Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves in‑lieu fee option for 986 South Venice inclusionary obligation
Summary
The commission approved a mandatory discretionary review allowing the owner of 986 South Venice (building permit 20189140274) to satisfy inclusionary housing obligations by paying an in‑lieu fee under Planning Code section 415.5(g)(3). Staff said the owner is negotiating with United to Save the Mission and nonprofit buyers; the vote was unanimous 5–0.
At the Nov. 21, 2024 meeting, department staff presented a mandatory discretionary review for 986 South Venice (building permit 20189140274). Ada Tan told the commission the building is constructed (five stories, 15 units) and that under previous approvals the project was required to provide two below‑market‑rate (BMR) units on site and had agreed to provide one voluntary BMR. Due to current market conditions, the owner requested to change the elected method for meeting inclusionary obligations from on‑site units to payment of the in‑lieu fee under Planning Code section 415.5(g)(3).
Tan said the owner has been working with neighborhood group United to Save the Mission (USM) to identify a nonprofit buyer that could operate the building as deed‑restricted affordable housing and that the owner would continue those efforts through the end of the year. Tan told the commission that “If the project cannot be sold to a nonprofit, approving the mandatory discretionary application before you today would allow the owner to pay the in‑lieu fee and avoid foreclosure.”
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about tenure and the implications of approving an in‑lieu fee. Staff clarified the project remains approved as an ownership project and that, if the commission approves the in‑lieu option, a later administrative change in tenure could be pursued consistent with department procedures. Commissioner LeBron moved to approve the mandatory discretionary review with conditions; the motion was seconded and carried on a unanimous 5–0 vote.
Staff recommended approval with conditions and noted that in‑lieu fee proceeds can be used to produce deed‑restricted affordable housing elsewhere if a nonprofit purchase does not materialize.
