19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Priority 1 and 2 are swapped such that projects with higher than the minimum percentage of affordability have the highest priority. Additionally, with the increase to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (i.e., increasing the proposition of inclusionary units required in multi-family projects to 20 percent from 15 percent), staff suggests also increasing the percentage noted in Priority 2 accordingly. Staff recommends maintaining 10 percent above the base IZO requirement (e.g., if the new IZO requirement is 20 percent, the priority would list 30 percent). 3. Modify Table A-17: Units "At Risk" of Conversion to Market Rate Staff recommends adding a table (or modifying Table A-17) to outline which below market rate developments may convert to market rate and when that may occur.3 4. Review and Bolster Agency Responsibility, Timeframes, Funding, and Quantified Objectives Staff recommends additional review and revision of the Agency Responsibility, Timeframes, Funding, and Quantified Objectives for each program. Staff finds that some of the timeframes can be more appropriately defined and specified, and some adjustments are required to the timeframes as many of the programs are frontloaded in the eight-year planning cycle. Further, staff can be more explicit in the document about required reporting and monitoring of implementation, which is required for all programs, whether ongoing or with more specific timeframes. 5. Review Programs that Refer to Both Low and Moderate Income Consider decoupling at least some of the programs that reference both low and moderate-income. For example, Program 1.5, Number 2. This would involve focusing funding on very low and low income and adding in additional mechanisms for moderate-income (e.g., affordability by design). Staff acknowledges the need for missing middle housing and affordability by design; however, does caution about excluding moderate income from actions that involve funding. Moderate income housing is still a category of RHNA that the City needs to fulfill and it may be appropriate to allow for public funding for a moderate or mixed-income housing project under the right circumstances. Further, in the public outreach, it was made evident that financial assistance is crucial for all segments of the population including moderate-income members of the community and the local workforce. Staff suggests review of the program list and, where possible, focusing funding on very low and low-income while not losing sight of the moderate-income need. Two restricted projects have expiration dates: the Promenade I and 11 and Kottinger Garden Phases I and 2. Their expiration dates are 2051,2051,2069, and 2071 respectively. The remainder are to remain below market rate in perpetuity. Page 15 of 18