Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT 1 <br />m ac : City staff indicate that initial results of Measure JJJ show a significant decline ofproposed <br />housing units through General Plan amendments and zone changes, which may be due to a <br />confluence of factors. However, staff have also seen positive results emerging from a separate <br />program that originated from Measure JJJ, called the Transit Oriented Communities Affordable <br />Housing Incentive Program (TOC Program), <br />The TOC Program promotes affordable housing development located in a one-half mile radius <br />around a major transit stop by providing incentives such as additional density and reduced parking. <br />There are varying levels of affordability required targeting extremely -low income households, <br />very low-income households, and lower income households. Additional incentives could be <br />granted if certain labor standards are met, but this is discretionary, <br />Los Angeles also has an affordable housing linkage fee program which became operational in June <br />2018. For -sale and rental housing development are exempt from the fee if they include affordable <br />units where at least 40% are for moderate -income households; 20% are for low-income <br />households; II% are for very low-income households; or 8% are for extremely low-income <br />households. The fee per square foot varies by size of the development project, but ranges between <br />$1 in a low market area and $18 in a high market area.? Since the linkage fee has just gone into <br />effect, there is no information available on its impacts. However, city staff estimate that the fee <br />could generate about $110 million per year that would go towards affordable housing, <br />City of San Jose <br />Inclusionary Housing Ordinance <br />Background: San Jose's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was adopted in January 2010. However, <br />its implementation was stalled because it was challenged by the California Building Industry <br />Association claiming that it was an unconstitutional exaction. In 2015, the city's ordinance was <br />upheld by the California Supreme Court which instead characterized residential inclusionary <br />zoning ordinances as "land use restrictions", and therefore not subject to special scrutiny triggered <br />by exactions.' This ruling allowed San Jose's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to be reactivated <br />after a grace period, but only for for -sale units (not for rental units) due to the Palmer court <br />decision. <br />San Jose's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance kept the requirements related to rental units in law but <br />made its operation contingent upon the Palmer decision being overturned, or the state legislature <br />authorizing control of rents of inclusionary units. With the enactment of AB 1505, San Jose has <br />only recently been able to fully implement its hiclusionary Housing Ordinance for both for -sale <br />and rental units even though it has been on the books since 2010. <br />Base Requirement: The ordinance requires that all residential development projects that are 20 <br />units or more include 15% of the housing on -site at a cost that is affordable to specified income <br />?City of Los Angeles, Affordable Housing Linkage Fee, Ordinance Background and Frequently Asked Questions, <br />February 2017. <br />B California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, March 10, 2016 <br />httpsV/harvardlawreview ore/2016/03/califomia-buildiniz-indtistry-asmi-v-city-of-san-io accessed July 6, 2018. <br />65B-16 <br />