My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
10
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
091614
>
10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2015 4:58:29 PM
Creation date
9/10/2014 4:47:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/16/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
As an outcome to this workshop, the City Council directed staff and the Housing <br />Commission to pursue a flexible model for attempting to achieve affordable rent <br />restricted BMR units in new residential rental developments. As such, it encouraged all <br />parties to attempt and strive to meet the IZO in a flexible, negotiated way, recognizing <br />the fact that the City has multiple interests it's trying to address, including parking, <br />school impact needs, and affordable housing, all of which fuel the outcome of <br />negotiations. Based on this direction, staff has focused its efforts on pursuing creative <br />options for meeting long term affordable housing needs. <br />The Ring project meets the criteria for being subject to our IZO and as such during the <br />plan review process, staff negotiated with the developer in an attempt to reach <br />agreeable terms that could be included in an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA). <br />Based on those negotiations, the parties agreed, and the City Council approved, an <br />AHA that includes two options. The first option, similar to other multi - family <br />developments, is the requirement to provide rent restricted units. In this case the <br />agreed upon affordability mix is as follows: <br />E & S Ring Required Affordability <br />Very Low <br />Income <br />Unit Type (50% of <br />AMI) <br />Low <br />Income <br />(80% of <br />AMI) <br />Median <br />Income <br />(100% of <br />AMI) <br />TOTAL <br />Studio 6 <br />1 Bedroom 3 <br />2 Bedroom 1 <br />3 Bedroom 0 <br />TOTAL 10 <br />1 <br />Annual Median Income for Alamed <br />moderate income) <br />2 <br />4 <br />6 <br />5 <br />17 <br />a County (50% = <br />8 16 (31 %) <br />5 12 (23 %) <br />7 14 (27 %) <br />5 10 (19 %) <br />25 52 <br />very low income; 80% = low income; 100% = <br />The second option, calls for payment of a $4.5 million fee which would be in lieu of any <br />rent restricted units. The payment amount equals $13,043 /unit which is significantly <br />more than the then - existing lower income housing fee which was $2,655 /unit and $2.83 <br />per square foot of commercial at the time the AHA was developed. The current fee is <br />$2,696 /unit and $2.87 per square of commercial. Using the current LIHF fee schedule, <br />the current LIHF fee payment would be $1,041,421 (345 units X $2,696 /unit plus $2.87 <br />X 38,781sq ft of commercial = $1,041,421). The difference between the current <br />required LIHF payment of $1,041,421 and the total amount of the potential cash <br />payment is $3,458,579 ($4,500,000 minus $1,041,421 = $3,458,579). <br />Regarding the first option, the AHA includes standard language requiring that the <br />affordable units be disbursed throughout the development, that they be constructed with <br />similar materials as the market rate units, that they be marketed consistent with the <br />City's preference system and that they remain affordable for perpetuity. <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.