Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vacaville holds study session on inclusionary housing; consultant recommends modest 10% requirement with options
Summary
The City of Vacaville on Feb. 20 held a study session to review a consultant feasibility analysis of a proposed inclusionary housing program and to consider options for requiring some share of new housing to be deed‑restricted affordable.
The City of Vacaville held a study session on Feb. 20 to examine an inclusionary housing program as a tool to help meet the city’s affordable‑housing goals. Staff and consultants presented feasibility work and sought council feedback on program design options; council gave no final direction that evening.
City staff said the housing element and related strategies called for exploring new approaches to produce deed‑restricted affordable housing because traditional reliance on donated city land and competitive state funding has not produced the full volume of units the city needs. The consulting team — Community Planning Collaborative with Century Urban (economics) and legal advisory support — presented a market feasibility analysis of residential prototypes (single‑family, for‑sale town homes, multifamily rental) and several commercial prototypes, engaged with local developers and advocates and proposed program options.
Consultant Josh Abrams summarized the study’s key finding: a modest inclusionary requirement combined with compliance options is the most feasible path if council wants to pursue local inclusionary requirements. The consultant recommended a starting point of 10% of units in new residential developments be affordable, proposing rental affordability targeted at about 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) and ownership provisions tailored based on feasibility. The report emphasized flexibility — allowing in‑lieu fees, off‑site construction of required units, and clustering of affordable units where appropriate — and recommended annual reporting and a three‑year evaluation to adjust program parameters as market conditions change.
Staff and the consultant said commercial impact fees for non‑residential development were also evaluated; the team recommended any commercial fee be modest and carefully justified by a nexus study. The consultant noted that construction costs and soft costs are major drivers of feasibility and that inclusionary requirements and impact fees need careful calibration so they do not inadvertently halt development.
During public comment, representatives of the building industry and active local builders urged caution. Lisa Borda of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area said inclusionary zoning produces few units relative to its economic effects and urged the city to prioritize policies that reduce development costs and increase overall housing supply. Todd Chambers of Lewis Plan Communities and other developers told the council an inclusionary mandate risks raising prices for market buyers and argued that strategies to encourage “missing‑middle” housing, reduce fees or streamline entitlements would more reliably expand attainable housing.
Council members asked detailed questions about program design, the consultant’s assumptions and the potential interaction with pending state legislation and streamlined housing approvals. Several council members said they favored further analysis of incentives and fee reductions that could spur more “naturally affordable” housing in addition to any inclusionary requirement. No ordinance or vote was taken; staff said that if council directs, they will prepare a draft ordinance incorporating council feedback, continue outreach with developers and housing advocates, and return with a formal proposal and implementation manual.
