RES 12574 - Laserfiche WebLink

The following incentives may be approved for applicants who construct inclusionary units on-site: (1)fee waiver or deferral; (2) design modifications (educed setbacks; reduction in infrastructure requirements; reduced open space requirements; reduced landscaping requirements; reduced interior or exterior amenities; reduction in parking requirements; and height restriction waivers); (3) use of available lower income housing funds for the purpose of providing second mortgages to prospective unit owners or to subsidize the cost of a unit to establish an affordable rent or an affordable sales price; and (4) priority processing of building and engineering approvals. Evaluation The City of Pleasanton's inclusionary requirements are similar to those of other jurisdictions in Alameda County and similar size communities in the Bay Area and are-not a constraint to thepeduction of housing. In general, inclusionary requirements in the Bay Area range from 10% up to 25%, with the majority of jurisdictions requiring 15-20% of the units in projects to be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Projects have been submitted recently that provide further evidence of the feasibility of developing units under the City's inclusionary requirements. Many communities offer a variety of concessions or incentives for construction of affordable units, including but riot limited to, density bonuses or incentives of equal financial value, waiver or modification of development standards, provision of direct financial assistance, and deferral or reduction of payment of fees. The general range for the size of projects requiring the construction of affordable units (and tipping of inclusionary requirements) is at 10 or more units. However, there are jurisdictions in that require the payment of fees for smaller projects. Those jurisdictions require a proportional fee based on the size of the project. Since the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in Pleasanton in 2000, the cost of housing has increased through 2007 and then decreased through the end of 2011. Similarly, the production of housing has increased and then decreased since 2000, consistent with trends in Alameda County. As shown in the graph on page 99, the difference in the cost of housing in Pleasanton as compared to Alameda County as a whole is greater in 2011 than when the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was implemented in 2000. However, it is difficult to conclude that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was the cause of this increased disparity. Scarcity of developable land in the City, high-scoring schools, services and recreational opportunities, easy accessibility to employment centers, and the picturesque natural and built environment that Pleasanton is noted for have likely been the primary factors driving housing prices in Pleasanton above those in other communities. It is obvious that the program does have an impact on the total cost to develop housing since each unit requires a substantial subsidy from the developer. These additional costs lead to lower profits for the developer and/or the original land owner, and potentially fewer projects. However, ultimately, the cost of housing depends on what people are willing to pay for those attributes relative to the cost in other communities, and does not necessarily reflect the cost to develop a certain project. As shown in the table on page 100, the rate of housing production in Pleasanton has been consistent with the amount of housing growth in Alameda County as a whole. Since the adoption of inclusionary zoning in 2000, the total amount of housing in Pleasanton has grown by approximately nine percent. During that City of Pleasanton Housing Element BACKGROUND—February 2012 105