AGENDA REPORT - Laserfiche WebLink

1. Amend Section 17.44.040 by removing the very low and low income 15% affordability requirement and replace it with either or a combination of: a. A lower percentage of affordable units, such as 12%. b. Replace the requirement for a specific percentage of affordable units with a statement indicating that the developer and city will negotiate an appropriate level affordability with a City goal/target of 15% affordable to very low and low income households. c. Both (a) and (b) could be augmented so that for every one percent less than 15%, the project would pay the LIHF for 7% of the development's total units. As an example, if a development provided 10% affordable units in the low and very low income categories, it would also pay the LIHF on 35% of the total project's units (15 -10 = 5 X 7 = 35% of the total units required to pay the LIHF). d. Allowing up to a certain percentage of the affordable units (perhaps 35%) to be affordable to households at the median income. In addition, this option could be combined with requiring only a minimum number of very-low (3%) and low income (4%) units and an accompanying LIHF component for median units. The effect of the above is that the City retains the basic structure of the IZO but sets standards and targets that are more easily attainable and more likely to be agreeable to developers. The downside of these alternatives is that both (a), (c), and (d) would continue to be in conflict with Palmer and thus a developer could potentially refuse to meet them or exercise their legal rights which would leave the City with few options for meeting affordability. 2. Explore the potential for providing housing for lower income households without implementing rent restrictions. With this option the property is required to provide evidence that a certain percentage of its units are occupied by very low income or low income households. In most cases, meeting this target results in a large percentage of the households paying more than 30% of their income for rent. However, in theory, it leads to "market" adjustments to assure that the affordability targets are met and it can open the door for lower income households obtaining rental units in Pleasanton. This option is currently in place at the Gatewood Apartments located on Stoneridge Drive. While this option may lead to some reduced rents, there is little motivation to establish rents consistent with 30% of annual income. As such, it would most likely have minimal impact in addressing affordable housing needs. Further, developers may view this as veiled rent control and thus, raise legal objections. Finally, project monitoring would be difficult and its doubtful that this option would be considered as providing affordable units that could be counted toward meeting the City's RHNA as it requires rent restricted units. Page 5 of 9