Attachment 7
Stakeholder and Community Outreach Meeting
Primary Feedback
November 2021 Workshop #1
Importance of including affordable units in market‐rate developments, to avoid clustering of affordable units in existing low‐income areas of the City. Some but not unanimous support for consideration of in‐lieu fee option, as it can result in more affordable units in the long‐run through funding leverage. Program should include option for land donation and/or collaboration with nonprofit builders for separate buildings to meet inclusionary requirements – would be relevant for larger projects.
Encouraging City to explore other tools for developing permanent/long‐term, affordable housing, including co‐ops and community land trusts, and other funding sources such as transient occupancy tax (TOT).
November 2021 Workshop #2
Desire for flexibility from City in negotiating on a project‐by‐project basis, to reflect that every project has unique cost factors.
Concern that feasibility models may underestimate development costs, in which case financial returns are overestimated and projects may be less able to absorb the cost of inclusionary requirements.
Interest in having incentives that reduce costs elsewhere in a project, although higher density allowances do not always improve project feasibility because construction costs can increase. Combined with other City policies that are adding costs to development, such as VMT reduction and electrification policies, the addition of inclusionary requirements can push many projects into infeasibility.
Better option to get affordability units is to support the building of 100% affordable housing projects on City‐owned land; alternately, City should share in cost of inclusionary requirements somehow.
January 12, 2022 Community Webinar
Overall support for an inclusionary housing policy
Preference to require units on‐site rather than allow in‐lieu fee; fee should be higher than cost of providing on‐site units to discourage the fee option. Questions about other means of encouraging development of affordable units, such as density bonuses (which the City and State do have)
Stated need for provision of affordable housing that serves special needs population.