65B - HOUSING OPPTY REPORT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT 4 inclusionary housing policies before AB 1505 was enacted, which tools significant political will to get adopted. These cities appear to be currently focusing on implementing these measures and monitoring their progress as opposed to contemplating adopting revised inclusionary zoning policies in response to AB 1505. However, both San Francisco and San Jose have already adjusted their policies in response to AB 1505. Prior to enactment of AB 1505, San Francisco allowed developers to build affordable rental units on-site or off-site if they waive their Costa -Hawkins rights through an agreement. The city has removed references to this requirement in municipal code as these agreements are no longer necessary. San Jose has had inclusionary requirements for rental units in law for many years but they have not been operative because they were contingent upon a change in the Palmer ruling or a legislative change. The enactment of AB 1505 makes these provisions operative. Also, San Jose used to place a Housing Impact Fee on large rental unit projects but now these projects have been incorporated into the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. CONCLUSION As evident in this report, inclusionary housing programs vary widely in structure and complexity. The policies reflect the unique needs and priorities of each jurisdiction. Los Angeles' Measure JJJ lead to the creation of an incentive program that is starting to see preliminary positive results in encouraging affordable housing near major transit stops. San Jose provides developers numerous incentives to provide affordable units on-site as well as many alterative options. San Francisco targets middle and moderate incomes, because as stated in its Housing Element Plan, "public subsidies tend to fund very low and low-income housing, with very limited grants allocated for moderate -income home buyers." Sacramento's policy places value on higher density development by exempting high density projects from fees. Chula Vista encourages developers to develop in certain areas by not charging fees in areas that already have a high concentration of affordable housing. It also provides additional incentives when units for low- income households are provided over units for moderate -income households. Finally, San Diego's policy is the most focused policy in comparison to other jurisdictions, targeting low and median - income households. Many of the policies reviewed in this report have been recently modified so it is difficult to assess the outcomes of the programs and whether they are fulfilling their intended purpose. This report can be used as a reference to compare the City of San Diego's inclusionary policy to how other jurisdictions have structured their policies. Additional research could be done in the future to assess whether the City of San Diego's policy is fulfilling its intended purpose and whether it reflects and addresses our greatest local needs. r i Kissee e Fi l & Policy Analyst APPROVED: Andrea Tevlin Independent Budget Analyst 12 65B-24