Agenda - Council - 06/28/2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Cities nationally and locally have used inclusionary housing policies and programs to deliver high -quality mixed -income development. Developments that are intended to be mostly affordable are blending in market -rate units, and mostly market -rate developments are including affordable units. |no|uaionarystrategies share common goals with mixed -income development, including the following: p Creating mixed -income neighborhoods and properties where residents benefit 8qu8|k/ from public investment. * Incorporating affordable housing into housing of comparable quality and with similar amenities. * Leveraging private investment to encourage affordable unit provision or to provide site - specific or local investments in infrastructure for use and enjoyment of all residents. * Making local requirements around affordable housing more predictable and therefore efficient. * Using local regulatory and review controls to supplement scarce financial resources. p Combining |008| C0nt[0|e, exceptions, or waivers with finance -oriented strategies such as tax abatement or fee waivers to lower the overall cost of affordable components of projects and make inclusion of affordability more financially and physically possible. Though few would dispute the validity of such goals, mandatory inclusionary zoning has come under intense scrutiny from those who believe itdetracts from future development. The pushback in many jurisdictions has led to an increasing desire to achieve greater income diversity while minimizing political contentiousness. Some of the creative approaches that have emerged include: * Use ofvoluntary systems. Instead of requiring that affordability be built into every development, which could make some projects unfeasible if the required percentage is too high, many jurisdictions use voluntary approaches under which developers who choose to meet or exceed affordability standards receive financial or regulatory incentives, such as a density bonus allowing more market -rate units to be built on site. * On and off -site options. In certain locations and market contexts, itmay bemore financially feasible 0[ |0QiatiC8||y p[8CtiC8| to split the nn8[k8t-[Gte units from the 8ff0[d8b|e unite rather than physically combining them into a single structure. This may run the risk 0fdiluting the mixed -income public policy objective. * Cross -typology approaches. This approach allows a mix of housing types —such as single-family, townhome, or multifamily rental —in the same development. Depending on the local price and availability of land, the local desire to expand housing types available, and other factors, cross -typological strategies may or may not be desirable. * Mixed -income bonus "8|8C8rte.''For cities with strong capacity and experience inusing local planning, land use, and finance -oriented tools and controls to benefit housing and community development, it may be desirable to offer developer choice in what benefits, provided at which key points in the p jeot'e life, make the most financial sense given other project dynamics. * "As of right" approach. Developers value predictability and go to great lengths to identify potential delays in a pr jeot'eaohedu|e. Growing construction finance interest and other holding costs can become deal -breakers orat least eat into profit. Acity that is interested HOUSING POLICY PLAN FOUR: Opportunities for Collaboration