The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOB 3 DENSITY BONUS 09-19-88A OLD BUSINESS TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTOM, CITY MANAGER COFIHUNITY DEVELOPttENT DEPARTI4ENT DENSITY BONUS POLICY RECOFIIENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 88-92, as presented or amended establishing a Density Bonus Policy for the City of Tustin. BACKGROUND: At their regular meetln9 of July 25, 1988, the Pla'nnin9 Commission adopted Resolution No. 2518, recommending City Council approval of a Density Bonus Policy for the City. The Planning Commission's recommendation was in response to State Planning and Zoning Law (Chapter 4.3, Sections 65915 through 65918) vhich requir, es-cities to grant ei'ther density bonuses or other incentives of equivalent financial value when a developer agrees to construct housing, of which at least: 1. 25% of the units are for low or moderate income households; or 10% of the units are for lower income households; or 50% of the units are for senior citizens; or to convert apartments to a condominium project of which at least: le 33% of the total units are for low or moderate income households; or 15% of the total units are for lower income households. State law further states that a City must establi, sh procedures for processing su6h proposals and that said procedures shall involve the legislative body in the decision making process. The' density approach recommended by the Planning Commission can be summarized as follows: 1) An automatic density bonus of 10% for rental projects and 15% for ownership projects which meet all City development standards, design review requirements and commitments for low and/or moderate income units as required by State law. City Counctl Report September 19, 1988 Oenstty Bonus Pol icy Page two Addttt6nal bonus density up to 25~ or provision of an equivalent financial incentive, or combination subject to the discretion of the City Council after their review of the project where the bonus density is applied for, on a case by case basis. It must be demonstrated that additional required amenities such as open space and/or additional parking can be provided before the maximum density bonus required by law could be granted by .the City Council. Since the City has the discretion to offer either financial incentives or increased density, the criteria for additional amenities that must be provided was developed to determine when there are added benefits to increasing density vs. offering financial incentives. Granting a density bonus may be more desirable than offering incentives of equivalent financial value, because other than in the South Central Redevelopment Project Area (where housing set-aside funds are available), the City's ability to provide financial incentiies may be limited. At their meeting of August 15, 1988, the Council reviewed the proposed Density Policy and directed staff to provide additional information concerning offering incentives of equivalent financial value as an alternative to granting actual density bonuses. They also asked for clarification about what constituted equivalent .financial value. The results of staff's research is .presented below: DISCUSSION: ii Staff focused our analysis of incentives of equivalent financial value on apartment projects since the value of a condominium unit is much easier to determine {appraised market value) as compared to an apartment unit. To establish the value of an apartment unit, staff obtained a Pro Forma for'a fictitious 118 unit apartment project. The Pro Forma provides an example of income, costs, construction financing, permanent financing, value and scheduling that is typical of most apartment projects (see Attachment I). The dollar value shown would obviously vary from project to project; however, the methodology would remain largely the same. When offering equivalent financial value, it is important for the City to decide whether incentives will be provided in the form of immediate, upfront "payments" (such as fee waivers, waiving public i~rovements, etc.) or deferred "payments" (such as deferring payment of fees). The reason for this is that our immediate payment will lower the overall cost of the project, thereby reducing the overall cost or value per unit. Attachment II shows a cost breakdown for the fictitious 118 unit project (see columns labeled "TOT" and "per unit"). At the bottom of these columns {"total costs") are the total cost figures for the project, $5,941,261 and per unit, $50,350 (the cost of project divided by 118 units). These figures represent the cost of developing at the present time. This is how financial institutions look at costs when determining if they are going to grant a loan for a project. Corn rnunity Developmen~ Depar~men~ Ctty Counc11 Report September :/g, 1988 Density Bonus Policy Pa ge three Attachment II! Is a financial forecast of the ftcttctous project. It depicts Operating Income and Expenses whtch yleld a Net Operatlng Income of $562,275. By dtvidlng the Net Operating !ncome by the Cap Rate (8.5~;), which represents the value of return of the project, and then dtvtding that by the number of units tn the project ($562,275 dtvided by the Cap Rate dtvided by 118 units, the size of the project), the net value per unlt for the project Is established as $56,059. Our analysis of this typical Pro Forma has indicated.that the City could save $5,709/unlt by establishing the value of a unit by cost versus net value, provided that any financial Incentive pro'vialed ts available upfront instead of deferred. Utilizing the average cost of a untt of ~$50,350 and assumtng the developer of the fictitious 1:/8 unit project was eltgible for a density bonus up to 25~; (29 units) or an equivalent financial Incentive, the City's exposure tn providing an "equivalent financial Incentive" on the project would be approximately $1,460,150.~- ASsumtng the fictitious project quallfted for the automatic 10~ bonus propOsed by the Planntng Commlsslon, and the City desired to provide financial tncentlves as an alternative for the remaining :/5~ density bonus, the developer was entttled to as stipulated by State law, the dollar value of the Incentive could still represent approximately $855,950 (since a 15~ denslty bonus represents :/7 untts tlmes the average cost of $50,350). Since permits and fees (plan check fees, building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permit fees, the new development tax, and the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge fee, sewer connection fees, and other assorted fees for the developer) are usually not as high as $800,000 (see Attachment II) the City would have to also contribute other financial incentives. It should be noted that while t~e City might be waiving it's plan check & permit fees, those fees reflect the City's cost to plan check and inspect a project; therefore, the City would be absorbing those costs. CONCLUSION: While the City has the option of granting a combination of actual bonus units a6d incentives of equivalent financial value, the costs to the City of equivalent financial value will still be there for the City to bear. Admittedly, the smaller the project, the fewer the bonus units we would be dealing with and the lower the cost to the City of providing financial incentives; however, we must still be able to absorb and/or pay out the value of the units. Corn rnunity Development Department City Council Report September 19, 1988 Density Bonus Policy Page four Staff, therefore, suggests that the Planning Commission's recommendation is a reasonable compromise of balancing the issue and sensitivity of density against the direct cost that would have to be borne by the City in providing financial incentives. Based on our more detailed financial analysis, however, we have made one change to the resolution recommending that in the event financial incentives are selected by the Council, on a case by case basis, any payments or benefits would preferably be made upfront. Steve" Rbbt ~ Senior Planner SR'CAS'ts:pef Attachments' Attachments I, II & III Report 8-15-88 Resolution No. 88-92 Director of Community Development Corn munity Development Depar~rnen~ ./ ATTACHMENT ~ 0 oe O~ -. · mU e ~1~ 0 0 ~O~ 0 0 O0 O~ Om O0 ~0 0 II II It II Il I II N I N I I I I II I I l N II I l fl N II Ii N II I I fl II II II N I I I N 1 I II Il I N II I II N II I! I1 II I! fl fl II Il Il II II # II fl II Il fl II # fl It I! II fl Il ATTACHMENT II ATTACHMENT II, cont. ATTACHMENT III ff " Il #OOII II · · II ff II I1 II II II II II Il II ff II II II II II II O0 II II · · II H II II II II I! I1 II II II II II II II fl II O0 II II · · II II II II II II II II II II II II ' II II O0 II II · - II fl H fl II II fl II II fl Il II .... II ~ N II II II fl fl II II Il II II # el ee II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I! II II II II II II II s4 I1 II ~I II II ~ I II ~ II II II · II II I II II # II ~ I1 II ~ k4 II II Iff II II 0 4.J II II U III II C 0 II II HO II II ao II lo H er) II II II II II II II I~ II m II (~ II II ,~ ,,iP II I H II II ee ee .® .® e® .e el *e el el Il ®eee ee l® el *. e® el ee e® et el ee el ii ~ · i..1 0 0 · u C (J 0 ff II II II I1 II II · . II II ff II Il ff ff II II II II Il II II It II n ff i! ii II ii II II II fl II II I1 II II II II II fl ii ii II II ii II ii II II ii II fl II II ii II II II II ii ,.-,, II ,-i .11 II to ii.-i Ileal II ~ II ., II ii q-.i Ii II qp ff o II (3~ II ~o II.. II II ~ II II ~) II II II I! II !I q..I II ~ II t~ II ff ~'~1 II ~ I1 · I1 II ~ II qP II l~l II ~ II OI II ID II - II II I~ II v II ~1~ II II II II II II q-cO' II Il qDO fl ,"'~ ,..-~ II c,40 fl I1 '" "' II " -, II K') "II "..- II ~ II II II II Il .'"'. 4-,, Il ~0 II ~0 II fPO II ff '. II v II fl II II I I '" (=OlO II IA~ II 40, II II fl fl II fl Il II qP II ql, ,ql,~.,qff # ,ql, I',.,.l~t,q ff fl ' (It) II ~ IO l(q'l II (~) II II II ,,JJid"" q, ql.,~l ." ." II 00Ig~l n ~J' II II , J el,,; 1 ",, II II II II fl II ~ tO II ~ · !1 ,* ., II ~ q, II i~ 11 II ~ II ;0 II H II ,,, II II II 1.., ~ II II II II II II I1 II ~ II O0 ,, J ,, ,", '11 C~l C~ll~ll II ,, d~. II # II II II ,,.. ~ ~ 0 II II .. II II f~ ~-I II fl II II .... II ...... II II .- II II II II II II .... II ................ II .. .... II ................ II II I1 II II · ff M fl fl II H I! I! H I! I! H fl II II II II Il' I! N ff fl · ff II II II ~ It II fl II ff II II II II II I! II II II II II oolt II o. II II fl II ---,. Il III II II II I II fl 13 II II II II ~ II ff ~ II ff ,,~ II I1 (ff II fl It II II II ~ II II (2 l! fl II II II II q,', fl II ~ fl II fl II fl II II II 4d If I! Q} II II 0 ,,-f Ii II ~ Il Il t/') fl II II II C) c~ II II 0 H Ii 4,,t II II ,...4 ~ II IIq-, II Il 0 fl II k fl Iifl. II l I fl ff II II Il II II II II II fl II II I! H H H ff # fl -I H fl H I! fl I! ff fl H # I! I! H H H I! I! fl fl # I! ff ,G'.EN DA ,-,:. DA rE: AUGUST 15, 1988 NEW BUSINESS NO. 4 8-15-88 Inter- Com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLINq A. HUSTOII, CITY KkNAGER COIe~IIITY DEYELOPIqENT DEPARTHENT DE#SITY BONUS POLICY RECCII,~ENDATION: __ It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 88-92, as presented or amended, establishing a Density Bonus Policy for the City of Tustin. BACICGROUND: ii Staff has been contacted by a developer whd proposes to construct an apartment project in the City for which he intends to request a 25% density bonus, with .~i; of the normally.allowed units being, set aside for low or moderate income ;idents. The State Planning and Zoning Law (Chapter 4.3, Sections 65915 ~nrough' 65918) requires cities to grant either' density bonuses or other incentives of equivalent financial value when a developer agrees to construct housing, of which at least: ® 25% of the units are for low or moderate income households; or- 10% of the units are for lower income households; or 50% of the units are for senior citizens; or to convert apartments to a condominium project of which at least' ® 33% of the total units are for low or moderate income households; or 15% of the total units are for lower income households. State law further states that a City shall establish procedures for processing such proposals and that said procedures shall involve the legislative body in the decision making process. Consequently, on June 27, 1988, staff, brought the issue of density bonuses before the Planning Commission seeking their input on a policy which they would review and make a recommendation on to the City Council for determination. At that time the Commission emphasized that ownership units should be weighted over rental units, that units should not be too small, and that standard zoning requirements for parking, openspace, setbacks, etc. should be.met. On July 25, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2518, r~commending a density bonus policy to the City Council. ty Council Report .-nst ty Bonus Pol tcy August 15, 1988 Page ~wo D~SCUSSION: i Staff's approach on preparing the density bonus policy has been to review pertinent legislation, survey other agencies to determine how they deal with density bonuses and financial incentives and to identify and investigate issues associated with density bonuses and financial incentives. After reviewing pertinent legislation, staff surveyed nine (9) Orange County Agencies and three (3) non-County Agencies to determine how they deal wi th density bonuses and financial incentives. While each agency varied in its methods, staff found that there remained a number of points in common namely, use of Development Agreements and use Of standard zoning requirements. A synopsis of the survey is attached (see Attachment I). Having reviewed State legislation and surveyed other agencies to see how they implement such programs, staff then evalbated how.the City of Tustin might approach the issue of density bonuses. This involved reviewing existing City '---als and the zoning requirements for attaining those goals, and.then evaluating ~ density bonus policies would work within our,existing development review process. Three questions emerged; 1) Would density bonuses be subject to existing development requirements? 2) When is it preferrable to increase density rather than offer financial incentives? and 3) What incentives of equivalent financial value is the City able-to offer? In staff's opinion, density bonuses should indeed be subject to existing City development requirements. At a minimum, proposed projects should meet existing development requirements, although some latitude could be granted to senior citizen-projects which can demonstrate cause (for example, there may be fewer cars and reduced needs for on-site parking). Since the City has the discretion to offer either financial incentives or increased density, additional criteria can be developed to determine when there are added benefits to increasing density vs. offering financial incentives. Staff believes that this determination can be most effectively made in the design review process. Granting a density bonus may be more desireable than offering incentives of equivalent financial value, because other than in the South Central Redevelopment Project Area {where housing set-aside funds are available), the City's ability to provide financial incentives may be limited. In practice, possible financial incentives will vary from project to project and will likely be a function of negotiation. ~nme of these incentives of equivalent financial value might include: Support for participation in County Bond financing; ° Waiving planning fees; Cornrnunity Development Department i i I I ty Council Report uenstty Bonus Poltcy August 15, 1988 Page three Watving building fees; Reductng fees; Deferring payment of fees; Walvtng, reducing or deferring other fees (such as a monitoring fee); ° Subs1 di zing publ I c tmprovements; ° Waiving public improvements; Dtrect financial contribution (such as the use of housing set-aside funds to buy down price of land); and Expediting processing with regard to both time and costs. ' 'en determining.financial value, :'the City may require a developer to provide .,d/or.fund 'supporting information, such as an ,.independent. appraisal or an analysis of value of an expeditious processing. Again, it must be noted that there are fiscal limitations to offering only incentives of equivalent financial value. Also, in the event of direct financial contributions by the City, the "affordable" units shall remain as such for a period of 30 years, .pursuant to State and/or Federal statutes. Having completed a review of State law, other agencies' procedures and potential financial incentives, staff devised the following procedures to review proposals for density bonuses, which were included in Resolution No. 2518 and have been included in Resolution No. 88-92, as they were modified by the Planning Comml ssion: Step One - Preliminary Design Review/Feasibility Determination. When a proposal is init~'ated for a Density Bonus, the City will use the Design Review process to determine development standards co~liance, design appropriateness {i.e., scale and mass), and overall feasibility. Where a density bonus is feasible, the bonus shall be an automatic ten percent {10%) for rental units and fifteen percent {15%) for ownership units. For purposes of calculating density and density bonuses for dwelling units, fractions shall be rounded down through the process in those cases where calculations result in a fractional number. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate a project's eligibility for L~nus units beyond the automatic base, up to 25%- The provision of at least 750, 900 and 1,100 square feet per one, two and three bedroom dwelling units respectively {larger unit sizes will diminish the effects of increased density); Community Development DeparTment I. I i ty Counctl Report .enstty Bonus Policy .August -15, 1988 Page four .. , The provision of at least 54 square feet of private open space, such as a yard, patio or balcony for each one bedroom unit and 144 square feet for a two or three bedroom unit; ® The provision of extra guest parking at the ratio of one additional space for every four units (over and above required guest parking); . The provision of on-site recreation amenities such as a pool, spa, and/or sunni ng area; . The provision of on-site laundry facilities at the ratio of at least one washer and one dryer for every ten units; ® The provision of at least 50 cubic feet of secured storage space for each unt t; and ~ 7. The proposed project will provide Senior Citizen housing. . , all .tnstan6es, standard zoning requirements shal. 1 be met, r. egard'less, of the number of dwelling units in the project (except possibly Senior housing). A minimum of three (3) criteria shall be met in order for a density bonus to even be considered beyond the automatic base of 10% for rentals and 15~ for ownership as an alternative to or in combination with offering incentives of equivalent financial value. Criteria No. 1, for minimum unit sizes, shall be'a require, d criteria to go beyond the automatic base. .o It shall be up to the discretion of the City Council as to whether a project will receive bonus units above the automatic base noted above, up to a 25~ density bonus, and the type of any incentives of equivalent financial value that would be provided, or a combi nation thereof. Step Two - Verification of section 8 Housing Certificates. In the case of rentai units, following the determination from Step One that "x" number of bonus units are permissible,, the developer shall obtain verification from the Orange County Housing Authority that the appropriate number of Section 8 Housing Certificates have been set aside for the subject project. Step Three - Formal Design Review Submittal. The developer shall make a formal submittal of plans accompanied a Letter of Verification as per Step Two {if applicable) for review and approval. This review shall be conducted based upon established Design Review procedures. Any additional discretionary approvals -~quired for the project would also be processed during Step Three. Conditions approval for Design Review and/or any discretionary approval will require the ueveloper/property owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. CommuniW Devetoprnem Depar~men[ =enslty Bonus Poltcy August 15, 1988 Page ftve iii I! Step Four - Execute Development Agreement. The developer shall 'enter into a. Developme'~t Agreement with the City whtch shall be approved by the Cil~y Count11. The Development Agreement shall stipulate the following: compliance wtth a submitted development plan and all Oestgn Revte~ and other dtscretJonary conditions of approval, the total number of allowed d~elllng units (includlng bonus untts), the number of units to be set astde as "affordable", the definition of affordable, the duratton of the agreement (:~5 year mJnimum term, 30 years where mandated by State and/or Federal statute), annual certification of compliance, requirement for recorded deed restrictions regulating resale of ownership units, reltef for failure to comply, the requirement for owner occupancy on ownership untts and other Information as determJned necessary by the 01rector of Community Development and Ctty Attorney's office. Step Ftve- On-Gotng Monitoring. A Certificate of Compliance to the Development Agreemen~ on an annual basts, as prescrtbe~ tn the Oevelopment Agreement. _Both the Development Agreement and the recorded deed restrttlons used to control ~ershtp untts will be of a standardized form. Netther of the. documents have .eh pr. epared' to' date. Following the Council's actton, staff.will begin thetr preparation with the City Attorney. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the procedures (Steps 1 - 5), discussed above address the concerns and issues raised by the Planning Commission at their June 27th meeting and establish a policy for density bonuses that retains a high level of discretion by the City, while still complying with Chapter ¢.3 of the State Planning and Zoning Law. Bernard Chase Planner SR.BC'CAS:ts'pef Attachment: Resolution No. 88-92 Attachment I Acting Director of Community Development Community Oevetopmen~ OeparTmen~ AT"' ,CHMENT SURVEY OF OTHER AGENCIES II I II City of Anahetm: Uses Affordable Housing Agreements; . DoeS not have .established equivalent financial value pollcies; Allows modifications of Development Standards through variances, although care Is given regarding impacts to trafflc and to the proximity of single family housing; Uses variable time pertods, but typically 30 years for senior citizen housing and 20 years for others; and Requires annual recerttficatton with a monitoring form. City of Brea: Uses Zoning Regulations and Development Standards; 0Des not have established equivalent financial value policies; Allows modification of Oevelopment Standards (for things like elevator shaft height); Standards are modified in Developinent Agreements; Uses variable time periods (often 30 years or perpetuity); Requires annual compliance certification by developer; ~and The 'number of bonus units-is specified tn.~Development Agreements. City of Buena Park: Uses Zoning Regulations and Development Standards; Uses financial' incentives only for Economic Development projects with at least 50~ of its units classified as "affordable"; Development Stand.ards must be met, with potential for rounding density calculations; Bonuses and terms are stipulated in Development Agreements; Uses 15 year time period; and Requires annual compliance certification by developer. City of Costa Mesa: Uses Zoning Regulations, recorded Land Use Restrictions, and Density Bonus Agreements; Does not have established equivalent financial value policies; and Does not modify Development Standards, although there is potential for relaxing amenity requirements. City of Huntington Beach' Uses Zoning Regulations and Affordable Housing Restrictions and Covenants; Does not have established equivalent financial value policies; Uses an unclassified Conditional Use Permit system rather than variances for any modifications; and Uses 15 year time periods. ~rvey of Other Agencies · age two City of Irvtne: Uses'Zoning Regulations and Development Agreements if applt'cable; Financial Involvement can be through bond financing of o~nership unt ts; Fee waivers can constitute financial value; and Relaxes some standards, such as parking and setbacks. City of San Clemente: Uses Zoning Regulations, Development Agreements and Conditions of Approva 1; Does not have established equivalent financial value policies, but can assign processing priorities and allow County bond financing; Requires compliance certification by developer; Uses 10 year time periods; and Marketing approval and unit mix are stipulated. City of Santa Ana: Uses Zoning Regulations, developer's Letter of Understanding, and Affordable Development. Agreements; Allows but does not have established equivalent financial value; Program includes ownership housing; Requires annual compliance certification by developer with assistance from the City's Housing Department; and Charges compliance monitoring fee. County of Orange: Uses Zoning Regulations and implementing Agreements; Development Standards Modifications are stipulated in Affordable Housing Incentive Permits; and Uses five year time periods. City of Davis: Requires provision of affordable housing; Recently reduced densities, but allows density bonuses if feasible; and Uses Planned Development processing which can informally relax regulations. ~ty of Palo Alto: Has allowed some very densely built affordable housing; and Typically will negotiate regarding using extra, smaller bedrooms in larger units which rent at Below Market Rates. ivey of Other Agencies age three City of Pasadena: Bonus units allowed by right if zoning standards are met; Uses Covenants; Impetus is toward condominiums; and Does not rely upon Conditional Use Permits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A DENSITY BONUS POLICY FOR THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 4.3, SECTIONS 65915-65918, OF THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That it is necessary for the City to establish a policy to comply with California Planning and Zoning Law, Chapter 4.3, Sections 65915 through 65918, generally providing that when a developer of housing agrees to construct at least: 1. 25% of the units for low or moderate income households; or 2. 10% of the units for lower income households; or 3. 50% of the units for senior citizens; or to convert apartments to a condominium project of which at least: 1. 33% of the total units "are for low or moderate income households; or 2. 15% of the total units are for lower income households; then the City shall either grant a density bonus or provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. B. That said policy shall comply With the State law, Chapter 4.3 by either granting a density bonus, providing other incentives of equivalent financial value or a combination thereof, whichever is deemed by the City Council to be in the best interests of the City of Tustin. C. That the provision of bonus units shall not exempt a project from complying with all applicable development standards of the zoning district in which is located. D. That such development proposals shall be designed to be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and shall be processed in the manner described herein. E. That provision of affordable housing units, shall be assured through the recordation of a Development Agreement as required herein. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 88-92 Page two F. That any incentives of equivalent financial value shall be determined and stipulated by the City Council as it deems reasonable and appropriate to the case, and may include but not be limi ted to- 1. Support for participation in County Bond financing program; 2. Waiving planning fees; 3. Waiving building fees; 4. Reductng fees; 5. Deferring payment of fees; e Waiving, reducing or deferring other fees {such as a monitoring fee); ~. 7. Subsidizing public improvements; 8. Waiving public improvements; ge Direct financial contributions (such as the use of housing set-aside funds to buy down price of land); and 10. Expediting processing with regard to both time and costs. G. That when determining financial value, the City may require a developer to provide and/or fund supporting information such as an independent appraisal or an analysis of value of an expeditious processing. In the event of direct financial contributions by the City, the "affordable" units shall remain as such for a period of 30 years as stipulated by State and/or Federal statutes. H. That all density bonus proposals shall be reviewed according to the procedures described immediately below: Step One - Preliminary Design Review/Feasibility Determination. When a proposal is initiated for a Density Bonus, the City will use the Design Review process to determi ne development standards compl iance, design appropriateness (i.e., scale and mass), and overall feasibility. Where a density bonus is feasible, the bonus shall be an automatic ten percent {10~) for rental units and fifteen percent (15~) for ownership units. For purposes of calculating density and density bonuses for dwelling units, fractions shall be rounded down throug.hout the process in those cases where calculations result ~n a fractional number. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 :26 27 28 Resolution No. 88-92 Page three The following criteria shall be used to evaluate a project's eligibility for bonus units beyond the automatic base, up'to a. The provision of at least 750, 900 and 1,100 square feet per one, two and three bedroom dwelling units respectively (larger unit sizes will diminish the effects of increased density); be The provision' of at least 54 square feet of private open space, such as a yard, patio or balcony for each one bedroom unit and 144 square feet for a two or three bedroom unit; c. The provision of extra guest parking at the ratio of one additional space for every four units (over and above required guest parking); d. The provision of on-site recreation amenities such as a pool, spa, and/or sunning area; e. The provision of on-site laundry facilities at the ratio of at least one washer and one dryer for every ten. units; f. The provision of at least 50 ~ubic feet of secured storage space for each unit; and g. The proposed project will provide Senior Citizen housing. In all instances, standard zoning requirements shall be met, regardless of the number of dwelling units in the project (except possibly Senior housing). A minimum of three (3) criteria shall be met in order for a density bonus to even be considered beyond the automatic base of 10~ for rentals and 15~ for ownership as an alternative or in combination with offering incentives of equivalent financial value. Criteria No. 1, for minimum unit sizes, shall be a ,required criteria to go beyond the automatic base. It shall be up to the discretion of the City Council as to whether a project will receive bonus units above the automatic base noted above, .up to a 25[ density bonus, and the type of any incentives of equivalent financial value that would be provided, or a combination thereof. In the event that City Council desires to provide a financial incentive, they will attempt to make the incentive available upfront instead of deferring any payments or benefits where ever possible. 2. Step .T.wo - Verification of Section 8 Housing Certificates. In the case of rental units, following the determination from Step One that "x" number of bonus units are permissible, the developer shall obtain verification from the Orange County Housing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 1G 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 88-92 Page four Authority that the appropriate number of Section 8 Houstng Certificates have been set aside for the subject project. 3. Step Three- 'Formal Deslgn Revlew Submittal. The developer shall make a"f'ormal submittal of plans accompanied by a Letter of Verification as per Step Two (if applicable) for review and approval. This review shall be conducted based upon established Design Review procedures. Any additional discretionary approvals required for the project will also be processed during Step Three. Conditions of approval for Design Review and/or any discretionary approval will require the developer/property owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. 4. ~ Four - Execute Development Agreement. The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City which shall be approved by the City Council. The Development Agreement shall stipulate the following: compliance with a submitted development plan and all Design Rqview and other descretionary conditions of approval, the total number of allowed dwelling units (including bonus units),, the number of units to be set aside as "affordable", "the definition of affordable,, the duration of the agreement (15 year minimum, term, 30 years where mandated by State and/or Federal statute), annual certification of compliance, requirement' for recorded deed restrictions regulating resale of ownership units, relief for failure to comply, the requirement for owner occupancy on ownership units and other information as determined necessary by the Director of Community Development and City Attorney' s office. 5. Step Five - On-Going Monitoring. A Certificate of Compliance to the Development Agreement shall be submitted to the Community Development Department on an annual basis, as prescribed in the Development Agreement. II. The City Council hereby approves the Density Bonus Policy as contained herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of , 1988. Ronal d ~'. ~oeSterey, Mayor ~a~.y Wynn, City Clerk