The ordinance aimed to change rules for Below Market Rate (BMR) housing by allowing resales at higher income levels and ensuring that units sold with amenities like parking retained those features. It also included requirements for regular reporting on income level changes and affirmed compliance with environmental and planning standards, but it has been rejected.
Ordinance amending the Planning Code to allow certain Below Market Rate (BMR) Owned Units to be resold at a price affordable to households at an increased Area Median Income (AMI) level, increase the qualifying AMI limit for BMR purchasers, require BMR Owned Units originally purchased with parking spaces and other amenities to be resold with the same parking and amenities, and require periodic reporting to the Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors of AMI level increases approved under this ordinance; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to Planning Code, Section 302.
How it got here
The legislation originated from a need to address the challenges faced by Below Market Rate (BMR) homeowners in selling their units at affordable prices.
Supervisor Melgar introduced an ordinance to amend the Planning Code to allow certain BMR Owned Units to be resold at a price affordable to households at an increased Area Median Income (AMI) level.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance and continued the matter for further consideration.
The Planning Commission adopted findings that the actions contemplated in the ordinance are consistent with the City’s General Plan and eight priority policies, recommending approval as amended.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee reviewed the ordinance, which was duplicated as amended and continued for further discussion.
The committee tabled the ordinance, effectively halting its progress.
Reconstructed from attached documents & the official record
