[{"_1":2,"_75":-5,"_76":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6155678,"mediaKeyId","5474016-ef26013ec8649313e9032a969650b063","parentId",5474016,"title","Vallejo workshop: consultant finds inclusionary zoning would hurt feasibility under current market; staff to return with more data","audioSeconds",6639,"startMs",394000,"endMs",7033000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5474016-ef26013ec8649313e9032a969650b063&start=394&end=7033","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5474016-ef26013ec8649313e9032a969650b063/thumbnail_394000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6155678/Vallejo/Solano-County/California/Vallejo-workshop-consultant-finds-inclusionary-zoning-would-hurt-feasibility-under-current-market-staff-to-return-with-more-data","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155678-603c58e1265ecaef4d95643805c9fc6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770549237&Signature=l9efF8QDMRgJACrpHEpeI2PDMcGxnRuTBdN9wSSINpqnzjPl~Rx4lSyQzbuImXvdEM5lXBH9jOpC7asd3pMJt6ldiUuRVz0vnBz2R3s34YpQN6Yj-TJn5c9JKrheBqVDpZGsolXrHO3ecLZBXavJRsTXaTaVQydCHk1qrdYOYbEMsSB4CW5DVcGRHe-2hqZysqkzGzCrTqePKqnmPegmWO0Gau~cQrFmBhXrHpY9lNhrLF9F3mKpGng8dMC2ZxP1nGkfLT~BR4LNyednP1ehMwn4bzXOwtYdrC9aKPaahnmnoG972WefFhFA8s6O4KBdy9eUhMZ~lkwR48cP5-kzMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Vallejo, CA","date","2025-07-07T00:00:00Z","article","Vallejo held a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop to review preliminary findings from a consultant study on an inclusionary housing ordinance and a commercial linkage fee nexus study. Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) told the two bodies that, under current market conditions, requiring developers to include affordable units would reduce project feasibility for most housing prototypes examined and could slow or halt some development in the near term.

The consultant presentation, led by Darren Smith of Economic & Planning Systems, summarized local rent and permitting trends and compared construction costs with achievable prices and rents. \"An inclusionary housing ordinance is a policy by which when a market rate development comes to town, you can require them to provide a certain proportion of their units as lower income units,\" Smith said. He told the meeting that rising construction and financing costs have outpaced rent growth, and that only one prototype—larger single‑family detached homes—appeared feasible in the current market.

Why it matters: the planning team and council are weighing whether to craft a formal ordinance that would require either on‑site affordable units or an in‑lieu fee. The city’s housing element (sixth cycle) directed staff to study both an inclusionary ordinance and a commercial linkage fee; adoption would also affect future eligibility for certain Bay Area grant programs administered by MTC and ABAG.

Key findings and data presented

- EPS estimated Solano County single‑person median income of $79,250 and used the state standard that 30% of income is affordable housing cost (presented as about $1,981/month for that median single‑person example). (Darren Smith)

- CoStar data cited by EPS put the current average rent for a Vallejo studio at about $1,459, and EPS reported an achievable rent of roughly $2.21 per square foot for recently built Vallejo units versus $3.36 per square foot for the nine‑county Bay Area. (Darren Smith)

- EPS compared five development prototypes. Representative all‑in development cost estimates given in the presentation included about $800,000 per unit for a 2,200‑square‑foot single‑family detached home, roughly $600,000 for a 1,600‑square‑foot smaller detached home, about $700,000 for condominiums, and roughly $500,000 for lower‑density multifamily apartments. The consultant showed that market values or the present value of rents do not exceed those costs for four of the five product types analyzed; only large single‑family detached units appeared to clear costs under current conditions. (Darren Smith)

- EPS showed that Vallejo’s aggregate permit fee burden is below several regional comparables in the consultant’s sample: approximately $69,000 per unit for a 2,200 sq. ft. single family unit and about $42,000 per unit for multifamily when school district, county, special district and city fees are combined. EPS noted that much of that burden derives from agencies other than the city. (Darren Smith)

- Permits vs. deliveries: EPS reported a pipeline of permitted units (more than 200 units permitted in 2022 and over 100 in 2023) that have not yet been completed; the consultant attributed delays largely to financing and the recent increase in construction costs relative to rents. (Darren Smith)

Options and staff direction outlined

EPS presented three paths for council consideration: 1) continue developing a draft inclusionary ordinance but suspend enforcement until market conditions improve; 2) adopt an ordinance and enforce it immediately while recognizing it may slow near‑term production; or 3) not pursue an inclusionary ordinance at this time and revisit in the future. \"One option is to continue developing the policy, and suspend its enforcement,\" Smith said, while acknowledging that the city could also adopt and enforce now if it chose.

Council and commission discussion

Members of both bodies urged additional analysis and clarity before making a policy decision. Several elected officials and commissioners asked staff to provide the consultant’s underlying pro forma tables, details on the developers EPS interviewed, and additional comparison points from cities that have adopted inclusionary programs. Councilmember Letizue pressed EPS on whether the consultant had \"dug deeper\" into the pipeline data and on the representativeness of the six developer interviews; EPS replied that staff recommended the developers interviewed but that the firm did not audit every permitted project. (Hector Rojas; Darren Smith)

Public comments and stakeholder remarks

Public speakers urged action to address local affordability while raising concerns about the consultant’s data and assumptions. A Sierra Club representative, Paul Tice, commended staff for producing the study and suggested the city also consider large tracts of available city‑owned land and factory‑built housing approaches. A local developer and nonprofit founder, Melvin Cowan, said the findings showed why enforcement may be premature but urged the city to pursue incentives, fee waivers and a housing trust fund: \"If we're not ready to move forward with mandates, let's move forward with incentives,\" Cowan said. An online commenter, Kathleen Diap, urged caution about costs and staff bandwidth and asked that the full EPS report and pro formas be provided to the public.

Requests to staff and next steps

Council members, commissioners and members of the public asked staff to return with more detailed materials before a policy decision: the full EPS pro forma tables and assumptions, a transparent list of the developers interviewed and the projects they represent, examples of how comparable cities implemented inclusionary requirements (including use of in‑lieu fees and enforcement practice), and an analysis of administrative capacity and likely staffing needs for implementation. Staff confirmed they will return with the commercial linkage fee at a later date and will provide additional materials to inform whether and how an inclusionary ordinance might be drafted and enforced. \"We will bring that back,\" staff said; \"we're also gonna bring back the commercial linkage fee at a later date.\" (City staff)

Context and public reaction

Speakers from tenant groups and community organizations emphasized that rents and housing costs are a pressing local issue and urged City Hall to pursue multiple tools—including inclusionary requirements, tenant protections, and public funding—to preserve or expand affordable options. Others on the dais emphasized tradeoffs: an ordinance that is too stringent could make projects infeasible; an ordinance that relies only on in‑lieu fees requires a clear plan and entity to spend and manage those funds.

What was decided (and what was not)

There was no vote or ordinance adoption at the workshop. Staff and consultants were directed to return with more documentation and analysis; the council and commission signaled interest in continuing work on an ordinance but gave no formal direction to adopt or enforce a policy at this meeting. The commercial linkage fee discussion was deferred for a future joint session.

Ending note

The meeting closed with staff agreeing to provide more detailed financial tables, to refine assumptions in dialogue with local staff, and to return with additional comparisons and implementation analysis so the council and commission can weigh feasibility, legal options and funding pathways before taking formal action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint City Council & Planning Commission SPECIAL Meeting - July 07, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Vallejo held a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop to review preliminary findings from a consultant study on an inclusionary housing ordinance and a commercial linkage fee nexus study.","taxTitle","Vallejo, Solano County, California","taxId",5493,"location","headline","","shortSummary","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Vallejo workshop: consultant finds inclusionary zoning would hurt feasibility under current market; staff to return with more data