Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant recommends roughly 12% inclusionary set‑aside; staff to refine with fee analysis
Summary
Root Policy Research recommended a target of about 12% inclusionary units (rental at ~50% AMI; attached for‑sale ~100% AMI; detached for‑sale ~120% AMI) with flexible compliance options and a fee‑in‑lieu tied to future EPS analysis.
At the June 2 meeting Root Policy Research summarized initial findings and recommended framework for an inclusionary housing ordinance for Lafayette. The consultant’s high‑level recommendation was:
- Applicability: residential developments of 10 or more units. - Baseline set‑aside: roughly 12% of units (subject to final EPS feasibility calibration). - Target AMIs: rental units at about 50% AMI; attached for‑sale units (townhomes/condos) near 100% AMI; detached for‑sale units near 120% AMI. - Compliance options: on‑site units, fee‑in‑lieu, land donation, attainable‑housing credits, and negotiated agreements for special circumstances.
The team explained the tradeoffs that informed the recommendation: a 50% AMI target for rentals is intended to produce a meaningful discount to market-rate new construction in Lafayette; 60–80% AMI rental targets are too close to market and provide little effective affordability when compared to observed rents. On the ownership side, detached market prices are farther above AMI, so a higher AMI cap (120%) paired with homeownership assistance (for example CHAFF funding that creates reduced mortgage rates) can produce attainable sale prices for local buyers without killing feasibility.
Root and staff said the inclusionary percentage should be calibrated against EPS’s ongoing fee/feasibility analysis; once EPS finalizes recommended impact-fee numbers staff and the consultant will produce a combined recommendation (incentives, fee‑in‑lieu levels and phasing) for council review later in summer. Councilors asked for an adjustable approach tied to market indicators (CPI or periodic recalculations) and for clarity on whether the city prefers developer-built units or fee revenues used for city‑managed or third‑party affordable housing. Staff noted the city is developing a regional compliance option that could help administer fee‑in‑lieu projects if council opts to accept funds rather than require on‑site units.
Next step: EPS will finish the fee feasibility work and staff will return with an integrated inclusionary/fee proposal for council consideration this summer.
