21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff would present the policy topics to Housing Commission and subsequently schedule the item for City Council to provide direction. The approach for the Planning Commission's consideration of the policies is two-part: the LIHF, IZO, other City housing programs are included in this report. The remainder of the policy topics, related to supporting workforce housing and providing housing that is affordable by design, are anticipated to be included in a separate agenda report for consideration at a future meeting. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING POLICIES The City has a number of existing programs to support and facilitate the production of affordable housing. The most significant among those are two related programs, the LIHF, which allows the City to assess fees on new development to offset the demand such projects generate for new affordable housing; and the IZO, which requires new market - rate housing projects to provide a proportion of affordable housing units or provide alternative mitigation such as payment of fees. Lower -Income Housing Fund Upon adoption of AB 1600 by the state legislature in the 1980s, the City established development impact fees to mitigate the impact of new housing and commercial developments on City facilities, infrastructure, and affordable housing. An ordinance specifically codifying the LIHF was adopted in 1990; this ordinance required for the first time that non-residential development be required to either contribute to the LIHF or construct affordable units as part of the project (prior to this time the LIHF applied only to residential development). The City's development impact fees were restructured in 1998, followed by an update in 2018 based on the General Plan and other planning documents. The City's impact fees currently include the Capital Facility Fee, Transportation Fee, and the LIHF. AB 1600 requires cities to justify and account for development fees that they exact as a condition of approval on new development. The justification, or nexus requirement, requires cities to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use or specific project to which the fee will be applied; 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and 4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public improvement and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. Pursuant to a decision by the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry v City of San Jose, local jurisdictions may impose LIHFs as part of its "..general broad discretion to regulate the use of real property to serve the legitimate interests of the general public and community at large," without completion of a Nexus Study. However, the Nexus Study is beneficial in establishing an appropriate and justifiable ceiling for fees, and is the basis upon which the City has chosen to rely in determining the LIHF fee rates. Housing Element Update, P21-0751 Planning Commission 2of13