HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 Dublin Meadows Rezoning CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 9, 1991
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: PA 91-001 JL
Construc ion Planned Development
Rezoning; Dublin Meadows
REPORT PREPARED BY: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner
Robert Schubert, Contract Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Resolution denying the
Planned Development Rezoning to amend
Condition #54 of City Council Resolution
No. 32-89 to allow the option of paying
an in-lieu rental fee rather than
providing rental units.
Exhibit B: Page 14 of City Council
Resolution No. 32-8.9
Exhibit C: Draft City Council
Ordinance re: Planned Development
Rezoning.
Exhibit D: August 12 , 1991 memorandum
to City Council filing recommendation of
the Planning Commission to the City
Council on PA 91-001 , Planned
Development Rezoning, JL Construction.
Exhibit E: August 13 , 1991 letter from
JL Construction requesting a hearing on
PA 91-001.
Attachment 1: Planning Commission
minutes of August 5, 1991
Attachment 2: Planning Commission
Resolution No. 91-43 .
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing
2) Receive Staff Report and testimony
from Applicant and the public
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the
public
4) Close public hearing and deliberate
5) Take action 5A OR 5B:
5A) Introduce an Ordinance (Exhibit C)
amending the Zoning Ordinance to
permit the Planned Development
Rezoning to amend Condition #54 of
City Council Resolution No. 32-89
to allow the option of paying an
in-lieu rental fee rather than
providing rental units; OR
5B) Adopt resolution (Exhibit A)
denying PA91-001, Planned
Development Rezoning, JL
Construction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No financial impact if the Planned Development Rezoning is
denied. If approved, the Planned Development Rezoning would not
increase staff costs. Revenues could be gained by the City for
use in providing rental housing through the payment of in-lieu
rental fees.
---------- -
- ------------------------------------------
ITEM No. - COPIES TO: Agenda/General File
Applicant/Owner
Project Planner
CITY CLERK
1 FILE 5 19 3 0
DESCRIPTION:
On August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission by a 3-0 vote
with one commissioner abstaining and one commissioner absent
recommended against adoption, and thus deemed denied, a planned
development rezoning requested by JL Construction. The rezoning
would amend condition #54 of City Council Resolution No. 32-89
(PA 88-009) to allow payment of a fee in-lieu of providing 10% of
the multi-family dwellings in the development as rentals for a
period of five years. Condition #54 currently reads as follows:
"The developer shall provide guarantees that a minimum of
100 of the multi-family units in the project shall be
maintained as rental units for a period of five years. The
document providing said agreement shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney. Developer agrees that
until the Condition has been satisfied, there shall be no
conversion of condominium units for sale. "
The Applicant requests that Condition #54 be amended to
allow the option of paying an in-lieu fee rather than providing
rental units. Condition #54 would be revised to read as follows:
"The Developer shall provide guarantees in the form of a
deed restriction that a minimum of 10% of the multi-family
units in the project shall be maintained as rental units for
a period of five years or that an in-lieu rental fee of
$10,808 per rental unit be paid in accordance with the
Rental Availability Ordinance. Twenty-one units shall be
maintained as rental units. Developer shall record the Deed
Restriction requiring that the twenty-one rental units,
which shall be enumerated in said deed restriction, be
maintained as rental units for a period of five years. The
five year period shall commence with the granting of final
occupancy of each rental unit. The Deed Restriction shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of any project building permit.
If elected by the developer, the in-lieu rental fee for
twenty-one units is $226,968.00 ( 21 x $10,808) . An amount
equal to 1/206th of the total in-lieu rental fee of
$226,969.00 shall be paid for each unit or $1,101 . 79.
The in-lieu fees shall be paid as follows:
1 . No later than 30 days from the date of adoption of the
Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance for those units which
have already received final inspections, and
2 . Prior to final inspection for those units which have
not received final inspection. "
On August 12, 1991 , a memorandum was presented to the City
Council filing the recommendation of the Planning Commission to
the City Council on PA 91-001 (Exhibit C) . In that memorandum it
was stated that an interested party could request a hearing on PA
91-001 if a written request was filed with the City Clerk within
five days after the filing of the recommendation with the City
Council. On August 13 , 1991, JL Construction filed a written
request for a hearing before the City Council (Exhibit D) .
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt a resolution denying the Planned Development Rezoning to
amend Condition #54 of City Council Resolution No. 32-89 to allow
the option of paying an in-lieu rental fee rather than providing
rental units.
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an
ordinance (Exhibit C) amending the zoning Ordinance to permit the
Planned Development Rezoning to amend Condition #54 of City
Council Resolution No. 32-89 to allow the option of paying an
in-lieu rental fee rather than providing rental units.
Should the City Council decide to deny the Planned
Development Rezone, Staff would recommend that the City Council
adopt a resolution (Exhibit A) denying the Planned Development
Rezoning Request.
RESOLUTION NO. - 91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENIAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING PA 91-001 TO AMEND
CONDITION #54 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 32-89 (PA 88-009 )
TO ALLOW THE OPTION OF PAYING AN IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE
RATHER THAN PROVIDING RENTAL UNITS
FOR DUBLIN MEADOWS - J.L. CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, JL Construction Company has requested approval of a
Planned Development Rezoning to amend Condition #54 of City
Council Resolution No. 32-89 to allow the option of paying an in-
lieu rental fee rather than providing rental units; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing
was published in the local newspaper and posted in the City
Clerk' s Office and in other public buildings in accordance with
California State Law; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment to Condition #54 has been
reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002 , was
prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February
11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of
the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impact of
said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of
General Plan Amendment 91-001, including Planned Development
Rezoning PA 91-001; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 91-039 recommending City Council certification of
the Negative Declaration as adequate and complete; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and
oral testimony submitted at the public hearing.
WHEREAS, data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated
cost, required to provide the housing for which the in-lieu
rental fee is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to
provide the housing, including General Fund revenues were made
available to the public at least 10 days prior to the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing
on August 5, 1991, recommended against adoption, and thus deemed
denied, the proposed Planned Development rezoning; and
/hsngrecl W K
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council denies
the requested amendment to Condition #54 , of City Council
Resolution No. 32-89 (PA 88-009 ) as shown on Attachment 1
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September,
1991 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
/hsngrecl
2
ATTACHMENT 1
54 . The developer shall provide guarantees in the form of a deed
restriction that a minimum of 10% of the multi-family units in
the project shall be maintained as rental units for a period of
five years or that an in-lieu rental fee of $10, 808 per rental
unit be paid in accordance with the Rental Availability
Ordinance.
Twenty-one units shall be maintained as rental units .
Developer shall record the Deed Restriction requiring that the
twenty-one rental units, which shall be enumerated in said deed
restriction, be maintained as rental units for a period of five
years . The five year period shall commence with the granting of
final occupancy of each rental unit. The Deed Restriction shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and
City Attorney and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any
project building permit.
If elected by the developer, the in-lieu rental fee for
twenty-one units is $226, 968 (21 x $10,808 . 00) . An amount equal
to 1/206th of the total in-lieu rental fee of $226,968 . 00 shall
be paid for each unit or $1, 101 .79 .
The in-lieu rental fees shall be paid as follows :
1 . No later than 30 days from the date of adoption of the
Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance for those units which have
already received final inspections, and
2 . Prior to final inspection for those units which have
not received final inspection.
/hsngrecl
3
52. Should the uni ^ be initially occupied as apart; units, the
following reports shall be filed with, and appro-,ed •by, the City
Engineer at the time the units are put up for individual sale.
A. A report by a licensed roofing contractor certifying that the
roofs of all the structures are in good condition and not likely
to be in need of replacement for at least 10 years. P. reserve
deposit may be established to cover tae estimated prorated costs
replacement: replacemen= •«
of roof replacer�n ill be required prior to
10 years .
B. A report by a professional Engineer attesting, to the extent
reasonably feasible, that the structure of buildin 5 ,
pavements , StOr3 Cra'_linage faclllt:es, and tha interior and
exterior plum:.';-'_ electrical Systc-s, arc ut111tI+ and mechanical
equipment t0 be O'.�"`nec 1-11 .C0I^J'.On, Or as part Of the 1nGl'71GUal
COndcminiLLms , are In £OOc and sere-ble condition.
C. A report by. a licensed painting cor.t_actoT that paint throughout
the project is in good condition a-:c lr:at the wilding exteriors
Should not require repainting for a= least fl'Ja years. A r25erJe
deposit may be eStab11Si1$d
to Cove= tae_ estimated prorated Costs
for the r2palnt;n Of t.^.? u-
nits «na�� re7clnti'lj «i it be r20u1_cC
prior to a 5-year period.
D. A report by a licensed termite and pest con tr01 SpeC'_a11St
ctures are ee of infestation and
certifying that the str --
structural damage causzc by ozsts .
53. Should the units be OCCL'pied as a�a:t 2nt L'n1ts, all
appliances shall either be re placed with ,:e•« units or the initial
buyers provided with a or.e-t'zar' s parts and warranty guarantee on all
appliances at the time the units are put u-D !or individual sale.
54. The developer shall pro•Jid.. S'
;arantees that a nlnimLLil Of 10% Of the
multi-family units In the project Shall be r-aintalne-d as rental units
CpU�I'►i�U r period of five cars . The docum°_nt D:Ovidln, said ag__emznt
or a p y�
5 shall be subject to Tevie-« and approval b•; the City Attorney.
Developer a�r225 that until the COnditl0n has been satlszled, there
shall be no conversion of ccndominiu ur:its foe sale.
-z�oc Cetie- bL'lldinc5 , o ildi^.° ap�urtenanCes ai^C
55 . The minimum dista- _
TO�'ei ents s^all com:)I,: e CClcft l =�taCClm-nt
other project imp •• - "
The term "buildir;v" shall reefer to the exterior side of builcing galls
containing heated s--ace.
Exceptions t0 the Standaic SetbaCk-S are rossiblz thr�u�l review and
throes e Daveloc-ent ReVie-.�
--e t%e �lt_
aooroval by the Fla ninJ Di: clot -
process .
-14-
[PASS-009 .1:Reso CC (FD) 31/27/S9) ►J
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REZONING PA 91-001 TO AMEND CONDITION #54 OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 32-89 (PA 88-009) TO ALLOW
OPTION OF PAYING AN IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE RATHER
THAN PROVIDING RENTAL UNITS
FOR J.L. CONSTRUCTION - DUBLIN MEADOWS
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows :
"Section 1 :
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code,
specifically Condition of Approval No. 54 of City Council
Resolution No. 32-89 (PA 88-009, the Planned Development
approving Heritage Commons) is hereby amended as follows :
54 . The developer shall provide guarantees in the form of a deed
restriction that a minimum of 10% of the multi-family units in
the project shall be maintained as rental units for a period of
five years or that an in-lieu rental fee of $10, 808 per rental
unit be paid in accordance with the Rental Availability
Ordinance.
Twenty-one units shall be maintained as rental units .
Developer shall record the Deed Restriction requiring that the
twenty-one rental units, which shall be enumerated in said deed
restriction, be maintained as rental units for a period of five
years . The five year period shall commence with the granting of
final occupancy of each rental unit. The Deed Restriction shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and
City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any
project building permit.
If elected by the developer, the in-lieu rental fee for
twenty-one units is $226 , 968 . 00 (21 x $10,808 . 00) . An amount
equal to 1/206th of the total in-lieu rental fee of $226 , 968 . 00
shall be paid for each unit or $1, 101 . 79 . In the event of final
occupancy following an increase in the in-lieu fee of $10,808,
the developer shall pay the increased in-lieu fee.
The in-lieu rental fees shall be paid as follows :
1 . No later than 30 days from the date of adoption of the
Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance for those units which have
already received final inspections, and
2 . Prior to final inspection for those units which have
not received final inspection. "
EX r.:
/hsngordc - -� s
1
Section 2 :
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon
payment by the J.L. Construction Company, or its successor in
interest, of the in-lieu rental fees as provided in Section 1 ( 1)
above, but in no event shall this ordinance take effect and be in
force earlier than 30 days from and after the date of its
passage. Before the expiration of fifteen ( 15) days after its
passage, it shall be published once, with the names of the
council members voting for and against the same, in a local
newspaper published in Alameda County and available in the City
of Dublin.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City
of Dublin, on this day of , 1991, by the
following votes :
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
/hsngordc
2
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM:, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director/Secretary to the
Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PA 91-001 , Planned Development Rezone, JL
Construction recommendation against adoption by the
Planning Commission.
DATE: August 12, 1991 !�
At its hearing of August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission
recommended against adoption, and thus deemed denied, a planned
development rezone requested by JL Construction to allow payment
of an in-lieu fee instead of providing 10% of the multi-family
dwellings in the development as rentals for a period of five
years.
Section 65856 of the Government Code states that upon receipt of ,
the recommendation of the Planning Commission against the
adoption of an amendment to a zoning ordinance, the City Council
shall not be required to take any further action on the amendment
unless an interested party requests a hearing by filing a written
request with the clerk of the City Council within five days after
the Planning Commission files its recommendation with the City
Council.
This letter constitutes the filing of the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to the City Council on PA 91-001 , Planned
Development Rezone, JL Construction.
I _
Sincerely Yours,
Gam"r
i
Laurence L.Tong,
Planning Director/Secretary to the
Planning Commission
i
cc: Jim Franklin
PA 91-001, file
I /JLC2
DHC
i
k�
izj. - 554 C, P _ 02
JL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 619 1.9327
5966 La Place Ct•,Ste.200,p,0.Box 369,Carlsbad,CA 92008 Yelophone(619)431-9844
FAX( )
August 13, 1991
Via Tel co er & Cert' fied M it
(415) 833.6628
Ms. Kay Keck
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568 '
i
Re: PA 91-001
I
Dear Ms. Keck: �
on August 12 , 1991 we received nOttofttheeplannedng
Commission bias recommended against adoption
development rezone requested by JL Construction.
The purpose of this letter is to request a public
i
hearing before the City Council in connection with PA 91-001)
Construction' s planned develoectionr65856 and urelated
pursuant to Government
Cit to
provisions. At the hearing, J and
disapprove the recommen
to adopt the proposed rezone with respect to the issue of an
in-lieu fee for the Dublin Meadows project.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this
matter.
Ver truly you s,
L N TR C ON N�PANY
am s ranklin
1
J LF/sb
cc: Richard Ambrose, city Manager
Laurence Tong, Planning Director y
Dennis Carrington ° E_
Bl ,
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 033
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST
CONCERNING PA 91-042
DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY REZONING APPLICATION
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 034
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 91-042
DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AT 7494 DONOHUE DRIVE AND 7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (PORTION)
The Commission took a 10 minute break.
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91 -001 • Amendment to the Housing
Element of the General Plan to allow fees to be paid in-lieu
of a requirement by Housing Element Policy IIIE which requires_
a percentage of units in large multi-family projects ( i .e. ,
roiects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified
period of time (Citywide) [continued from the July 1 , 1991
Planning Commission meeting]
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91 -001 • Adoption of an ordinance to
allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a
percentage of units in large multi-family protects be rented
for a specified period of time (Citywide) [continued from the
July 1 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting]
SUBJECT: PA 88-009 . 1 Dublin Meadows Planned Development Rezone to allow
fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a minimum of 10%
of multi family units be maintained as rentals for a period of
five years located at 7081 Dublin Meadows Street [continued
from the July 1 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting
Cm. Zika opened the public hearing on the three items and asked for the
staff report.
Mr. Carrington presented the staff report for items 8 . 7, 8 . 8, and 8 . 9 as
a group. Mr. Carrington pointed out several corrections that needed to
be made on the various agenda items . (8 . 7 pg. 8 of 25; 8 . 8 pg. 15 of
15; 8 . 9 pg. 4 of 10 and pg. 10 of 10; 8 . 11 pg. 10 of 39 ; pg. 17 of 39;
pg. 21 of 39 ; pg. 29 of 39 ; and pg. 30 of 39 .
Cm. North pointed out an error on page 7 of 15 in item 8 . 8 in that the
City' s current vacancy rate was 3 .9% rather than 1 . 8% .
Cm. North questioned who had put the bond issue up for vote .
Mr. Tong responded that he believed that it had been Countywide .
------------------------------------------- !`ya ?
Regular Meeting PCM-1991 -85 ''` ,
. .
A-
[8-5min]
Cm. Zika questioned why an additional increase of 5% could not be made
in the second year.
Mr. Carrington presumed that the 5% would remain constant.
Mr. Carrington suggested that Staff could bring back to the Commission
on an annual basis .
Cm. Zika responded that he would prefer to just raise 5% each year.
Mr. Carrington cautioned that the City had to be careful in placing
exactions on development . Figures had to be provided to establish the
nexus between the 5% and the impacts of development.
Mr. North questioned why the same 5% increase could not be charged in
the second year based on the first year study.
Mr. Carrington responded that there was no objection to a flat 5% in
lieu fee, but language would need to be built into the Housing Element.
He also indicated that the study could be done at more frequent
intervals than every two years so that the Commission' s concerns could
be addressed.
Cm. Zika indicated that it was not necessary to do a survey every year,
that every two years would be fine. The percentage would be determined
based on the survey and just raise that percent in the intervening year.
Cm. North expressed concern that there was a lot of confusing language.
He wanted some clear, concise way to define the numbers .
Mr. Carrington explained that this was a specific project. There had to
be a means of determining the charge if the developer did not rent the
required number of units, so that 100 of the 206 units in this specific
project was 21 units .
Cm. North asked if some units had been rented as yet.
Mr. Carrington responded that yes, some of the units had been leased.
Cm. North asked if the developer rented the units and then decided to
pay in-lieu fees, what would happen.
Cm. Zika responded that if the Commission denied the request, the
developer would have to rent for a 5 year period. If the developer paid
the money, the developer can do whatever he wanted to do. It would be
all or nothing, the developer could not rent 10 and sell 11 .
Mr. Carrington indicated that the Applicant was not present.
Mr. Bob Harris, a Planning Consultant from Pleasanton, stated that the
Commission had received a letter from Building Industry Association
which requested that the items be continued for a matter of time . The
builders wanted to go over the issues . Mr. Harris stated that he
represented Mr. Marty Inderbitzen who was asking that item 8 . 11 be
-----------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991 -86 August 5 , 1991
[8-5min]
continued so that a building task force could be formed. He felt that
the Commissioners, decisions could have an impact on future housing in
the City and that more time was needed to make suggestions to the
Housing Element. He questioned whether the 10% rental requirement was
part of a City Ordinance.
Mr. Carrington responded that it would be part of the Rental
Availability Ordinance.
Cm. Zika responded that if the Commission did delay the action, it would
just cause having the Contractors screaming at the Commission.
Mr. Harris recognized the need for affordable housing, but wanted time
to suggest changes to simplify the Ordinance and try to keep the costs
within bounds .
Cm. North asked if Mr. Harris had a timeframe .
Mr. Harris responded 60 days that it would take a minimum of 30 days to
form a group.
Cm. Zika asked what kind of timeframe did the City have from the State?
Mr. Carrington felt it was not necessary to continue the three items .
This was a request from a specific applicant who had asked for a change
to the Housing Element . Mr. Carrington felt that it was a fairly
straight forward change with a straight forward methodology for
determining the cost if the Applicant did not provide the rental
housing.
Bob Shubert, Consultant for the City, indicated that there was no
timeframe for the 10% rental units, but there was a timeframe for the
density and inclusionary issues in the adopted Housing Element.
Cm. Zika responded that he felt the Commission could not fulfill the
request of the Applicant unless all three items were addressed.
Cm. Zika closed the public hearings .
Cm. North stated that the notification had been done and that there had
already been one month in order to comment on the items .
Mr. Carrington indicated that BIA had been sent the agenda items .
Cm. Zika felt that there was not a specific plan as to what would happen
to the money collected as in-lieu fees . He felt that rental units were
needed.
Cm. North asked what was the purpose of 8 . 9 .
Mr. Tong indicated that there had to be three affirmative votes from the
Commission in order for the item to go to the City Council .
Regular Meeting
PCM-1991 -87 August 5 , 1991
(8-5min)
Cm. North expressed his concern that the Applicant did not have
representation at the meeting.
Cm. North questioned what used, would pt they have have to in-lieu
g fees iven w held
back to the
seven years and
Applicant.
Mr. Carrington responded that the monies could be used to subsidize
rents that the City did have the Dublin Housing Authority .
Ms . Silver indicated that the money would be either returned to the
owner or it could be contributed to a non-profit organization such as
the Dublin Housing Authority . The Dublin Housing Authority was a legal
entity and consisted of the five City Councilmembers and two tenant
H
Commissioners . The City contracts with the Alameda County g
Authority to provide staffing for the public entity.
Cm. North still expressed concern over no specific plan for the in-lieu
fees .
It was recommended that each item be voted on separately.
On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of
3 - 0 (Cm. Barnes abstained) , the Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 039
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-001 , INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT
TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE,
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 91-001 ) ,
THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 040
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
TO REVISE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
On motion from Cm. c the Commission adopted and with a vote of
-
3 0 (Cm. Barne s ab tained)
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 041
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE
------------------------------PCM-1991 -88
Regular Meeting August 5 , 1991
[8-5min]
low
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 042
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
THE IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE
On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of
0 - 3 (Cm. Barnes abstained) , the Commission recommended against the
adoption of
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 043
RECOMM'IENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING PA 91-001
TO AMEND CONDITION #54 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 32-89 (PA 88-009)
TO ALLOW THE OPTION OF PAYING AN IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE
RATHER THAN PROVIDING RENTAL UNITS
FOR HERITAGE COMMONS - J. L. CONSTRUCTION
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 91 -001 : Adoption of an ordinance
permitting a density bonus program as permitted by Sections
65913 . 4 65913 . 4 65915 and 65917 of the Government Code
(Citywide) [continued from the July 1 , 1991 Planning
Commission meeting]
Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Mr. Carrington presented the staff report.
Cm. North questioned the definitions on pg. 7 of 17 (First Time Home
Buyer: A person who has not held an ownership interest in a residence
within the past three years . ) ; pg. 8 of 17 ( "Senior Citizen: A person
at least 62 years of age" ; and pg. 12 of 17 ( "All purchasers of
restricted units shall be senior citizens or first time home buyers . "
Cm. North was concerned if a person lost their spouse and was forced to
sell, they would not be able to qualify as a first time buyer by this
definition. He also stated that the City defines a "Senior" as 55 years
of age.
Mr. Carrington responded that the State determined 62 years of age as a
"Senior. "
Cm. North wanted the "First Time Home Buyer" thrown out because he felt
it made it too restrictive. He questioned why it should be restricted
to low income.
----------------------------------------------------
PCM-1991 -89 9
Regular Meeting August 5, 1991
[8-5min]
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
PA 91-001 TO AMEND CONDITION #54 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 32-89
(PA 88-009 ) TO ALLOW THE OPTION OF PAYING AN IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE RATHER
THAN PROVIDING RENTAL UNITS FOR HERITAGE COMMONS - J.L. CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, JL Construction Company has requested approval of a
Planned Development Rezoning to amend Condition #54 of City Council
Resolution No. 32-89 to allow the option of paying an in-lieu rental
fee rather than providing rental units; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was
published in the local newspaper and posted in the City Clerk' s Office
and in other public buildings in accordance with California State Law;
and'
WHEREAS, the requested amendment to Condition #54 has been
reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002, was
prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11,
1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the
future development of the City of Dublin; and which impact of said
development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of General Plan
Amendment 91-001, including Planned Development Rezoning PA 91-001;
and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 91-039 recommending City Council certification of the
Negative Declaration as adequate and complete; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing.
WHEREAS, data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost,
required to provide the housing for which the in-lieu rental fee is
levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the housing,
including General Fund revenues were made available to the public at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission
approves the requested amendment to Condition #54, of City Council
Resolution No. 32-89 (PA 88-009 ) as shown on Attachment 1 attached
hereto.
K1 Z
/hsngrec
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT amending Condition
#54 of Resolution No. 32-89 adopted by the City Council on March 27 ,
1989 , does not cause the remainder of that resolution to be
superseded.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991 .
AYES: None
NOES : Commissioners North, Rafanelli, and Zika
ABSENT: Commissioner Burnham
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Barnes
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTE T:
Planning irect r
/hsngrec
2
ATTACHMENT 1
54 . The developer shall provide guarantees in the form of a deed
restriction that a minimum of 10% of the multi-family units in
the project shall be maintained as rental units for a period of
five years or that an in-lieu rental fee of $10, 808 per rental
unit be paid in accordance with the Rental Availability
Ordinance.
Twenty-one units shall be maintained as rental units .
Developer shall record the Deed Restriction requiring that the
twenty-one rental units, which shall be enumerated in said deed
restriction, be maintained as rental units for a period of five
years . The five year period shall commence with the granting of
final occupancy of each rental unit. The Deed Restriction shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and
City Attorney and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any
project building permit.
If elected by the developer, the in-lieu rental fee for
twenty-one units is $226, 968 (21 x $10, 808 . 00) . An amount equal
to 1/206th of the total in-lieu rental fee of $226 , 968 . 00 shall
be paid for each unit or $1, 101 . 79 .
The in-lieu rental fees shall be paid as follows :
1 . No later than 30 days from the date of adoption of the
Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance for those units which have
already received final inspections , and
2 . Prior to final inspection for those units which have
not received final inspection.
/hsngrecl
3