Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Piedmont study session weighs inclusionary zoning, targets for very-low-income units
Summary
Planning staff and consultant Andrew Hill outlined options for an inclusionary housing program tied to Piedmont's housing element, flagged a large very-low-income RHNA allocation (163 units), and urged local pro forma analysis and targeted incentives before drafting an ordinance.
Andrew Hill, a consultant with Dighton Bhatia, presented the Expanding Housing Options initiative and framed inclusionary zoning as a potential tool to help Piedmont meet its state-assigned RHNA targets. Hill said the city's housing element work will proceed in three phases—research, community testing and final recommendations—and stressed that any inclusionary requirement should be grounded in local feasibility testing.
"In our case studies, Mill Valley and Santa Cruz go beyond that. They require that any inclusionary unit be deed restricted, for affordability in perpetuity," Hill said, describing trade-offs between permanence and resale marketability. He pointed out that Piedmont's RHNA includes a substantial very-low-income allocation (163 units, about 28% of the total), noting very-low-income units generally require deeper subsidy and present greater feasibility challenges.
Commissioners pressed staff on legal and technical constraints. Hill and Planning Director Kevin Jackson explained the state assigns RHNA targets and that jurisdictions may face consequences if they do not make adequate mid-cycle progress; Hill referenced previous state steps that give developers "by-right" approvals where local progress lagged. Hill emphasized the need for site-specific pro forma work: based on the housing-element sites identified in Piedmont, he said a 15% requirement on larger, mixed-income sites could yield roughly 53 inclusionary units, but "we would need to do pro forma analysis to really consider actual costs on typical lots here in Piedmont."
Several commissioners urged a flexible, multi-tool approach: tiering requirements by project size (with in-lieu fee options for small projects), offering incentives such as reduced unit-size or local density bonuses, and exploring alternative compliance methods (off-site or converted units, or land dedication). Hill also raised a Piedmont-specific option: partnering with local religious institutions that may have underused parcels where affordable units could be developed.
Staff said the next steps include producing an informational video and broader public engagement; any ordinance would follow after additional study and community input and be brought to the city council in a subsequent adoption hearing cycle.
