SHIP - Affordable Housing Advisory Committee

City of Gainesville SHIP - Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Meeting AGENDA Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023, 6:00 p.m. Location: Historic Thomas Center, Building B 306 NE 6th Avenue Gainesville, FL Jamie Bell, Jackie Davis, Aymee Ginard- Cepeda, Mary Lou Hildreth, Saeed Khan, Members: Michael Raburn, Jennifer Rivers, Reina Saco, Fred Schilffarth, Belinda Smith, Octavia Washington If you have a disability and need an accommodation in order to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of Equity and Inclusion at (352) 334-5051 at least two business days in advance. TTY (Text Telephone Telecommunication Device) users please call 711 (Florida Relay Service). For Speech to Speech (STS) relay, please call 1-877-955-5334. For STS Spanish relay, please call 1- 877-955-8773. For STS French Creole relay, please call 1-877-955-8707.  Pages A. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Statement: The City of Gainesville encourages civil public speech. Disruptive behavior is not permitted during City Commission and Advisory Board meetings. Please do not bring food, drinks, props, signs, posters, or similar materials into the meeting room. B. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES D. BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEMS 2023-281 Inclusionary Zoning Recommendations (B) 3 Department: Housing and Community Development Description: The Committee will summarize the feedback from four inclusionary zoning focused public meetings. In addition, the Committee will formulate and discuss inclusionary zoning recommendations to the City Commission. Fiscal Note: N/A Recommendation: The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee discuss the feedback it received at the four Inclusionary Zoning Focused Public Meetings, and finalize its recommendations to the City Commission. E. PUBLIC COMMENT F. MEMBER COMMENT G. NEXT MEETING DATE H. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 27  City of Gainesville Agenda Item Report File Number: 2023-281 Agenda Date: April 18, 2023 Department: Housing & Community Development Title: 2023-281 Inclusionary Zoning Recommendations (B) Department: Housing and Community Development Description: The Committee will summarize the feedback from four inclusionary zoning focused public meetings. In addition, the Committee will formulate and discuss inclusionary zoning recommendations to the City Commission. Fiscal Note: N/A Explanation: In order to better address housing problems in the City, and in response to citizen requests that housing developers contribute to solving those problems, the City Commission is considering an inclusionary zoning ordinance. To facilitate community participation in that discussion, the City Commission asked the Committee to lead a community engagement effort regarding inclusionary zoning. In response to the City Commission’s request, the Committee led four community engagement meetings. At those meetings, the Committee discussed the definition of inclusionary zoning, how it works, what it can and cannot do, the City’s current regulations, the proposed regulations, and the experience of other places that have implemented some type of inclusionary zoning. Additionally, the Committee answered questions and received feedback from the public about the strengths and weaknesses of inclusionary zoning. At the Committee’s March 14th regular meeting, the Committee discussed the feedback it received at the four community engagement meetings, formulated preliminary recommendations to the City Commission, and agreed to hold a Special Meeting to finalize its recommendations to the City Commission. At the Committee’s April 18th special meeting, the Committee will discuss and finalize its recommendations to the City Commission. Page 3 of 27 Strategic Connection: ☒ Goal 1: Equitable Community ☐ Goal 2: More Sustainable Community ☒ Goal 3: A Great Place to Live and Experience ☐ Goal 4: Resilient Local Economy ☐ Goal 5: “Best in Class” Neighbor Services Recommendation: The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee discuss the feedback it received at the four Inclusionary Zoning Focused Public Meetings, and finalize its recommendations to the City Commission. Page 4 of 27  Summary of Inclusionary Zoning Feedback The City’s Department of Sustainable Development (DSD) provided the following summary of the current Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Proposal: 1. The City will require any new residential development that is providing ten (10) or more apartments, make some of those apartments cost less than the other apartments in the same building. 2. Even though the more affordable apartments will cost less to rent, the apartments will be the same as the ones that cost more and offer the same services that the more expensive apartments offer. 3. The more affordable apartments will also be reasonably disbursed throughout the new development so that the affordable apartments are not all located in one area. 4. The new more affordable apartments will be available to people whose income fall within a certain income percentage. In addition, DSD provided Case Study Sheets comparing the City’s IZ Proposal with current IZ requirements in Tallahassee, Orlando, and Atlanta. The following summarizes the comments that the City’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) received during the four (4) public meetings. 1. There was consensus that for IZ to be successful, the City and County must coordinate (i.e., the rules must be very similar in both jurisdictions). 2. Several people asked about the basis of the recommendation from the City’s consultant that the City’s IZ requirement mandate that 10% of all new multiple-family units must be affordable to households that earn up to 80% of the Gainesville Area Medium Income (AMI), in exchange for up to 30% more units. AHAC and DSD may want to discuss this (e.g., the consultant looked at project profitability, rental rates, development costs, and other market conditions). 3. One attendee asked, “Could this work for single-family and/or homeownership development?” Like with the previous question, AHAC may want to review the consultant’s analysis of project profitability, rental rates, development costs, and other market conditions, before formulating a recommendation. 4. There was some discussion about how many affordable units to require (e.g., 10% or 20%) and what level of affordability to require (e.g., up to 80% AMI or up to 60% AMI). AHAC may want to discuss the “Pros and Cons” of the options. 5. There was discussion about the length of the affordability period. The two most popular options appeared to be “99 years” and “the life of the building.” AHAC may want to discuss the “Pros and Cons” of the options. Page 5 of 27 6. There was consensus that the minimum IZ requirements should be mandatory, not voluntary. However, the AHAC could consider a tiered approach where a developer would have the option of voluntarily providing additional affordable units (i.e., more than 10%) and/or a higher level of affordability (e.g., up to 60% AMI instead of up to 80% AMI), in exchange for a larger density increase. 7. There was consensus to set a “high bar” for use of the In-Lieu Fee (i.e., the City should set specific written criteria, including requiring the developer requesting to use the In-Lieu Fee to provide an explanation of why the project would not work if the affordable units were built onsite). 8. There was consensus that if In-Lieu Fees were allowed, the ordinance should be very clear and specific about how the City could use those revenues. 9. There was consensus that In-Lieu Fees should be used to subsidize the development of rental properties only in West Gainesville or within a small radius of the new development, not in East Gainesville. 10. In contrast to #9 above, there may be support for using In-Lieu Fee revenue to acquire vacant lots for new affordable homeownership anywhere in the City. These lots could be donated to the City’s Community Land Trust (CLT) Partner or another affordable housing developer, perhaps with a deed restriction ensuring a long-term or perpetual affordability period. 11. Another potential use for In-Lieu Fee revenue is to supplement the City’s Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program which repairs deteriorating homes for income-qualified households. 12. At least one commenter noted that even the combined total budget of the City and the County was insufficient to provide enough affordable housing to meet the demand, and that the only way to begin to address the issue would be to involve the private sector through IZ requirements. Page 6 of 27  Summary of Inclusionary Zoning Feedback The City’s Department of Sustainable Development (DSD) provided the following summary of the current Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Proposal: 1. The City will require any new residential development that is providing ten (10) or more units in a multiple-family development, to make some of those apartments cost less than the other apartments in the same development. 2. Even though the more affordable apartments will cost less to rent, the apartments will be the same as the ones that cost more and offer the same services that the more expensive apartments offer. 3. The more affordable apartments will also be reasonably disbursed throughout the new development so that the affordable apartments are not all located in one area. 4. The new more affordable apartments will be available to people whose income fall within a certain income percentage. In addition, DSD provided Case Study Sheets comparing the City’s IZ Proposal with current IZ requirements in Tallahassee, Orlando, and Atlanta. The following summarizes the comments that the City’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) received during the four (4) public meetings. 1. There was consensus that for IZ to be successful, the City and County must coordinate (i.e., the rules must be very similar in both jurisdictions). 2. Several people asked about the basis of the recommendation from the City’s consultant that the City’s IZ requirement mandate that 10% of all new multiple-family units must be affordable to households that earn up to 80% of the Gainesville Area Medium Income (AMI), in exchange for a variety of incentives. AHAC and DSD may want to discuss this (e.g., the consultant looked at project profitability, rental rates, development costs, and other market conditions). 3. One attendee asked, “Could this work for single-family and/or homeownership development?” Like with the previous question, AHAC may want to review the consultant’s analysis of project profitability, rental rates, development costs, and other market conditions, before formulating a recommendation. 4. There was some discussion about how many affordable units to require (e.g., 10% or 20%) and what level of affordability to require (e.g., up to 80% AMI or up to 60% AMI). AHAC may want to discuss the “Pros and Cons” of the options. 5. There was discussion about the length of the affordability period. The two most popular options appeared to be “99 years” and “the life of the building.” Most participants agreed that if “the life of the building” is used, then it should be defined in the ordinance, perhaps by referencing the building code. AHAC may want to discuss the “Pros and Cons” of the options. Page 7 of 27 6. There was consensus that the minimum IZ requirements should be mandatory, not voluntary. However, the AHAC could consider a tiered approach where a developer would have the option of voluntarily providing additional affordable units (i.e., more than 10%) and/or a higher level of affordability (e.g., up to 60% AMI instead of up to 80% AMI), in exchange for a larger density increase. 7. There was consensus to set a “high bar” for use of the In-Lieu Fee (i.e., the City should set specific written criteria, including requiring the developer requesting to use the In-Lieu Fee to provide an explanation of why the project would not work if the affordable units were built onsite). 8. There was consensus that if In-Lieu Fees were allowed, the ordinance should be very clear and specific about how the City could use those revenues. 9. There was consensus that In-Lieu Fees should be used to subsidize the development of rental properties only in West Gainesville, not in East Gainesville. 10. There was consensus that In-Lieu Fees should be used to subsidize the development of rental properties only within a small radius of the new development. 11. In contrast to #9 above, there may be support for using In-Lieu Fee revenue to acquire vacant lots for new affordable homeownership anywhere in the City. These lots could be donated to the City’s Community Land Trust (CLT) Partner or another affordable housing developer, perhaps with a deed restriction ensuring a long-term or perpetual affordability period. 12. Another potential use for In-Lieu Fee revenue is to supplement the City’s Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program which repairs deteriorating homes for income-qualified households. 13. At least one commenter noted that even the combined total budget of the City and the County was insufficient to provide enough affordable housing to meet the demand, and that the only way to begin to address the issue would be to involve the private sector through IZ requirements. 14. Some participants encouraged the City to study ways to use IZ requirements to incentivize the production of housing for specifically defined special needs populations, including veterans, homeless, and survivors of domestic violence. Page 8 of 27 To deal with the rising cost of housing, the City of Gainesville is working on new regulations that would require new developments to provide housing that is more affordable. Here is how the City would like to propose Inclusionary Zoning: 1. The City will require any new residential development that is providing ten (10) or more apartments, make some of those apartments cost less than the other apartments in the same building. 2. Even though the more affordable apartments will cost less to rent, the apartments will be the same as the ones that cost more and offer the same services that the more expensive apartments offer. 3. The more affordable apartments will also be reasonably disbursed throughout the new development so that the affordable apartments are not all located in one area. 4. The new more affordable apartments will be available to people whose income fall within a certain income percentage. Page 9 of 27 Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Inclusionary Zoning Jamie Bell, Chair Page 10 of 27 Page 11 of 27 Page 12 of 27 Page 13 of 27  Require new multi-family developments to provide a 1 portion of units that cost less. Units that cost less will be the same as the units that cost 2 more Units that cost less will be distributed evenly throughout 3 the development Units that cost less will be available to people who fall 4 under a lower income bracket. Page 14 of 27 Page 15 of 27 Page 16 of 27 Page 17 of 27 Page 18 of 27 Thank You Page 19 of 27 Page 20 of 27 Page 21 of 27 Page 22 of 27 Page 23 of 27 Page 24 of 27 Page 25 of 27 Comparisons and Case Studies GAINESVILLE, FL – Population: 140,398 Multi-family zones Mandatory 10 units and above Rental occupancy 10% minimum Fee in lieu of Incentives include: - Additional Density (30%) - Flexibility in required buffers TALLAHASSEE, FL – Population: 197, 102 All portions of the community Voluntary 50 units and above Owner occupancy 10% minimum Fee in lieu of Incentives include: - Additional Density (25%) - Flexibility in Housing type within single family zones - Flexibility in setback requirements - Flexibility in required buffers - Reduced parking requirements - Expedited review - Open request possibility - Transportation Concurrency Exemption Link to code - https://library.municode.com/fl/tallahassee/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=LADECO_CH9SUSI PL_ARTVIINHO Page 26 of 27 ATLANTA, GA - Population: 496,461 Overlay District (WESTSIDE AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT) Mandatory 10 Units and above Rental Occupancy 10% of units for incomes ≤60% AMI, or 15% of units for incomes ≤80% AMI Fee in lieu of Incentives include: - Density bonus 15% (FAR) - Reduction in Minimum parking requirements - Priority Application Review - Elevated application status to “Major project meeting” Link to code - https://library.municode.com/ga/atlanta/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIICOORANDECO_PT16 ZO_CH37WEAFWOHOOVDI ORLANDO, FL - Population: 309,154 All portions of the community Voluntary 10 units and above Rental Occupancy 20% of units meeting low and very low income No fee in lieu of Incentives include: - Setback flexibility - Building type flexibility - Alternative development standards - Link to code - https://library.municode.com/fl/orlando/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIICICO_CH67AF HO_PT6ALDESTLOVELOINHOPR Page 27 of 27