Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Inclusionary Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to explore inclusionary housing ordinance; staff to pursue in‑lieu fee analysis
Summary
Following a staff report on regional practices, the council directed staff to prepare an inclusionary housing ordinance and to hire a consultant to study an in‑lieu fee; council favored a 15% set‑aside baseline and asked staff to examine both multifamily and single‑family approaches and to return with a fee analysis and timeline.
City staff presented research on inclusionary housing ordinances and the City Council provided direction Wednesday to develop local policy options and to hire a consultant to prepare an in‑lieu fee study.
Planning staff explained that inclusionary ordinances typically require a percentage of units in new residential developments to be affordable or allow developers to pay an in‑lieu fee that funds future affordable housing. Staff summarized local examples: among nearby cities Norco, Jurupa Valley, Tustin and Irvine have inclusionary ordinances; many jurisdictions target a 15% set‑aside because state law treats 15% or less as a standard threshold that avoids an automatic economic feasibility analysis by the state.
Planning staff said in‑lieu fees in peer cities vary: some use an escalating price per square foot, others use a flat fee per market‑rate unit (examples cited were $2.50 per square foot in one city; about $15,000 per market‑rate unit in another). Staff estimated the consultant study to determine a locally appropriate in‑lieu nexus would cost roughly $20,000–$50,000 and that ordinance development and outreach would take roughly 12–18 months.
Council members debated policy scope. Several members favored a citywide approach that includes multifamily and single‑family developments; others urged an emphasis on multifamily units where an inclusionary requirement is likelier to produce more affordable units. Councilmembers discussed the tradeoff between a mandatory percentage versus relying on density bonuses or in‑lieu payments; some argued that in‑lieu fees can generate resources for deliberate affordable developments rather than small numbers of low‑cost units scattered across projects.
Councilmember West (who requested the item) summarized council direction: staff should proceed to prepare an inclusionary housing ordinance with a 15% baseline and pursue a consultant to prepare an in‑lieu fee analysis; staff should present options that include multifamily requirements and an in‑lieu fee approach for single‑family development. Staff said they would conduct stakeholder outreach, consult homebuilders and report back with a fee study and draft ordinance language. This was guidance to staff rather than a final vote on an ordinance.
