Desk Item F with attachment 31PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Community Development Director
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
N:\SHARE\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\09-01-16\Desk Item F Final.docx
MEETING DATE: 09/01/16
ITEM NO. 1
DESK ITEM F
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 19, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-13-090 AND VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION M-13-014. PROPERTY LOCATION:
SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA,
LARK AVENUE TO SOUTH OF NODDIN AVENUE. APPLICANT:
GROSVENOR USA LIMITED. PROPERTY OWNERS: YUKI FARMS,
ETPH LP, GROSVENOR USA LIMITED, SUMMERHILL N40 LLC,
ELIZABETH K. DODSON, AND WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN.
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTI-
USE, MULTI-STORY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 320
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES 50 AFFORDABLE SENIOR
UNITS; APPROXIMATELY 66,800 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
FLOOR AREA, WHICH INCLUDES A MARKET HALL; ON-SITE AND
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP.
APNS: 424-07-024 THROUGH 027, 031 THROUGH 037, 070, 083
THROUGH 086, 090, AND 100.
REMARKS:
Attachment 31 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 16, 2016 and
11:00 a.m. August 19, 2016.
Attachments (previously received under separate cover):
1. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-21)
2. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Addendum (includes Exhibits 22-23)
3. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 24-25)
4. April 27, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (no exhibits for this report)
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014
AUGUST 19, 2016
Attachments (Continued):
5. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 26-31)
6. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Addendum (includes Exhibits 32-33)
7. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 34-35)
8. July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 36-39)
9. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes
10. July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes
Attachments (previously received with August 9, 2016 Staff Report):
11. Required Findings and Considerations
12. Draft Resolution to deny the applications
13. Draft Resolution to approve the applications (includes Exhibit A, Findings and Exhibit B,
Conditions of Approval)
14. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. July 13, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 4, 2016
15. Additional information from the applicant, received July 29, 2016 (11 pages)
Attachments (previously received with the Addendum Report):
16. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 4, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 5, 2016
17. Applicant’s response to the Planning Commission recommendation on the applications,
received August 5, 2016
18. Updated Vesting Tentative Map Sheet 1.1
Attachments (previously received with Addendum B Report):
19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 5, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 8, 2016
Attachments (previously received with the Desk Item Report):
20. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 8, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 9, 2016
21. Applicant’s response to the Town Council staff report, received August 8, 2016
22. Photos of high density projects
23. Revised Draft Resolution to approve the applications (includes Exhibit A, Findings and
Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval)
Attachments (previously received with Desk Item B Report):
24. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 9, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 11, 2016
25. Document referenced by Joseph Gemignani regarding survey results
26. Applicant’s response to questions from the August 9, 2016 meeting
Attachments (previously received with Desk Item C Report):
27. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 11, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 12, 2016
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014
AUGUST 19, 2016
Attachments (Continued):
Attachments (previously received with Desk Item D Report):
28. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 12, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 15, 2016
29. Letter from the applicant’s attorney, received August 12, 2016
Attachment (previously received with Desk Item E Report):
30. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 15, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 16, 2016
Attachment received with this Desk Item F Report:
31. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 16, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 19, 2016
From: Sergio Ramirez [mail to:se r g iora mi rezbatiz@gma il.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 2:06 PM
To: BSpector; Marice Sayee; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40
Dear Council members,
It is difficult to know how this cou ld have happened: a gigantic and ill advised project has gotten
to the point that it is up to you to approve it or deny it.
It should be evident that the project is jammed into half of the property, and piled up against the
Lark A venue side so that all housing units will be able to send their children to Los Gatos
Schools.
Has the developer provided adequate facilities to compensate for the additional students? A new
C ampus? Full compensation to the District for Schoollmpact so the District can build the new
schools needed?
It should also be clearly evident that the existing traffic infrastructure is totally inadequate to
support the additional traffic that will be generated not only by this project, but by the Samaritan
Project
Has the developer proposed adequate mitigation for the horrendous traffic jams that will ensue?
Is it not lesson enough to see the jams already in progre ss at Winchester and 85 , with the new use
ofthe Club and Netflix across the street? That section ofWinchester, will become a nightmare
when all the employees come to work . How is this overall traffic situation being addressed at
North 40?
It should be clearly evident that this project has been designed by the developers to maximize
profits and then leave Town with a huge and irreparable traffic problem .
It should be clearly evident that the Town does not have the infrastructure necessary to support
anything like what the developer wants to do here.
I should be clearly evident that the Town Council MUST deny the developer 's application for
this project. It should be a project developed by local developers , designed by local architects
and planners, all ofwhich understand Lo s Gatos. The Giant developers don't care about
communities ; they care only about profits . That is their job; to make money for shareholders .
The Town Council 's job is to protect the Town and its citizens from predatory developers that
surely sing deceptive songs about increased Town Revenues which is a great temptation.
The Town Council MUST not li sten to these Siren Songs, and protect a legacy that has taken
centuries to build .
Sincerely,
Sergio and Maria Ramirez-Bati z
From: Liz Dillon [m a ilto :liz .dill o n@co mcast.n et]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:11 PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen ; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis
Cc: Laurel Prevetti ; Joel Paulson
Subject: Deny the proposed North 40 project
Dear Town Council Members,
As a resident of Los Gatos for over 15 years, I strongly urge you to deny the proposed North 40 project.
The impact on the traffic and schools has not been properly considered. The segment of Los Gatos
Blvd between Highway 85 and Lark is too narrow for the existing traffic. The traffic frequently sits at a
standstill. Without adding the new development, the Town should widen this stretch from four to six
Janes. I can 't even imagine the gridlock on that area if you added 320 more residences.
The stretch of Los Gatos Blvd between Blossom Hill and Main Street is frequently stopped due to school
traffic. The traffic related to schools could be mitigated by the developer providing land, facilities, and
school busses to transport all Los Gatos Unified School District and Los Gatos High School students. In
conjunction with this , the school districts should limit parent driving of children to school , unles s
necessitated by medical reasons or after-school sports/tutoring. The impact of more students from the 320
new residences will further clog our streets and our schools.
Thank you for your consideration,
Elizabeth Dillon
1 05 Highland Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
From: Deborah Fein [mailto:d e borahfein @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:43 PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson
Subject: Please consider denying North 40 current density
Dear Town Leaders:
I moved back to Lo s Gatos after college to my first so lo apartment where I met my husband, also
renting in the complex. We had to move and /or buy three times before we could get to our fourth
place and our home purchase goal: Los Gatos. It meant so mething to finally be able to live here.
It was hard work, dedication and "paying our dues". We were the second owners of a home built
in the 50's-needles s to say it was complete fixer upper! I remember that second night sitting on
the edge of the old bathtub, looking at the terra cotta tile , pink floral wallpaper and bright yellow
tiled vanity and realizing every room in the house, as well as the plumbing, electrical, roof and
yard needed work. I wondered that night if I had buyers remorse.
But 15 years, three kids and several steps later toward s getting the house remodeled and
renovated, I thought it was worth the struggle. I made great friends , got to know wonderful
neighbors and met teachers and staff from different preschools, Blosso m Hill Elementary, Fisher
Middle and LGHS. I got to know which cashiers I wanted to wait in line for, which streets I
enjoyed walking on, what the hills looked like at different times of the year, what place had the
coffee I liked, or where I could find the perfect gift. I didn't mind that my real estate investment
was grow ing , largel y due to the high regard of the schools and charm of downtown, but I also I
got anxious about big anchor stores moving into town , seeing the dome of a re lentlessly un-
lea sed building block the views of the hill s, and witnessing developments with 3 100 square foot
"single family homes " on 3900 square foot lot s ... yes-that is correct*! I saw my drive time from
Whole Foods to LGSRC go from 6 minutes to 16 minutes and the kindergarten cl ass size go
from 19 to 24, a nd the fact that a week-day morning round-trip from The Manor neighborho od to
Fisher and back took about 40 minutes. I saw dealerships, orchards and single plots of land
turned into house after house after house -any poss ible way to divide a lot and get another home
on it! I saw the flex rooms at the elementary school being used as clas sroom s because even the
beautiful newl y built school soon didn't have enough ro om. And the icing on the cake was being
told I was only allow ed three tickets to my so n's Middle School graduation due to over crowding
-not even e nough for his parent and siblings to be seated , let alone grandparents.
I thought about all this the other day when I was stopped in traffic on Lark A venue, in front of
the h o use at the si d e of the road where th e North 40 is planned. There is a large trampoline
si ttin g in the orchard, and a boy was layin g on hi s back with hi s hand s behind hi s head looking
up into the sky. I smiled at the thought of a lazy afternoon , daydreaming, when all of a s udden , I
reali zed he wasn't looking at a leafy canopy of trees or the shifting shapes of the clouds or the
mountains in the distance. He was staring straight up at the story poles towering above hi s soo n-
to -be removed trampoline. I can only imagine what he was thinking. I literally gas ped . So I
wasn't surpri sed to wo nder again ifl had buyers remors e - I just didn't think I'd have it 15 years
later.
I ask that yo u please carefully and hone stl y consider what will happen to the Town of Los Gatos ,
if the proposal for the North 40 development is fully allowed.
Debbie Fein
* PUBLIC RECO RD
16220 George StLos Gatos , cA 95032
• Single-Family Home
• 3 ,193 sqft
• Lot size : 3 ,911 sqft
From: Carla Mason [mailto:carla.d.mason @qmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 5:07 PM
Subject: Vote NO on North 40 Plan!!
Dear Los Gatos Elected Officials,
Please deny the North 40 Plan. In light of the new development that will be taking place at Good
Samaritan Hospital which will impact traffic on Los Gatos Blvd. by 15 ,000 more cars per day, it
is imperative to also consider the extra 14,000 cars per day that the North 40 Plan will
generate!!!
Please do your part in protecting our wonderful town. Another better plan will be forthcoming,
I'm sure. Let's be prudent and do the right thing: VOTE NO on THE NORTH 40 PLAN!!
Thank you,
Carla Mason
Resident on Arroyo Grande Way
From: Beverly Christensen [m a il to:beverlychristensen(fv,comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16 ,2016 5:17PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Joel Paul son
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Meeting tonig ht
Hello to member of the Town Council -
I am writing to you to thank you for all your efforts on the north 40 project. I know you have sp ent
countless hours and I really appreciate you taking all thi s time to ensure that the town of Los Gatos
remain s great.
Please note that as a mother of 4 kids I am very concerned about the potenti a l increase in enrollment for
the Los Gatos school s, due to the proposed housing plan on the North 40. I feel that the schools are
already overcrowded and school re sources are maxed out. I have seen enrollment increase each year. It
really becomes challenging to maintain quality standards in education when programs and classrooms
have reached their max and there is not enough personal in struction.
Of course the increase in enrollment will of course affect the traffic flow down Los Gatos Bl vd. It
already runs at a slow pace everyday week day during the morning and afternoon. I am sure you realize
this .... not to mention the weekend beach traffic .
C hanges need to be made to this existing plan and I am thankful that you are insisting on upholding the
va lues and desires of the peo pl e for the town of Los Gatos. Los Gatos cannot rem ain the unique and
wonderful town it is today if thi s developer is allowed to pursue their existing plan . Please deny the
existing plan a nd work to preserve the future of Los Gatos and families.
Please continue to deny thi s project as it is proposed!
Thank you so very much!
Bev Christensen
From: jplg159@juno.com [mailto:jplg159@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 6:40 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40!
You denied this project earlier. stop it while you can.
It will ruin our beautiful TOWN tell the developers to go else where and try to screw other
residents,
and take away the love of their TOWN. Please DENY this project--it's much to dense!
Along time resident--
Assembly Bill No. 2222
CHAPTER682
An act to amend Sections 65915 and 65915.5 of the Government Code, relating to housing.
[Approved by Governor September 27, 2014. Filed with Secretary of
State September 27, 2014.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2222, Nazarian. Hous ing density bonus.
The Plannin g and Zoning Law requires, when a developer of housi ng propo ses a housing development w ithin
the jurisdiction of the local government that the c ity, county, or city and county provide the de veloper wit h a
density bonus and other incenti ves or concessions t(x the production of lower income housing units or the
donation of land within the development if the developer, among other thing s, agrees to construct a spec ifi ed
percentage of units for ve ry low, l ow-, or moderate-income households or qualifying re s idents.
Existing law requires continued atl'ordability for 30 years or longer. as specified , of a ll very low and low-
inc ome units that qualitied an app li cant tor a density bonus.
Thi s bill instead would require continued aftordab ili ty for 55 years or longer, as s pec ified, of all very low an d
low-income rental units that qualitied an applicant for a density bonu s. Thi s bill vvould also include very lo w
and low -income perso ns among the initial occupants or f()r-sale unit s . This b iII a I so
would prohibit an applicant from
receiving a density bonus unless the
proposed housing development
would, for units subject to certain
affordability requirements that were
occupied by qualifying persons on
the date of application, provide at
2
least the same number of units of equivalent size
or type, or both , to be made available for
rent at affordable housing costs to,
and occupied by, persons and
families in the same or lower income
category as those households in
0 CC Up an cy. For th o se su bject types of unit s that have been vaca ted o r demoli s hed at the
time o f application , thi s bill would conditi o n a dens ity bonus up o n at least the same num ber o r unit s of
eq ui valent s ize or typ e, or both, as existed at the highpoint in the precedi ng 5 yea rs being made a vailable at
aff(mia ble rent or a ffordable housing cost to. and occupi ed by, persons and families in the same o r low~r
income category a s th ose p e rsons a nd families in occupancy at that ti me. if known.
E xi sting law al so requires a c ity, count y, or c ity and count y to g rant a d e ns ity bonus or other incent i\-cs . as
spcc iticd . w h en an app licant for a pproval to conve11 apmtmenls to a cond omini um project agrees, amo ng other
thin gs. to prov ide a s p ec iti ed percent age of units for low-o r m oderate-income pers ons and f-~unilie s o r lor
lower in come ho use ho ld s, as define d .
T hi s bi ll also wo uld prohib it an app licant from receiv in g a density bonus unl ess th e proposed co nd omi n ium
proj ect would rep lace the existing allord a bl e units w ith at least the same number o f afford able unit s of
equi valent si ze o r type, or both. and th e proposed d evelopme nt , inclusive o f th e units rep laced purs uan t to the
requ irements desc ribed above. conta in s atfordable units according to s peciti ed percentages o r cons is ts ent i re ly
of affordab le units.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropri a ti on: no Fisca l Committee: no Loca l Progr am : no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTI ON 1.
Section 659 15 o f t he Govemment Cod e is a m e nd ed to read :
659 15.
(a) When an app lica nt seeks a d e ns ity bo nus for a ho usin g d e ve lopment with in , or fo r the d o nation 0 f land tlw
hou sin g w ith in. the jurisdiction o f a c ity, co unt y, o r c ity and county, that local go vernment s ha ll pro vide the
app licant w ith incentives o r concess ions lor the producti o n of ho us in g units and c hild care facil iti es as
prescribed in thi s secti0n . All cities, counti es. or c iti es and co unties s hall ado pt an o rdinance t hat s peci ti es
3
how compliance with this section will be implemented. Failure to ado pt an ordinance shall not relieve a city,
county, or city and county from complyi ng with this secti o n.
(b) (I) A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density b onus, the amount of which sha II be as
s pecif-ied in subdivision (t), and incentives or concess ions, as d escribed in subdivision (d), when an applicant
for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, exc luding any units
permitted by the density b o nus awarded pursuant to thi s section, that wi ll contain at least any one of the
(()]lowing:
(A) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households. as d efi ned in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low in come households, as detined in
Section 50 I 05 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C) A senior citizen housing development, as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civi l Code, or
mobilehomc park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to
Sec tion 798.76 or 799.5 ofthe Civil Code.
(0) Ten percent ofthe total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in Section 4100 or
the Civil Code for person s and families of moderate income, as de tined in Section 50093 of the Health and
Safety Code. provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase.
(2) For purposes of calcul ating the amount of the density bonus pursuant to su bdivision (f), t h e applicant who
requests a density bonus pursuant to this s ubdi vision shall elect whether the bonus shall be awarded on the
bas is of s ubparagraph (A), (B), (C), o r (D) of paragraph (1).
(3) For the purposes ofthi s section, "'total units'' or ''total dwelling units'' does not include units aclcled by a
density bonus awarded pursuant to thi s section or any local law grant in g a g reater density bonus.
(c) (I) An appli cant s hall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure, continued aft<.Jrdahility
of all very low and low-income rental units t hat qualified the a pplic ant t()r the award of the density bonus t()r
55 years or a longer period of time if required by the construction o r mortgage financing assistance program.
mo 1tgage insurance program, or rental s ub sidy program. Rents for the lower income dens ity bonus uni ts shall
be set at an afTordab le rent as detlned in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) An applicant s hall agree to, and the c ity, county, or city and county sh a ll ens ure th at, th e initial occupant of
all f()r-sale units that qualitie d the applicant t()r the award of the density bonus are persons <md familie s of
very low, low, o r mod erate incom e, as required, and that the units are offered at an affordable housi ng cost. as
that cost is defined in Section 50052 .5 of the Health and Safety Code. The loc al governm ent shall enforce a n
equi ty sharing agreement, unless it is in cont1ict w ith the requirements of a no ther public fu nding source or
law. The followi ng apply to the equity sharing agreement:
(A) U pon resa le, the seller of the unit s ha ll retain the va lu e of a ny improvements, the downpayment, and the
se ller's proport ionate s hare of appreciation. The lo cal government shall recapture any initial subsidy, as
defined in s ubparagraph (B), and its proportionate sha re of appreciation, as defined in subparagraph (C),
wh ich a m o u nt s hall be used within five years for a n y of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section
33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote home owners hip.
(B) For purposes of thi s subdi v is io n. t he loca l government's initial s ubsi d y sha ll be equal to the fair ma rket
va lue of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale pri ce to th e moderate-income household, plus
the amount of any downpayment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market va lue is low e r
_than the initial mar~et valus~J~e.'~~he v~lue at the t im e of the resa l_~ shall b~ ~sed as the it1itial m~Eket value.
4
-- -·--
(C) For purposes of this s ubdivi s io n, th e local government's proporti o nate s hare of appreciation sha ll be equal
to the ratio of the loc al government 's initi a l subsidy t o the fair marke t value o f the ho me at the time of initial
sa le.
(3) (A) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any
other incentives or concessions under this section if the housing
develop1nent is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or
parcels on which rental dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units
have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the
application, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or
law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and fan1ilies of
lower or very low inco1ne; subject to any other form of rent or price
control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power; or
occupied by lowe r or very low income households, unless the
proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of
the following applies:
(i) The proposed housing deve lopment., inclusive of the units
replaced pursuant to this paragraph, contains affordable units at
the percentages set forth in subdivision (b).
(ii) Each unit in the development, exc lusive of a manager's unit or
units., is affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low
income household.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, "replace" shall mean either
of the following :
(i) If any dwelling units d esc ribed in subparagraph (A) are
occupied on the date of application, the proposed housing
development shall provide at least the same number of units of
equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable
rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by., persons and
families in the same or lower income category as those households
in occupancy. F or unoccupied dwelling units described in
subparagraph (A) in a development with occupied units, the proposed
housing developtnent shall provide units of equivalent size or type, or
5
both, to be tnade available at affordable rent or affordable housing
cost to, and occupied by, persons and fan1ilies in the smne or lower
incotne category in the same proportion of affordability as the
occupied units. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional
units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacetnent
units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a
recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed
developtnent is for-sale units , the units replaced shall be subject to
paragraph (2).
(ii) If all dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) have been
vacated or detnolished within the five-year period preceding the
application, the proposed housing developtnent shall provide at least
the satne nun1ber of units of equivalent size or type, or both, as existed
at the highpoint of those units in the five-year period preceding the
application to be n1ade available at affordable rent or affordable
housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and fatnilies in the same or
lower income category as those persons and families in occupancy at
that time , if known. If the incomes of the persons and fatnilies in
occupancy at the highpoint is not known, then one-half of the required
units shall be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing
cost to , and occupied by , very low income persons and fatnilies and
one-half of the required units shall be tnade available for rent at
affordable housing costs to, and occupied by, low-income persons and
fan1ilies. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units
shall be rounded up to the next whole nutnber. If the replacement units
will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded
affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed
development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to
paragraph (2).
(C) Paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) does not apply to an applicant
seeking a density bonus for a proposed housing developtnent if their
application was submitted to, or processed by, a city, county, or
city_ an~ co~nty before January 1, 2015. ---
6
. ··---
(d) (I ) A n app li cant for a density bonus pursuant to subdi vis io n (b) ma y submit to a city. county . or ci ty a nd
county a proposal tor the specifi c incentives or concess io ns that the applicant reques ts purs uant to thi s section,
and may re quest a meeting with th e ci ty. county, o r c it y and county. The c it y. county, or ci ty a nd county s hall
grant th e concess io n or incentive requested by th e a pplicant unle ss the city, count y, o r c it y and county m akes a
wri tt e n findin g, based upon s ubs tantial evidence, of any of th e foll ow in g:
(A) The co ncession or in centi ve is no t required in ord e r to provi de to r affordable ho us in g costs. as d elined in
Secti on 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. or fo r rents for the targeted uni ts to be set as s pec ified in
s ubdi vis ion (c).
(8) T h ~ concession or incentiv e would have a s pecifi c a d ve rse impact. as defined in para graph (2) o f
s ubdivi s ion (d) o f Secti o n 65589.5, upon public he a lth and safety or the phys ic a l en vironm ent or o n any rea l
property that is listed in the California Reg is te r o f Hi storical Resources and for which there is no fea s ible
method to sati s fa ctoril y mitigate or avoid the s pec ifi c ad ve rse impact \vithout rendering the development
un aftordable to low-a nd mod erate-income hou se ho ld s.
(C) T he concession o r incentive would be contra ry to s tate or federal la w.
(2) The app lica nt s hall rece ive the foll owin g numbe r of incentives or concessio ns:
(A) O ne incentive o r concession for projects that includ e at least I 0 percent o f the tota l units for lower income
househo ld s, a t least 5 percent fo r ve r y low in come h o useholds, or at lea st l 0 percent for persons nnd families
of moderate income in a co mmon interest deve lo pment.
(B) Two incenti ves o r concessions for projects th at include at least 20 percent of th e t otal unit s f()r lower
inc om e ho useholds, at lea st 10 percent tor very low in come households, or at least 20 pe rcent tor p e rsons a nd
fami lies of moderate income in a common interest deve lopment.
(C) Three incentives o r concessions for proj ects that include at leas t 3 0 p ercent or th e tota l unit s for lower
inco me househo ld s, at leas t 15 percent for ve ry low income hou seholds, or at least 30 percent for persons a nd
families of moderate in co m e in a common interest d evelopment.
(3) The applicant m ay initi a te judicial proceedings if the c it y, county, o r city an d count y re fu ses to grant a
requested density bonus, incenti ve, or concessio n . If a coutt find s that the refu sal to grant a requested densi ty
bonu s, incenti ve. o r co ncession is in v io lation of thi s sec tion , t he court shall awa rd the pl ai nt iff reaso na b le
a tt o rn ey's fee s and costs o f suit. Nothin g in thi s s ubdi v is io n shall be interpreted to require a loca l government
to g r a nt a n incentive or concession that has a sp eci ti c, adverse impact, a s d e fined in paragraph ( 2) or
s ubdi visio n (d) of Sectio n 65589 .5 , upon he alth, safety, o r the phys ical env ironment, and for w hi c h th e re is no
1\::asiblc m etho d to sati sfactoril y mitigate or avo id the sp eci fi c adverse impact. Nothin g in thi s s ubdi v is ion
shall be interpreted to require a loc a l government to g rant an incentive or concession that wou ld h ave an
adverse impac t o n any real propetty that is li s ted in th e California Register of Hist orical Resources. T he c it y.
county, o r c ity and count y shall es tab li sh proce dures tor carryi ng out this sectio n , th at s hall in cl ud e legislative
body approval of the m eans of compliance with thi s secti on.
(e) (I) In no case m ay a c ity, county. or c it y and count y app ly an y development stand ard that wi ll have the
effect of ph ys ica ll y precluding the construction o f a d evelopment meeting the crit e ri a of s ubdi v ision (b) a t the
densities or with the conc e ssio ns o r incenti ves permitted by this secti o n. A n appli ca nt m ay s ubmit to a c ity,
county, or city and county a proposa l for th e waiver o r reduc tion of develo pment sta nd ard s that wi ll h ave the
effect of ph ys ica ll y precl uding th e constru ction of a development meetin g the crit e ri a of s ubdi vis ion (b) at the
densi ti es or wit h the concessions or in centi ves pe rmitted und er this section , and m ay request a meeti ng 'A·ith
the c it y, county, or ci ty and county. lf a court tinds that the refusa l to g rant a •..vai ve r or reduc ti on of
development standards is in violation o fthi s secti o n . the court s hall award the plaintifTrc aso na blc attorney's
fees and costs of s ui t. Nothing in this subdivision s hall be interpreted to require a loca l govern m e nt to waive
or red uce development standards if the waiver or reductio n would ha ve a s pecifi c, adverse impact, as defined
7
in paragraph (2) of s ubdivi s ion (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety. or the phys ical environment and
for w h ich t h e re is n o feasible m e tho d to sati sfactoril y miti gate or avoid the speci fi c a d verse impact. Noth in g in
thi s subdivision s hall be int erpreted to require a local government to wai ve o r reduce d evelopment standards
that would have an adverse impact on any r eal prope rt y that is li st ed in the Califo rni a Register of Historical
Resources, o r to g rant any waiver or reduct ion that would be contrary to state or tederallaw.
( 2) A proposal for the waiver or reduction of d eve lopm e nt standa rds pursuant to this subdi vis io n shall neither
reduce nor increase the number o f in cen t ives or concessions to w hi c h the applicant is e nt it led pursuant to
s ubdivi sion (d ).
(f) For the purposes o f thi s c hapter. ''density bo nu s'' mean s a dens ity increase over the othetwise maximum
allowab le residential dens it y as of the date of appli ca ti on by the app li cant to the c ity, county, o r ci ty and
count y . The appli c ant may elect to accept a lesser perc entage of d e n sity b o nu s . The amount of densi ty bonus
to which the appl ic ant is entitled s hall vary according to the amount by wh ic h the percentage of affordab le
hous ing units exceeds th e percentage established in s ubdi vis io n (b).
( 1) For housing d evelopments mee ting the criteria o f subparagraph (A) of paragraph (I) of subd ivision (b), the
density bonus sh a ll b e calculate d as follows:
Percentage Low-Income Units
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
Percentage De9sity Bonus
!
20 I
2 1.5 1
I
I
23 1
I
24.5 1
I
26
27.5
I
30.51
32 i
33.5
35
1
( 2) For h o u s ing d evelo pme nts meeting the criteria of subparag raph (B) of paragraph ( 1) of s ubdi vision (b), the
den sity bonus s hall b e calculated as follows:
Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
8
11 35
(3) For ho using de velopments meeting the criteria of s ubparagraph (C) ofparag raph (l ) of s ubdi v isio n (b ). the
d e ns it y bo nus shall be 20 percent o f the number of senior hous ing unit s.
( 4) Fo r ho us ing devel o pment s meeting the criteria of s ubparagraph (D) of paragraph (I) of s ubdi vis ion (b ), the
d<:n s it y bonus s ha ll be calculated as follow s :
Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
3 1 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
9
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
(5) All den s it y ca lculations resulting in fractional units shall b e rounded up t o th e n ex t whole numbe r. The
g ra nting of a den s ity bo nus shall not be interpreted, in and o f itse lf: to require a ge neral plan amendment, loca l
coast al plan a m endm e nt zo ning cha n ge, or o th e r discre ti ona ry app roval.
(g) (I ) Wl1en an app licant for a tentati ve s ubdiv is io n m a p , parc e l map, or o th e r re s identi a l dev e lopme nt
ap p roval d o n ates la nd to a city, count y, o r c ity and county in accordance w ith thi s s ubdi v is ion. t he applicant
s ha ll b e entitled to a IS-p e rcent increase a bove the otherwise max imum a ll owable residential dens ity fo r t he
e ntire developm e nt, as fo ll ows:
Percentage Very Low Income Pe rcentage Dens ity Bonus
10 15
I 1 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 2 1
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
2 1 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 3 1
27 32
10
28 33
29 34
30 35
(2) This incre a se s hall be in addition to a n y increa se in d e ns it y m a ndated by s ubdivi s io n (b), up to a m ax imum
combined m a nd a ted d e n sit y incre ase of 3 5 p e rcent if an appl ic ant se e ks a n in c rease purs uant to b o th t h is
s ubdi v is io n a nd subdi v is ion (b). All d e n s ity calculations resulting in fract io n a l un its s hall be rounde d u p to th e
nex t whole numbe r. la thing in thi s subdi v ision s hall b e con strue d to enl a rge o r dimini s h the a ut hority of a
ci t y, county, or c it y a nd county to re quire a developer to d o n a te la nd a s a conditio n o f developm e nt. An
appli ca nt s h a ll b e e ligibl e for th e inc rea sed d e nsity bonu s d esc ribe d in this subd i v is ion if all of" the fo ll ow in g
conditions a re m e t:
(A) The a pp licant d o n a tes a nd trans fe rs the la nd no late r th a n the el a te of approva l o f th e tina ! s ubdi v is io n
m a p , parcel m a p. o r reside ntial devel o pme nt appli cati o n.
(B) The d evelo pa bl e acre a g e and zoning c la ss ification of th e land being trans ferre d are s u fti c ie nL to p e rmit
co n struction o f units affordable to very low income households in an amount no t less than I 0 percent o f th e
number of re s idential units of the proposed development.
(C) T he trans ferre d la nd is at le a st o ne acre in size o r o f s uffi c i e nt size to p e rmit deve lopme n t of at leas t 40
un its. h as the a ppro priate gen e ral plan d esig nati o n , is a ppro priately z oned w ith nppropriate d eve lopm e nt
st a nda rd s for d eve lo pm e nt at the d e n s it y desc ribed in parag r a ph (3) of s ubdi v is io n (c ) o f S ect io n 65583.2. a n d
is o r w ill be se rved by adequate public fa c ilities and infi·a s tru c ture .
(D ) T he tran sfe rre d la nd shall have a ll o f the p e rmits and a ppro val s, other than building permits, necessary fo r
th e d evelo pme nt o f t he ve r y low incom e h o u sing units o n the trans ferre d land. n o t la te r tha n th e d a te of
a p prova l o f the final s ubdivis ion m a p , p a rc el m a p. o r res id e nti a l d evelo pm e nt a ppli cation, except th at the loca l
govemme n t m ay s ubj ect th e proposed d evelo pment to subseque nt d esig n review to the ex te nt autl lO ii z cd b y
s u bd iv is io n (i) of Secti o n 655 83.2 ifthe d es ign is not rev iewed by the local governm e nt p rio r to th e ti m e of
t ra n s tc r.
(E) T h e tran sfe rre d la nd a nd the afio rdabl e units shall be subjec t to a dee d restri c ti o n e n s urin g con1inu c d
a rtord a bility o f th e units con s istent with p a ragra phs (I ) a nd (2 ) of s ubdiv ision (c). w hi c h shall be record e d o n
th e p ro p e rt y at th e tim e o f the tra n s fe r .
(F) The land is tra n s fe rre d to the loca l a gen cy or to a ho u s in g d evelo p e r approved by the loca l agen cy. T he
local agency m ay re qu i re the applic ant t o identify a nd transfe r the land to th e d evelope r.
(G) T he t ran s ferre d land s hall b e within th e boundary o f the propos ed developm e nt o r, if the lo cal agen cy
agrees, w ithin o n e-qua rt er mile o f the bo unda ry of th e pro p osed d evelopme n t.
(H ) A p rop osed source of funding fo r th e very low inc ome units sh a ll b e identifi e d no t la te r t ha n th e d me of
a pproval o f the fi na l s ubdi visio n map, p arc e l map, o r res identia l d evelo pment a ppli cation.
(h) (I) Whe n a n applicant pro p ose s to cons truc t a housing deve lo pment tha t conto n ns to th e re quire m e nts of
s ubdi v ision (b) a nd includes a c hild care facility th at w ill be locate d o n the premi ses o C a s part o f ~ o r a ~i ace nt
to, the proj ect, the c it y, county, o r c it y and county sh a ll g r a nt e ith e r o f the to !l ow in g:
(A) An a dditi o na l d e ns it y b o nus that is a n am o unt of squ a re feet of res id e nti al s p ace th a t is e qua l to o r greater
th a n th e am o unt of sq u a re tee t in the c hild c are facilit y.
(B) A n a dditi o na l co ncess io n or incenti ve th a t contributes si g nifi cantl y to th e econ o mic feas ibilit y o r th e
con st r uc ti o n of th e c h!Jd care fa c ility . ___ _
11
---
(2) The ci ty, county. or city and county shall require, as a condition of approving the housi ng d evelopment.
that the t(>llowing occur:
(A) The child care facility s hall remain in operation tor a period of time that is as long as or lon ger than the
period of time during which the density bonus units are required to r emain affordable pursua nt to s ubdi vision
(c)_
(B) Of the children who attend the child care facility, the children ofvery low income households. lower
income households. or families of moderate income shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the
percentage of dwelling units that are required for very low income households, lower income households, or
families of moderate income pursuant to subdivision (b).
(3) No twiths tanding any requirement of this su bdivision, a city. county, or city and county shall not be
re quired to provide a density bonus or concess ion for a child care facility if it finds, based upon s ubstantial
evid ence, that the community has adequate child care facilities.
(4) ·'Child care fac ility," as used in thi s sectio n. means a child da y care facility other than a Cami ly da y care
home, including. but not limited to , infant centers. presc hool s, extended day care facilities, and schoolage
child care centers.
(i) .. Housing development."' as used in thi s sectio n , mean s a development project for five or more residential
units. For the purposes of th is section. "ho us ing development'. also includes a subd ivi s io n o r commo n interest
development. as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code, approved by a city, county, or city and co unty and
consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and
convert an existing commercial building to residential u se or th e substantia l rehabilitation of an existing
multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4. where the re s ult ofthe rehabilitation
wou ld be a net increase in available resi dential units. For the purpose of ca lculating a density bonus. the
residential units shal l be on contiguous sites that are the s ubject of one development application, but do not
h ave to be based upon individual s ubdivisio n maps or parcels. The density bonus s hall be permitted in
geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas w here the units for the lower in come
households are located _
(j) (I) The granti ng of a concession or incenti ve s hall not be interpreted. in and of itsel t: to require a general
plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zonin g change, or other discretionary approval. This
provision is declaratory of existing law _
(2) Except as provided in s ubdivi sions (d) and (e), the granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted to
require the waiver of a local o rdinance or provisions of a local ordinance unrelated to de ve lopment standards.
(k) For the purposes of thi s chapter. concession or incentive means any of the following:
( 1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoni ng code requirements or a rchit ectural
design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building
Standards Commission as prov ided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 1890 I) of Division 13 oft he H(:alth
and Safety Code. including. but not limited to, a reductio n in setback and square footage requirements and in
the ratio of vehicular parking s paces that would otherwise be required that results in id entifiable. Onanciallv
s ufficient, and actual cost reductions. -
(2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industriaL or
oth er land uses w ill reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, indu strial, or
other land uses are compatible w ith the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area
where the proposed ~ousing project will be located_
12
-------
(3) O the r regulato ry in cent ive s o r con ce ss io ns p ro posed b y th e develo p e r o r th e c it y, county, o r c it y a n d
county th at result in id e ntifia b le, fin a n c iall y suftic i e nt, a nd ac tu al co s t reduc ti o n s.
(I ) S ubdivi s io n (k ) d oes not limit or re quire the prov isi on o f direct finan c ial in centi ves tor th e h o u s in g
d evelo pme nt , inc lu din g the prov is ion o f publicly owned la nd, b y the city . county, o r city and county. or th e
wa iver of fees o r ded icatio n re quire m e n ts.
(m) Thi s sec ti o n s h a ll no t b e con stru e d to su p e r sed e o r in a n y way a lt e r o r lessen th e e ffect o r np pl ica tion of
the Califo rnia C o asta l A ct of 1976 (Di v is io n 2 0 (comme nc ing w ith Sectio n 300 00) o f th e Publ ic R esources
Cod e).
(n ) If p e rmitte d b y local ordinance, n o thing in this se c ti o n sh a ll be cons true d to pro hibit a city, county . o r c ity
a nd county fl ·o m g ra nting a d e n s ity bo nu s g rea ter than w h a t is d escribe d in thi s sec ti o n t<.n· a d eve lo pm e nt th a t
meets th e require m e nts o f this secti o n o r tl ·o m g ranting a pro po rti o n a tel y lower d e ns ity bonus th a n w h at is
required by thi s secti o n fo r d eve lopm e nts th a t d o no t m eet the re qu ire ments o f thi s secti o n .
( o) For purposes of thi s s e cti on , th e fo ll ow in g definitio n s s ha ll a ppl y:
(I) ··Deve lopm e nt sta ndard .. include s a s ite o r cons truction c o ndit io n , including. but not limite d to, a hei g ht
limit a tion, a setb ack re quirement, a tl oor are a r a tio, a n onsite o p e n-s pace r e quire m e nt, or a p a rking ra ti o t ha t
a pplies to a res id e nti a l dev elopment purs u a nt to any ordin a nce, general pla n e le m e nt, sp ec ifi c pl a n . c h nrte r. or
o th e r local co nditi o n . law, p o licy, reso luti o n, or regul a ti o n.
(2) ··Maximum <.~11 0\va bl e re s id e nti a l d e ns it y". m e an s the d e ns it y all o vved und e r th e zo nin g o rd i n a nc e·<.~nd la nd
u se clement o f the gen e ral plan, o r if a range of densit y is p e rmitte d , mean s th e m aximum all owabl e d e ns ity
to r the s pcc iiic zoning ra nge and la nd u sc elem e nt o f the genera l pl a n appli cabl e to the proj ec t . W h e re the
den s it y a ll owed unde r t he zoning o rdinance is incons ist e nt w ith the d e ns ity a ll owed under th e land usc
element of th e gen e ra l p la n . the gen e ra l pl a n d ensity s ha ll preva il.
(p ) (I ) Upon th e request o f th e d evelop e r, no c ity, county, o r c ity a nd county sh a ll re qui re a vehi c ul ar p a r k in g
ra ti o. inclus ive o r h a ndi capped a nd g u est p a rking, o f a d evelopment mee ting the c rite ri a of s ubdi v is ion (b),
th at exceeds th e lo ll owin g ratios:
(A) Zero to o ne b e droom : one ons it e p a rking s pace.
(B ) T wo to th ree b e droom s: two o n s itc parking s paces.
(C) Fo ur a nd m o re be droom s: tw o a nd o ne-h a l f p a rking s p aces.
(2) If th e total numbe r of p a rking spac es re quire d for a d eve lopme nt is o ther than a w hole numbe r, th e numbe r
sh a ll be round e d u p to the n ext whole numbe r. For purpose s of thi s subdiv isi o n , a d eve lopme nt m ay provid e
.. o ns it e pa rkin g'· thro u g h ta ndem park in g o r unco ve re d pa rking. but n o t thro ug h o n stre et parking.
(3) T hi s s ubdi v is io n s h a ll a ppl y to a d evelo pme nt tha t m eets th e re quire m e nts of s ubdi v is ion (b ) but o nl y a t
the re quest of t he app lica nt. A n applica nt m ay re quest p a rking incenti ves o r concessions b eyond th o se
provided in thi s s ubdi v is io n purs uant to s ubdiv is io n (d ).
SEC.2.
Secti o n 659 15.5 o f th e Govemment Cod e is a m e nded to read :
-------------------------------·
13
659 1 5.5.
(a) Wh en an appli ca nt lo r appro va l to con vert apa rtm ent s to a co ndominium projec t ag n:~es t o pro vid t: at leas t
33 p ercent of th e to ta l un its o f th e pro posed cond ominium project to pe rso ns a nd fa mi l ies o f low o r moderate
i ncome as de fin ed in Secti o n 50093 of th e Hea lth and Sate t y Co de. or 15 p ercent of th e tota l un its of the
proposed condominium proj ect to lower in co me ho use hol ds as de fin ed in Sect ion 50079.5 of th e Hea lth and
Safe t y Code, and agrees to pay fo r th e rea so nabl y necessaty admini strati ve costs in curred by a ci ty, co u nty, or
c ity a nd co unty pursuant to t hi s sec ti on. the ci ty, count y, or cit y and c ounty sha ll eith er (I ) gr ant a de nsi ty
bonus or (2) prov id e o th er i nce nt ives of equi va len t ti nanc ia l va lu e. A ci ty, coun ty, or c it y a nd county may
place such reaso na b le condi ti o ns o n the gra nt ing o f a dens ity bo nu s or o the r incent ives of eq ui valen t financial
value as it fi nd s a ppropri ate, incl udin g, but not l im ited to. conditi o ns whi ch ass ur e co nti nued affordability of
units to subsequent purc has e rs w ho are per so ns a nd famili es of.l ow and moderate in co me o r lower in come
househo lds.
(b) Fo r p urposes of' thi s sec ti on. ··de nsi ty bonu s" means a n in crease in unit s of25 pe rcern O\er th e number or
apartm e nts. to be p rov ided w ithin th e ex isti ng st1u cture o r st ruct ures prop osed for co nve rsio n.
(c) For pur poses of thi s <;ec ti on, "'oth e r in cen t ives of equi va le nt fin a nci a l va lu e·· s ha ll not be co nst ru ed to
req ui re a c ity, coun ty . or c ity a nd count y to prov ide cash trans fer pa yme nt s o r o th er mo neta ry compens::n ion
bu t may inc lude th e red uct ion or wa ive r of requireme nts w hi ch th e c it y. count y, or c it y and co un ty m ight
o th er w ise app ly as cond iti o ns of co n ve rsion a pprova l.
(d) A n appli cant fo r approva l to co nve rt apa rtm e nt s to a co nd ominium proj ec t may s ubmit to a ci ty, coun ty. or
c ity a nd coun ty a pr el imi na ry proposal p ursuant to thi s secti on pri o r to the s ubmittal o f a ny fo r ma l requests for
subdi visio n ma p ap prova ls. The c ity, count y, o r c ity a nd count y shalL wit hin 90 days of rece ip t o f a wr itten
pro posa l, no tif y th e a pp l ica nt in w ritin g of th e ma nn er in whi c h it will compl y w it h thi s sec t io n. T he c it y.
co un ty. or c ity a nd count y s h all estab lis h pro cedures for c arryin g o ut thi s sec ti o n, w hi c h sha ll inclu de
leg is lative body approva l o f the mea ns o f compli a nce w ith thi s secti on.
(e) No thi ng i n thi s sectio n sha ll be co ns tm ed to require a c it y, co unt y, or c ity a nd co unt y to a pprove a proposal
to convert apmt m ents to co ndominium s.
(t) An appli cant s ha ll be in e Li gible fo r a de nsi ty bo nus or o th er incentives un der thi s section if the apa 1tm ~nts
proposed lo r con ve rsio n cons tin1 te a ho us ing developm e nt to r whi c h a de nsity bonus or o th e r incen t ive s we re
prov ided und er Secti on 659 15.
(g) A n app li cant sh a ll be ineli gi bl e to r a d ens it y bo nu s or any o th er in centi ves or co ncess ions und e r th is
s ec t ion if th e condo minium proj ec t is proposed o n a ny prope 11y that includ es a parcel or parce ls o n which
renta l clvve lli ng unit s are o r. i f th e dwe llin g unit s have bee n vaca ted or de mo li shed in th e fi ve -yea r pe r iod
p rece din g the a ppli cation. have been subj ect to a reco rded cove nant, o rdin a nce, o r law t ha t restr ic t s r ents to
leve ls am)rd a bl e to pe rso ns and fami li es of lower o r ver y low in co me: subj ect to an y oth er lo rm of rent or
price cont ro l th ro ugh a publi c e ntit y's va lid exe rc ise o f it s po li ce power: or occ upied by lower or very l ow
income househol d s, unl ess th e pro posed cond ominium proj ec t rep laces those units, as de fi ned in subparagrap h
(B) of pa ragr ap h (3) of subdi v isio n (c) of Secti o n 659 15, and e ith er of th e fo ll owi ng a p plies:
(I ) The proposed co ndo minium proj ec t, inclu s ive of the uni ts re p lace d pursua nt to s ubp aragra ph (B) of
paragra ph (3) of s ubdi vis ion (c) o f Sec ti o n 659 15, co nta in s affo rda bl e unit s a t t he perce nt ages set torth in
subd iv ision (a).
(2) Eac h unit in the deve lopmen t, exc lus ive o f a ma nager ·s unit o r uni ts, is a ffo rd ab le to, and occu p ied by.
eithe r a lowe r or ve ry low in co me ho useho ld.
(h) Subdivis ion (g) docs no t app ly to an appl ica nt see kin g a dens it y bon us fo r a proposed ho usin g
deve lop me nt if th ei r app li catio n was sub mitted to, or processed by, a c ity, co un ty, or c it y a nd co un ty befo re
J anu ary I. 20 15.
14
Quoting fr o m https://leginfo.legi s lature.ca.gov/faces/billTextC!ient.xhtm l?bill id =20 1520 160AB2556
CALIFORN IA LEGISLATURE-2015-2016 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2ss6
I
I ntroduced by Assembly Member Nazarian
Febr uary 19, 2016
An act to amend Section 659 15 of the Government Code, relating to housing .
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2556, as ame nded, Nazari a n. Dens it y bonuses.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when an applicant proposes a housing
development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or ci ty
and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or
concess ion s for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of
l and within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to con struct
a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate -income househo ld s or
qualifying r esidents. That law makes an app l icant ineligible for a density bonus if the
housing deve lopme nt is proposed on property with existing or certa i n forme r dwe lli ng
units subject to spec ific affordability requirements, including a form of rent or pri ce
control through a public entity's va l id exercise of its police pow e r, or on property with
15
existing units occ upie d by lower o r very low income households, unless the proposed
housing development replaces those units as prescribed. That l aw defines "r eplace" for
those p urp os~ pwposes to m ean , among other things, pmviding the same nwnher of equivale nt units to
persm1s orf(unilies in th e same or lower incom e categories.
Th is b i ll would revise-llie tha t definition of "replace" to require a c it y, co unty. or c it y ami cou nt y
~OOpt a rebuttable pro sumptionpresumptiun. based on certainfcderal data. r ega rding t he
proportio n of lower income renter household s that occupy ex i sting ~ units, if the income
ca tegory of the households in occupancy is not known. The b i ll , if the property for the
p r oposed housing deve l opment is subject to a form of rent or price control through a
local government's valid exercise of its police power and is or was occupied by a person
or family with an income above lowe r income, would authori ze the city, county, or city
and county either to require r e placement units to be mad e available at affordable rent
or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, low-income persons or families, a s
speci fied, or to require the units to be replaced in co mpliance w ith the rent or price
co ntrol ordinance o f the jurisdiction. By increa s ing the duties of local officials, this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
Quoting f r om
http ://www. kmtg .com/sites/default/files/files/Density 0/o20 Bonu s 0/o 20Law 2015 Web%
20Version.pdf
How t he Dens ity Bonus Law Can Help in a Hostile Jurisdiction
It i~ important to know that th e dens it y bonus is a s tate la w re quirem e nt whi ch is mandatory on c ities and coun ties, e\·e n
chaner ci ties w hi c h a re fr ee ti·om m a n y oth er s tate req uirements. A developer wh o mee ts the Ia\\-'s requ irement s tor affi.lrda b le
or sen io r unit s is ent itl ed to th e d en sity bonus an d o ther a ssif'tan ce as or right, regardl ess or \v hat the locality wanl'l (s ubject to
limiwd health and safe ty excep ti o n s ). The dens ity borm s statute can he u sed to achi eve r educticl!1s in de velop m<::nt standards
or the g ranting o f con cessions o r incentives from j ur isdi cti o n s th at o the r w ise would n o t be incl ined to g rant those it e ms.
[xamples might include a reduction in p ar k ing stand a rds if th ose s tandards are d eem ed excessive by the d t:Yelo per. o r other
reductions in d eve lopment 'ta ndards if n eed e d to achieve the total de ns it y pennitted b y the d en s it y b o nus.
Developers wh o n o n et he less cneounrer ho ~tilit y from loc al jurisd ic ti ons are provided several too l ~
to cn ~u rc that a required d ensit y bonus is actua ll y g ra nte d . Develop ers arc entitled to an informal mee tin g w ith a loca l
j uri,d icti o n wh ic h fa il s 10 modify a re quest<;'d d evelopme nt s tandard. !f a d eveloper su ccc~s full y sues the lo ca li ty to enforce th e
dcn-;ity bonus require m e nt s. it is entitl e d to an award of its attorneys · fees. The ob li gati o n to pay a de ve loper"s
"A developer who meets the law's requirements for affordable or senior units
i s entitled to the density bonus and other assistance as of right, regardless of what th e locality
wants."
a ttorneys· fees is a p owe rful incentive for local jurisdictions to vo luntaril y c o mply w ith th e s tate la\.v d e nsi ty b o nus
req uirements. even w h e n the jurisdiction is not in favor of i ts e ffects o n the p roject.
16
--·-----
Density Bonus and Replacement Housing
Nev..-legislation e ffec ti ve as o f .J anuary I , 20 15 (Assembly Bill 2222) r equires developers o btaining a d e n~i t y bonus to replace
existi ng atTordabl e units demo li s h ed o r vacated prior to the dens ity bonus
application. in addition to proYiding n ew affordable units.
Determination Letter-Department of City Planning -City of Los Angeles
planninq.la ci t y.o rq /lib erty /home /index /pdis /26C73
~~af q. 2016-DETERM INATION-Density BonusiAffordable Housing Incentives ...
residential unitsincl uding Density Bonus Units. 3 .... The Applicant will present a copy of the
reco rded covenant to the ... The proposed Project shall provide minimum east and west side yard
..... Section 50052.5 addresses owner-occupied.
' t,. ., "' .•. ~· !
Quoting f rom
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Rent Stabilization Board/Level 3 -
General/8.a.3. Legislative0/o20update%20with%20Housing%20Bills%20matri x.p df
17
land Use
Before the Governor:
AB 2222 (Nazarian) addresses the preservat
proposing to develop a residential project, ~
condominium project, qualifies for a densit~
set-aside for affordable housing. This bill w<
incentive, or concession if a proposed hous
where dweJJing units have, at any time in th
very low-or low-income households or subj
However, an app li cant tn(lY overcorne this r
equivalent afiordabi lity an d size and/or typ'
housing units under the density bonus forrT
increases the required afford ability from 30
qualified an applicant for a density bonus . T
Governor.
18
:.~······-----------------
Quoting from http ://www .cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53494
CJ ""--' " .
PALO
ALTO
___ City of P a lo Alto (ID # 7205) City Coun ci l Staff Report
19
--------
Report Type: Inter-Governmental Le gislat ive Affairs Meeting Da te: 8/22/2016 Summary
Title: Governor's By Right Housing Bill --Status Up date
Title: Status Update and Potential City Res pon ses to the Go ve rnor's "By Ri ght" Housing
Bill and Pending Bills Addres s ing Hou sin g Iss ue s
From : City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
20
From: Jo hn Shepardson [mai lto:shcpardsonl aw(U::mc.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17 ,20 16 1:3 9AM
T o: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardi s; Rob Re nni e; Marcia Jensen; Counci l ; Laurel
Prevetti ; Robert Schultz; J oel Paul so n
Subject: No. 40: Director's Determinat ion (City of LA)
Quoting from the Director's Determin at io n (City of Los Angeles) (emphasis added):
Applicant
Dora Leong Gallo
A Community of Friends 3 70 1 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700 Lo s Angeles, CA 90010
Property Owner
METRO
1 Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99 -23 -4 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Representative
Noah Adler
Crai g Lawson & Co., LLC 3221 Hutchi son Ave., Ste. D Los Ange les, CA 9003 4
Los Angeles, CA 900 12-480 1
VINCENT P. B ERTONI, AICP
DIR ECTOR
(213) 978-1271
LISA M. WEBBER, AICP
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
(213) 978-1274
JAN ZATORSKI
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
(213) 978-1273 FAX: (213) 978-1275
INFORMATION
http://planning.l ac itv.org
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
200 N. Spring Street, Room 525 City of Los Angeles
CALIFORNIA
ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR
DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION
DENSITY BONUS AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
DETERMINATION -Density Bonus Affordable Housing Incentives
Case No. CEQA: Location:
Council District: Neighborhood Council Community Plan Area: Land Use Designation: Zone:
Legal Description:
Housing Replacement
With Assembly Bill 2222 , applicants of Density Bonus projects filed as of January 1, 2015 must
demonstrate compliance with the housing replacement provisions, which require replacement of
rental dwelling units that either exist at the time of application of a Density Bonus project or
have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application of the project.
Thi s applies to all pre-existing units that have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or
law that re stricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income ;
are subject to any other form of rent or price control ; or are occupied by Low or Very Low
Income Households. Pursuant to the Determination made by the Housing and Community
Investment Department (HCIDLA) dated October 15 , 2015 , no units will need to be replaced
with units affordable to Low or Very Low Income Households as there were no residential units
on the property for the last five years . [Refer to the Density Bonus Legislation Background
section of this determination for additional information.]
DENSITY BONUS LEGISLATION BACKGROUND
The California State Legislature has declared that "[t]he availability of housing is of vital
statewide importance," and has determined that state and local governments have a responsibility
to "make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community."
Section §6558 0, subds. (a), (d). Section 65915 further provides that an applicant must agree to ,
and the municipality must ensure, the "continued affordability of all Low and Very Low Income
units that qualifi ed the applicant" for the density bonus.
With Senate Bill 1818 (2004 ), state law created a requirement that local jurisdictions approve a
dens ity bonus and up to three "concessions or incenti ves" for projects that include defined le ve ls
of affordable housing in their proj ects. In response to this requirement, the City created an
ordinance that includes a menu of incentives (referred to as "on-m enu" incentives) comprised of
eight zoning adjustments that meet the definition of concessions or incentives in state law
(California Government Code Section 65915). The eight on-menu incen tives allow for: 1)
reducing setbacks; 2) reducing lot coverage; 3) reducing lot width, 4) increasing floor area ratio
(FAR); 5) increasing height; 6) reducing required open space; 7) allowing for an alternative
densit y calculation that includes streets/alley dedications; and 8) allowing for "aver aging" of
FAR, densi ty, parking or open space. In order to grant approval of an on-menu incentive, the
City utilizes the same findings contained in state law for the approval of incentives or
concessiOns.
California State Assembly Bill 2222 went into effect January 1,2015, and with that Density
Bonus proj ects filed as of that date must demonstrate compliance with the housing replacement
provisions which require replacement of rental dwelling units that either exist at the time of
application of a Density Bonus project, or have been vacated or demolished in the fi ve-year
period preceding the
The California State Legislature has declared that "[t]he availability ofhousing is of vital
statewide importance," and has determined that state and local governments have a responsibility
to "make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community."
Section §65580, subds. (a), (d). Section 65915 further provides that an applicant must agree to,
and the municipality must ensure, the "continued affordability of all Low and Very Low Income
units that qualified the applicant" for the density bonus.
With Senate Bill 1818 (2004), state law created a requirement that local jurisdictions approve a
density bonus and up to three "concessions or incentives" for proj ects that include defined levels
of affordable housing in their projects. In response to this requirement, the City created an
ordinance that includes a menu of incentives (referred to as "on-menu " incentives) comprised of
eight zoning adjustments that meet the definition of concessions or incentives in state law
(California Government Code Section 65915). The eight on-menu incentives allow for: 1)
reducing setbacks; 2) reducing lot coverage; 3) reducing lot width, 4) in creasing floor area ratio
(FAR); 5) increasing height; 6) reducing required open space; 7) allowing for an alternative
density calculation that includes streets/alley dedications; and 8) allowing for "averaging" of
FAR, density, parking or open space. In order to grant approval of an on-menu incenti ve, the
City utilizes the same findings contained in state law for the approval of incentives or
concessiOns.
California State Assembly Bill 2222 went into effect January 1,2015, and with that Density
Bonus projects filed as of that date must demonstrate compliance with the housing replacement
provisions which require replacement of rental dwelling units that either exist at the time of
application of a Density Bonus project, or have been vacated or demoli shed in the five-year
period preceding the application of the project. This applies to all pre-existing units that have
been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to
persons and families of lower or very low income; subject to any other form of rent or price
control (including Rent Stabilization Ordinance); or is occupied by Low or Very Low Income
Households (i.e., income level s less than 80 percent of the area median income [AMI]). The
replacement units must be equivalent in size, type, or both and be made available at
affordable rent/cost to, and occupied b y, households of the same or lower income categor y
as those meeting the occupancy criteria. Prior to the issuance of any Director's
Determination for Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives, the Housing and
Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) is responsible for providing the
Department of City Planning, along with the applicant, a determination letter addressing
replacement unit requirements for individual projects. The City also requires a Land Use
Covenant recognizing the conditions be filed with the County of Los Angeles prior to granting a
building permit on the project.
Assembly Bill 2222 also increases covenant restrictions from 30 to 55 years for projects
approved after January I ,20 15 . This determination letter reflects these 55 year covenant
restrictions.
Under Government Code Section § 659 15(a), § 65915(d)(2)(C) and § 65915(d)(3) the City of
Los Angeles comp li es with the State Density Bonus law by adopting den sity bonus regulations
and procedures as codified in Section 12 .22 A.25 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Section
12 .22 A.25 creates a procedure to waive or modify zo ning code standards which may prevent,
preclude or interfere with the effect of the density bonus by which the incentive o r concession is
granted, including legislative body review. The Ordinance must apply equally to all n ew
residential development.
In exchange for setting aside a defined number of affordable dwelling units within a
development, applicants may request up to three incentives in addition to the density bonus and
parkin g relief which are permitted by ri g ht. The incentives are deviations from the City's
development standards , thus providing greater relief from regulatory constraints. Uti li zation of
th e Density Bonus/ Affordable Housing Incentives Program supersedes requirements of the Los
Angeles Municipal Code and underlying ordinances relative to density, number of units , parking,
and other requirements relative to incentives , if reque sted.
For th e purpose of clarifying the Covenant Subordination Agreement between the City of Los
Angeles and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) note that
the covenant required in the Conditions of Approval herein shall prevail unless pre-empted by
State or Federal law.
Only an applicant or any owner or tenant of a property abutting, across the street or alley
from, or having a common corner with the subject property can appeal this Density Bonus
Compliance Review Determination. Per the Density Bonus Provision of State Law
(Government Code Section §65915) the Density Bonus increase in units above the base density
zone limit s and the appurtenant parking reductions are not a discretionary action and therefore
cannot be appealed. Only the requested incentives are appealable. Per Section 12.22 A.25 of the
LAM C, appeals of Density Bonus Compl iance Review cases are heard by the City Planning
Commission.
JS:)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com >
Wednesday, Augu st 17, 2016 1:40AM
Council
No. 40: Specific Plans
https ://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Pro fessional-D epaltm ents/C itv-
Attorneys/Libr a r y/20 15/Land-Use-1 0 1-Webinar-Paper.aspx
So what is a Specific Plan and what is the point?
For some, the concept of a Specific Plan is far less familiar and its purpose is not entirely clear. There are no black and
white rules governing when a Specific Plan is required . Instead, a Specific Plan is a tool that public agencies and
developers use to achieve better specificity on the vision and development potential of a particular tract of land without
having to go through extensive site specific land use analysis and entitlement proceedings. It is "programmatic" in
nature and usually deals with major infrastructure, development and conservation standards and includes an
implementation program. See Gov . Code section 65451. Often, a specific plan will establish the
"look" and "feel" of what future development on the property will be and it
can provide a more clear and refined definition of the parameters in which development will be allowed and the
responsibilities for major infrastructure area developers will be expected to fulfill. Specific plans can be very useful to
agencies in setting realistic development expectations and signaling important big picture limitations or constraints
unique to a particular area; they can be very useful to developers in helping to size the potential and costs of
development. (empha sis added)
PRACTICE NOTE : There still appear to be d iffering practices as to whether a developer's inclusionary housing triggers the
density bonuses or concessions under Govt. Code sections 65915 et seq. If there is still any ambiguity in your city's
ordinances, we recommend the city include inclusionary housing within density bonus calculations. See Latinos Unidos
Del Valle De Napa y Solano v. County of Napa, (2013) 217 Cal. App . 41
h 1160 (density bonus is mandatory even if the
project only includes affordable housing "involuntarily" to comply with a local ordinance).
John Shepardson
1
From: Peter Curtis [mailto:pj~,;urti s 99 (a1va hoo.co m]
Sent: Wednes day, August 17 , 2016 11: 18 AM
To: Council
Subject: Thank You and Please Den y the N40 plan
Town Council Members,
As a ten year citizen of Los Gatos, I appreciate all of the time and effort yo u have put into
s urrounding the North 40 plan that Grosvenor has presented.
I also reali z e that you have heard from a myriad of people about their opini ons regarding the
project, the r easons why we s houldn't approve it , etc., so I will not reh ash any of that a t thi s time.
However, I was surprised to s ee the post on TOWN NOT CITY's Facebook page that indi cates
the majority of the council is leaning towards approving the current project plan. I think thi s
would be a terrible mistake based on two simple fact s: our own Pl anning Commission did not
support the plan and neither do the majorit y of towns people.
For tho se reaso ns, I make one last request that consider these two facts an d vo te accordingly. I
say thi s full y realizing that thi s could lead to legal proceedings between the town and the
developer and there is cost associated with this avenue . I would be in suppo rt of paying a
temporary tax to support the fight, raising a bond measure, etc in order to fight thi s plan .
T hank yo u ,
Peter
Peter Curtis
15 Orchard Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
669-262-0122
From: "Jeffrey Aristide" <j efl'reynar ist id ewcomcast.nd>
To: mjcn scn rft,losga tosca.Qov
Cc: bs pcc10r(u los!!atosca.twv, msavoc(cdosgatosca .gov , r r e n n ie(c.dos!!.a tosca.gov,
sleon<lrdi sr'a 10S!.!atosca.gov
Sent: Wednesday, August 17,2016 5:36:21 PM
Subject: North 40 Development Proposal
Dear Council Member Jensen--I wanted to thank you for your brave standing at the North 40 town
meeting, last night, 8/16. You are very brave person. Your professionalism, hard-work and love of our
town, has sho wn through in all your words and actions. You may want to read the poem by Teddy
Roosevelt, "The M an In The Arena" ... for in spiration . I do feel that we might be closer to resolution, than
yo u and your fellow council members realize . My further thought s are:
I . The proposal as submitted, doe s need to be reworked, maybe through a "supplemental addendum
process (SDP)". The developer is ready, w illin g and able to go to the next step ... to e nsure thi s project
does indeed start.
2. You may continue to have town resistance, if the plan isn't changed ... and up-dated, to meet the new
and compelling input...l'm sure that th e Town Council received, along with the Planning Commi ss io n,
1OOO's and 1OOO 's of inputs, just in the pass few months.
3. Clearly, e lective office and politics, is a contact s port . But, if yo u and the other members of the Town
Council are out-ri g ht threatened over this issue, I would hope you would have th e necessary, a nd
inunediate robu st police action taken ... as una bated threats and abuse ... will only get worse ... if left
unchallenged. Law and order should not be compromised .
4. I'm told the o rder-of-magnitude (OOM) for thi s project is $700,000,000.
5 . For thi s rea son , it is best to address any and a ll issues ... before they start pourin g cement.
6. I have not seen current polling data--for the North 40 , but I do believe the town population stand s at:
--30% wants no development,
--10 % are for it... in it's present form,
--60 % are against it...in it's current form.
7. I have discussed this project with dozens of people in town; doctors , lawyers , business
execut ives ... etc.. And, all of them ... that's 1 00%, are against thi s development in it's present form.
8. Most p eople I do discuss thi s with ... "do want the No rth 40, developed and now ... not later".
9 . I was informed by the developer, that t here is a movement, under foot, to purchase the land by the
town ... a t the cost of $8 K per t ax payer.
10 . The developer told me that there has been an uptick in other developers interest in this
project... though many did shy away, when they learned of the "expected tie-ins required and maybe the
town opposition to thi s project".
11. Now for a mo st avoided subject. We will surely experience a economic correction/re-set at some
point in the future ... you remember 2000/2001 and 2008 /2009? And we all know the drill ; the stock
marke t sta ll s, then falls ... then crashes, the credit markets falter ... then freezes ... then the lay-offs start ... and
never seem to stop . The Bay area will not be exempt to thi s .. .it will hit the tech and apps industry
too. We need to ha ve a "financial rev iew clause (F RC)" .. .in yo ur approval... tha t states back-up financing
needs to be in place .. .in order to move the project forward ... "should the economy fa lter". Once the
economic re-set happens ... all capital projects will s low or stop complete ly ... with maybe the exceptio n of
App le's new headquarters ... bec ause they are paying cash for that project. Having a major a bando ned
project for years ... without conclu sion, should b e avo ided at all costs .. .in my v iew.
12. In ending, as I'm quite sure, you do n't want thirt y-fi ve (35) addition al points .... is the understanding
t hat Public P olicy is a most difficult endeavor as:
--most people don't like change,
--m ost people would like the benefits ... without paying for them ... the one person, one vo te rule,
--most people might/could agree, but just d on't put it in their own backyard. Thank-you ... .Jeffrey N .
Aristide
From: jnlg15 9(lu juno.com [mai lto:jpl gi59Cw juno.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17 ,2016 7:10PM
To: BSpector
Cc: Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally
Zarnowitz
Subject: North 40
Again, I'm asking you to deny the North 40 development, most of the residents do NOT want the
development
as it is. 20 houses on one acre is much to dense. Spread the housing out and keep more open
space, what will
developers want to put in the rest of the North 40? More density? The traffic is horrendous as it
is , and with the
Good Sam hospital planning 5 and 6 story buildings, it doesn't take an idiot to see what will
happen--GRID LOCK
like we,ve never seen before, and crime, you can bet the crime rate will go through the roof. Plus
the Dell Ave.
development.. God help us! Many residents downtown complain about the Santa Cruz traffic on
weekends as it is.
This will only make the traffic even worse.
Don't let the developers bully you into something that will ruin this small Town , they won't have
to deal with the
mess they are trying to make. So, let them sue, we have lawyers in this town to, and I bet they
would love to tell
the developers to take a hike, try to scare another small town. The developers don't give a dam
about how the residents
feel, as long as they can fill their pockets with hundreds of thousands of dollars and laugh all the
way back to their
towns!!!
This small town can not handle the traffic and people this will bring.
Please deny them, JUST SAY NO!
Long time resident
From: Anne Roley [mailto:annc(u)anne4pt.com ]
Sent: Thursday, August 18 ,2016 1:32PM
To: Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Marcia Jensen ; Steven Leonardis ; Rob Rennie
Cc: Joel Paul so n; Laurel Prevetti ; Attorney
Subject: BULLYING, LAWSUIT, AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Dear Town Council Members
Bullying is defined as "Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typicall y to
force him or her to do what one wants"
It may be an attorney 's job to send a letter threatenin g a future lawsuit if th e town does not
approve their client 's application, but to me this is a form of bullying condoned by the le gal
system -the threat of a lawsuit tries to intimidate (the town), typically to force the town to do
what one wants".
I do feel that the comments from some of the public were inappropriate and also a form of
bullying. I am sorry this process has gotten so contentious.
The writing on the N40 signs along Lark Ave and Los Gatos Blvd is vandalism and against the
law.
I disagree with Council Member Marcia Jensen that the threat of a lawsuit should be considered
in the decision to approve or deny the current N40 application.
I agree with the Town 's attorney and Council Member Barbara Spector that the decision on the
N40 application should not be based on the threat of a future lawsuit.
I feel the application for the N40 should be based on the application's consistency with the N40
Specific Plan.
I believe the Pl a nning Commission based their deci sion on how the current N40 application
adhered to the N40 Specific Plan.
Council Member Marcia Jensen 's presentation seemed thorough, but I don 't understand why the
approval of various motions were used as the bas is of her argument.
It would have been more interesting for me if the council members went through each section of
the Specific Plan and discuss how this current N40 application is or is not compliant with the
guiding principles of the Specific Plan.
I feel Council Member Barbara Spector's motion using various sections in the Specific Plan was
more valid.
Rob Rennie 's motion was confusing to me-I really needed some visuals to understand where
the changes were being made and how it would eventually look w hen it was finished.
The Town spent years establishing the N40 Specific Plan document and approved it as the
"Bible" for the N40 development. Whether you like the Specific Plan or don't like the Specific
Plan, this N40 application should be evaluated against the N40 Specific Plan document. If you
don 't like the Specific Plan as it is now then amend it.
I was also surprised that no one acknowledged the recommendations of the Planning
Commission or the staff-whether they were valid reasons for denial or not valid reasons for
denial.
Council Member Barbara Spector did touch on a few of the same concerns as the Planning
Commission in her motion.
As far as my son and daughter, who both have Master's degrees-Neither of them can afford the
$900,000 price tag for the proposed homes on the N40, but they might be able to afford a small
600-750 sq. ft. home/rental in the Northern District. It will cost significantly less than what is
presently proposed.
I am grateful for everyone 's hard work and service,
Anne Robinson Roley
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18 , 2016 4:35PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Co uncil ; Laurel
Prevetti; Robert Schultz; Joel Paulson
Subject: Interpreting Gov. Code Section 65915
(C) Paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) does not apply to an
applicant seeking a density bonus for a proposed housing development
if his or her application was submitted to, or processed by, a city,
county, or city and county before January 1, 2015 . (emphasis added)
When was the den s ity bonus application made?
What is resubmitted? If so, is the effective date ofthe application before or after 1/l/2015 ?
Quoting from http ://losgatosnorth40.com/general-fag/
While all three di stricts are included in the Town 's Specific Pl an, the development team
application is focused on the Lark and mixed-use Transition district s. The de ve lopment team
application was submitted in 2013 and resubmitted in 2015 and 2016 for these two districts
and this immediate application is referred to as Phase 1 of the North 40. Phase 2 is the more
commercial Northern di s trict closes t to the freeway interchange. (emphasis added)
Quoting from http ://ca-larkspur.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Yiew/4454
Submittal Requirements
As noted in the late mail submitted to the Planning Commission on October 28, 2014, Mr.
Hooper has raised objections to portions of the ordinance related to submittal requirements of
proposed sect ion 18.25.050.A. Specifically, the objection is to whether it is co n sistent with the
intent of the law to require the developer/applicant to submit detailed information both as to
specific concessions and/or incentives requested , as well as to why th ey are necessary to achie ve
the required level s of affordability. Staff recognizes that concern as the intent of the law is for the
C ity's to provide the incentives. However the law also makes provisions for the City to approve
and/or deny the concessions I incenti ves based on facts related to the need for such. Staff has
reviewed numerous similar ordinances and find that some remain rather vague on thi s matter and
other require similar leve ls ofbackground information, including financial pro-formas. There
does not appear to be one clear 'best practice ' in terms of the extent of information that sho uld be
provided.
In considering this matter, the City Attorney 's office concluded density bonus law allows the
City to require the applicant to submit basic evidence showing that the concession or incentive is
necessary (in legal terms; the burden of production). It is ultimately the burden of the City to
show that an incentive or concession is not required, based on substantial evidence (the burden of
proof). Government Code section 65915( d)( 1) provides that an applicant for a density bonus may
submit a proposal for specific incentives or concessions. The statute continues that the City shall
grant the concession or incentive unless the City makes a written finding, based on substantial
evidence that:
A) B)
C)
The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs ... or
for the rents for the targeted units
The concession or incentive would result in a spec(fic adverse impact on public health and safety
or on a historical resource and there is no feasible method to mitigate without rendering the
development "unaffordable" or
That the concession or incentive would be contrary to state orfederallaw.
While the City cannot entirely shift the burden onto an applicant to prove that the incentives or
concessions are required, 65915( d)(l )(A) does allow the City to make findings that the
incentives or concessions are not required. As such, it is not a stretch to require the applicant to
submit evidence for the need for the concessions or incentives, even if the burden for proving
that the concessions or incentives are not needed falls on the City. (emphasis added)
While staff recommends adoption of the language as proposed, staff is continuing to research
alternative practices, should the City Council find that the language is not consistent with the
'spirit' of the density bonus law.
AB 2222; Time Limitations for Agreement and Recognition of Exiting Affordable Units
As noted that since the preparation of the draft Ordinance, it has come to staffs attention that
AB2222, which introduces recent amendment to the State Law also includes requirements for
agreements for affordable rental units to be units to be in effect for no less than 55 years (an
increase from 30 years). Staff has amended prior language to specify that agreement for all
5
StaffReport: 11119/2014 Density Bonus Ordinance
affordable units meet this minimum criteria.
Staff has also added language to the text that also requires identification of existing affordable
units (up to five years prior to the application) as part of the consideration of a density bonus.
Quoting from http ://www.allenmatkins.com/Publications/Legal-Alerts/20 14/09/02 09 2014-
AB-2222-Density-Bonuses .aspx
Key Provisions of AB 2222
The most important component of AB 2222 is that it prohibits an applicant from receiving a
density bonus (and related incentives and waivers) unless the proposed housing development or
condominium project would, at a minimum, maintain the number and proportion of affordable
housing units within the proposed development, including affordable dwelling units have been
vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application. (See new Gov. Code §§
65915(c)(3)(A); 65915.5(g).)
AB 2222 also increases the required affordability from 30 years or longer to 55 years or longer
for all affordable rental units that qualified an applicant for a density bonus, and requires
replacement rental units to be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years.
If the units that qualified an applicant for a density bonus are affordable ownership units, as
opposed to rental units, they must be subject to an equity sharing model rather than a resale
restriction. Under the prior law, only moderate income affordable ownership units were subject
to the equity sharing model. (See new Gov. Code§ 65915(c)(3)(B).)
This new law does not apply to density bonus applications submitted to, or processed by, a local
government before January 1, 2015. (See new Gov. Code§ 65915(c)(3)(C).)
Practical Considerations
Because AB 2222 affects the ability of certain housing projects to qualify under the DBL, it is
essential that developers seeking to invoke the DBL understand the status of the site's existing
housing units for the prior several years . If a significant number of affordable units exist (or
recently existed) on the site, then the new development must provide at least as many affordable
units in order to qualify for a density bonus, even if the project would otherwise have qualified
under the DBL's thresholds.
Moreover, developers must recognize that the affordability restrictions will now attach to the
property for a longer period of time, which may affect the project's long-term financial return .
Finally, if a multifamily developer is at the early stages of the entitlement process, the developer
should be aware of the January 1, 2015 trigger for AB 2222 and act quickly if the provi s ions of
AB 2222 would adversely affect the project's use of the DBL.
Cut & paste from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-binldisplaycode?section=gov&group=6500 l-
66000&tile=65915-65918
65915.
(3) (A) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or
any other incentives or concessions under this section if the housing
development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or
parcels on which rental dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units
have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the
application, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or
law that restrict s rents to levels affordable to persons and
families of lower or very low income; subject to any other form of
rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its
police power; or occupied by lower or very low income households,
unless the proposed housing development replaces those units, and
either of the following applies:
(i) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units
replaced pursuant to this paragraph, contains affordable units at the
percentages set forth in subdivision (b).
(ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager's unit
or units , is affordable to , and occupied by, either a lower or very
low income household.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, "replace" shall mean
either of the following:
(i) If any dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) are
occupied on the date of application, the proposed housing development
shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size
or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or
affordable hous ing cost to , and occupied by, persons and families in
the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy.
For unoccupied dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) in a
development with occupied unit s, the proposed hous ing de velopment
shall provide units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made
available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and
occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income
category in the s ame proportion of affordability as the occupied
units. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units
shall b e rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement
unit s will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to
a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the
proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be
subject to paragraph (2).
(ii) If all dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) have been
vacated or demolished within the five-year period preceding the
application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least
the same number of units of equivalent size or type, or both, as
existed at the highpoint of those units in the five-year period
preceding the application to be made available at affordable rent or
affordable housing cost to , and occupied by, persons and families in
the same or lower income category as those persons and families in
occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and
families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, then one-half of
the required units shall be made available at affordable rent or
affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income person s
and families and one-half of the required units shall be made
available for rent at affordable housing costs to , and occupied by,
low-income persons and families. All replacement calculations
resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole
number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these
units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for
at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the
units replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2).
(C) Paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) does not apply to an
applicant seeking a density bonus for a proposed hous ing development
if his or her application was submitted to, or processed by, a city,
county, or city and county before January I , 2015. (emphasis added)
JS:)
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw(a)me.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18,2016 5:48PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Council; Laurel
Prevetti; Robert Schultz ; Joel Paulson; Don Capobres; Wendi Baker
Subject: No. 40 & Density Bonus Law
7 Cal. Real Est.§ 21: I 0 (4th ed.)
Miller and StmT Ca lifornia Real Estate 4th
June 2016 Update
By Members ofthe Fim1 of Miller Stan Regal ia
Chapter 21. Land Use, Planning, a nd Zoning Regulations
C. Zonin g a nd ad mini strative development appro vals
Ince ntives and density bonuses. When a deve loper agrees to develop a housing project wi t h a
specitied percentage of the units reserved for lower-income resident s, senior citizens, or
moderate-income residents in the case of a common inte rest development, the local agency must
provide a density bo nu s and/or concessions or incenti ves to the developer.! 1 The local agency
need not provide a concession or i n centi ve to the developer, however, if it makes a written
findi ng based on sub stantial evidence that the concession or incentive is not required in order to
provide for affordable hous ing, or that the concession or incentive would result in a specitic
adverse impact as specified on public health and safety, the ph ysical enviro nment, or on any
historical property li s ted in the California Regi ster of Hi s torical Resources.l2
A local government need not grant a den si ty bonus concession or incentive, ho wever, if it
makes any one of three specified findings:
• I . The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for aftordab le housing costs. as
or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in the density bonus l aw.
• 2. The concession o r inc entive would have a s pecific adverse impact up on public health and
safety or the physical e nv ironm ent or on any re al property that is listed in the California Register
of Historical Resources and for w hich there i s no feasible method to sati sfactoril y mitigate or
avoid the s pecitic adverse impact w ithout rendering the development unaffordable to low-and
moderate-income hou seh o ld s.
• 3. The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. J ~
Right to ·w·a iver of other •·estrictions. An applicant may ask for a waiver or reduction of
development standards that would otherwise physically preclude the co nstruction of qualifying
developments with the pem1itted density bonuses, ince nti ves and concessions.!<) The sen ior unit
density bonus is 20% of the number of senior units included in the development.20 A density
bonus exceeding that allowed by s tate law is allowed if permitted b y a local ordinanc e.21 -
In the event of an inconsistency. the .. maximum allo'vvab le residential density .. is governed by a
local government's general plan land use element rather than its zon ing ordinance.22
Preemptive effect on local ordinances. The state dens it y bonus law is a powerful too l tor
enab lin g developers to include very-low-, low-and moderate-i ncome housi ng units in their new
clev e lopments.23 A .. density bonus" is '·a den s ity increase over the o th erwise max imum
allowable residential density as of the date of application b y the applicant to th e
lmunicipality].''2.f The purpose ofthis law is to e nco urage municipalities to offer incentives to
hou si ng de ve lopers that will "contribute s ig nificantly to the economic fea si bilit y or lm-ver inc ome
h ousi ng in proposed hou sing developme nt s. ··25 The l aw expressly prohibits a muni c ipa lit y from
applying "a ny development standard that will have the effect of phys icall y precludin g th e
construction of a development'" meeting th e statutory criteria for a bonus.26 The law also
mandates that local gover·nments provide a density bonus when a dev el o per agrees to construct
a ny of the following: (I ) 10% of total units for lower income household s : (2) 5% of tota l uni ts
tor very -lo w-income h o u seholds; (3) a senior citizen hous ing deve lopment o r mo bileho me p a rk
res tri cted to older persons , each as defined by separate statute; or ( 4) I 0 % of units in a common
interest deve lopment for m o derate income fam ilies or persons.27 The overa ll purpose, although
th e detail s of the s tatute are more complex. i s to --reward a developer w ho agrees to build a
certain percentage oflow-income hou sing w ith the opportunity to build m o re res idences than
wou ld o th e rwi se be permitted by the ap pli cab le local regulations.'"28 To en s ure compliance w ith
the s tatute, local municipali t ies are required to adopt an ordinance establi shing pro cedures for
impl ementin g the directives of the statutc .29
The local agency must give the bonus on top of allowable zoning densit ies. One of t he
r cc uiTin g issu es under the statute is whether th e affordable units mandated by a c ity's
inclus io nary zoning program must b e in add i tion to the units allowed by t he underlying zoning
a nd general plan , and w hether th e local agency is auth01i z ed to award wai vers of he ight limits,
s etbacks and other z oning st andards applicable to o th er market rate project s in o rd e r to allow the
addi ti o nal units a llo cable under the dens ity bonus law. T he case law has confi1med that the
d e n s it y bo nu s is jus t that, and rejected chall enges to project approvals that a s a res ult of th e
bonus exceed the base zo ning and general plan d e n s ities allowable for market rate h o u si n g .~()
Affordab le housing increases density bo nu s. The law establishes a progressi ve s cale in wh ich
the dens ity bonus percentage available to an appli cant increases based on th e nature of the
appli cant's offer of below market-rate housing. In general, proposed projects reservi n g a
minimum of I 0% of total units for moderate-income household s recei ve a 5% de ns it y b o nu s,
with ever y additional perce ntage p o int increase in applicabl e unit s above the minimum-up to
40%-recei ving a I % increase in the dens ity bonus, up to a maximum 35% bonus.JI Developers
agreeing t o con struct a minimum of I 0 % of unit s for low-incom e households a re eligible tor a
20% dens it y bonus , and the multipli e r for e ach additio nal increase in units above th e minimum
a mount-up t o 20%-is 1.5 %.32 A s imil a r scale app li es to construction of very -low-income
units, except th at the minimum 20% dens ity bonus kicks in w hen only 5% of units a re reserved
for thi s classificati on, and the mu ltiplier fo r each additional p ercent increase in un its a bove the
minimum amount-up to I 1 ~lo-i s 2 .5 %.33 Fin all y , for a senior ho u s in g development or age-
restricted mobilehome park , the den sity bonus is 20% of the number o f seni o r ho u s in g units.3 ~~
Required restr ictions to affordable hous ing rentals . I n order to qualify f or th e b o nu s, an
app li cant mu st agree to, and th e municipality mu st ensure . the ··continued affordabi lity of a ll
low-and ve ry low income un its that qu a lilied the app li cant"' fo r the d ens it y bonu s. for 30 years
o r longer if required b y cetiain program s, in cludin g a rental subs id y program . .\5 The statute
prov ides for rents to be set at a n a ffordable rent as defined b y the separate pro visio ns of the
H ea lth and Safety Code .]() As a gener a l rul e , th ese re stri c ti o ns ar e in th e form of r ecordable
restricti ons that set forth the limitati o ns on rental and provisions for adm inistering and qualifyin g
te nants tor occ upancy under the a tfo rd ab ility s ta nd ard s est ablished in the process of awarding
th e d e ns it y bonus.
"Affordable units " mean and are limited to those dwelling units which are required to
be rented at affordable rents or sold at an affordable sales price to households of
specified income levels as described in Section 15.94.050.
"Concession or incentive" is as defined in the State Density Bonus Law (see
Government Code Section 65915 , Subdivision (d), and Section 65915, Subdivision
(k)).
"Condominium project" is as defined in Civil Code Se ction 1351 , Subdivision (f).
"Density bonus" means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable
residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the
general plan as of the date of application by the applicant to the city, as defined in the
State Density Bonus Law (see Government Code Section 65915 , Subdivision (f); and
Section 65917.5, Subdivision (a), Paragraph (2)).
"Director" means the Community Development Director, or a designee of the
Community Development Director or the City Manager.
"Large project" means a "housing development" (as defined by the State Density
Bonus Law), generally consisting of five or more dwelling units (see Government
Code Section 65915, Subdivision (i)).
"Lower income households" are as defined by Health and Safety Code Section
50079.5.
"Moderate income households" is as defined by Health and Safety Code Section
50093 .
"Planned development" is as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 , Subdivision (k).
"Small project" means a project that includes the construction of fewer than five
duplexes or triplexes in a zoning district that allows for the construction of duplexes
and triplexes.
"State Density Bonus Law" means California Government Code Sections 65915
through 65918.
"Very low income households" are as defined by Health and Safety Code Section
50105.
C. Large Project Applications.
1. In order to submit a complete application to the city for a density bonus and other
concessions or incentives for a large project, in accordance with the State Density
Bonus Law, the application shall satisfy the following requirements:
a . Identify the section and/or subdivision of the State Density Bonus Law under
which the application is made (see Government Code Section 65915, subdivision
(b), paragraph (2) for requirements related to lower income households, very low
income households, senior citizen housing development, and moderate income
common interest development; see Government Code Section 65915, subdivision
(h) for donations of land ; see Government Code Section 65915 , subdivision (h)
for child care facilities ; and see Government Code Section 65915.5 for conversion
of apartments to condominium projects).
b. Quantify the total density bonus requested , along with the factual and legal
basis for the request in accordance with the State Density Bonus Law and this
code.
c. Identify any concessions or incentives requested by the applicant, along with
the factual and legal basis for the request in accordance with the State Density
Bonus Law and this code.
d. Identify any waivers , reductions, or modifications of development standards
requested by the applicant, along with the factual and legal basis for the request in
accordance with the State Density Bonus Law and this code.
e . Provide a preliminary sketch plan showing the context and compatibility of
the proposed project within the surrounding area, the number, type , size, and
location of buildings, and parking. The design of proposed affordable dwelling
units shall be compatible with the market-rate dwelling units within the project.
f. Provide information satisfactory to the Director to enable the city to
determine whether the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law and this code
have been met by the applicant, including, for example, the project cost per unit
and whether any requested incentive or concession is necessary to make the
housing units economically feasible. (See Government Code Section 65915,
subdivision (d).) Such information may include capital costs, equity investment,
debt service, projected revenues, operating expenses, and any other information
deemed necessary by the Director.
2. The Director shall review the information provided by the applicant and shall
make a recommendation to the decision-making body for the proposed project
regarding the density bonus and any requested concessions, incentives, waivers,
reductions, or modifications; or, alternatively, shall report to the decision-making body
for the proposed project the bases upon which the Director recommends finding that
the requested density bonus, concession, incentive, waiver, reduction, or modification
is not authori zed under the State Density Bonus Law and this code. To the extent the
Director recommends the grant of a density bonus, concession, incentive, waiver,
reduction, or modification, any such grant shall be conditioned upon the applicant 's
compliance with all relevant obligations set forth in the State Density Bonus Law and
this code.
3. The decision making body for the proposed project shall also make the final
decision on behalf of the city related to any application submitted in accordance with
this section, based on the Director's recommendation, and based on substantial
evidence. Provided, however, the decision making body for any density bonus for a
large project shall be made by the City Council.
4. The developer shall pay any fee(s), as established by resolution of the City
Council to implement this section, including, but not limited to , fees to process the
request for a density bonus and/or other concessions, incentives, or waivers; prepare
contracts and other documents; and monitor contracts and documents for compliance.
Fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance unless otherwise established by
resolution.
5. Affordable units under this section shall be constructed at the same time as the
market-rate units. The right to a density bonus or a ny other concession, incentive, or
waiver under this chapter shall not be transferred to another development. Where a
developer proposes to simultaneously develop two or more parcels in the city, nothing
in this section shall prohibit the city from using a density bonus and/or
concession/incentive granted for one of the parcels on another of the multiple parcels.
6. The developer and/or property owner shall provide the city a yearly accounting of
the total project units occupied and vacant, the total occupied and vacant units
designated for lower income households or very low income households, and rent s
charged.
D. Small Project Requirements. An applicant may request a density bonus to construct a
duplex or triplex in any residential district where duplexes and triplexes are allowed subject
to meeting the following requirements.
1. The total number of units in the overall project is fewer than five.
2. No more than two such duplex or triplex buildings shall be constructed per block
in accordance with this section.
3. Any duplex or triplex unit that exceeds the genera l plan pod density range shall be
affordable to very low income households or lower income households.
4. The design of designated units shall be compatible with the nondesignated units
within the project.
5 . The duplex or triplex shall meet residential design guidelines and other city
zoning standard s.
6. The developer and/or property owner shall enter into an agreement with the city
to ensure the continuing affordability of units designated for lower incom e household s
and very low in come households for a term of at least 30 years.
7. The developer and/or property owner shall provide the city with a yearly
accounting of the total occupied and vacant units designated for lower income
households or very low income household s and the rents charged.
E. Land Donation.
1. If an appli cat ion for a large project submitted pursuant to this section includes a
reque st for a density bonus based on an offer to donate land in accordance with the
State Density Bonus Law (see Government Code Section 65915, Subdivision (g)), then
a complete application shall (in addition to other requirements of this section) satisfy
the fo llowing requirem en ts:
a. Identify the gross size and locatio n of the parcel to be donated , along with
the amount of developable acreage;
b. Identify a preliminary plan for development of at least 40 units affordable to
very low income househo ld s on the developable acreage;
c. Describe the public facilities and infrastructure that would serve the units on
the donated parcel ;
d. Identify the name of the public or private entity to whom the parcel will be
donated;
e. Identify the means by which the parcel will be donated no later than the date
of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development
application.
2. The city shall approve, modify or disapprove the application to donate land in
accordance with the requirements of this section and the State Density Bonus Law (see
Government Code Section 65915, Subdivision (g)).
3. Unless the construction of at least 40 units affordable to very low income
households on the donated land are the subject of a separate development application,
the unit s shall be considered a part of the application for a tentative subdivision map,
parcel map, or other residential development for purposes or review under the
California Environmental Quality Act and other state and local laws and regulations.
F. Supplemental Density Bonus. Density bonuses (or additional incentives or
concessions) in excess of the maximum amount provided for under the State Density Bonus
Law may be granted by the decision making body for the proposed project up to a
maximum total of 100%. Developers wishing to apply for supplemental density bonuses,
additional incentives or concessions shall provide evidence in their development application
demonstrating that the proposed development project either provides affordable units in
excess of the maximum percentage of affordable housing units for the different housing
types set forth under the tables contained in California Government Code Section 65915(f),
or that the proposed project incorporates amenities or public benefits that justify an increase
over the maximum bonus provided for under the State Density Bonus Law. The Director
shall review the proposed s upplemental dens ity bonus application materials and make a
recommendation to the decision making body for the proposed project. In determining
whether to exercise di scretion and approve a supplemental density bonus under this
subsection, the decision making body for the proposed project may consider the followin g
criteria: the provision of affordable units in excess of the requirements for the maximum
density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law, high quality design that fits within the
surrounding neighborhood, superior mitigation of potential impacts on neighborhoods,
provision of on-site underground parking, other project amenities or public benefits that
contribute to the surrounding neighborhood or further the purposes and objectives of
Chapter 15.94, or the inclusion of attractive and functional common space areas. (020 l 0 3,
1126/10; 02011 2, 1118 /11)
http:i/www.codcp ub lish ing .co m/CA /Capi tol alhtm l/Capitolal8/Cap itola I R03 .htm l
18.03.090 A pplication.
SHARE ll B ...
An application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification, or revi sed
parking standard pursuant to this section shall be submitted in conjunction with the first
application for the development project and shall be processed concurrently with all other
applications required for the project by the Capitola Municipal Code. The cost of reviewing any
required data submitted as part of the application in support of a request for a concession or
incentive, including but not limited to the cost to the city of hiring a consultant to review said
data, shall be borne by the applicant. The application shall be submitted on a form provided by
the city and shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
A. A site plan showing the total number of units, the number and location of the affordable or
senior units qualifying the project for a density bonus, and the number and location of the
proposed density bonus units;
B. The level of affordability of any proposed affordable units and their conformance with
Section 65915(c);
C. A description of any requested incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions of development
standards, or modified parking standards. An application for an incentive or concession s hall also
include a pro forma demonstrating to the city that the requested concession or incentive results in
an identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reduction . Where the applicant is requesting
the reduction or waiver of a development standard, the applicant shall submit evidence
demonstrating that the application of the development standard would physically preclude
construction of the project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives that the project is
entitled to under this section.
Quoting from
https://www.mun ic ode.com/library/ca/costa mesa/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld TIT 13PL
ZODE CHIXSPLAUSRE ART4DEBOOTIN Sl3-154APREPR
• Sec. 13-154 .-Application and r eview process.
(a)
Pre liminw:v application . A developer of a qualified hous in g project and/or ch ild care facility
may submit a preliminary applicati o n purs uant to this article prior to the submittal of any
formal requests for approvals for a housing project developmen t.
Within th irty (30) days of receipt of th e ap pli cation, the pl anning division shall provide to the
applicant, the procedures for compliance with this article, a copy of this article and related
poli cies, the pertinent sections of the State Codes to which r eference is made in thi s article, and
an application.
(b)
Submittal. The completed forma l applicati o n s hall include the fo llowing information.
(I)
A legal description of the tota l s ite proposed for development induding a statement of pres ent
ownership and present and proposed zo ning.
(2)
A letter signed by the present owner stating how the project will comply with State
Government Code Section 659 15 et seq. and statin g what is being requested of the ci ty, i.e ..
density bonus a nd s pecific concessions or incentives. (emphasis added)
(3)
A pro-fom1a for the proposed project to jus tify the reques ted concession or incentive and to
e s tablish the land val uation per dwelling unit of bonus units. The applica nt sha ll s how that any
requested waiver or reduction of a development st andard is necessary to make the housing
unit s economically feasible.
(4)
A management plan for complying \:vith the maintenance of the des ignated units regarding
inco me qualification documentation and rent or sale price documentation.
(5)
Site plan and supporting plan s per the planning application subm ittal requi rements.
(c)
Revior. The review o f an app li cation for a density bonus and concession or incenti ve request
s h all be processed as a planning application pursuant to chapter Ill planni ng applications. The
planning division s hall review the application for its conformance with State Government Code
Section 65915 et seq. and applicable City Codes and make a report to the planning
commission. If the app li cation in volves a request for direct financ ial incentives, then an y
action by the planning commiss io n on the application shall be advisory onl y, and the city
council shall have the authority to make the tinal decision on the application.
(C2_rd. NP. 06-7. S lb .. 4-l~-06 )
Local Housing Planning Framework
+ • State/Federal requirements for Local Housing Plans
• Housing Element Law
• Least Cost Zoning Law
• Redevelopment Law
• Second Unit Law
• State Density Bonus Law
• Anti-NIM BY law
• Article 34
• Fair Housing Law
Review of Previous Element and
'-ublic Participation
Housing Needs Assessment:
Existing and Projected Housing
Needs
Inventory of Resources including
Land ancr Financing
Potential Local Governmental
Constraints
Goals, Policies and Implementation
Actions
Review & Revision
of Previous Element
•. PROGRESS: Review results of
previous policies, programs, and
objectives
• EFFECTIVENESS: Analyze difference
between projected goals and
achievement
• APPROPRIATENESS: Describe
program changes based on analysis
7
Recent Regional Housing Needs
Process Changes (AB 2158)
-1--Establishes state policy objectives and incorporates
and balances broader public policy objectives
including increasing the mix of housing types and
promoting infill development.
• Making the RHNA process more transparent&
accessible, especially for local governments, and by
providing for input into the methodology
development by the COGs.
• Promoting better coordination between housing and
the regional transportation planning processes.
10
Land Inventory
+Property Listing: Capacity and
Characteristics
-Parcel Number or Unique Identifier
-Zoning and General Plan Designation
-Size
-Existing Uses for Non-vacant Sites
12
Land Inventory Analysis
talistic Capacity (GC 65583.2(c)(1&2))
• Capacity for each I is ted property by:
1. Established minimum density or
2. Based on analysis (Typically built
densities or policies promoting built
densities)
• Capacity must be adjusted for land use
controls and site improvement standards
14
Land Inventory Analysis
+Densities to accommodate housing for
lower income households (GC
Section 65583.2(c)(3)):
1. Analysis demonstrating the
appropriateness of zone:
* Market Demand
* Financial Feasibility
* Trends within Zones, Or
2. Default Densities
Land Inventory Analysis:
Suitability and Availability of Non-Vacant Land
--fExtent existing uses impede additional
residential development.
15
• Development trends and market conditions.
• Regulatory or other incentives to encourage
additional residential.
16
Land Inventory Analysis
+
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
1. Multifamily Rental
2. Emergency Shelters
3. Transitional Housing
4. Farmworkers (Seasonal and
Permanent)
5. Factory Built/Manufactured Homes
6. Mobile Homes
Examples of Housing/Land Use
Strategies
• >; 1 hJ i ~ i • ,:11 11: ! y t) is t ric ts
-~' P~oyide more small lot, secondary unit, duplex, and clustered
o portunities.
-~' Keep agricultural parcels from becoming residential ranchettes.
• ,,. ' ' , ~ ;-, r· · 1 • ·· 1 1 t' ·; 1 ) J ·-· r r · · ·1-.,.--. ' '--l j .... • . • • .__.. ) .• l ... _ ......... )
-~' Provide broad range of density options.
-~' Include some multifamily area in all new larger subdivisions .
• 'lei·Jhi;c)(;ln,)rl (>?.nt~r and Commercial Areas
17
-~' Allow greater height and density close to shops, jobs, transportation.
-~' Provide attractive public spaces and access by pedestrians and cyclists.
• All Districts
-~' Include potential for affordable units in all areas.
18
-~' Emphasize good design & predictable process, minimum densities.
Planning for a Mix of Housing Types
' Sacramento
Reg1on
Housing Programs
+ • Adequate Sites • Conserve/Improve
Existing Stock
• Facilitate Development
of Housing for Low & • Preserve Units at
Moderate Income Risk
Households
• Remove/Mitigate
Constraints
• Promote Equal
Housing
Opportunities
24
Housing Programs: Adequate Sites
+. Identify sites to meet any portion of
Regional Housing Need not addressed
in the inventory: In total or by income
level.
• Ensure sites to accommodate housing
for farmworkers, emergency shelters
and transitional housing.
25
Other General Requirements
+. Consistency with other general plan
elements.
• Housing element submission to
water and sewer providers and
priority service to housing for lower
income households (GC 65589.7).
• Reporting on housing in coastal
zone.
27
+
Housing Element Updates
Create Opportunities
• Increasing Residential Capacity and Variety
of Housing Choices.
• Addressing special housing needs.
• Reviewing and Updating Local Ordinances.
• Identifying and Modifying Outdated Policies.
• Establishing and Maintaining Partnerships.
• Supporting and Promoting Efficient Land
Use Patterns.
• Engage Community in Choice Dialogs.
28
Annual Progress Reports on
Housing Element +. Gov. Code Sec. 65400 requires cities and
counties to annually report on their
progress in implementing their housing
element.
• Must submit reports to local legislative body,
OPR and HCD.
• HCD regulatory process for reporting forms
in 2006.
30
+ Other State
Housing and
Planning Laws
32
Other State Housing and Planning
Laws +. Redevelopment Law
• State Density Bonus Law (GC 65915)
• Second Unit Law
• Anti-NIMBY (GC 65589.5)
• No Net Residential Capacity Loss (GC 65863)
• Limited Conditional Use for Multifamily in
Multifamily Zones
• Least Cost Zoning
• Article 34
• Fair Housing
JJ
RDA Requirements
* Redevelopment Plan:
• Generally effective for 30 years
• Update required every 5 years
• Must be consistent with General Plan
2. Low-Mod Fund:
• Set-aside at least 20°/o of Property Tax Increment
• Increase, improve, & preserve supply of low &
moderate income housing
• Replace low & moderate income housing
destroyed as a result of a RDA project
35
RDA Project Area
Housing Production Requirement ~ro"ect Area Units Construction/Rehabilitation :
• Agency Developed: 30°/o lnclusionary:
At least 50% must be very-low income units
• Non-Agency Developed: 15°/o lnclusionary
At least 40% of must be very-low units
• Owner Units: Remain Affordable for 45 years
• Renter Units: Remain Affordable for 55 years
• 2 for 1 Unit Requirement for Outside a Project Area
36
Low-Mod Funds Draft 04/05
+.Ending Equity: $3 Billion
• Deposits: $1.2 Billion ($700m is 20°/o set-aside)
• Expenditures: $960 Million
-54o/o Affordable Units:
• Acquisition: (19 %)
• Construction: (11 %)
• Rehabilitation : (8 %)
• Preservation/Subsidies/Other: (16 %)
-32°/o Debt Service
-14°/o Planning & Administration
Low-Mod Funds Draft 04/05
+. Households Assisted: 20,536
• Very-Low: 9,118 (44%)
• Low: 6, 073 (30 %)
• Moderate : 1,943 (10 %)
• Other HHs by Other Funds: 3,402 (16 %)
37
38
State Density Bonus Law
Government Code Section 65915 + • Requires local governments to provide density
increases and reduce regulatory barriers to
housing to promote supply and affordability
• SB 1818 Changes
-Lowers Eligibility Criteria
-Adds Seller Recapture for Moderate Income
-Prescribes the Number of Incentives and Concessions
-Creates a Sliding Scale Density Bonus based on
Affordability
-Establishes Parking Limits Upon Request
40
Second Unit Law
Government Code +• Requires local government to establish
process to consider second units.
• Requires ministerial approval.
• Requires standards that promote
development of second units.
• Clarifies how to count second units to meet a
local governments share of regional housing
need.
42
Santa Cruz Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Development Program
+The purpose of the City of Santa Cruz Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Development Program is to:
• Implement the development of well-designed AD Us in
the City of Santa Cruz;
• Help minimize the impact of population growth on the
community by providing more rental housing in the
developed core of the City;
• Promote infill development to help preserve the
surrounding natural greenbelt;
• Foster the use of public transportation within the City.
43
Anti-NIMBY Law
Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5
D~velopments for Low/Mod Households may not be denied unless findings are made:
-Housing Element in compliance and RHNA met and disapproval not
based on reasons prohibited by GC 65008.
-Development would have a specific health and safety impact and no
feasible way to mitigate.
-Denial is necessary to comply with State and Federal Laws.
-Development is proposed on lands zone Agriculture or Resource
Preservation and is surrounding on 2 sides by Agr. or Resource
lands.
-Development is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoning and
locality has compliant Housing Element EXCEPT if proposed site is
identified in Housing Element to accommodate low or moderate
income need. Also if housing element does not identify adequate
sites, this finding may not be made .
49
No Net Loss of Residential Capacity
Loss
~overnment Code Section 65863
I
• Inventory of adequate sites must be
maintained throu ~ hout the planning period.
• Prohibition against downzoning/no net loss:
limits downzoning of sites identified in
housing element unless no net loss in
capacity and community can still identify
"adequate sites" to address the regional
housing need.
+ Limits on
Conditional Use
Permits for
Multifamily
51
52
Limited CUPs for Multifamily
Government Code Section 65589.4 +
A multifamily housing project shall be a
permitted use, not subject to a conditional
use permit, on any parcel zoned for
multifamily housing if it satisfies specified
criteria.
53
Article 34
tRequires public entities to demonstrate
voter approval before they develop certain
types of low-rent housing projects.
• Most jurisdictions seek voter approval for a
specified number or percentage of units,
rather than on a project-by-project basis.
There are numerous exclusions
from Article 34
+Low income housing projects developed by
private sponsors with only federal or private
funding.
~7
• Private developments with public funding with
49°/o or less of the units reserved for lower-
income households.
• Reconstruction of a previously existing low-
rent housing development.
58
Federal & State Fair Housing Laws
+ Prohibit discrimination by local government and
individuals based on race, color, religion, sex,
familial status, marital status, national origin,
ancestry or mental or physical disability.
60
Fair Employment and Housing Acts
+ Gov. Code Sec. 12900 et seq. prohibits
discrimination through land use practices
and decisions that make housing
opportunities unavailable.
Similarly, the federal Fair Housing Act ( 42
U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq., or "Title VIII") has
been held to prohibit land use practices and
decisions that have a disparate impact on
protected groups.
U.S. Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988 + Requires local governments considering
housing projects for the disabled
to make reasonable accommodations
in rules, policies and practices
if necessary to afford disabled persons
equal opportunity for housing.
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604(f)(3)(B)).
61
62
State Government Code Sec. 65008
-h:orbids discrimination against affordable or multi-
family housing development proposals,
developers or potential residents using planning
and zoning powers.
Agencies are prohibited not only from exercising
bias based on race, sex, age or religion, but from
discriminating against developments because the
development is subsidized or to be occupied by
low or moderate income persons.
+
63
Government Code Section 65008
No local action may deny tenancy, land
ownership, or the enjoyment of residence
based on:
-race, sex, color, religion, ethnicity, natural
origin, ancestry, lawful occupation, familial
status, disability or age,
-Method of financing,
-The intended occupancy by low or moderate
income households
64
Government Code Section 65008
+ Local governments may not enact or enforce
ordinances that prohibit or discriminate against
housing or emergency shelter because:
-Of the method of financing,
-The owner or intended occupants are members of
protected class,
-The housing or shelter is intended to be occupied by
low and moderate income households,
-The development consists of multifamily housing,
consistent with zoning and general plan even if site
has not yet be rezoned to conform with more recent
general plan.
Government Code Section 65008
65
+. Local governments may not impose different
requirements on affordable projects or
emergency shelters than those imposed on
non-assisted housing.
• Except does not prohibit preferential
treatment to facilitate development such as
fee reductions, reduced development
standards, etc.
66
State Housing Assistance
Available on Competitive Basis +
Business,
Transportation &
Housing Agency
(BTH)
(State+ Feder•l SourcH thru :)
Treasurer's
Office
Committee
(CDLAC}
Tax Credit
Allocation
Committee
(TCAC)
Local Funding Sources
+. CDBG and HOME
• Federal Emergency Shelter
• Redevelopment
• Local Housing Trust
73
Mr. James E. Hart
Page 2
Further, an applicant is not explicitly required to submit financial data such as a financial pro-
forma under SDBL and particularly where the application is requesting the entitled concessions
and incentives under subsection (d) of Government Code Section 65915. However, an
applicant might be required to submit general financial data to demonstrate a waiver or
reduction is necessary to make housing units economically feasible, but when requesting a
waiver or reduction under subsection (e) due to local development standards that preclude a
development eligible under SBDL.
The Department hopes this information is helpful to address housing needs in Berkeley. If you
have any questions or need additional assistance, please contact Paul McDougall at
(916) 445-5854.
Sincerely,
Cath . Creswell
Depuy Director
From: John Shepardson [mailto :s hep ardsonlaw(a}me.com ]
Sent: Thursday, August 18,2016 6:16PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Council; Laurel
Prevetti; Robert Schultz; Joel Paulson; Don Capobres; Wendi Baker
Subject: No. 40 Density Bonus (Timing of Application: City of LA Memo)
QUOTING FROM (WITH
EMPHASIS) HTTP:!/PLANN lNG.LACITY.ORG/OTH ERS /AB2 1 22MEMO.PDF
TIMING
FOLLOWING JANUARY 1, 2015, ALL SUBMITTALS WILL NEED TO ADHERE TO THE
NEW AB 2222 REQUIREMENTS. AB
2222 SPECIFIES THAT THE HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROVISIONS DESCRIBED
ABOVE DO NOT APPLY IF AN "APPLICATION
WAS SUBMITTED TO, OR PROCESSED BY" THE CITY BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2015. AS
DISCUSSED BELOW, THE CITY WILL
ACCEPT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE CURRENT (PRE-AB 2222) PROVISIONS IF AN
INITIAL DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION TO
EITHER DCP OR HCIDLA HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 31,2014 OR
BEFORE. THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES IN
MORE DETAIL WHAT IS CONSIDERED A SUBMITTAL FOR THE TWO MAJOR TYPES
OF DENSITY BONUS PROCESSES.
1.
MINISTERIAL ("BY-RIGHT") DENSITY BONUS PROJECT:
IF THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY (LADBS)
DETERMINES A PROJECT IS BY -RIGHT
(MEANING IT MEETS THE ZONING CODE, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ON OR
OFF MENU INCENTIVES) THEN NO
PLANNING APPLICATIONS ARE NECESSARY. HOWEVER, DENSITY BONUS
APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE AN
"APPLICATION FOR BUILDING P ERMIT A N D CERTIFICATE OF OCC UPANCY" WITH
LAD BS. IN ORDER TO BE
CONS IDER ED AN A PPLICATION "SUBMITTED TO OR PROCESSED BY TH E C ITY'',
THE LADBS A PPLI CATION MUST
BE COMPLETE D l N ITS EN TIRETY WITH ANY AND ALL REQUIRED DOCUM EN TS
ATTACHED. AND AN Y AND ALL
A PPLI CABLE FEES PAID IN FULL. ONCE THE AFO R EMENT ION ED REQ UIR EMENTS
HAVE BEEN MET, LADBS WILL
ISS UE A R ECE IPT TO THE APPLICANT. THE DATE OF RECEIPT ("DATE OF
RECEIPT") WILL CONSTITUTE THE
"SUBMITTED AND PROCESSED" DATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE REPLACEMENT
HOUSING PROVISIONS OF AB
2222. HCIDLA WILL ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REPLACEMENT PROVISIONS
OF AB 2222.
2. PLANNING ENTITLEMENT DENSITY BONUS PROJECT:
DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS REQUIRING DISCRETIONARY REVIEW DUE TO THE
NEED FOR PLANNING/ZONING
ENTITLEMENTS FROM DCP ARE PRESENTLY ASKED TO COMPLETE AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REFERRAL FORM, IN
ADDITION TO THE MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION. THE REFERRAL FORM
SERVES AS A WORKSHEET TO
DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED AFFORDABLE UNITS. IT HAS BEEN
UPDATED TO INCLUDE A QUESTION ON
REPLACEMENT UNITS. ONCE A COMPLETE DENSITY BONUS S UBMITTAL HAS
BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DCP
PUBLIC COUNTER, FEES HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID AND A CASE NUMBER HAS
BEEN ASSIGNED , THE APPLICATION
WILL BE CONSID ERED "SUBMITTED". THE "SUBMITTAL" DATE IS ALSO
REFERRED TO AS THE "CASE FILED ON"
DATE, WHICH WILL BE VERIFIED BY STAFF WHEN WRITING UP THE
DETERMINATION LETTER.
HTTP:i/LANDUSE.COXC ASTLE.COM /20 14/12/07 /DE NS ITY -BONUS-UPDA TE-AB-2 1 22-
ANOTHER -IMPEDlMENT-SOLV ING-CALIFORNIAS-AFFORDABLE-HOUS ING-CRISIS/
DECEMBER 7, 2014
Density Bonus Update-Is AB 222:2 Another Impediment to Solving Calif'ornia's Affordable
Housing C ri s is ?
In many cities throughout California, concerns about traffic have made the State Density Bonus
Law ("DBL") a four letter word. Developers who are otherwise willing to provide affordable
units as a component of a market rate multifamily or mixed-use project are increasingly
discouraged from doing so. And it's not getting any easier. On September 27, 2014, Governor
Brown signed AB 2222, amending the DBL in response to a growing perception that the DBL
could be implemented in a manner that could result in a net loss of existing affordable housing
units for new housing projects. The bill requires developers to identify and replace all of a
property 's pre-existing affordable units to be eligible for a density bonus under the DBL. While
that goal sounds reasonable, in practice, it may prove to be difficult to implement and will most
likely not achieve the intended result of retaining and creating more affordable housing
throughout California.
The DBL, enacted in 1979 , is intended to encourage public agencies to offer density bonuses and
other development "incentives" to housing developments that include affordable housing units.
Community and political opposition to a developer 's right to obtain a density bonus under state
law to offset the cost of providing affordable housing has discouraged many developers from
including affordable housing in their projects. This is because the grant of a density bonus is a
"ministerial" act, not a "discretionary" act. Therefore, a City 's approval of a density bonus
application does not constitute a "project" under CEQA. The DBL rewards developers by
promoting construction of housing for seniors and low-income families. Critics view the "right"
to a density bonus as giving developers a "free pass" on CEQA compliance. Community
opposition to the DBL has been fierce in many communities.
AB 2222 adds a new hurdle. It prohibits a developer from receiving a density bonus unless the
proposed housing development or condominium project would, at a minimum, maintain the
number and proportion of affordable housing units within the proposed development. As
discussed below, AB 2222 defines affordable housing units very broadly, and includes, among
others, any units subject to local rent control , even if currently rented at market rate, or, if not
subject to rent control, occupied by low or very low income households currently or during the
prior .fiv e y ears if the units have been vacated or demolished. AB 2222 also increases the
required affordability period from 30 years to 55 years for all affordable rental units that
qualified an applicant for a density bonus. The new density bonus law requires replacement
rental units to be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years . The new
density bonus law does not apply to density bonus applications submitted to, or processed by, a
local government before January 1, 2015.
What does this mean? Let's consider a hypothetical: If a developer chose to tear down an
existing 15-unit building that contained 10 units that qualified as "affordable," the developer
would need to have at least 10 new affordable units included in the project. If the zoning
permitted 20 units, the developer would need to retain 10 affordable units and would include 10
market rate units before adding the density bonus units. Assuming that the developer was entitled
to 35% density bonus, that would result in 7 additional units. At the end of the day, the dev eloper
would have a 27 unit project containing 10 affordable units and 17 market rate units. If the
developer can simply build a project of 20 market rate units , why invite community oppos ition
and challenges associated with including affordable units and seeking a doing bonus fo r fewer
market rate units?
The five-year look back for units that were "occupied" by low or very lo w income hou seh o ld s is
also problematic. Records are going to be difficult to obtain or perhaps non-existent. Even if the
rent rolls exist , a developer may have difficulty determining income levels during the preceding
five years. These requirements invite evidentiary disputes as to the number of qualifying units.
Equally problematic is the definition of what is "affordable" in the context of exi sting housin g
units. It includes a "recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that re stri cts rents to level s affordable
to persons and families of lower or very low income" or "any other form of rent or price control
through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power" or "occupied by lower or very low
income households." Presumably, these restrictions will apply to ali rent controlled units in Santa
Monica, Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco. In these communities,
there would be no density bonus allowed without 1 00% replacement of the dedicated affordable
units. Applying the hypothetical 20 unit project in the City of Lo s Ange les, if the building is
under rent control , it would yield 15 affordable units and 12 market rate units. This would seem
to remove any economic incentive to seek a density bonus in rent control jurisdictions.
With the many impediments to creating affordable housing, the foregoing does not bode well for
using the DBL as a tool to address California's affordable housing cri s is.