Laserfiche WebLink
affordable unit production that could come with reducing the inclusionary rate from 20% <br />to 15%, by capturing a small increment of additional projects and inclusionary units.7 <br />The change would also align the City’s ordinance to regional grant programs, <br />particularly the recently adopted ABAG/MTC Transit-Oriented Communities policy, <br />which establishes a 10-unit threshold for a “compliant” inclusionary ordinance. <br /> <br />Inclusionary Unit Standards <br />The IZO includes provisions that govern the design, siting, and other minimum <br />requirements for inclusionary units. Staff recommends some changes to these <br />provisions, to create more objectivity in some areas, to address certain gaps in the <br />standards, and in some cases to provide additional flexibility so that providing on-site <br />units is more realistic/feasible for projects, as follows: <br /> <br />1. Clustering/Distribution of Affordable Units/Size and Type of Affordable Units: The <br />existing IZO requires the affordable units to be dispersed, rather than clustered in <br />a single area of the project site. This approach helps ensure affordable units are <br />well-integrated into the market-rate project, and do not unnecessarily segregate <br />the affordable units and households. However, while it may be feasible for some <br />projects to meet a very strict application of the standard, applying the policy too <br />rigidly could be counterproductive if it limits flexibility for builders to meet on-site <br />affordable requirements, and instead prompts developers to seek alternatives <br />such as payment of in-lieu fees. <br /> <br />Furthermore, the existing IZO permits the inclusionary units to be smaller than <br />the market-rate units, but generally assumes they are of a very similar type as <br />the market rate units (e.g., a townhouse project will deed restrict townhouse <br />units). <br /> <br />In practice, it may be challenging, financially and otherwise, for a single-family <br />detached or townhome development to deed-restrict units identical to the <br />project’s market-rate units. In other cases, it may be appropriate and beneficial <br />for a project to commit a portion of its site for a dedicated, affordable project <br />developed by an affordable housing developer. This model can allow the <br />developer to benefit from economy of scale in construction; by virtue of being <br />entirely deed-restricted, such projects may qualify for tax-credit financing or <br />funding not otherwise available if the units are scattered and allow for on-site <br />amenities or supportive services tailored to residents’ needs. <br /> <br />Staff therefore recommends the IZO amendments provide more explicit flexibility <br />to allow for the on-site inclusionary requirements for single-family projects, <br />whether comprising attached townhomes or detached single family homes – <br />including that the on-site requirements can be met by a range of different, more <br />compact unit types, and for clustering of units to be allowed in certain <br />circumstances. To the extent different unit types are allowed, it is also <br />recommended the IZO include minimum unit sizes (see item 3, below), and have <br /> <br />7 For example, for townhome projects staff estimates that 10-15 additional inclusionary units could be <br />yielded by reducing the threshold project size. This offsets about half the difference between a 15% and <br />20% inclusionary rate. <br />Page 14 of 40