Winter start date(start during a wi

Winter start date
(
start during a winter month). We tested whether a winter start was
associated with higher costs in order to evaluate whether developers were rushing to start
construction in order to meet state requirements, even if this r
esulted in higher costs. Our
results suggest that a winter start is not associated with higher costs
(in fact a winter start may
be associated with slightly lower costs, perhaps due to lower costs for labor or materials during
the low
-
demand winter months)
.

Project duration (time fr
om construction start to placed
-
in
-
service date). Although larger, more
expensive projects can take longer to build, this difference was not statistically significant once
we controlled for other factors such as number of storie
s or number of square feet.

Type of
California Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA
)
review. The type of CEQA review that a
project must undergo can have an important impact on the time it takes to develop a project.
Indeed, our
review of the data
do
suggest that projects that required an EIR took longer to
complete relative to other projects. However, when controlling for other factors that influenced
cost, the level of CEQA review
(i.e., exemption, negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaratio
n, EIR, or no review)
was not associated with higher project costs.

Number and type of funding sources. With the exception of redevelopment funding, as noted
previously, the number and type of financing sources (including state sources from HCD and
CalHFA)
that a project utilized was not associated with higher (or lower) costs.
However, it
should be noted the data collected did not include a detailed breakdown of costs that are
specifically associated with particular financing sources. For example, costs as
sociated with the
legal and administrative review and execution of financing contracts were not broken out from
direct costs for securing financing sources. Construction delays and operational costs associated
with securing multiple sources of funding were
not analyzed.

Previous developer experience (number of previous projects). While developer size was
associated with project costs, the extent of a developer’s experience was not a statistically
significant predictor of project costs.
49
48
Note that this does not necessarily mean that these factors have no impact on cost. Instead, our results suggest that, when
controllin
g for the factors we were able to control for and using the data available to us, we were not able to detect a
relationship between these factors and project costs.
October
6
, 2014
Page
41

Local government d
ensity requirements (density bonuses, density reductions, density
maximums). These factors were not associated with higher or lower project costs when
controlling for other factors such as local design review requirements and number of
community meetings.

Local hiring requirements. The requirement to hire local construction workers was not
associate
d
with higher or lower costs when controlling for other factors that may influence
costs, such as prevailing wage requirements or local wage rates.

Certain loc
ation characteristics, such as population density and household income of the census
tract where the project was built.
In addition to the characteristics of the TCAC region where a
project was built, we tested whether the characteristics of the census tra
ct were also important
predictors of project cost.
These factors were not statistically significant.
La n d C o s t s
Land costs comprise an important part of the total cost to develop affordable housing.
Land costs vary
widely across the state
as well as withi
n individual jurisdictions as a function of many factors, including
parcel size and shape, extent of required site remediation or preparation, proximity to amenities, and a
host of other factors. O
ften the land used for an affordable housing development ma
y be provided at a
deep discount, or even for free, by the local jurisdiction
,
whereas in other cases developers must
purchase land in
an “
arm’s length
” transaction and pay the full market price
. Because of this, we have
limited our discussion in this sect
ion to only those projects with market rate land values where the
developer confirmed that the land was acquired via an arm
’
s
-
length transaction.
Based on an analysis of the
251
projects included in our sample
with
confirmed
arm
’
s
-
length land
purchases
, l
and accounted
on average
for
slightly less than
8
percent of total
project
costs
.
These costs
varied considerably across projects when measured on a cost per acre basis
, a
s shown in
Figure
9
(next
page)
.
Perhaps most telling is the difference between the average value and the median value. The
median
land cost in 2012 dollars

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Ngày bắt đầu mùa đông(bắt đầu trong một tháng mùa đông). Chúng tôi thử nghiệm cho dù đã một sự khởi đầu mùa đông kết hợp với chi phí cao hơn để đánh giá liệu các nhà phát triển đã gấp rút để bắt đầu xây dựng để đáp ứng yêu cầu nhà nước, ngay cả nếu điều này resulted trong chi phí cao hơn. Của chúng tôi kết quả đề nghị một sự khởi đầu mùa đông không phải là liên kết với chi phí cao hơn(trong thực tế bắt đầu mùa đông có thể được kết hợp với chi phí thấp hơn một chút, có lẽ do giảm chi phí cho lao động hoặc các vật liệu trong suốt vùng áp thấp-yêu cầu các tháng mùa đông). Dự án thời gian (thời gian frbắt đầu xây dựng om đặt-ở-Dịch vụ ngày). Mặc dù lớn hơn, nhiều hơn dự án đắt tiền có thể mất lâu hơn để xây dựng, sự khác biệt này đã không thống kê quan trọng một lần chúng tôi kiểm soát đối với các yếu tố khác như số lượng stories hoặc số feet vuông. Loại hình California chất lượng môi trường hoạt động ()CEQA)xem xét lại. Loại CEQA xem xét rằng một dự án cần phải trải qua có thể có một tác động quan trọng về thời gian để phát triển một dự án. Thật vậy, chúng tôi xem xét các dữ liệulàmđề xuất dự án yêu cầu một EIR mất nhiều thời gian để hoàn thành so với các dự án khác. Tuy nhiên, khi kiểm soát đối với các yếu tố khác ảnh hưởng tới chi phí, mức độ CEQA review (ví dụ, miễn, tuyên bố tiêu cực, giảm nhẹ tiêu cực declaration, EIR, hoặc không có nhận xét) đã không được liên kết với chi phí dự án cao hơn.Số lượng và loại các nguồn tài trợ. Ngoại trừ tái phát triển nguồn tài trợ, như được ghi previously, the number and type of financing sources (including state sources from HCD and CalHFA)that a project utilized was not associated with higher (or lower) costs. However, it should be noted the data collected did not include a detailed breakdown of costs that are specifically associated with particular financing sources. For example, costs associated with the legal and administrative review and execution of financing contracts were not broken out from direct costs for securing financing sources. Construction delays and operational costs associated with securing multiple sources of funding werenot analyzed. Previous developer experience (number of previous projects). While developer size was associated with project costs, the extent of a developer’s experience was not a statistically significant predictor of project costs.4948Note that this does not necessarily mean that these factors have no impact on cost. Instead, our results suggest that, when controlling for the factors we were able to control for and using the data available to us, we were not able to detect a relationship between these factors and project costs.October 6, 2014Page 41Local government density requirements (density bonuses, density reductions, density maximums). These factors were not associated with higher or lower project costs when controlling for other factors such as local design review requirements and number of community meetings. Local hiring requirements. The requirement to hire local construction workers was not associatedwith higher or lower costs when controlling for other factors that may influence costs, such as prevailing wage requirements or local wage rates. Certain location characteristics, such as population density and household income of the census tract where the project was built.In addition to the characteristics of the TCAC region where a project was built, we tested whether the characteristics of the census tract were also important predictors of project cost. These factors were not statistically significant. La n d C o s t sLand costs comprise an important part of the total cost to develop affordable housing. Land costs vary widely across the stateas well as within individual jurisdictions as a function of many factors, including parcel size and shape, extent of required site remediation or preparation, proximity to amenities, and a host of other factors. Often the land used for an affordable housing development may be provided at a deep discount, or even for free, by the local jurisdiction,whereas in other cases developers must purchase land in an “arm’s length” transaction and pay the full market price. Because of this, we have limited our discussion in this section to only those projects with market rate land values where the developer confirmed that the land was acquired via an arm’s-length transaction. Based on an analysis of the 251projects included in our samplewith confirmed arm’s-length land purchases, land accounted on average for slightly less than8 percent of total projectcosts. These costs varied considerably across projects when measured on a cost per acre basis, as shown inFigure 9(next page). Perhaps most telling is the difference between the average value and the median value. The medianland cost in 2012 dollars