Laserfiche WebLink
the City should identify only actions and programs for which meaningful progress can be <br />made during the eight-year Housing Element period. <br />Lower -Income Housing Fee (LIHF) <br />The City has a number of existing programs to support and facilitate the production of <br />affordable housing. The most significant among those are two related programs: the <br />LIHF, as outlined below, which by ordinance allows the City to assess fees on new <br />(market -rate) residential and commercial development to offset the demand such <br />projects generate for new affordable housing; and the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, or <br />IZO, addressed in the next section of this report, which requires new market -rate <br />housing projects to provide a proportion of affordable housing units or provide <br />alternative mitigation such as payment of an in -lieu fee. <br />Amount of LIHF <br />The City adopted the most recent LIHF in 2018 after completing a Nexus Study.2 In <br />Pleasanton, the LIHF is applied to new residential development on a per unit basis (with <br />some limited differentiation based on unit size); and on various types of commercial <br />development on a per -square foot basis. <br />The Nexus Study prepared for the LIHF established a maximum value that should be <br />charged to new development. At the time of its adoption, and based on a comparison of <br />those rates, with the amounts charged by neighboring Tri -Valley jurisdictions, the City <br />Council made a policy decision to establish fee levels below the recommended <br />maximums, in order to ensure that Pleasanton remained competitive for new <br />development and investment. The difference between the recommended maximums <br />that could be charged, and the actual fee rates are summarized in Table 1, below. <br />2 Lower-income housing fees are not subject to the provisions of AB 1600 (the Mitigation Fee Act) and therefore do <br />not legally require a nexus study. (California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.41' <br />435; 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood (2016) 3 Cal.App.51h 621. However, the Nexus Study was <br />prepared to assist the City in determining the appropriate amount of the fee. <br />Page 3 of 16 <br />