Laserfiche WebLink
Alternatives: <br /> <br />Require 15% inclusionary low-income housing, with no in-lieu fees. <br />Increase low-income requirement to x % (5%, 10%). <br />Require x % (10%, 15%, 20%) moderate-income units, protected <br />long-term. <br />Require x % (5%, 10%) moderate-income for-sale units, protected <br />long-term. <br />Require x % units be available to very low-income households (less than <br />50% median income) <br />Add PUD language specifying project developer will work with City <br />Housing Commission to incorporate affordable units, using City fees <br />coupled with project design, into individual projects. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />See Housing Commission staff report. Providing below market rate <br />housing (in today's economic climate, either lower-income housing of any <br />kind or for-sale moderate-income housing) is an economic loss to the <br />overall project and must be balanced against the project's other amenities. <br />Utilizing Lower-Income Housing Fund fees is unlikely to dramatically <br />increase the amount of affordable housing unless densities of significant <br />numbers of units within the project are at the upper end of the density <br />range, thereby narrowing the gap between fair market rates and affordable <br />rates. <br /> <br />The Bemal Property project in its history once had significant affordable <br />housing proposed (this was a priority for San Francisco). However, as <br />total units were reduced and project costs and amenities were increased, <br />the affordable component was reduced to, essentially, the "standard" City <br />requirements. Recent market trends, increasing overall project value as <br />housing costs have spiraled upwards, may have created an opportunity for <br />additional affordable housing. But this goal is contrary to other goals <br />which may have been made possible by increasing project value -- <br />decreasing total units, increasing park acreage, etc. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Specifies the project's affordable housing program as <br /> described above. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: Staff believes the Growth Management Agreement <br /> implementation of the Specific Plan policy is minimal but must be <br /> weighed against other project requirements. Staff would be comfortable <br /> with adding the requirement to continue working together to achieve <br /> additional affordable housing without increasing project costs. <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 7 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />