The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03132001 - D.4 I ' TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i ti . Contra f Costa FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP County Community Development Director ,... J DATE: March 13, 2001 SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the Recommendation of the County Planning Commission on Proposed Adoption of a Residential Density Bonus Ordinance, Contra Costa Ordinance Code, Chapter 822-2 (County File # ZTO1-0002) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the Proposed Residential Density Ordinance ("the project") (County File # ZT01-0002). 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. ADOPT the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project as adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. EXPRESS intent to approve the Residential Density Bonus Ordinance, as recommended by the County Planning Commission, County File# ZTO1-0002, INTRODUCE the Residential Density Bonus Ordinance, WAIVE the reading of the Ordinance, and FIX-Tuesday, April 10, 2001 for adoption of the Ordinance. 5. APPROVE the findings and recommendations contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-2001 as the basis for the Board's action. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR R OMM DATION OF BOA COMMITTEE ;�PPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION. OF BOARD ON M r h 13 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER xx The Board took the following action: APPROVED the above Recommendations; and SUGGESTED that the relative Ordinance be presented as a Short Discussion item on the April 10, 2001 agenda. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A xx 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: Kara Douglas, 335-1253 ATTESTED March 13, 2001 Orig: Community Development JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK cc: County Administrator OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AN ) COUNTY AEkMINISTRATOR Auditor-ControllerVA BY , DEPUTY ., � � `,,, F�� J a�' "�� y r .1 . i 6. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination and a Certificate of Fee Exemption: De Minimis Impact Finding with the County Clerk. 7. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT Minor costs may be borne by the Community Development Department during the pre-application phase; however, it is expected that many or most of the candidate projects will formally use the fee based pre- application review program. Costs of processing an application for permits and entitlements will include the cost of, among other things, the staff costs of density bonus processing. CEQA COMPLIANCE A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was posted for the project on December 14, 2001 and re- noticed January 10, 2001 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The public review period ended on February 6, 2001. Two letters were received in response to the Notice; there were no concerns related to environmental issues. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS California Government Code Section 65915 (density bonus law) requires all cities and counties to adopt a density bonus ordinance consistent with State law. Density bonus law requires that the County provide incentives for the production of housing affordable to very-low income, low income, and senior citizens. The County currently has a density bonus policy (adopted April 22, 1987, amended June 15, 1993). Adoption of the proposed ordinance will bring the County into compliance with State density bonus law. The proposed Residential Density Bonus Ordinance is fully consistent with State law and provides a density bonus of at least 25 percent to housing developers who agree to construct at least 20 percent of allowable units for lower-income households, 10 percent for very-low income households, or 50 perbent for.senior citizens. The units targeted to very-low or lower income households must remain affordable for at least 10 years. If the County provides one or more additional incentives in addition to a density bonus, or an equivalent financial incentive in lieu of a density bonus and additional incentive, the developer must agree to a 30-year term of affordability. Additional background information is included in the attached staff report to the County Planning Commission (Attachment Q. County staff presented the proposed ordinance to the East County and San Ramon Valley Planning Commissions at study sessions in December 2000 and January 2001. The County Municipal Advisory Councils were sent the proposed ordinance with a detailed memorandum explaining the Ordinance in December 2000. No formal comments were received from the councils. The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 23, 2001 to consider the proposed adoption of a Negative Declaration and adoption of the Residential Density Bonus Ordinance, County Ordinance Code, Chapter 882-2. During discussion of the proposed Ordinance, Planning Commissioners raised the issue of the required period of affordability for the target (very-low and lower income) units. Commission members expressed the view that State law does not require a 30-year term of affordability when a density bonus and an additional incentive are provided. Members suggested that the Ordinance be revised to allow the County maximum flexibility when negotiating the period of affordability. Therefore, the Planning Commission voted to' recommend to the Board of Supervisors the adoption of the Negative Declaration and adoption of the Ordinance with the maximum flexibility allowed by State law as confirmed by County Counsel. Staff consulted with County Counsel and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with respect to the legislative intent for a required period of affordability and whether or not there is any flexibility for the County to negotiate a term between 10 and 30 years. County Counsel and HCD concurred that the statute does not provide for flexibility in the period of affordability. The intent of the legislation is to maintain, preserve, and make available housing with a long term of affordability. Attachments: A. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-2001 B. Proposed Residential Density Bonus Ordinance KD*:\kdouglas\New\Board Orders\2001Tensity Bonus.doc C. 'CA Government Code 65915 (density bonus law) D. Density Bonus Comparison—County Policy, State Law, and Proposed County Ordinance E. Staff Report to the County Planning.Commission without attachments F. Initial Study G. Comment Letters H. Notification List I. De Minimus Impact Finding J. Notice of Determination KD kV:\kdouglas\New\Board Orders\2001\Density Bonus.doc 1 010 CD i -Poo 0 N0 cAv' �z 0 m � . p oN ooh • .C. CDN cD t3 M M N N .d V' O O � ° � �.��„ i•^ ty � CSS �i O O O N G C'1 f' ��' to �•� G cry d � .p G � '> r� r � m o N. N rood Q, 0 c, o O pr dC, 0 0 0 ° a -✓oma C', o °c� O G �'' ° ° cl, G 3, ?;, � ric�g p� ° Q � � 8 oc�o�•D°mti.°uGw G d i "4 p.p�✓. r Jfo C', G N. G W CA W r 4 (r�O• ^ o ?t'0 ° ° O C coo @ G O " �r c!r 0 CD cr O .+1 O 3CDN N 3 r• w V O � (^p (12 r M m i t9 n 3 n O d b o N P W O 04. CDD .� 03 % °G O CO 0 ' w ej' d r,y Arov' O �•r O � °cSrdd C 'O o o o �. �0 p 0 � 3 co s,- %• ^ o.� v .° s� �' 0 3 C, o �n ^(q N N N °LZ Or*,."' °j -�O tJ ^ O r+�� .''� 4r• O D N r� VI V�,C,%. '' r• r G w .4 c n o- O r• n„G `�✓„n VI V+, a tom+• �, � � Gw✓ � � `° w � `^� a °' o 06 o Q° eco G �. d.G co g. ty✓o �? o ro , ', o d v ` Cy v• p �G N °.� N O N � 'CDi G Or O �p in, •d N n fD y' .i O r• C7 G.r "�• `f N � tl a � �,' co � ° '�, Y.t• �. � O O Q: � O � co r,. "or-.r r' cu a G O co co Cv IP c'. (q O a n ✓ O� O � ""•'CS O 90 Q u n °.h p .•• cn 'LS v• N 0 .••ry '� ^ w O r1 � o �,,�, d o ?• ,1 3 ^O d co �w C-- N cJ'� � ✓ O n co