SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

OPTION 4 advantages(continued) page 2 6. Less of an increase in the LIHF would be required with NP/HDR zoning than under Option 3. Under Option 4,the primary use of the LIHF would be to cover shortfalls in the nonprofit portions of the development and perhaps program cost sharing with nonprofit managers. The City would not need to use the LIHF to purchase land, which is very expensive in places like Hacienda Business Park and other prime locations. The amount of any fee increase would also be offset by Option 4's requirement for all residential projects without nonprofit partners to pay the LIHF. 7. Only nonprofits would be eligible to receive contributions from the Lower Income Housing Fund (LIHF). Nonprofit requirements for transparency and detail in financial reporting are similar to those of local government.The City and the community can better track the use of these funds when granted to nonprofit developers. Requiring for-profit developers to report costs and expenditures to the City renders their proprietary financial information a matter of public record. 8. Nonprofit housing includes service amenities for families,seniors,and those with special needs such as day care,after school programs,financial counseling,and health screenings.This helps keep cities' emergency services and public safety costs low. Living without much discretionary income requires careful planning, especially in the Bay Area! Lower income households benefit from nonprofit housing's service-rich environment, whether they are young and new to the workforce, are facing a sudden loss of income, or just work in a field where the pay is low. Easy access to service referrals and prevention programs can help families on tight budgets who might postpone acting on an issue until it becomes an emergency room or public safety crisis. 9. Exempting for-profit builders developing on NP/HDR sites from both the LIHF and the need to provide Low,and Very Low income units in perpetuity may make more money available for parks and schools. Under the current IZO, apartment complex developers who agree to comply with the 15%VLI and LI requirements have difficulty finding financing for construction. In this case,the City collects no fees. Even projects such as California Center,with drastically reduced affordability, still find the cost of the inclusionary u nits prevents them from paying more than the minimum in school and park fees. As usual,the Council must set clear expectations when zoning land for any use,whether to accommodate affordable housing or commercial development. Both land uses are vital to Pleasanton's economy.To yield the intended benefits, zoning requirements and entitlements should,to the maximum extent possible, address community needs while providing economic opportunity for the property owner. It's a delicate balance,with the best solutions advancing everyone's goals. Even before the Palmer decision, the IZO did not, and could not, meet Pleasanton's Housing Element goals. Furthermore,the IZO's requirements proved problematic for site developers. NP/HDR zoning would both reduce for- profits' long term costs, and provide needed opportunities for nonprofit developers in Pleasanton, consistent with Council's Resolution 10-390.The NP/HDR zoning concept has received interest from housing advocates in other communities with newly zoned, large tracts of land such as Alameda, as well as nonprofit developers. General (though more limited)feedback from for-profit builders indicates that development under NP/HDR zoning would be, at a minimum, more feasible than under the current IZO (ex: BRE and Windstar). While for-profits won't give up land unless required by Council as a condition of the zoning,they judge the cost of land dedication as far less than imbedding 15% Low and Very Low Income units in market rate complexes in perpetuity. Under NP/HDR zoning,their projects, though smaller,would certainly be more profitable. And Pleasanton would actually realize a much higher percentage of affordable housing. Option 4 is a win-win. Very sincerely, Becky Dennis Citizens for a Caring Community ATTACHMENTS: 2