Alex Nunez
speaker
7,337 appearances
30 recordings
2 series
first heard Oct 2023
last heard 19 Aug
Alex Nunez’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 12 in all, peaking in Feb 2026 with 2.
Appearances
between the alternative compliance option and providing onsite BMR units.
The amendments to the alternative compliance approach addresses direction given by council relating to housing element criteria three and four.
With land dedication, there are no proposed changes to the current requirements.
The amendments include adding location requirements to integrate AFFH criteria, a feasibility and financing analysis which demonstrate the project's alignment with the in lieu fee equivalency and identifies any additional developer contribution.
In addition, there's also a cost recovery fee based on the cost analysis of city resources and staff time the city undertakes in a land dedication which spans several years.
The amendments relating to our second alternative compliance option, offsite development, have been informed by city projects such as 777 Middlefield and 685 East Middlefield.
For offsite development, the location requirements align with the updated standards discussed in land dedication.
One of the new standards that has been added includes access to amenities.
That is, if the offsite development does not include equivalent amenities and it is within 750 feet of the primary project, the offsite residents must be granted access to shared amenities, such as a pool or gym at the market rate site.
Currently offsite development includes a 20% requirement.
The amendment is reducing this to 15% to better align with the onsite BMR requirement.
Currently, alternative compliance for offsite development does not include an affordability term.
This amendment proposes aligning the term with our current BMR requirement of imperpetuity, except in cases where financing restrictions prevent it.
Often projects such as these involve multiple funding sources, each with its own requirements so the amendment builds in flexibility to work with applicants.
Most of these projects are undertaken by mission-driven developers who typically seek to maintain affordability well beyond 55 years.
Another new requirement is for the applicant to provide a feasibility and financing analysis.
This analysis will give the city assurance that the alternative compliance aligns with the in lieu fee equivalency, clarifies developer financial contribution, and confirms that no additional city funding is required.
In the situation where the applicant opts to partner with another entity for offsite development, the applicant would need to outline what the partnership may entail, any financial contributions they are providing, the terms being offered, and the process for the partner selection.
The city will have some level of oversight over the developer partnership to ensure the terms align with the program requirements.
If the developer opts to secure a partner through an RFP, the city shall review the RFP to confirm compliant.
Showing 1521–1540 of 7,337 · page 77 of 367
← Previous
Next →