HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06031997 - D9 r
'i - •,. Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o: 'i:;u► '
County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON . _
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ��SrA cou-
DATE: May 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Continued June 3, 1997 Hearing on the County Planning Commission
Recommendation to Approve County File #RZ963042 and #DP963023, and the
Appeals by Braddock & Logan Services and by Carl Hutchins, Jr. , et al
on the Planning Commission's Approval of Vesting Tentative Map 8021 in
the Walnut Creek/Saranap area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt a Motion to take actions listed under Option A below (Denying
the proposed project) .
OPTIONS
Option A: Grant the Appeal of Hutchins, et al and Deng the Project
1 . Deny the requests for:
A. Rezoning from Single Family Residential, R-10 to Planned
Unit District, P-1 (County File #RZ963042) ;
B. Preliminary and Final Development Plan Approval for a
single family residential development (County File
#DP963023) ; and
C. Vesting Tentative Map 8021 (County File #SD968021) .
2 . Grant the Appeal of Carl Hutchins, Jr. , et al .
3 . Deny the Appeal of the Applicant, Braddock & Logan Services .
4 . Adopt the Findings contained in Exhibit A as the basis for the
Board action.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X _ YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CI-tifi
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 3 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
See attached Addendum.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drake (335-1214)
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 3 . 1997
cc: Braddock & Logan Services PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
White Family Trust THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Carl & Ellen Hutchins, Jr. AND TY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
j
Option B: Continue Hearing on Revised Project Site Plan
Should a revised plan be submitted that is supported by the
community, the project should be continued to a suitable date to
allow for review by staff and to allow for any necessary re-
noticing.
If the applicant agrees to withdraw the P-1 rezoning and
development plan applications and pursue only a subdivision
application under the existing R-10 zoning, then the subdivision
application should be referred to the Zoning Administrator for a
new noticed public hearing, review and decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The adopted fee schedule requires the applicant to pay any
project review time and material expense (including appeals)
exceeding 1200 of the initial application filing fee .
BACKGROUND
The Board has conducted hearings on this project on April 22 and
May 20, 1996 . The County Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the project but for 11 lots only and other
modifications .
At the last hearing, the Board heard testimony from a number of
community residents opposed to the project . After concluding the
testimony, the Board unanimously voted their intent to deny the
project, but continued the hearing to this date to allow staff an
opportunity to prepare findings for Board adoption consideration.
At the same time, the Board indicated that if it received evidence
that the applicant had formulated a revised site plan that had the
support of the community, it would reconsider its position.
STATUS OF RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN APPLICANT & NEIGHBORS
At the time of preparation of this staff report, staff has not
received any communication that an alternative site plan acceptable
to the community has been developed. However, staff understands
that a revised site plan based on R-10 zoning for 10 lots only with
variances to lot size and structure frontyard and sideyard
requirements is being discussed by the parties . Additional
meetings are scheduled prior to the Board meeting.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT DENIAL OF THE PROJECT
As directed by the Board, Exhibit A contains findings recommended
by staff to support denial of the project . The findings are based
on testimony and evidence submitted to the Board.
ORDINANCE LIMITS ON REFILING OF NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS SHOULD
PROJECT BE DENIED
It should be noted that if the Board of Supervisors denies the
project, then pursuant to the County Code, the County could not
accept a new rezoning application (which might include a similar
variance request as that associated with the current rezoning
application) ; and the County could not accept a new subdivision
application (involving a similar variance request as that
associated with the current project) within a one-year period of
time unless :
-2-
A. In the case of a rezoning application (Refer to Section 26-
2 . 1803) :
1) Less intensive land uses are allowable in the newly
proposed zoning district than in the earlier one; and
2) The community development director finds that the
circumstances have materially changed since the earlier
application was filed.'
B. In the case of a variance request (Refer to Section 26-
2 .2003) :
1) The applicant shows material change in the circumstances
upon which the denial was based; and
2) The community development director accepts the new filing
on these grounds .2
At the same time, it should be noted that the Ordinance would not
prevent the applicant from immediately refiling a new subdivision
application that is consistent with the design standards of the
existing zoning (Single Family Residential, R-10) .
C: \wpdoc\lucyln.bo
RD\
'"Materially changed circumstances" in the case of a new rezoning request means: (1) A change
in zoning districts or land uses on or near the land(s); and/or (2) a change in the land area for which
reclassification is proposed; and/or (3) an amendment to the county general plan which may affect the
property.
2"Materially changed circumstances" in the case of a new variance request means that: (1) The
proposed use or variance is significantly different from that originally applied for; and/or (2) the lot involved
has been diminished or enlarged with the result that the proposed use or variance would be more
compatible to the revised lot than the situation originally applied for; and/or (3) there has been a change
in zoning classification which significantly affects this land.
-3-
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.9
June 3, 1997 Agenda
This being the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing
on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on
the requests by Braddock & Logan Services (Applicant), and Stephen White
(Applicant, Owner and Trustee) to rezone approximately 2.6 acres of land from
R-10, Single Family Residential to P-1, Planned Unit District, and a request for
variance permit approval to allow the application of Planned Unit District
zoning for a proposed residential development on an area that is less than 5
acres (County File #RZ 3042-96); and for Preliminary and Final Development
Plan (County File #DP 3023-96); and for approval for 12 single family
residential lots (County File #SD 8021-96), in the Walnut Creek/Saranap
area and;
For hearing on the appeal by Braddock & Logan Services (Appellant and
Applicant), and Stephen White (Appellant, Applicant, Owner and Trustee) from
the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the
application by Braddock & Logan Services (Applicant), and Stephen White
(Applicant, Owner and Trustee) for approval on a subdivision for 12 single
family residential lots (County File #SD 8021-96), in the Walnut Creek/Saranap
area and;
For hearing on the appeal by Carl and Ellen Hutchins, Jr., Robert W. and Donna
Stevens, and George and Bernadette Katsuleres, (Appellants), from the decision
of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application by
Braddock & Logan Services (Applicant and Appellant), and Stephen White
(Appellant, Applicant, Owner and Trustee) for approval on a subdivision for 12
single family residential lots (County File #SD 8021-96), in the Walnut
Creek/Saranap area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report
on the matter. Mr. Barry noted that applicants and appellants Braddock &
Logan, and Stephen White agreed to withdraw the P-1 rezoning application, the
preliminary and final development plan applications, and the appeal on the
subdivision. He also stated that appellants Carl and Ellen Hutchins, Jr., Robert
W. and Donna Stevens, and George and Bernadette Katsuleres, agreed to
withdraw their appeals of the subdivision.
Mr. Barry advised that the staff recommends referring the revised tentative map
subdivision application under the R-10 zoning to the Zoning Administrator for
hearings.
The public hearing was opened and the following people presented testimony:
Marshall Torre, applicant, Braddock & Logan Services, P.O. Box 5300,
Danville, concurred with staff s recommendations;
Carl Hutchins, appellant, 172 Kendall Road, Walnut Creek, also agreed
with staff s recommendations;
Clyde Hartz, 2414 Warren Road, Walnut Creek;
1
Allen Moore, attorney for "Saranap Associates", Gagen, McCoy, et al.,
279 Front Street, Danville, also concurred with staffs
recommendations.
The public hearing was closed and the Board considered the matter.
Supervisor Uilkema moved to close the public hearing and adopt staff s oral
recommendations.
Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the withdrawal of the P-1
rezoning application (County File #RZ 3042-96), the preliminary and final
development plan applications (County File #DP 3023-96), and the subdivision
appeals (County File #SD 8021-96) of applicants and appellants Braddock &
Logan and Stephen White are ACCEPTED; the withdrawal of the appeal of the
subdivision by appellants Carl and Ellen Hutchins, Jr., Robert W. and Donna
Stevens, and George and Bernadette Katsuleres is ACCEPTED; and the revised
tentative map subdivision application under the R-10 zoning is REFERRED to
the Zoning Administrator for hearings.
2
EXHIBIT A
Findings
Contra Costa County
June 3, 1997
Rezoning County File #RZ963042
Preliminary & Final Development Plan File #DP963023
Vesting Tentative Map File #SD968021 (Subdivision 8021)
Walnut Creek/Saranap Area
Braddock& Logan Services (Applicant)
White Family Trust (Owners)
I. General Considerations
A. Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein
are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire
record relating to the Project and constitute the independent findings and determinations of this
Board.
B. Nature of Findings. This Board intends that these findings be considered as an
integrated whole, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate
by reference any other part of these findings. If any required finding is contained in any portion of
this findings document, it shall be deemed to have not been satisfied.
II. General Plan and Existing Zoning
The land use map of the County General Plan designates the Project Site Single Family
Residential -Medium Density(3.0 - 4.9 units per net acre). Staff has determined that the
maximum number of units allowable under the general plan designation for this site is 11
residential units (reference pg. 2 of the January 28, 1997 staff report to the County
Planning Commission).' The Project Site is zoned Single Family Residential, R-10; the
minimum lot size under the existing zoning district is 10,000 square feet.
The area to the north, west, and south of the Project Site is also designated for Single
Family Residential -Medium Density by the general plan. The area to the east of the
Project Site is designated Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density(12.0 to 20.9
units per net acre).
The area to north, west, south, and one of the parcels to the east of the Project Site is
zoned Single Family Residential, R-10. Adjoining property to the southeast of the site is
zoned Multiple Family Residential, M-29.
III. Project Description
The Project consists of a Rezoning application to rezone an approximate 2.6 acre site fronting
on the south side of Lucy Lane in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area from Single Family
Residential, R-10, to Planned Unit District, P-1; Preliminary and Final Development Plan
application for a development consisting of 12 single family residential units/lots; and a
'Does not include any provision for density bonus under the County Policy for Affordable
or Senior Citizen Housing.
-1-
Project Findings
File#RZ963042,#DP963023,&#kSD968021
Walnut Creek/Saranap Area
Vesting Tentative Map application to subdivide the site into 12 lots. The site is located in an
area of mixed residential densities and styles but predominantly single family and single story
residences in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County that is commonly known as the
community of Saranap, located between the Cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek. There are
two single family residences immediately to the east of the site.
The Project Site, consisting of two adjoining parcels totalling approximately 2.6 acres,
contains seven existing residences of various styles. The Project Site also contains several
large specimen trees including an oak tree with a trunk diameter of approximately 60 inches.
Moreover, electrical transmission and community sewer facilities and related easements cross
the Project Site.
The Project is proposing to develop a private road of a cul-de-sac design, and to establish
twelve residences on the Project Site. All but one of the existing residences, a barn that
appears to have been converted to a residence around 1945 located in the northwest corner
of the Project Site, would be removed. The new residences would provide for residential
designs of up to two stories and 30 feet in height. The Project would retain some but not all
of the existing trees including the above mentioned 60-inch oak tree and several other trees
along the property line.
Some of the twelve proposed lots do not meet the lot area(minimum 10,000 square feet) and
average width (minimum 80 feet) requirements of the R-10 zoning district. Lots with
variances to area requirement under the R-10 zoning include Lots 3 - 11; lots with variances
to average width requirements under the R-10 include Lots 4-11. In this regard, the Project
Applicant has applied for rezoning of the site to the Planned Unit District which, where
required findings can be made, is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of lot
sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the
intent of the county code.
Further, in accord with the provision of the Planned Unit District Ordinance, the Project
Applicant requested a variance to the area required for a residential project (minimum five
acres).
Residence in Northwest Corner of Project Site
The existing residence that is proposed to remain that is described above is located within a
PG&E utility easement and beneath related electrical transmission lines.
The Project Applicant is also proposing to enter into an agreement with the County to allow
this residence to be used for lower income housing. At the same time, pursuant to the County
-2-
Project Findings
Braddock&Logan Services(A)
White Family Trust(0)
program and State statutes, the Project Applicant is seeking a housing density bonus for the
Project beyond what the general plan land use designation would otherwise permit.
IV. Development Potential Under Existing Single Family
Residential, R-10, Zoning
On May 12, 1997, the Project Applicant submitted to the Community Development
Department a hypothetical site plan indicating the development potential of the site under the
existing Single Family Residential, R-10 zoning. The site plan provided for 10 lots and
preservation of the 60-inch oak tree.
County staff responded to the hypothetical site plan in a letter dated May 14, 1997. With one
minor exception, County staff confirmed that the site plan met the standards of the R-10
zoning district including lot area, lot depth, average lot width and structure setbacks. The
exception could be corrected by a minor relocation of one of the suggested residential
building sites.
V. Project Findings with regards to Ordinance Code
Requirements
Pursuant to Section 26-2.2022 of the Ordinance Code, it is the Project Applicant's burden
of producing evidence to convince the County Planning Agency that all standards are met and
the intent and the purpose of the applicable regulations and goals and objectives of the general
plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall result in a denial.
Based on evidence and testimony submitted to the Board of Supervisors, the Board
determines that the Project Applicant has not met that burden of proof to convince the Board
that the Project will satisfy a number of findings that are required by County Code.
A. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Rezoning Application (Section
§26-2.1806 of the County Code)
1. Required Finding - The change proposed will substantially comply with the
general plan.
-3-
Project Findings
File#RZ963042,#DP963023,&#SD968021
Walnut Creek/Saranap Area
Relevant General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures - The
County General Plan 1995 -2010 sets forth land use goals and policies at
Section 3.8, pp. 3 - 38, et seq.
Goal 3-B. To encourage aethetically and functionally compatible
development which reinforces the physical character and desired
images of the County. (Pg. 3-39)
Goal 3-J. To encouragte a development pattern that promotes the
individuality and unique character of each community in the
County. (Pg. 3-39)
Policy 3-23. A diversity of living options shall be permitted while
ensuring community compatibility and quality residential
development. (Pg. 3-42)
Policy 3-27. Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected
from incompatible land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted
service standards. (Pg. 3-42)
Policy 3-28. New residential development shall be accommodated
only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated
adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing
community. (Pg. 3-42)
Fines - The Board finds that a higher density development,
allowing two-story residential design is incompatible with the
surrounding single-story residences on land that is zoned R-10. The
project would not be consistent with the above stated goals and
policies of the General Plan.
Evidence: Testimony and photographs presented in hearing before
the Board; County general Plan; personal observation of Board
members.
2. Reauired Finding - The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district
are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent
districts.
-4-
Project Findings
Braddock&Logan Services(A)
White Family Trust(D)
Fines - The Board finds that the proposed unit density and two-story
design would not be consistent with surrounding land uses which primarily
consist of single-story single family residences.
Evidence: Testimony and photographs presented in hearing before the
Board; general observations of Board members.
3. Reouired Finding - Community need has been demonstrated for the use
proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial
success.
Find nIZ - The Board finds that in light of the existence of seven single family
houses on the project site, community need for the rezoning has not been
demonstrated.
Evidence: Testimony and correspondence presented at the public hearing,
application materials submitted by the applicant.
B. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Planned Unit District
Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plans (Refer to §84-
66.1804 of the County Code)
1. Required Finding - The proposed planned unit development is consistent
with the county general plan.
Finding - For the reasons set forth in Part V.A. above, the Board does not
find the proposed rezoning and development plan consistent with the
General Plan.
Evidence: Testimony and photographs presented in hearing before the
Board; County General Plan; personal observation of Board members.
2. Required Finding -In the case of residential development, it will constitute
a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be
in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
community.
-5-
Project Findings
File#RZ963042, #DP963023,&#SD968021
Walnut Creek/Saranap Area
Finding - The Board finds that due to the preponderance of single story
residences in the surrounding neighborhood, the project would not be
harmonious with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
community.
Evidence: Testimony and photographs presented in hearing before the
Board; individual observations of Board members.
3. Required Findnne - The development of a harmonious integrated plan
justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code.
Finding - As the Board did not find this project to be a harmonious plan in
finding B.2. above, the Board also finds that the exceptions to the normal
application of the code are not justified.
Evidence: Proposed vesting tentative map/final development plan.
Testimony and photographs presented in hearing before the Board;
individual observations of Board members.
C. Findings Pertaining to Variances Associated with the Requested
Application of Planned Unit (P-1) Zoning District to a Site for a
Residential Project that Consists of Less than Five Acres [Refer to
§84-66.602(1) and §26-2.2006 of the County Code]
1. Required Finding - That any variance authorized shall not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the
subject property is located.
Finding - The Board finds that granting of a rezoning to P-1 on an area of
approximately half the required size to allow higher density in this instance
would be a grant of special privilege. No other similar properties in the
area between Lafayette and Walnut Creek, north of Boulevard Way and
south of State Highway 24 have been zoned P-1.
Evidence: Letter of May 15, 1997 from Allan Moore of Gagen McCoy,
McMahon & Armstrong; vicinity map posted during hearings indicated area
zoning designations.
-6-
Project Findings
Braddock&Logan Services(A)
White Family Trust(0)
2. Required Finding - That because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is
found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and within the identical land use district.
Finding - The Board finds that in this instance the developer has
inappropriately referenced the existence of a PG&E easement and overhead
transmission lines and the existence of a 60-inch oak tree as "special
circumstances." However, these are not examples of special circumstances
warranting a variance. The test is whether these circumstances deprive the
developer of rights enjoyed by other properties in the District. In this
instance, other properties are also encumbered by the transmission lines,
and by the existence of mature trees. These properties have not, however
rezoned to a higher density. These properties have developed around the
circumstances, utilizing the existing, standard zoning. The denial of the
variance will not "deprive" the developer of rights enjoyed by others; it will
require the developer to develop under the standard zoning, as applies to
other nearby properties. Granting the variance, however would give the
developer a special privilege, not enjoyed by others.
Evidence: Letter of May 15, 1996 from Allan Moore of Gagen, McCoy,
McMahon & Armstrong.
3. Required Finding - That any variance authorized shall substantially meet
the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the
subject property is located.
Finding -The Board finds that the variance will not "substantially" meet the
intent and purpose of the R-10 zoning. The intent and purpose of the P-1
zoning is expressly stated in the County zoning ordinance, at §84-66.204
(pg. 364-5) as follows:
Intent and purpose. A large-scale integrated development or a
general plan special area of concern provides for an opportunity for,
and requires cohesive design when flexible regulations are applied;
whereas the application of conventional regulatioon, designed
primarily for individual lot development, to a large-scale
-7-
Project Findings
File#RZ963042,#DP963023, &#SD968021
Walnut Creek/Saranap Area
development or special area may create a monotonous or
inappropriate neighborhood.
Thus, the Board also finds that the P-1 development may be appropriate for
either (1) a large-scale development , or (2) a general plan special area of
concern. Here, the Braddock & Logan project at Lucy Lane is not deemed
to be a large-scale development, or a development in a general plan special
area of concern. The Project Applicant is merely utilizing the P-1 district
to place additional residential units in the subdivision than would be
allowed under conventional zoning or would be normally allowed under the
general plan land use designation. The Project thus does not meet the
intent and purpose of the P-1 zoning ordinance.
The Board also finds that the variance will allow the construction of a high-
density housing development completely unharmonious with the existing
ranch-style homes in R-10 districts.
Evidence: Letter of May 15, 1997 from Allan Moore of Gagen, McCoy,
McMahon & Armstrong.
D. Findings Pertaining to Granting of Variances to Lot Area and
Depth Requirements of the Existing Single Family Residential, R-
10 Zoning that are Associated with the Proposed Subdivision
Application (Refer to §26-2.2006 of the County Code)
1. Required Finding - That any variance authorized shall not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the
subject property is located.
Finding" - The proposed project would result in lots that are substantially
smaller than other nearby single family residential lots which are zoned
Single Family Residential, R-10. Therefore, the proposed development
would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
on other properties in the vicinity which are also zoned R-10.
-8-
Project Findings
Braddock&Logan Services(A)
White Family Trust(0)
Evidence: Testimony and evidence presented at the hearing before the
Board.
2. Required Findin - That because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is
found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and within the identical land use district.
Finding - There are no special circumstances associated with the site's size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings that would justify deviation
from application of zoning regulations; and application of those regulations
would not deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and within the R-10 zoning district. The special
circumstances claimed by the applicant pertained to encumbrances (e.g.,
electrical transmission easements and mature trees worthy of protection)
which do not necessarily warrant variance from zoning standards.
Evidence: Testimony and evidence presented at the hearing to the Board.
3. Required Finding - That any variance authorized shall substantially meet
the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the
subject property is located.
Finding - The requested variances would result in lot sizes substantially
smaller and narrower than is intended for lands that are zoned R-10.
Evidence: Analysis of the site plan by the Community Development
Department staff.
VI. Project Findings with Regards to County Housing Density
Bonus Policy for Lower Income Housing
A. Required Finding: The County Procedures to implement the Density Bonus Policy
for affordable housing, last amended by the Board of Supervisors on June 15,
1993, provides that all projects attempting to qualify for the density bonus must be
processed through the Planned Unit District. At the same time the adopted
-9-
Project Findings
File#RZ963042,#DP963023,&#SD968021
Walnut Creek/Saranap Area
procedures specify that development on less than five acres of land must still qualify
for a variance. (Reference Pg. 3 of the "County Procedures to Implement Density
Bonus Policy for Affordable and Senior Citizen Housing)
Finding - The Board finds that because the required findings for granting a
variance to allow the application of the Planned Unit District on an area of land
that is less than 5 acres in size cannot be made, the Project is not only ineligible
for the application of the Planned Unit District, but also is ineligible for the
housing density bonus as proposed. Therefore, the Project does not qualify under
the density bonus policy for any additional residential units beyond the range of
dwelling units that are allowed under the general plan designation for the site.
In addition, the Board finds that the density bonus provision contemplates that units
provided under the program be of consistent quality with that of the overall project.
In this case, the suggested unit would only improved to meet current Housing
Code. The lack of consistent quality would further stigmatize the low income
occupants in contradiction to the purposes of the density bonus program to promote
quality housing at affordable cost.
Evidence: Page 3 of "Procedures to Implement Density Bonus Policy for
Affordable and Senior Citizen Housing", amended 6/15/93.
c:\wpdoc\rz963042.fdg
RD\
-10-