SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

For example: Less than 650 sf. -- [*assumed affordable to] Very Low Income (50% of AMI) 650 sf to 900 sf. — *Low Income (80% of AMI) 900 sf to 1200 sf— *Low Moderate Income (100% of AMI) 1200 sf to 1500 sf. — *High Moderate Income (120% of AMI) 1500 sf to 2000 sf. — *Low Medium Income 2000 sf to 2500 sf. — *Medium Income Right now, rezonings to 30 units per acre are presumed to be affordable (until constructed) under Govt. Code Sec. 65583.2 (c)(3)(B)(iv). Then, after construction, those units rent for more than "affordable" prices and are forced to show up as "above market" units on the Annual Progress Report to HCD required from cities. E.g. Exhibit F. at Bates p. 56. But, if the units meet the unit size criteria set forth above, Pleasanton could show those units on the Annual RHNA Progress Reports as units in that income category. For example, an 850 sf unit would appear as a "Low Income Unit (non-deed restricted)" on the Annual Progress Report, without regard to its actual rent. If State HCD has any sense, it will endorse this approach explicitly, because the billion dollar subsidies required to provide subsidized housing to over half the population will never materialize. With an inclusionary policy emphasis on producing most new housing units of 1500 sq. ft. or less, real surpluses and lower prices would follow for smaller units. Our children's generation could get on the first step of homeownership, like a 900 sf. condo, or a 1500 sf 3 br single family home the way most of us baby-boomers did. The Pleasanton draft 2023-2031 Housing Element is going exactly the wrong direction by proposing to increase the inclusionary rent control requirement on multi-family from 15% to 20%. As shown in Exhibit B, Bates pp 4. & 5., that increases the rent burden on each market rate apartment from about $192 per month to about $277 per month (from 7.15% to 10.64% of rent). The rent increases are more than proportional because each increase in the inclusionary requirement increases the number of units that need to be subsidized, while reducing the number of market rate units available to provide those subsidies. For the huge acreage being rezoned to 30 units per acre (because of the presumption of affordability granted in State law), the unit size inclusionary requirement could be about 50% of total units (i.e. 50% of units less than 900 sf in size). As an example breakdown, 25% of units could be required to be 650 sf or less, 50% of total units could be required to be 900 sf or less. There would be no need to regulate unit size above 900 sf., but the City could use the chart above to take credit for any remaining apartments between 900 sf and 1500 sf in its RHNA Progress Reports as "moderate income, non-deed restricted". One issue would be concern about quality of units 650 sf or less. But with good design, 650 sf allows creation of a completely functional 1 bedroom apartment with room for io