Laserfiche WebLink
13 of 19 <br /> <br />inclusionary rate. For the purposes of the analysis outlined below, and to provide a <br />comparison, it was assumed that under the existing IZO, most “single-family” projects <br />are also ownership projects, and that most “multi-family" projects are also rental project. <br /> <br />Most cities’ programs include different affordability requirements for inclusionary units <br />within rental and for-sale projects – primarily because of the relative differences <br />between market-rate prices and affordable prices. In Pleasanton’s housing market, <br />rents for deed-restricted rental units priced at the upper end of the moderate-income <br />scale (above 100% AMI) often approach, or even exceed, market rents. Conversely, <br />market-rate homes in Pleasanton sell at prices only affordable to households making <br />well above 120% AMI, meaning that it can be beneficial from a policy perspective to <br />offer deed-restricted units at the upper end of the moderate-income range, or even <br />above the top end of that range, above 120% AMI. There are also practical/policy <br />reasons – it may be difficult to find qualified buyers for housing units deed-restricted at <br />very low income levels (50% AMI and low income levels (80% AMI), since they also <br />need to qualify for mortgage financing. <br /> <br />Based on these considerations, to evaluate potential changes in inclusionary <br />requirements and their effects on project feasibility, EPS developed four alternative <br />scenarios for ownership housing projects, and three scenarios for rental housing <br />projects, summarized in Tables 11 and 12 provided below, compared to the affordability <br />mix currently included in the Objective Design Standards for Housing Element Sites. <br /> <br />EPS’ initial analysis only included scenarios that would retain or increase the existing <br />inclusionary rate. However, after initial analysis indicated the 20% inclusionary rate for <br />for-sale projects may be difficult for projects to meet and remain financially feasible, <br />EPS modeled a scenario that would reduce the inclusionary rate from 20% to 15% (i.e., <br />bringing it to the same level as specified for multi-family/rental projects), to determine <br />the effect it would have on feasibility and in-lieu fee rates. <br /> <br />Table 11: For-Sale Projects: Alternative Inclusionary Scenarios <br />Scenario Percentage <br />Inclusionary <br />Affordability Mix <br />Existing IZO/ODS 20% 20% @ 100% AMI or 20% at 120% AMI <br />Scenario 1 15% 15% @ 120% AMI <br />Scenario 2 20% 5% @ 100% AMI 15% @ 120% AMI <br />Scenario 3 20% 5% @ 80% AMI 15% @ 120% AMI <br />Scenario 4 25% 12.5% @ 120% AMI 12.5% @ 150% <br />AMI <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />