County Scraps Plan to Allow Developers ‘Credit’ on Parkland

Bowing to opposition from conservationists, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday scrapped the plan it drew up a year ago--but never implemented--that would allow some developers to avoid deeding parkland to the county.

Rejecting the earlier proposal that would have allowed developers with credits from the county’s affordable housing program to reduce the amount of land they set aside for parks, the supervisors voted instead to implement a formula allowing builders with such credits to “trade them in� for permission to build at higher density in their new developments .

Supervisors Thomas F. Riley and Bruce Nestande, whose districts have most of the open space in the county, said in a joint letter that a study of the parkland proposal showed it would have a “significant and damaging� impact on the county’s local park program.

Under the park program, builders seeking county approval for residential developments are required to deed to the county a certain percentage of land in the development for use as parks. If they do not wish to set aside the parkland, the builders have the alternative of paying substantial fees to the county.

A board resolution adopted with little discussion or notice in June, 1984, would have amended the park regulations to allow developers who built more affordable housing than was required of them from 1979 to 1983 to be freed of their obligation to set aside the parkland or pay the fees.

‘Lobbied Very Hard’

The resolution was adopted at the urging of developers, who wanted another way to use up credits earned by building more affordable housing than required. An aide to one supervisor said the developers “lobbied very hard for the maximum benefit� obtainable.

In June, however, shortly before the resolution was to have become law, opposition to the parkland-credit swap emerged, particularly among community and conservation groups.

When the opposition developed, the aide said, “I think they (the developers) understood the realities of the situation� and did not fight hard to keep the provision.

A study by the county’s Environmental Management Agency said that a “worst-case� scenario showed that the exchange proposal, if enacted, could cost the county $276 million in fees or 924 acres in parkland under the original proposal. Even under a revised ordinance proposed by EMA, the impact could be $46 million or 154 acres.

An EMA report to the board acknowledged “the significant opposition the proposal was generating among park supporters.�

The board adopted the 1984 resolution in an effort to reward developers who complied with the county’s mandatory affordable housing program, adopted in 1979 and now being phased out.

That program required developers to set aside 25% of the units in new developments in unincorporated areas of the county for people making from 80% to 120% of the median county annual family income of $39,000. County officials were concerned by complaints from businesses and the federal government that their employees were unable to find places to live in the county because of high prices.

In 1983, with the supply of lower-cost housing increasing because of market conditions, the board voted to phase out the mandatory program over three years. However, it will continue to exist in some planned communities, such as Mission Viejo where it has been made part of permanent zoning regulations, according to Peter Hersh, an EMA official.

Under the original affordable housing program, builders whose affordable units in a development surpassed the 25% mark were given credits. The formula approved by the supervisors Tuesday will let them trade the credits for permission to build a subsequent development at a higher density than zoning regulations would normally allow.

Before, developers could only trade the affordable housing credits for permission to build fewer affordable units in a subsequent development. (They also could sell the credits to other builders.)