|
PUBLIC HEARING – DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE – Proposed revision of Zoning Code Section 20-31 providing for residential density bonus and developer incentives and concessions for development of affordable housing, senior housing, or child care facilities – File Number ST10-007
Planner, Lisa Kranz gave the staff report.
Public Hearing:
- Bill Mabry, Oakmont Senior Living – commented about concerns of concessions and affordable housing and the CEQA issue, not being able to ask for a concession or incentive after CEQA has been completed or somewhere through the process. Stated that if an issue occurs during a CEQA review it could be solved or granted by concession or incentive why would the city want to destroy the affordable housing project without considering that concession or incentive at any time.
- Katie Sanchez, Sonoma County Child Care Planning Council – spoke of their support of this ordinance.
- David Grabill, Housing Advocacy Group – feels that it is not a useful and workable document; feels private developers will not take advantage of it because in order to build units on-site they not only have to build the units required by the housing allocation plan which is 15% and then another 15% or 20% to kick in the concessions and incentives; he further stated that developers should be able to get the density bonus if they are building those units on site.
Lisa Kranz asked the City Attorney, Molly Dillon to address some of the issues of concern.
Molly Dillon stated that the interest was to avoid a moving target with regards to CEQA and not have the project change during the course of review which delays and makes projects more expensive as opposed to streamlining and make them more efficient CEQA requires environmental review of the project and it is very important to have an accurate description of the project under CEQA. If there is a moving target with the project description it makes it more difficult for everyone. There is also an interest in avoiding the use of incentives and concessions as mitigation under CEQA; she also stated that if the Planning Commission wants to move the date, at what point in time can we be certain we know what the project is that we are dealing with.
There was also some discussion that it could encourage developers if there was a 60-day deadline established after the date of application.
Molly Dillon also addressed the issue of HAP, stating it is specific to the City and is not required by the State. It is something that the City looks at to address the need for affordable housing and how to meet the mandates by the State. The Density Bonus ordinance is different and is mandated by the State; the developers don’t have to avail themselves of that, they choose to. The HAP is mandatory by City and is required of all developers. The issue of whether or not they should allow units that are provided under Density Bonus or allow HAP units that are required to count also for Density Bonus doesn’t have to be addressed as it is a HAP issue.
Commissioners discussion ensued:
Commissioner Carlstrom – stated that changing language about causing delays and extra costs after environmental review would be good but also feels there may be a way to delineate between priority processing projects and those that don’t qualify because they are not affordable; she thinks that there could be a way to incorporate Commissioner Byrd’s suggestion that any proposed change to a concession or an incentive has to be brought forward within sixty or ninety days of the application or perhaps a developer would be allowed no more than two changes to incentives or concessions or one depending on the needs of the staff; she also stated there are no developers coming forward to build affordable housing projects and doesn’t see why we can’t provide incentives as much as possible and doesn’t see a problem with combining HAP incentives and Density Bonus incentives and allowing the Density Bonus points to count towards HAP and vice versa.
Commissioner Faber - also indicated some of the same concerns and also agrees with David Grabill, stating that if its an affordable unit it should be dealt with as an affordable unit; he also agrees with Commissioner Poulsen regarding the 100% affordability could be lowered to incentivize real projects; that all projects are moving targets and that issues usually don’t come up until midway through the project, feels that there needs to be more thought on this.
Commissioner Bañuelos - also echoed what has been said and would like more time to firm up some of the issues that were brought up; would like more flexibility in the CEQA process; wants to encourage affordable housing; favors putting off until the next meeting.
Commissioner Poulsen - stated that if we take away incentives it will discourage from building; the original law required localities to offer 1-3 incentives not on a sliding scale but up to 3 incentives; he also stated that priority processing means that if you are an affordable project you are required to be at the top of the list, not 100% affordable but one of the density bonus projects which encourages people to do this type of housing, he has a problem with taking out all the incentives and has a problem with double dipping on the fees; would like to see these things addressed and maybe see how other jurisdictions address this.
Commissioner Cisco – is comfortable with going back to staff but would like to be clear with what they are asking of staff and doesn’t want unintended consequences, also what does it mean for Santa Rosa if there is a change in the language to allow an incentive to come forward somewhere in the middle of CEQA and what does that mean in terms of staff resources as they are now, what is the real situation in Santa Rosa.
Commissioner Byrd – also supports postponing to another meeting; thinks a timeline in relationship to fees and staff time needs to be addressed; he also stated with regards to the EIR, that it needs more work in relationship to the fees if there are to be multiple changes, doesn’t know why affordable housing projects would be penalized rather than us trying to accommodate them more; in regards to the change with prioritizing, he would like to see projects other than 100% be given priority; double dipping fees also needs more clarity
Chair Duggan also agreed with fellow commissioners and summarized the following to be addressed: Incentives - where in the process to draw the line and what impact does it have on fees and staff time and resources; the overlap with the HAP fees - if separating the Density Bonus from the requirement for in-lieu fees what impact would that have on HAP; priority processing for projects that are fewer than 100%. She also stated with regards to Commissioner Poulsen’s comments about the 1-3 incentives stated that the current version does have that sliding scale.
Lisa Kranz responded that they would take those issues and bring back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Faber suggested receiving David Grabill’s input.
Commissioner Poulsen made a motion and Commissioner Carlstrom seconded to continue to a date uncertain:
The motion carried with the following vote: |