Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City moves to update inclusionary‑housing rules, adjust in‑lieu fees and broaden income targeting
Summary
Planning and the mayor’s housing office presented follow‑up amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that update the in‑lieu fee calculation, create a local preference for city residents/employees, and allow a range of targeted sale prices (80–120% AMI) while keeping the statutory targeting centered on the local 100% AMI average.
Planning Department staff and the mayor’s Office of Housing briefed the commission on a package of follow‑up amendments to the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The changes stem from Board of Supervisors direction to revisit the in‑lieu fee calculation (Kaiser Marston study) and to account for differences in feasibility between low‑rise and high‑rise buildings.
Key elements: the mayor’s office will be authorized to recalculate the net land/unit fee using the Kaiser Marston methodology and to update it periodically; buildings over 120 feet that receive height/bonus changes may remain subject to the higher prior requirements; the ordinance clarifies the treatment of assisted‑living and independent‑living projects; and the BMR income targeting for for‑sale units can vary across 80–120% AMI while keeping an overall average equivalent to 100% AMI. The proposal also allows procedural changes (fractional in‑lieu rounding and unbundled parking) and directs periodic study and indexing of the fee.
Deputy director Doug Shoemaker and the new inclusionary coordinator described outreach and operational changes (email alerts, marketing, and process improvements). Commissioners and public speakers pressed staff on implementation risk: whether the new fee properly equates the cost of on‑site units across building types, whether the city is taking on resale market risk, and whether program administration has capacity. Staff said the mayor’s office will refine the resale formula and that the in‑lieu fee authority in the ordinance is intended to produce a more equitable, updated fee; staff also said the procedures manual will define implementation details and that they will return with the modeling and technical specifications.
The commission voted to transmit and recommend the amendments to the Board of Supervisors with direction to staff to bring back clarifications (especially on resale mechanics, fractional fee arithmetic and the procedures manual) and with a request for ongoing monitoring of on‑site vs. fee choices.
