Inclusionary Zoning Updates

We had an interesting Plan Commission meeting last night and made some progress on Inclusionary Zoning. We essentially made 3 decisions worth noting:

MARKETING (AND MARKETING PLANS AND RECAPTURING INCENTIVES)
We decided to eliminate the marketing period altogether. In other words, the units could no longer "bump out" of the IZ program due to the marketing period expiring. This was done so that we:
a) don't have to dictate what we expect in marketing and monitor marketing plans; and
b) so we don't have to deal with trying to get back the value of the incentives if the units aren't provided.

LANGUAGE APPROVAL ON THE "IZ FREE" ZONES
We approved the following language to allow "IZ Free" Zones in developments:

i. Reservation of up to twenty percent (20%) of the total floor area in multiple unit buildings for market rate units. Floor area reserved for market rate units may include dwelling units on more than one (1) floor. (My notes may have this last sentence a little screwed up since it was amended at the meeting)

j. Reservation of up to twenty percent (20%) of the net residential lot area for single-family homes for market rate units.

ATTACHED HOUSING SUBSTITUTING FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
k. Up to fifty percent (50%) of required single-family inclusionary dwelling units may be provided in duplex or multifamily buildings with no more than six (6) units. These units shall be dispersed among or immediately adjacent to single-family dwelling units. If these inclusionary dwelling units are provided in buildings containing four (4) to six (6) dwelling units, no more than one half (1/2) of the dwelling units in any building may be inclusionary dwelling units.

OTHER DRAFT LANGUAGE
FYI - There was a draft ordinance handed out with me as a sponsor and I never saw the draft until last night and still haven't read anything more than what we approved above. And the plan commission never even discussed the rest of it. I don't even have an electronic copy and its already outdated, so I'd just ignore it for now . . . and if you see anything in there that alarms you, you might want to check in and see if it was intentional or not. This is wholly a draft from the city attorney's office that was not there for much of the discussion, and that's how things sometimes get twisted.

FINAL NOTE: The mayor's office sent out a ream of paper yesterday - 9 pages of it is the final draft report that we will be discussion at the meeting on Thursday (4:45 Water Utility Building). Haven't read that yet either, printed it out and gave my copy away.

NEXT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: July 6th 5:00 (or 5:30?)

Who made what "deal"? Who's a Liar?

People have asked what caused me to get mad at Alder Brandon at Tuesday night's Common Council meeting and ask "Are you calling me a liar?" . . . so I thought I would explain . . .

Apparently, several people made some "deal" about not fixing IZ piecemeal. I was never one of those people. In fact, I didn't know that some people explicitly made that deal. I knew people were talking about it and on May 2nd, I even argued why we shouldn't fix the ordinance piecemeal and why we should move forward with fixing the equity model. In summary, there are people who are waiting for the equity model to get fixed to purchase an IZ home. It is the most common call I have gotten from people looking at IZ homes. The equity model is not tied to other portions of the ordinance. We have a solution and there is no harm done by fixing the ordinance and letting people purchase homes. We should have passed the change on Tuesday.

The most absurd/only argument made about not making the changes piecemeal is that people like me wouldn't be motivated to make the IZ changes if we changed only some things. Um . . . some people like me just want an ordinance that works. Removing the Brandon equity model is just one piece of what needed to be changed. Fixing the Brandon incentive model is another, and then there is always that pesky marketing loophole. There is plenty of motivation to keep working on the ordinance. Not everyone is just looking to score political points, for some of us the bottom line is getting an ordinance that works and get people into the few homes that have actually gotten to the point where someone would consider purchasing them.

Anyways, I hope Alder Brandon will apologize for erroneously publicly questioning my integrity, but I won't hold my breath. He'll do whatever he needs to do to score his political point. Meanwhile, thanks to Alder Golden and the Mayor for backing me up and telling the Citty Council that they didn't believe I had made some "deal". I didn't.

Twin Homes and "IZ-free" Zones

Last night during the plan commission meeting we considered the ordinance that would address Twin Homes and "IZ-free" Zones. During the meeting I attempted a re-write of the ordinance based on the discussion at the plan commission and with the understanding that we would eliminate the point system. What follows is the memo I wrote the plan commission and staff last night/this morning.

As I noted last night at the plan commission, during the meeting I attempted a version of what the ordinance might look like based on some of our discussion at the meeting in case I wanted to make a motion to change the language. Here’s what I came up with on the fly:

i. Reservation of up to 20% of the total floor area within an attached-unit development for non-inclusionary dwelling unit designation. Any floor area reserved shall be for contiguous dwelling units and may include dwelling units on more than one floor. (This provision is intended to provide for a 20% “IZ-free” zone for attached housing. It allows the “IZ-free” zone to be on multiple floors.)

j. Reservation of up to 20% of the developable residential area within a development of single-family homes for non-inclusionary dwelling unit designation. (This provision is intended to provide for a 20% “IZ-free” zone for projects than have only detached/single-family housing. At this point, I have not included language about the units having to be contiguous or if all 20% has to be in one area.)

k. In single family detached housing developments, up to 50% of the inclusionary zoning units may be attached housing but no more than x% of the developable residential area may be designated to be a non-inclusionary dwelling unit area. If attached units are provided in buildings with 5 - 8 units, no more than half of the units in any one building may be designated to be inclusionary dwelling units. If the attached units are provided in building with more than 8 units, no more than 25% of the units in any one building may be designated to be inclusionary dwelling units. (This provision is intended to allow that in detached/single-family projects, up to half of the required IZ units can be in attached housing instead of single family homes. I have put language in to limit how large the “IZ-free” zones will be, but need further information to provide a recommendation for the specific percentage. This provision does not indicate how many units the buildings with the IZ units may have, except that it limits larger buildings from being 100% IZ projects.)

Note: Need to change (g)3. as follows:

Notwithstanding incentives provided through 28.04(25)(d)4.k. T the proportion of attached and detached units shall be similar for inclusionary and market rate dwelling units and shall be consistent with the Inclusionary Dwelling Unit Plan. (This provision allows for an exception to the requirement in the ordinance that says that detached and attached housing must be proportional. This exception is only for single family projects that choose to have attached housing under the new language allowing them to provide up to 50% units in attached housing instead of single family homes.)

To address concerns about what the attached units look like, remember that the provision in (g)2. remains and requires that:

The exterior appearance of the inclusionary dwelling units shall be similar in general style to the market rate dwelling units, consistent with the Inclusionary Dwelling Unit Plan.

In other words, the attached housing is going to have to look like single family homes.

A final note, how we will calculate an “IZ-free” zone area needs further discussion.

Inclusionary Zoning Issues

This is part of the memo I recently wrote for the plan commission. Full memo with ordinance with notes on Legistar. (Links not currently working.)

1. Simplification of the Equity Model
Issues: None, plan commission passed ordinance resolving this issue.

2. Marketing
Issues:
a. Should there be a marketing period?
b. If no, how can/should we assist with ensuring eventual sale of IZ units (e.g. IZ homes cannot age out of program (discussed at 6/1 special meeting)
c. If yes, when should the marketing period begin for owner-occupied homebuilders?
d. When should the marketing period begin for a person who sells a lot?
e. Do we agree with the Hirsch language (in Note 2.2) ?

3. City Funded Non-profit Rental Exemption if 15% at 50% AMI or below
Issues:
a. Should for-profits be included?
b. Should dispersion be a requirement for the exemption?

4. City Funded Non-profit Ownership exemption if 15% at 70% AMI or below
Issues:
a. Should for-profits be included?
b. Should dispersion be a requirement for the exemption?

5. City Funded Non-profit Ownership exemption if 75% affordable at 80% AMI or below
Issues:
a. Should for-profits be included?
b. Should dispersion be a requirement for the exemption?

6. Existing Units for Off-Site Waiver Option
Issues:
a. Should existing units (vs. new construction) be included in the Off-Site Waiver Option?
b. Should we have minimal standards for rehab of existing units?

7. City Approval of Buy-Back Provisions
Issues:
a. Who in the City does the approval? Director of Planning and Development or their designee?

8. Removal of point system for incentives
Issues:
On-going discussion so issues vary from day to day – requires more background information for plan commission.

9. System to check if incentives off-set potential revenue
Issues:
On-going discussion so issues vary from day to day – requires more background information for plan commission.

10. Add Incentive: 10% IZ Free Zone
Issues: None? Previously discussed by plan commission, drafted separately and will be discussed during a separate agenda item on June 5th.

11. Add Incentive: Twin Homes
Issues:
a. Should we allow more than just duplex/twin units? Should we allow 4, 6 or 8 unit buildings?
b. What, if any, limitations should be put on how many units can be attached if the market rate units are detached?
c. Do we need to modify “dispersion” language to accommodate these changes?

12. Add Incentive: Change in Use in Neighborhood Plan
Issues:
a. Do we need criteria to determine when this is possible, how much residential, or do we leave it up to staff?
Note: Previous plan commission discussion involved modifying language to ensure that only “some” residential allowed in commercial areas (e.g. become mixed use) vs. changing to 100% residential. How much is “some?” Who decides?
b. If so, does the criteria go in the ordinance or policy?

13. Density Bonus
Issues:
a. How do we determine the base density for periphery neighborhoods?
b. How do we determine the base density for downtown projects?

14. Clarifying City Calculates IZ Sales Price
Issues: None? Simple clarification.

15. Marketing Plan required in the Inclusionary Dwelling United Plan (“IDUP”)
Issues:
a. What are minimum requirements of a marketing plan, if any?
b. If no marketing plan, how ensure eventual sale of IZ units (e.g. IZ homes cannot age out of program - discussed at 6/1 special meeting)
c. What if the marketing plan is not followed?
d. See related issues #1 in “Additional Issues” below

16. Elimination of requirement of City Notification of Improvements
Issues: None?

17. Elimination of requirement of City Notification of Refinancing
Issues: None?

Additional Issues:

1. Hirsch Proposal on Recapture of Incentives’ Value – if an IZ dwelling cannot be sold/rented during the second marketing period, then before the dwelling is made available as a market-rate dwelling, the developer shall pay to the City a cash amount equal to the value of incentives. (Assumes: (1) is a marketing period, (2) dwellings age out of IZ at end of marketing period)

2. How do the incentives provided to the developer of a lot get passed along to the homebuilder if the lot developer is not the homebuilder?

3. Add sections of IZ Policy to Ordinance?

4. Other items brought up by the public or plan commission members?
a. Alder Golden’s memo

If you know of additional issues that should be on this list, please feel free to contact me at brendakonkel@yahoo.com

$197,900 One Bedroom. Not IZ.

No Kidding. I was a little stunned when my boyfriend showed me an ad in the Isthmus for a $197,900 one bedroom condo downtown and the ad says "Income limits apply. Not IZ."

I'm not sure which program allows a $197,900 one bedroom and has income limits . . . but that program sure makes IZ look good. The most IZ would allow the person to pay for a one bedroom this quarter would be $130,038 and that is at 80% AMI and means that there couldn't be any condo fees. If there were condo fees they would need to lower the price so that the total monthly payment wouldn't be higher than what you would pay for a $130,038 home.

$193,900 one bedroom, definitely not IZ.