Ms. Tam responded that there are not enough available residential sites to accommodate the RHNA obligation for the lower income category. This results in a deficit of 1,075 units in the lower income category, but there is a surplus in the moderate and above moderate income category. The City will need to rezone land to accommodate the units. Cm. Do asked if the 1,075 units includes both the low and very low income levels. Ms. Tam stated that state law allows the low and very low income levels to be added together. The City is required to facilitate and encourage construction of those units but is not required to build the units, but the city must demonstrate they have the capacity of land available where these units can be built. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what strategies the City is exploring to address the deficit. Ms. Delgado stated that one of the solutions that the City is exploring is increasing the residential capacity within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) area. This area is designated as a priority development, area which would be consistent with increased housing growth. She stated that, if the City were able to designate additional sites in the downtown area, the deficit would be resolved and it would result in a 25 unit surplus in the lower income categories. She stated that this solution would require an amendment to the DDSP. Cm. O'Keefe asked where the units would be built. Ms. Delgado responded that the current policy within the DDSP area provides maximum flexibility for the units to be located anywhere within the area. She stated that there are three different districts within the DDSP and each district is allocated a certain number of units. The bulk of the units would be located in the Transit Oriented District where the higher densities are located and some units would be allocated within the Retail District where the density is slightly lower. She felt that the Village Parkway District, based on the character of the district, would be even lower density. She stated that, looking at how the residential units were allocated in the current DDSP, Staff felt the DDSP area would be a viable alternative to meet the RHNA for this Housing Element cycle. Cm. O'Keefe asked where there is land that could be used for housing on Village Parkway or in the Retail District. Ms. Delgado answered that Staff looks at sites that are considered underdeveloped or underutilized, the age of the structures, number of vacancies, and whether or not the property is currently for sale. She stated that Staff also looks at sites that developers have expressed an interest in redeveloping the site for residential. She stated that Staff takes all these factors into consideration without pinpointing a specific parcel; districtwide there is a potential that some of the sites could be redeveloped. She reiterated that the City's obligation is to show that there is the capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but the market will dictate when and where development occurs. A nning Commission Commission 6rutioi 25,2014 Wggutar feeting a g e 1 36 Mr. Baker stated that, once the City is assigned the RHNA obligation, the City must identify sites to accommodate that development which means having the density and land use policies in place to facilitate the development, but the City is not required to build the units. He stated that, based on Staff's analysis, the City is short 1,075 units and in order to address that, the City will need to identify sites in Dublin to add housing. He stated that, in order to be compliant with state law, sites must have land use designations to accommodate those units, therefore, Staff reviewed how the City can achieve that and one viable option, which is consistent with some of the premises of the DDSP, is to locate the units downtown. It doesn't mean that the City must build the units but the City can show the State that they have provided the opportunity for them to be built. Cm. Do asked if the DDSP would need to be amended to allow more housing in order for the City to be compliant. Mr. Baker answered yes it would, if the City relies on the downtown area to accommodate the units. Cm. O'Keefe asked if it is likely that there will be an amendment to the DDSP in order to be in compliance with the state. Mr. Baker answered yes as, separate from the current RHNA obligation, the City Council directed Staff to study amending the DDSP to add additional residential capacity. He stated that currently the DDSP allows 1,300 residential units and the majority of the units have been allocated. The City Council directed Staff to study an amendment to the DDSP that would substitute commercial development, which is currently at 3 million square feet, and is a very large amount of development. Therefore, Staff has studied taking out a certain amount of commercial development and offsetting that with residential so that it would offset the impacts by changing from commercial to residential. He stated that Staff is currently working on the DDSP amendment. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for an understanding of the list of approved projects. She felt that none of the projects on the list have any residential density less than the above moderate income category, except the veteran's housing project. She asked if there was a formula for a certain percentage of affordable housing for each project or if an in-lieu fee is to be paid. She asked if all the other projects have already paid an in-lieu fee. Ms. Delgado answered not necessarily. She stated that each project is unique depending on the location and entitlements that were in place for it; for example, Dublin Ranch North does not meet the threshold of 20 units to provide affordable housing. Affordable housing is not required on the Transit Center Site E-1 under their master development agreement. She stated that each site is unique and their affordable housing could have been satisfied as part of another project, but the City can still get credit for the approved projects because we do have an above moderate requirement that the City needs to meet as part of RHNA. She stated that it also demonstrates the level of development activity that is occurring in Dublin. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the affordable housing requirement for the Kingsmill project is being satisfied by the veteran's housing. She was concerned with the Lot 3 project that was approved for an apartment complex and was recently proposed and approved to be converted to medium density housing and how that would affect the City's RHNA. She asked if there were designated c'&¢nning Commission February 25,2014 1fgufar9titeeting (Fag e 37 affordable housing units as part of the project when Lot 3 was approved as an apartment complex. Mr. Baker answered that each project is different and the Lot 3 project partially satisfied their affordable housing with the Fairway Ranch affordable project, so the majority of their affordable obligation was satisfied off-site. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if Fairway Ranch is built out. Mr. Baker answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the Fairway Ranch project satisfied their affordable housing and then brought forward the lower density project. Mr. Baker responded that the majority of their affordable housing obligation has been satisfied. Mr. Baker stated that this meeting is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to ask questions on the Housing Element or the RHNA allocation or anything that they would like to share with Staff. He stated that Staff will move forward with the Housing Element update and their comments will help inform the Housing Element update document. He stated that one of the largest components of the Housing Element is the Sites Analysis and identifying locations to help with the deficit of lower income units. One of Staffs recommendations is to amend the DDSP to increase the number of housing units. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there is space available at the Eastern Dublin Transit Center and asked if the 1,075 units could be split between the DDSP area and the Transit Center. Mr. Baker answered that there are opportunities for that suggestion but that would eliminate what was envisioned by the City as a jobs-producing location with campus/office development at the BART station. The City Council worked closely with ABAG on the Sustainable Communities Strategies and acknowledging jobs-producing land at the Transit Center. He stated that if the City wants to substitute some of the office space for residential that is an option. He stated that it would mean reducing the jobs-producing land by the BART station. He stated that is one of the key challenges is the tradeoffs that would need to be made to meet the RHNA. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the City still has a homebuyer's assistance program. Mr. Baker answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that, in the document, it states that since inception 18 households have been assisted, but further on in the document it states that during the timeframe the City should assist 75 households. She asked if the City has assisted more households in the last 7 years. Ms. Delgado responded that each year an annual report is prepared on the status of the Housing Element and each program is tracked and the progress that is made towards achieving the programs is reported. She stated that she did not have the latest report with her. She stated that the annual report is posted on the website and it is sent to HCD every year and demonstrates the steps taken to achieve those programs. She stated that the difference in the 'fanning Commis-Ikon February 25,2014 gufarMeeting (age 1 38 numbers shown in the Housing Element is that Staff reports what was accomplished in the previous cycle and what the goal is for the current cycle and Staff will be doing that again in this Housing Element update. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there is a schedule for the community meetings or outreach. Ms. Delgado responded that this is the first public meeting held on the Housing Element. She stated that there was an extensive mailing list; notices were sent to developers, service providers, stake holders, Human Services Commissioners, and interested parties. She stated that there were some individuals that contacted the City and asked to be put on an interest list and notices were sent out for this meeting. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there is a schedule for when the update will be available, such as a strike-through copy. Ms. Delgado stated that Staff has been working on the draft and hope to have it complete within the next few months and be back to the Planning Commission in the spring. She stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council will have an opportunity to review the draft before it is submitted to HCD for a formal review. Once the draft is certified by HCD, it will be submitted to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council for formal adoption hearings. She stated that Staff is requesting the Planning Commission's input or anything they would like Staff to study while preparing the draft. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she has advocated for senior housing to be intermixed with other housing, particularly in the downtown area and near public transportation instead of in one community by themselves. She felt that Wicklow Square is successful and that the veterans housing is great, but there should be more senior housing in the downtown. She felt that the Transit Oriented Districts (TOD) seems to attract younger people but hoped there would be an opportunity for more senior housing in the downtown area with a housing style that includes flats. Chair Bhuthimethee offered an opportunity for the public to speak; no one came forward. Mr. Baker stated that Staff will continue to work on the update and the DDSP amendment which will be on the Planning Commission agenda soon. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what period of time the next Housing Element will be certified for. Mr. Baker stated that the Housing Element update is for a longer period with a streamlined review process but, if the City does not meet the dates, the review period will be only 4 years rather than 8 years. He stated that Staff's intent is to meet those dates. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 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). ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 7:55:59 PM Praraning Cnng=sian E'e6ruary 25,2014 t<igu[arWeeting Page 139 Respectfully submitted, UL, Alr Pl-nning Commis ion Chair ATTEST: (-731 -• Jeff a Assistant Community Development Director GAMINUTES12014IPLANNING COMMISSIOM02.25.14 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc a'Canning Commission Eebruary 25,2014 (1(cgurar!Meeting 4 a g e 40