Housing and Homelessness Committee
October 23, 2023

Planning Commission
Memorandum

Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 | Phone: (951) 826-5371 | RiversideCA.gov

November 10, 2022
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING : NOVEMBER 10 , 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8

DISCUSSION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a workshop to discuss Proposed Amendments to Title 19 that implement the Inclusionary Housing Policy as directed by the City Council Housing & Homelessness Committee.

BACKGROUND
On August 18, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the P roposed Amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) of the Riverside Municipal Code to implement an inclusionary housing program, update the Density Bonus Ordinance and consider clean- up items. Following discussion, the Planning Commission voted to bifurcate the item, continuing discussion of the Proposed Amendments related to inclusionary housing to a workshop (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to a proposed in-lieu fee component was specifically requested.

A workshop was requested and held on October 13, 2022 to focus on the relationship between the policy direction provided by the Housing & Homelessness Committee (HHC) and the Title 19 Proposed Amendments. Information on the proposed in-lieu fees was also presented to the Planning Commission.

Following the workshop on October 13, 2022, a public hearing was held on the Proposed Amendments and continued by the Planning Commission to the meeting of November 10, 2022 (Exhibit 2 ). Planning Commission requested additional information about the effect of inclusionary policies on local housing markets and housing production.

As a matter of information, staff requested a continuance of the public hearing as a separate item on the November 10 Planning Commission agenda.

Case Number PR-2021-001391 (Zoning Text Amendment)
Request Workshop – Proposed Amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) to implement the Inclusionary Housing Policy
Project Location Citywide
Wards All
Staff Planner
Matthew Taylor, Acting Principal Planner
[email protected]
951-826-5944

November 10, 2022

DISCUSSION
In recent years, the State of California has identified the shortage of housing, particularly affordable housing, as a legislative priority. A housing shortage negatively impacts the State's economic competitiveness, contributes to homelessness, and results in long commutes, increasing production of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and poor public health.

A household is considered able to afford its housing if its total housing -related expenses do not exceed 30-35% of its gross income. Affordable housing frequently refers to housing that is priced so that it does not exceed this threshold for households who earn at or below 80% of the A rea Median Income (AMI), which in Riverside is $87,400 (2022) for a family of four.

Given the existing housing conditions, on May 18, 2021, the City Council authorized hiring a consultant to explore the feasibility of implementing an inclusionary housing policy in the City of Riverside. Inclusionary housing policies typically require a portion of newly constructed residential units to be set aside, for sale or rent, to lower- or moderate - income households to increase the availability of affordable housing for all income levels.

Over the past year, City staff and the consultant prepared a study of the feasibility of implementing such a policy in Riverside, with input and direction from the City Council HHC. On May 23, 2022, the HHC reviewed a draft policy and feasibility analysis (Exhibit 3) and directed staff to develop an ordinance to imp lement the policy for Planning Commission and City Council consideration (Exhibit 4).

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
To facilitate the Planning Commission’s review of the Proposed Amendments, staff has summarized the policy direction provided by the HHC. Staff provided the Planning Commission with a summary of the Proposed Amendments (Exhibit 5). Staff also provided a summary of potential Planning Commission input that could be considered during the workshop.

INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS

1. Committee Direction
a. Adopt a blend of demand -based and nexus- based inclusionary requirements.
b. Establish specific requirements three different development types:
i. Low-density for-sale;
ii. High-density for-sale; and
iii. All rental projects.
c. Set income limits slightly lower than HUD limits to provide additional affordability.

2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
a. For-sale single-family: (up to 10.9 units/acre) – 5% affordable to Moderate- Income households (up to 110% area median income)

November 10, 2022
b. For-sale condo and townhome (10.9 -14.5 units/acre) – 10% affordable to Lower-Income households (up to 70% AMI)
c. All rental projects – 10% affordable to Lower-Income households (up to 70% AMI)

3. Planning Commission Input
The Planning Commission could consider and/or recommend:
a. Different percentage requirements (lower or higher); b. Different affordability levels or income limits, or a mixtu re of affordability levels and income limits within any or all project types; c. Different breakdown of project types or densities; and/or d. Different method for determining inclusionary requirement (for example, a set number of units based on project size, instead of a percentage).

EXEMPTIONS

1. Committee Direction
a. Exempt small development and individual single-family homes. b. Grandfather ongoing projects and future projects that already have financial expectations or commitments.

2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Requirements do not apply to:
a. Projects of fewer than three units;
b. Properties destroyed and reconstructed due to disaster; c. Additions and alterations; and
d. Projects that have submitted an application for processing by effective date of Ordinance.

3. Planning Commission Input
The Planning Commission could consider and/or recommend:
a. Different applicability or exemption criteria (e.g., number of units, size of site, etc.).
b. Phased implementation of inclusionary requirements (for example, by project type or size).
c. Graduated implementation of inclusionary requirements (i.e., proportion of required inclusionary units increases with time).
d. Other exemptions not listed.

AFFORDABILITY TERMS

1. Committee Direction
a. Ensure long-term availability of affordable units.

November 10, 2022
b. Leverage City/Housing Authority assets to maximize affordable housing stock.
c. Ensure that capital gains from increased values are recaptured from resale of inclusionary units.

2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
a. Duration of affordability:
i. For-sale units – 45 years.
ii. Rental units – 55 years.
iii. Enforced through deed restriction recorded on title. b. Resale of for-sale inclusionary units:
i. May be sold to owner-occupants only, with annual recertification. ii. Must be sold to income-qualified households; or
iii. If sold to a non-income qualified household, a portion of the equity proceeds must be reimbursed to the Affordable Housing Fund (equity share requirement decreases over time).

3. Planning Commission Input
The Planning Commission could consider and/or recommend:
a. Different minimum affordability terms (length of time, applicable project types, etc.).
b. Different resale restrictions, or no resale restrictions.

UNIT CHARACTERISTICS

1. Committee Direction
a. Promote a diverse mix of affordable units of all types and sizes. b. Ensure equity in the provision of amenities, finishes and fixtures. c. Create some allowance for flexibility in size and appointment in view of cost constraints.

2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
a. Units must be distributed throughout the project.
b. Mix of units (beds, baths) must be similar to market-rate units. c. Similar finishes, fixtures and appliances to market-rate units. d. Equal access to amenities and common areas.
e. Floor plans can be up to 10% smaller than average market-rate units.

3. Planning Commission Input
The Planning Commission could consider and/or recommend:

November 10, 2022
a. Larger or smaller allowance for unit size differentiation between inclusionary and market-rate units.
b. Allowing substitution of unit mix (e.g., three one-bedroom inclusionary units for every three-bedroom market-rate unit, or similar).
c. Substantial differentiation in unit sizes, characteristics and appointments is not recommended and may violate State or Federal fair housing law.

OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS

1. Committee Direction
a. Allow inclusionary requirements to be met off-site.
b. Avoid creating an over -concentration of affordable units in a particular area.
c. Require a greater proportion of affordable units for off -site than on -site to encourage the construction of on-site units.

2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
a. Off-site units subject to higher inclusionary requirements (8% single family and 15% condo/townhome and rental).
b. Off-site project must be in the same Council ward as the primary project. c. To avoid overconcentration, maximum 100 affordable housing units within 500 feet, and maximum 400 units within 1,500 feet.
d. Unit sizes, types, fixtures, finishes and appliances must be roughly equivalent to primary project.

3. Planning Commission Input
The Planning Commission could consider and/or recommend:
a. Higher or lower percentage inclusionary requirement for off -site units, for any or all project types.
b. Different overconcentration protections (e.g., distances, number of units, or other criteria as desired).
c. Disallow off-site units altogether.

IN-LIEU FEE OPTION

1. Committee Direction
a. Allow inclusionary requirements to be met with in-lieu fee payment. b. Set in-lieu fees at higher percentage to encourage construction of on-site units.

2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
a. All or a portion of inclusionary requirement may be satisfied by payment of in-lieu fee.

November 10, 2022
b. In-lieu fees are equivalent to the same higher percentage inclusionary requirement as off -site units (8% single -family and 15% condo/townhome and rental projects).
c. Fees due at issuance of first building permit.
d. All fees collected to be deposited in an Inclusionary Housing Fund managed by the Housing Authority and used to fund affordable housing construction, acquisition and preservation.

3. Planning Commission Input
The Planning Commission could consider and/or recommend (please note that fee amounts may only be set by resolution of the City Council):
a. Higher or lower equivalent percentage inclusionary requirement on which fees are based, for any or all project types.
b. Allow deferral of fee payments to final occupancy, rather than building permit issuance, or some other point in time.
c. Disallow the in-lieu fee option altogether.

LITERATURE REVIEW
In response to the Planning Commission’s comments at the October 13, 2022 w orkshop, staff conducte d a review of academic literature and reports from advocacy organizations on both sides of the issue on the topic inclusionary housing requirements and their impact on housing markets and housing production. A summary of the literature reviewed is included as Exhibit 6.

The literature surveyed provides both the positive and negative effects on housing, but there is no definitive position on its effectiveness. There are numerous variables that impact housing production. Any inclusionary housing policy canno t by itself be the determining factor when assessing housing production and impacts.

The National Housing Conference’s Center for Housing Policy published a 2016 white paper (Exhibit 7 ) that summarizes several evaluation studies and distills their key conclusions related to the effects of inclusionary housing policies on housing supply and prices. The following table is excerpted from the white paper and is presented for context:

(Please note that the National Housing Conference is an independent non-profit organization representing affordable housing developers and advocates.)

November 10, 2022

PRODUCTION DATA
In response to the Commission’s request at the October 13, 2022 workshop, the following table summarizes the annual housing production figures (permits issued) of s elected Southern California cities with adopted inclusionary housing policies as reported in those cities’ Annual Progress Reports (APRs) to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. APRs are self -reported by cities and are only available from 2018 on. Please note that inclusionary policies are just one factor that potentially drives housing production in any given period of time.

Community Program
Adopted
2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Market Inclusionary Market Inclusionary Market Inclusionary Market Inclusionary Market Inclusionary Calimesa 2012 86 0 286 0 342 0 93 1 807 1
Fontana 2005 413 0 835 0 No Data 1122 60 2370 60
Highland 2006 17 0 3 2 5 4 17 233 42 239
Irvine 2007 3455 0 2725 279 1963 22 2281 53 10424 354
Montclair 2005 221 0 No Data 11 0 24 0 256 0
Pomona 2021 240 0 144 61 531 3 455 56 1370 120
San Luis
Obispo 2004 220 74 523 14 415 50 464 146 1622 284
Santa Ana 2015 769 577 538 163 863 609 662 330 2832 1679

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Inclusionary Housing workshop aligns with Strategic Priority No. 2 – Community Well- Being. The workshop aligns with Goal 2.1 – Facilitate the development of a quality and diverse housing supply that is available and affordable to a wide range of income levels.

The workshop also aligns with Strategic Priority No. 5 – High Performing Government and Goal 5.3 Enhance communication and collaboration with community members to improve transparency, build public trust, and encourage shared decision-making.

In addition, the project aligns with the five Cross-Cutting Threads as follows:

1. Community Trust – The workshop allows for community input into the Title 19 Proposed Amendments that implement the policy direction from the HHC.

2. Equity – The workshop allows residents to understand the policy direction from the HHC and provisions for affordable housing.

3. Fiscal Responsibility – The workshop provides ways that the City and developers can work together to create new affordable housing.

4. Innovation – The workshop incorporates a summary of latest best practices for streamlining and promoting housing development and promote equitable communities.

5. Sustainability & Resiliency – The workshop identifies ways that the Code changes will promote infill development that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled, as well as providing an alternative to greenfield sprawl development.

November 10, 2022

EXHIBITS LIST

1. Planning Commission Minutes – August 18, 2022

2. Planning Commission Minutes – October 13, 2022

3. Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Analysis – February 28, 2022

4. Summary of Direction from Committee

5. Proposed Amendments – Title 19 (Zoning Code)

6. Literature Review Summary

7. Center for Housing Policy White Paper

Prepared by: Matthew Taylor, Acting Principal Planner
Approved by: Mary Kopaskie-Brown, City Planner

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON
/TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET
APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes – August 18, 2022 1

COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: R. Kirby, L. Mooney , J. Parker, T. Ridgway, J. Rush, R. Singh, J. Wilder ABSENT: C. Roberts
(partial meeting)
STAFF: M. Kopaskie-Brown, M. Taylor, M. Da
vis, A. Beaumon, P. Nitollama, C. Scully,
F. Andrade
Chair Kirby called th
e meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved as presented below affirming the actions appropriate to each item.

MINUTES
The minutes of the June 23, 2022 and July 14, 2022, were approved as presented.

PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
The Commission excused the absence of Commissioner Parker (vacation) and Commissioner Ridgway (business) from the meeting of July 14, 2022.

Motion made by Commissioner Rush and Seconded by Commissioner Ridgway, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.

Motion Carried: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Kirby, Mooney, Parker, Ri dgway, Rush, Singh, Wilder NOES: None
ABSENT: Roberts
ABSTENTION: None
Workshop - Exhibit 1 - Planning Commission Minutes - August 18, 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes – August 18, 2022 2

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PLANNING CASE PR-2022-001391 – AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 (ZONING) – WARDS ALL Proposal by City of Riverside to consider amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) of the Riverside Municipal Code, including but not limited to Articles VII (Specific Land Use Provisions), VII (Specific Land Use Provisions). VIII (Site Planning and General Development Provisions), IX (Land Use Development Permit Requirements an d Procedures) and X (Definitions of Title

19. The proposed amendments are intended to:
1) Establish Chapter 19.535 (Inclusionary Housing) to implement General Plan policies to facilitate the production of housing affordable to very low-, low- and moderate- income households in new residential development projects; 2) Repeal and replace Chapter 19.545 (Densit y Bonus) to clarify and streamline existing provisions and align the City’s Density Bonus program with recently adopted State law; and
3) Complete clean-up items for Title 19 to: a) Clarify setback requirements and permit exemptions for on-sale of alcoholic beve rages associated with bona fide full- service public eating places; b) Adjust a llowances for the provision of off-site, off- street vehicle parking for certain land uses ; and c) Revise the required findings of fact for the granting of Fair Housing Requests for Reasonable Accommodation to comply with State law and affirmatively further fair housing.

Matthew Taylor, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that comment letters were received after publication of the report and were distributed to the Commission this morning. Public Comment: Commissioner Roberts announced she was on-line and listening to the discussion. Ms. Kopaskie-Brown stated that a link would be sent to her to join the meeting directly. Rose Mayes, Executive Director Fair Housing Council; Maribel Nunez, Inland Equity Partnership; Juanita Cadera, Fair Housing Council; Corinne Parker; Elizabeth Ayala; Damien O’Fa rrel, CEO Parkview Legacy Foundation; Beverly Arias; Gabriella Mendez; and Kayla Booker spoke in support of Inclusionary Housing. Andre Sururti; Andrew Sall, Grea ter Riverside Chambers of Commerce; Jason Hunter; Lou Monville, Building Industry Association; Andrew Walcker expressed their concerns regarding the Inclusionary Housing policy and ordinance. The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Roberts joined the meeting virtually.

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes – August 18, 2022 3 Following discussion it was moved by Chair Kirby to recommend that the City Council: 1) Determine that Planning Case PR-2022-001391 is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule), as it can be seen with certai nty that approval of the projec t will not have an effect on the environment; and 2) Approve PR-2022-001391 (Zoning Text Amendment), with the omission of the Inclusionary Housing port ion (Chapter 19.535) based on the findings outlined in the staff report. He asked that Chapter 19.535 be returned to the Committee for further definition.

Motion failed due to lack of second.

Commissioner Roberts disconnected from the meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Ridgway to recommend that the City Council: 1) Determine that Planning Case PR-2022-001391 is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Sectio n 15061(b)(3) (General Ru le), as it can be seen with certainty that approval of the project will not have an effect on the environment; and 2) Approve PR-2022-001391 (Zoning Text Amendment), with the omission of the Inclusionary Housing port ion (Chapter19.535) based on the findings outlined in the staff report. He asked that Chapter 19.535 go back to staff for publication of fee schedule, reevaluate Section 8 for insertion and promotion of that opportunity, and suggested a shareholder meeting or wo rkshop prior to adoption of the final ordinance.

Anthony Beaumon, Deputy City Attorney, asked for clarification of the “publication” of in lieu fees.

Commissioner Ridgway stated that instead of publication, a recommendation of the actual fee.

Ms. Kopaskie-Brown clarified that the motion was to move on with items 2 and 3 and to continue item 1. She suggested a Planning Commission workshop at the next available meeting to go over the policy direction from the City Council Housing and Homeless Committee.

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

APPROVED Planning Commission Minutes – August 18, 2022 4 Commissioner Ridgway reiterated that the motion was to approve items 2 and 3; continue item 1 and request a Planning Commission workshop to further understand and explore that policy/ordinance.

The motion was Seconded by Chair Kirby.

Motion Carried: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Kirby, Mooney, Parker, Ri dgway, Rush, Singh, Wilder NOES: None
ABSENT: Roberts
ABSTENTION: None

Chair Kirby advised of the 10-day appeal period.

A City Council public hearing is required for final approval.

COMMUNICATIONS

ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS AND UPDATE FROM CITY PLANNER

Ms. Kopaskie-Brown updated the Commission on upcoming items for the September 1, 2022 meeting. She indicated that the inclusionary housing workshop could be held on September 29. A few of the commissioners indicated they would be unable to attend the September 29
th meeting and agreed to moving this to the October 13, 2022 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:54 a.m. to the meeting of September 1, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

The above actions were taken by the City Planni ng Commission on September 1, 2022. There is now a 10-day appeal period that ends on August 29, 2022. During this time, any interested person may appeal this action to the City Council by submitting a letter of appeal and paying the appeal fee. In the absence of an appeal or re ferral, the Commission’s decisions and conditions become final after 5:00 p.m. on August 29, 2022.

Minutes approved as presented at the September 1, 2022 meeting.

PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT MINUTES

THURSDAY, October 13, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes – October 13, 2022 1

COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: R. Kirby, L. Mooney , J. Parker, T. Ridgway, J. Rush, R. Singh, J. Wilder

ABSENT: C. Roberts

STAFF: M. Kopaskie-Brown, B. Norton, M. Taylor, A. Beaumon, M. Davis, C. Scully, P.

Nitollama, F. Andrade

Chair Kirby called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

There were no comments from the audience.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar was unanimously approved as presented below affirming the actions appropriate to each item.

MINUTES
The minutes of the September 29, 2022, meeting were approved as presented.

PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
The Commission excused the September 29, 2022 absence of Commissioner Parker due to vacation, Commissioner Kirby due to illness and the late arrival of Commissioner Wilder.

Motion made by Commissioner Rush, Seconded by Commissioner Wilder, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.

Motion Carried: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Kirby, Mooney, Parker, Ri dgway, Rush, Singh, Wilder NOES: None
ABSENT: Roberts
ABSTENTION: None

PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT MINUTES

THURSDAY, October 13, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes – October 13, 2022 2

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PLANNING CASE PR-2020-000190 – TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DE SIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE – 8390 JANET AVENUE, WARD 6
Regine Osorio, Associate Planner, announce d that the applicant is requesting a continuance to November 10, 2022. It was moved by Commissioner Parker and seconded by Commissioner Mooney: To Continue Planning Case PR-2020-000190 to the meeting of November 10, 2022 as requested by the applicant.

Motion Carried: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Kirby, Mooney, Parker, Ri dgway, Rush, Singh, Wilder NOES: None
ABSENT: Roberts
ABSTENTION: None

PLANNING CASE PR-2021-001180 – STREET VA CATION AND STREET NAME CHANGE - SPENCER COURT, WARD 4
Proposal by Shahvand Aryana of Spencer Ct. W2, LLC to consider the following entitlements: 1) Street Vacation to vacate Sp encer Court, a public street consisting of

0.84-acres, approximately 500 feet in length and 60 feet in width; and 2) Street Name Change of Spencer Court from “Spencer Court” to “Aryana View Court”. Alyssa Berlino, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She read into the record a revision to condition 2: 2a. The CC&Rs shall also require vehicular and pedestrian access to residents and emergency vehicles , in perpetuity. Mitch Adkiso n, Adkan Engineers, representing Shahvand Aryana, applicant, stated they were in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. There were no public comments, the public hearing was closed.

Following discussion it was moved by Commissioner Rush and seconded by Commissioner Parker to recommend that the City Council: 1) Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A) review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense) of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and 2) Approve Pla nning Case PR-2021-001180 (Street Vacation and Street Name Change), based on the findings outlined in the staff report and subject to the recommended conditions, including the revision to Condition 2 read into the record.

Chair Kirby advised of the appeal period.

PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT MINUTES

THURSDAY, October 13, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes – October 13, 2022 3

A City Council public hearing is required for final approval.

Motion Carried: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent, 0 Abstention AYES: Kirby, Mooney, Parker, Ri dgway, Rush, Singh, Wilder NOES: None
ABSENT: Roberts,
ABSTENTION: None

WORKSHOP

PLANNING CASE PR-2022-001391 (AMD): WORKSH OP – Draft amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) of the Riverside Municipal Code intended to implement an Inclusionary Housing Program at the recommendation of the City Council Housing and Homeless Committee, as requested by the Planning Commission at the public hearing of August 18, 2022.

Matthew Taylor, Acting Prin cipal Planner, presented the workshop on Inclusionary Housing Program. He noted that comment letters were received and have been submitted to the Commission.

Public Comment:

Norma Barle, LULAC of Riverside; Joanna S ilva;; Rose Mayes, Executive Director Fair Housing Council; Tiffany Kinslow; Elizabeth Ayala spoke in support.

Alex Grey, representing a developer; Jaso n Hunter; Annie; Diana Gazzolo; Pam Nusser spoke in opposition.

Andrew Walcker, Overland Development and Nick Adcock, Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce expressed their concern that additional review was needed.

Anthony Beaumon, Sr. Deputy City Attorney , noted that many of the comments made had to do with policy. The Planning Commissio n is not to consider the overall wisdom of the ordinance but more specifically to Title 19 and how it will be amended, not why it is amended. The Planning Commission is not looking at the bigger social issues, it is limited to the Zoning Code Title 19. The overall larger policy issue is for the City Council.

Following discussion, there was no formal action taken by the Planning Commission.

PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT MINUTES

THURSDAY, October 13, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes – October 13, 2022 4

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PLANNING CASE PR-2022-001391 – AMENDMENT TITLE 19 (ZONING) - CITYWIDE Proposal by City of Riverside to consider amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) of the Riverside Municipal Code, including but not limited to Articles VII (Specific Land Use Provisions) and X (Definitions) to establish Chapter 19.535 (Inclusionary Housing) to implement City Council Housing & Homelessness Committee di rection to facilitate the production of housing affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income households in new residential development projects. Matthew Taylor, Acting Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that letters of concern were received and distributed to the Commission.

Public Comments: Jason Hunter stated that the Commission can make recommendations to policy.

Ms. Kopaskie-Brown stated that in order for staff to provide the Commission with responses, they need to know what additional information is being requested.

The Commission requested additional information:
 What is the effect on the housing markets in other jurisdictions?  Staff suggested also presenting the inclusio nary requirements of those jurisdictions as well.
 Mr. Taylor indicated of the current residential development projects in process, the percentage of affordable housing is 27%.
 Commission requested the percentage over previous years.  Can the previous information be separated by rental vs. purchase for those housing units?

Following discussion, Commissioner Wilder motioned to continue Planning Case PR-2022- 001391 to the meeting of November 10, 2022. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Parker.

Motion Carried: 6 Ayes, 1 No, 0 Absent, 0 Abstention
AYES: Kirby, Mooney, Parker, Rush, Singh, Wilder
NOES: Ridgway
ABSENT: Roberts
ABSTENTION: None

PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT MINUTES

THURSDAY, October 13, 2022, 9:00 A.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON /TELEPHONE

ART PICK COUNCIL CHAMBER
3900 MAIN STREET

DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes – October 13, 2022 5

COMMUNICATIONS

ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS AND UPDATE FROM CITY PLANNER

Ms. Kopaskie-Brown updated the Commission on upcoming items for future meetings.

Staff noted that there will be a meeting on Wednesday November 23, 2022, the day before Thanksgiving, and wanted to verify that there would be a quorum present. It was the consensus of the Commission that ther e would be a quorum for the meeting of November 23, 2022.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. to the meeting of October 27, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

The above actions were taken by the City Planning Commission on October 13, 2022. There is now a 10-day appeal period that ends on October 24, 2022. During this time, any interested person may appeal this action to the City Council by submitting a letter of appeal and paying the appeal fee. In the absence of an appeal or referral, the Commission’s decisions and conditions become final after 5:00 p.m. on October 24, 2022.

Inclusionary Housing Literature Review
1) Mukhija, V., Regus, L., Slovin, S. and Das, A. (2010). Can Inclusionary Zoning Be An Effective And Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence From Los Angeles and Orange. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32: 229-252. [LINK TO DOCUMENT]
a. Analysis:
i. Evaluated the experience of inclusionary zoning programs in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, including their structure and elements, effectiveness in delivering affordable housing, and effect on housing markets and supply.
b. Key takeaways:
i. In-lieu fees, if they are set too low or if they are inappropriately and irregularly revised to match market appreciations and cost escalations, can be the weak link in inclusionary zoning programs.
ii. Critics underestimate the affordable housing productivity of inclusionary zoning, and overestimate its adverse effects on housing supply.
c. Findings:
i. Of the existing inclusionary zoning programs in Los Angeles and Orange Counties they have successfully, albeit modestly, added to their affordable housing stock. (This paper predates the establishment of the Transit Oriented Communities
Program, its associated inclusionary requirements and bonus and incentive structure in Los Angeles.)
ii. Found no statistically significant evidence supporting the purported negative effects of inclusionary zoning on housing supply.
iii. Analysis indicates that voluntary programs are less likely to be effective in delivering affordable housing. The authors recommend mandatory programs.
iv. Low in-lieu fees hurt inclusionary programs and reduce their effectiveness. Recommend that in-lieu fees be set close to the cost of construction of a housing unit, or the cost of keeping a market-rate unit affordable and be updated
consistently.

2) Rosen, D. (2004). Inclusionary Housing and its Impact on Housing and Land Markets. NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review, Vol.3. Iss.1 [LINK TO DOCUMENT]
a. Analysis:

Inclusionary Housing Literature Review
i. Compiled data over a 20-year period using several cities in CA.
ii. Examined annual new construction residential building permits for 28 cities with and without IHO located in LA, Orange, SD, SF and Sacramento counties.
b. Key Takeaway:
i. Writes that external factors outside of the inclusionary program may affect the production of housing.

Unemployment rates could have affected the production.
c. Findings:
i. Of the jurisdictions surveyed with an inclusionary housing program, they are not associated with a negative effect on housing production. In the cities of San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento, housing production increased dramatically after the passage of an inclusionary housing ordinance, although there is no evidence of a causal link.
ii. There is an inverse relationship between unemployment rate and housing production. As unemployment increases,
housing production decreases.
iii. If development costs increase, land buyers and sellers may be reluctant to make a sale/purchase, and land prices will react accordingly.

3) Sturtevant, A. L. (2016). Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs. Center for Housing Policy. [LINK TO DOCUMENT]
a. Analysis
i. Thematic research review examining literature to determine effects of IZ (inclusionary zoning) and identifies the factors associated with successful inclusionary housing programs. b. Findings:
i. Literature on IZ is inconclusive and varies in terms of research approaches because market and housing conditions vary
from place to place. Posits that local economic and housing market conditions are a greater indicator at determining if IZ will be successful.
ii. Housing Production

1. IZ programs can produce affordable housing and don’t lead to an overall decline in housing production or
increase in housing prices.

Inclusionary Housing Literature Review

2. IZ programs do produce lower income housing but it’s hard to determine which affordable housing units were
produced as a result of the inclusionary housing rather than other compliance options such as in-lieu fees.

3. It’s estimated that as of 2010, there have been
between 129,000-150,000 affordable housing units
produced nationally as a result of IZ programs.

4. Variability across jurisdictions isn’t accounted for in research but affordable housing units are produced.
iii. Effect on Market

1. The effects of IZ programs are mixed in terms of the effects that the inclusionary housing program has on
the overall supply of housing and market prices.

2. Generally, there is modest to no impact on housing
supply on housing prices.

3. When inclusionary housing programs are weak, they
tend to increase the rental prices in the jurisdictions examined.

4. Cities in CA which had inclusionary programs didn’t
experience a significant reduction in single-family
housing production but multi-family production
increased significantly in cities with IZ programs
compared to those without. Single family home prices
went up 2.2% whereas in higher markets the prices
increased up to 5%.

4) Powell, B., & Stringham, P. E. (April 2004). Housing Supply and Affordability:

Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Reason Foundation Policy. 318: 1- 45, Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute. [LINK TO DOCUMENT] a. Analysis
i. To determine how production of housing was affected by IZ policy, Powell et al. examined Construction Industry Research Board yearly housing permit data for single and multifamily dwellings to determine the average construction of housing pre and post adoption of an IHO.
ii. 45 cities in included in the sample.
b. Findings
i. Housing production
Inclusionary Housing Literature Review

1. Found that IZ (inclusionary zoning) not only increased housing prices, but there was also a decrease in
housing production.

2. Based on the 45 cities examined, production fell by 31% the year after an IHO was adopted. Of the 45 cities
examined, the year prior to an IHO there were 9,618
units produced which fell to 6,636 units following the
IHO.
ii. Effect on the market

1. Landowners and market rate buyers will subsidize the cost of the units which will make housing less affordable and will decreased overall supply.
5) Powell, B. & Stringham, P. E. (June 2004). Housing Supply and Affordability:

Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Reason Foundation Policy. 320: 1- 26 [LINK TO DOCUMENT]

a. Analysis:
i. Cities evaluated in the study

1. Agoura Hills, Brea, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Long Beach, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rancho
Palos Verdes, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano,
Santa Monica and West Hollywood.
b. Findings:
i. Unit production

1. Found that of the 13 LA and OC cities which have an
IHO, they produced 6,379 with 70% of the units being
produced in Irvine in part due to a lawsuit requiring that they produce affordable housing units.

2. The average jurisdiction with inclusionary zoning
produces only 34 inclusionary units each year since
adoption of its inclusionary zoning requirement.
ii. Effect on market

1. Articulates that IZ affects the market-rate housing by making it more expensive and that the cost of IZ will be borne by a combination of market-rate homebuyers,
who will in part be subsidizing the affordable units;
landowners, who will be limited at what they can sell
their land/property at; and builders, who will lose out on profit from the affordable units.

Inclusionary Housing Literature Review

2. Found that new housing drastically decreased the year after cities adopted IHO. For the 13 years evaluated
within, the average production of housing fell the year following the adoption of IHO. Posits that IZ drives away builders because they will develop in cities that do not have IZ.
iii. Price controls on new development lower assessed tax values, thereby costing state and local governments lost tax revenue each year.

6) Schuetz, J. & Meltzer, R., & Been, V. (2009). 31 Flavors of Inclusionary Zoning: Comparing Policies From San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Suburban Boston. Journal of The American Planning Association. 75: 441- 456. 10.1080/01944360903146806. [LINK TO DOCUMENT]
a. Analysis
i. Examined the prevalence, structure, applicability, and affordable housing production of IZ programs in San
Francisco and Washington, D.C., metropolitan areas and the Boston-area suburbs.

1. Articulates differences between the differences across the programs to determine market effects on housing
production and areas of improvement.
b. Findings
i. In the San Francisco region, they found that there were no impacts on housing production or prices after
implementation of IHO. Between the years 1980 through 2006, the San Francisco region produced over 400,000 building permits, 2.3% of which were affordable units created by the IHO.
ii. Within the Boston area, they found a decline of 10% in new housing production and a modest increase of 1.4% in housing prices.
iii. Found no relationship between the program design and outcomes except for those programs which have been
implemented for a longer period of time.

Inclusionary Housing A Series of Research & Policy Briefs Separating Fact from Fiction to Design
Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs
By Lisa A. Sturtevant, Ph.D.

May 2016
Inclusionary housing programs generally refer to city and county planning ordinances that require or incentivize developers to build below-market-rate homes (affordable homes) as part of the process of developing market-rate housing developments. More than 500 local jurisdictions in the United States have implemented inclusionary housing policies,1 and inclusionary requirements have been adopted in a wide variety of places—big cities, suburban communities and small towns.

Despite the proliferation of inclusionary housing programs, the approach continues to draw criticism. There have been legal challenges around inclusionary housing requirements in California, Illinois, Idaho, Colorado and Wisconsin, among others.
2 In addition to legal questions, critics have claimed
inclusionary housing policies are not effective at producing affordable housing and have negative impacts on local
housing markets.

While there have been numerous studies on inclusionary
housing, they unfortunately do not provide conclusive
evidence about the overall effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs. These studies vary substantially
in terms of their research approaches and quality. In
addition, it is difficult to generalize the findings from the existing research because researchers have examined
policies in only a handful of places and at particular points in time when economic and housing market conditions
might have been quite different. Given these limitations, however , the most highly regarded empirical evidence
suggests that inclusionary housing programs
can produce affordable housing and do not lead to
significant declines in overall housing production
or to increases in market-rate prices. However , the
effectiveness of an inclusionary housing program
depends critically on local economic and housing market characteristics, as well as specific elements of the
program’s design and implementation.

THE CENTER FOR HOUSING POLICY IS THE RESEARCH DIVISION OF THE Adam Fagen/Creative Commons (https://www.flickr .com/photos/afagen)

Evaluating Inclusionary Housing Programs
Inclusionary housing policies (often referred to
as inclusionary zoning policies) link market-rate
development to the production of housing affordable to
lower-income households. These policies either require
that a certain percentage of new units be set aside as
affordable or offer development incentives that are
only available when affordable units are included as
part of the project. The primary goals of inclusionary
housing programs are to increase the overall supply
of affordable housing and to promote economic and
social integration.
3 Inclusionary housing policies
are becoming an increasingly common local tool for
expanding housing options and can now be found in 27
states and Washington, DC.
4 Long-standing programs
in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County,
Virginia, have produced thousands of affordable housing units and continue to evolve to respond to changing
local economic conditions.
5 Programs in California
weathered legal challenges as well as bumpy economic
conditions and continue to be an important tool for
affordable housing production.
6 And in the past few
years, cities and towns across the country have adopted new inclusionary housing policies
7 or are working to
expand or modify existing programs.8
Criticisms of inclusionary housing programs generally
center around two arguments: 1) inclusionary housing
programs do not produce much or any affordable housing, and 2) inclusionary housing programs have a negative
impact on the overall housing market by depressing
supply and pushing up market prices. There have been
numerous research studies analyzing inclusionary
housing programs, and the results from some of this
research are often used to bolster the arguments of
critics. Some studies have reviewed the economic
theory underpinning the criticisms of inclusionary
housing requirements. Others are descriptive studies
based on program data or reports that are derived from
interviews with local policymakers and developers. The
best evaluations use a research design that 1) compares outcomes in localities with inclusionary housing programs to similar localities without inclusionary requirements, and 2) accounts for other factors that could influence
housing market outcomes. These types of studies can be
difficult to do, but they provide the strongest empirical evidence of the impacts and effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs.

Even with good empirical studies, it can be difficult
to make generalizations about inclusionary housing
programs because they vary so much from place to
place. The specific characteristics of the policies depend on local economic and housing market conditions,
as well as on state and local regulatory and political
frameworks. Some inclusionary housing requirements
are mandatory, while others are voluntary. Inclusionary housing policies can apply jurisdiction-wide or only in a particular area. In some cases, there are exceptions
to the affordable housing requirements—for example,
small projects with the number of units below a certain threshold may be exempted from the inclusionary
mandate. Some localities offer a buyout option, allowing developers to pay an in-lieu fee to an affordable housing fund instead of providing affordable units as part of the new project. And jurisdictions often offer cost offsets or increased density to incentivize developers to include
affordable housing. The diversity of inclusionary
housing programs has made it difficult to synthesize
what we know about the effectiveness and impacts of
these policies.

This research brief responds to the main criticisms
of inclusionary housing programs, reviewing what is
known from the research on the effectiveness and
impacts of inclusionary housing programs. This report
also highlights what the research shows about the
relationship between impacts and program design and
local market conditions.

Inclusionary housing policies are becoming an increasingly common local tool for expanding housing options
and can now be found in 27 states and Washington, DC.
2 Do Inclusionary Housing Programs Produce
Homes Affordable to Lower-Income Households?
Y es, with some caveats. In some places affordable
housing production totals are relatively small, suggesting that an inclusionary housing policy should be considered one component of a comprehensive affordable housing
strategy. Furthermore, the effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs also depends critically on the nature
of the local housing market and how the program is
designed.

Because local jurisdictions are not required to track the number of units produced through their inclusionary
housing programs, it is challenging to get a complete picture of how many total inclusionary units have been produced.

In addition, many inclusionary housing programs have
alternative compliance options. These include in-lieu fees, which are often combined with other affordable housing
resources, making it nearly impossible to identify units resulting from an inclusionary housing program. The best estimate available is that, as of 2010, inclusionary housing policies nationally have produced between 129,000 and
150,000 affordable units.
9 Historically, production has
been driven inclusionary housing programs in California and the Washington, DC region, particularly Montgomery
County, Maryland.

Two studies have suggested that inclusionary housing
programs in California have produced at least 29,000
affordable units. In 2009, the California Coalition for Rural Housing published an online database of 145
local inclusionary housing programs in California, which included a wealth of program information including
production totals for those jurisdictions.
10 Using that
database and other sources, researchers estimated that
the local inclusionary housing programs in California
altogether produced about 29,000 affordable housing
units between January 1999 and June 2006.
11 The Non-
Profit Housing Association of Northern California also
examined inclusionary housing programs in California,
and estimated that by 2007 these programs had
resulted in the development of 29,281 units, including
nearly 5,000 units developed as a result of in-lieu
contributions.
12 There are also several regional studies of inclusionary housing programs. In a 2008 study, Jenny Schuetz,
Rachel Meltzer and Vicki Been examined inclusionary
housing programs in the San Francisco region, identifying 55 jurisdictions with inclusionary housing programs and finding that a total of 9,154 inclusionary units had been built under these programs from the 1970s to the early
2000s.
13 Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham estimated
in 2004 that the inclusionary housing programs in 13 cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties led to the production of 6,379 units over the lifetimes of the programs.
14 Istock
3 Jenny Schuetz and her fellow researchers
also examined programs in the Washington,
DC and Boston regions. In five counties
in the Washington, DC metropolitan area
with inclusionary housing programs, an
estimated 15,252 inclusionary housing
units had been built between the years the
various programs were implemented and
2008. Montgomery County, Maryland, was
the most productive—and long-standing—
program in the region and the nation
with more than 13,000 units produced.

The situation was different in the Boston
metropolitan area, where there were
99 cities and towns with inclusionary
housing programs. As of 2008, about
43 percent of those programs had not
produced any units. The study authors
were not able to collect exact production
counts but suggested that the Boston
area inclusionary housing programs
had “produced relatively few affordable
units, probably in part because so many
programs in the area [had been] enacted
relatively recently.”
Several other studies have documented the
affordable housing production associated
with inclusionary programs in other parts
of the country (see T able 1). For example,
Heather Schwartz and her co-authors found
that the inclusionary program in Chicago
produced more than 200 affordable units
per year . In Burlington, Vermont, half of all
new residential construction was attributed
to the city’s inclusionary housing program.

But many programs were found to have
had very low production totals. Davidson,
North Carolina’s program averaged only
five units per year , and Denver’s program
averaged only eight units per year .

Based on this research review, it is clear
that inclusionary housing programs can and
do result in the production of affordable
housing units, but there is considerable
variability across jurisdictions. The existing
research does not systematically address
the reasons for the differences in the
production totals associated with different
programs. However , as will be discussed
below, the way the program is designed and
the economic and housing market conditions
in which it operates are important factors in
a program’s success.

T ABLE 1. Affordable Housing Units Produced
by Local Inclusionary Housing Programs:

Results from Key Research Studies
Jurisdiction Period
Total
Inclusionary
Units
Produced*
Average
Number of
Inclusionary
Units Produced
per Year
Source
Montgomery County, MD 1974–2011 13,246 358 a
Fairfax County, VA 1990–2011 2,448 117 a
Prince George’s County, MD1993–1996
(repealed) 1,600 400 g
San Francisco, CA 2002–2008 1,328 83 c
Chicago, IL 2003–2009 1,235 206 d
San Diego, CA 1992–2003 1,200 109 e
Huntington Beach, CA 2002–2010 1,071 134 c, f
Santa Monica, CA 1990–2009 862 45 d
Emeryville, CA 1990–2009 706 37 c
Mahwah Township, NJ 1985–2010 650 26 c
San Clemente, CA 1999–2006 627 90 c
Santa Fe, NM 1999–2010 593 54 d
Sunnyvale, CA 1980–1999 529 28 c
Freehold Township, NJ 1984–2010 519 20 c
Loudoun County, VA 1993–2001 509 64 g
Montville Township, NJ 1985–2010 407 16 c
Cambridge, MA 1998–2010 385 32 d
Boulder, CO 2000–2009 364 40 d
San Bruno, CA 1999–2006 325 46 c
Monrovia, CA 1990–2003 280 22 f
Brea, CA 1993–2003 278 28 f
Washington, DC 2009–2014 211 42 b
Boston, MA 2000–2004 200 50 e
Burlington, VT 1990–2012 200 9 d
San Juan Capistrano, CA 1995–2003 196 25 f
Chapel Hill, NC 2000–2002 154 77 e
Laguna Beach, CA 1985–2003 139 8 f
Denver, CO 2002–2012 77 8 c
Davidson, NC 2001–2011 54 5 c
Mill Valley, CA 1990–2010 35 2 c
Virginia Beach, VA 2007–2013 7 1 c
*New units, excludes units produced through in-lieu fees.

Sources:
a. The Urban Institute. 2012. Expanding Housing Opportunities Through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from Two Counties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. b. Hendey, Leah, Peter A. T atian, and Graham MacDonald. 2014. Housing Security in the Washington Region. Washington, DC: The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region. c. Hickey, Robert, Lisa Sturtevant, and Emily Thaden. 2014. Achieving Lasting Affordability through Inclusionary Housing. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. d. Brunick, Nicholas, Lauren Goldberg, and Susannah Levine. 2003. Large Cities and Inclusionary Zon- ing. Chicago, IL: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest. e. Powell, Benjamin and Edward Stringham. 2004. Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Los Angeles, CA: Reason Public Policy Institute. f. Calavita, Nico and Alan Mallach, eds. 2010. Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. g. Brown, Karen. 2001. Expanding Affordable Housing Through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington Metropolitan Area. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
4 Do Inclusionary Housing Programs Reduce Overall
Housing Production and/or Increase Market Prices?
If affordability requirements lead to significant in-
creases in the cost of development, it is possible that a local inclusionary housing program could result in a
reduction in the overall supply of housing, at least in the short run. Developers could choose to build fewer
units in a particular jurisdiction (e.g., in only the most profitable neighborhoods) or decide not to build at
all. Affordability requirements could also theoretically lead to increases in the prices of market-rate housing.

T o subsidize the cost of providing the below-market
units, the developer could increase the prices or rents of the market-rate units.

There have been several theoretical discussions of these potential outcomes, as well as empirical evaluations
of impacts for specific programs. It is important to
understand the economic theory underpinning a potential response to an inclusionary housing requirement.
15 However , the stylized economic discussions tend to
exclude an analysis of the cost offsets and incentives
that are part of most inclusionary housing programs.
16 Furthermore, the theoretical studies demonstrate that affordability requirements primarily impact the price of land over the long run. But these studies also usually fail to account for the constrained supply of land that puts upward pressure on land prices in many markets where
inclusionary housing programs operate.
17 Thus, results
from the theoretical literature do not provide adequate practical guidance on the impacts of inclusionary
housing programs.

Some empirical studies examine the supply and price
effects in localities that have actually implemented
inclusionary housing programs. It is difficult to conduct rigorous, methodologically sound impact evaluations
of these programs. Ideally, an impact evaluation would
estimate changes in housing supply and prices in a
particular local jurisdiction with an inclusionary housing program and compare those outcomes to what would
have happened in that same local jurisdiction had there not been an inclusionary housing program in place.

Of course, this is impossible, so the best approaches
compare outcomes in places with inclusionary housing
programs to outcomes in similar places without programs and use multivariate analyses to control for other factors that might impact housing supply and prices (e.g.,
unemployment rates, mortgage rates). Unfortunately,
very few research studies have used this rigorous
approach in the evaluation of the impacts of inclusionary housing programs.

Among these robust studies, however , the researchers
find a mixed bag in terms of the effects inclusionary
housing programs have on the overall supply of
housing and on market prices, with generally no
impacts on supply and no or modest impacts on
prices. Notwithstanding economic theory, these
empirical studies suggest that the relationship between affordability requirements and the housing market
is complicated and highly dependent on the unique
characteristics of the local economy and housing
market and on the specific design, implementation and
tenure of particular programs.

In a 2002 study of 28 California cities, David Paul Rosen and Associates measured the impact of inclusionary
housing programs on housing production, comparing
places with and without an inclusionary program and
accounting for a set of economic and other factors
that could also affect market activity. They found that inclusionary housing programs had no negative effect
on overall housing production in California cities, and that housing production was most strongly dependent
on the local unemployment rate and the price of new-
construction homes.
18 Examining 17 inclusionary housing programs in localities in Los Angeles and Orange counties in California, Vinit Mukhija and his colleagues controlled for characteristics of the local economy and housing market to assess
program impacts. They found no negative impact on
overall housing supply resulting from the implementation of inclusionary housing programs in localities in these counties.
19 T ABLE 1. Affordable Housing Units Produced
by Local Inclusionary Housing Programs:

Results from Key Research Studies
The potential impacts
of inclusionary housing
programs are highly
dependent on local
economic and housing
market conditions.
5 In a recent analysis of 125 local inclusionary housing programs in California, Ann Hollingshead found that
when inclusionary housing programs were weakened
(in this case as a result of a court decision), rental
prices in those localities actually increased, rather than decreased as economic theory might suggest.
20 A lack
of sufficient data precluded Hollingshead from reporting results on housing starts, though the descriptive data
suggest that localities with inclusionary housing policies actually rebounded from the housing market downturn
faster than those without.

In their analysis in San Francisco Jenny Schuetz and her co-authors included a series of economic, demographic
and housing market characteristics to estimate potential housing market impacts of inclusionary housing
programs. Unique to this study is the inclusion of
variables that describe particular characteristics of
the programs, including the length of time the program
had been in existence, whether it was mandatory or
voluntary, whether there was a density bonus or an in-
lieu option, and the minimum project size that triggered the affordability requirements. They found no impacts
on housing production or prices associated with local
inclusionary housing programs in the San Francisco
region. Conducting the same analysis in the Boston area, they found modest declines (10 percent on average) in
new housing starts and a modest increase in prices (1.4 percent on average) associated with the adoption of a
local inclusionary housing program.
21 While this study
includes variables that measure program characteristics, the researchers did not find any significant relationship between program design and outcomes, except that
programs that had been on the books longer were more
likely to have produced affordable units.

A team of researchers at the National Center for Smart
Growth Research and Education also used multivariate
analysis techniques to estimate housing market impacts
of 65 inclusionary housing programs in California
over the 1998–2005 period.
22 The researchers found
that cities with inclusionary housing programs did
not experience a significant reduction in the rate of
single-family housing starts. However , the number of
multifamily housing starts increased significantly in
places with inclusionary housing programs compared
with those that did not have programs. As a result, cities with inclusionary housing programs experienced an
increase in the share of new starts that were multifamily.

The researchers found that inclusionary housing
programs were associated with an increase in single-
family home prices of 2.2 percent, on average. However , in higher-priced markets the impact was estimated to
be as high as five percent.

Most rigorous research on inclusionary
housing programs finds no effect on
housing starts and only modest,
if any, impact on home prices.

Istock
6 There are descriptive studies that have concluded that inclusionary housing programs have led to a significant reduction in housing supply and a significant increase
in housing prices.
23 However , these studies have been
widely criticized for their lack of methodological rigor , and their results should be interpreted cautiously.
24 In addition, there are numerous case studies of
inclusionary housing programs that include accounts
that support an adverse impact on housing production
and market prices.
25 But there are also case studies that
have demonstrated no negative impacts.26 The research
cited above provides a much better picture of what the
market impacts have been in places with inclusionary
housing programs. However , there are limitations in the existing research.

First, most of the impact evaluations have focused on
the experience in California, which is not necessarily
representative of the potential ways in which inclusionary housing programs would impact housing markets in
most of the rest of the country. While some studies have examined the impacts of programs in different regions
across the state, the economic, regulatory and political environment in California is different than in many other states. Second, these evaluations (with the exception
of Hollingshead’s 2015 report) were conducted using
housing market and program data from before the
economic recession and housing market downturn, and
before key changes to inclusionary housing programs in
California that resulted from the Palmer court decision that restricted the design of inclusionary housing
programs in the state.
27 Finally, although these studies use generally accepted research approaches to study impacts, it is difficult
to draw conclusions from the existing research about
the specific characteristics of inclusionary housing
programs that might make them more or less effective.

T ABLE 2. Housing Market Impacts Associated with Local Inclusionary Housing Programs:

Results from Key Evaluation Studies
Jurisdiction Period Impacts on Overall Housing Supply Impacts on Home Prices/Rents Source California
(28 programs) 1981–2001 No negative effect on housing
starts N/A a
California
(65 programs) 1988–2005 No decline in single-family starts; increase in multi-family starts
Increase of 2.2 percent in single-
family prices b
California
(125 programs) 2007–2013 N/A Stricter programs associated with 1.9-percent decline in rents c
San Francisco, CA
(55 programs) 1987–2004 No negative effect on housing
starts No effect on home prices d
Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
CA (17 programs) 1998–2005 No negative effect on housing starts N/A e
Boston, MA area
(99 programs) 1987–2004 Up to a 10% decline in housing
starts
Increase of 1 percent in single-
family-home prices d
Sources:
a. David Paul Rosen and Associates. 2002. City of Los Angeles Inclusionary Housing Study: Final Report. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Housing Department. b. Knaap, Gerrit-Jan, Antonio Bento, and Scott Lowe. 2008. Housing Market Impacts of Inclusionary Zoning. Washington, DC: National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education. c. Hollingshead, Ann. 2015. When and How Cities Should Implement Inclusionary Housing Policies. Portland, OR: Cornerstone Partnership. d. Schuetz, Jenny, Rachel Meltzer , and Vicki Been. 2008. 31 Flavors of Inclusionary Zoning: Comparing Policies from San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston.

New Y ork, NY: Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. e. Mukhija, Vinit, Lara Regus, Sara Slovin, and Ashok Das. 2010. “Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties,” Journal of Urban Affairs 32: 229–252.

Most evaluations of inclusionary housing programs have been done in California. More research is needed on how inclusionary housing programs work in different kinds of markets.
7 What F actors Are Associated with Successful
Inclusionary Housing Programs?
There is a substantial amount of variation in how
inclusionary housing programs are designed, how many
affordable units they produce, and how they could
potentially affect housing starts and home prices and
rents. There has been no empirical, systematic analysis of the relationships among program design, local
housing market and economic conditions, and impacts
of inclusionary housing programs. However , several
conclusions may be drawn from the research described
above, as well as from case studies and other reports
on inclusionary housing programs, about how to design
local inclusionary housing programs that are best able to produce affordable housing and limit potential negative impacts on the overall housing supply and prices.
1) Inclusionary housing programs work
best in strong housing markets.

By design, inclusionary housing programs link the production of affordable housing to market-rate development. When
there is no market-rate construction, there is no affordable housing development.

In case studies of inclusionary housing programs
conducted by the National Association of Home Builders, local jurisdictions cited the weakness of the housing
market as the primary reason for the failure of their
inclusionary housing programs to produce any affordable housing units.
28 A review of the state of inclusionary
housing programs after the economic recession conducted by Robert Hickey at the National Housing Conference
demonstrated that localities that ended their inclusionary housing programs during or after the recession often did so because of weak housing markets.
29 In stronger housing markets, inclusionary housing
programs do have the potential to produce significant
numbers of affordable units with negligible impact on
housing markets. For example, housing demand in Fairfax County, Virginia, has been very strong, driven by the
fast pace of job growth in Washington, DC and northern
Virginia. Inclusionary housing requirements in the
Tysons Corner area of Fairfax County have not slowed
development. Thousands of apartments are under
construction or have received approvals in Tysons Corner since the county approved new affordability guidelines. 30 Even in hotter housing markets, there is no one-size-fits- all approach to crafting an effective inclusionary housing program. Based on the existing research and program
reviews, there are some characteristics that seem to be associated with more productive and efficient programs. 2) Mandatory programs tend to work
better than voluntary programs.

Mandatory programs result in the production of more
affordable housing units than voluntary programs do, and despite claims to the contrary, mandatory inclusionary
housing programs generally do not depress new
construction in strong housing markets.
31 The evaluations
of the impacts of inclusionary housing programs
examined primarily mandatory programs and found that
these programs have not caused decreases in overall
levels of housing production or substantial increases in market prices. In the studies of programs in California, several researchers concluded that the top-producing
local programs in the state were mandatory programs.
32 Montgomery County, Maryland, has a mandatory
program that has produced about 13,000 units since it
was implemented in 197 4, making it the most productive inclusionary housing program in the country.
33 An estimated 83 percent of all local inclusionary
housing programs across the country are mandatory.
34 In a historic decision in March 2016, the New Y ork City Council passed legislation to replace the city’s voluntary inclusionary housing policy with a mandatory program,
creating the nation’s largest and most ambitious
inclusionary housing program.
35 While mandatory programs have been shown to be
more effective at producing affordable units, several
researchers have concluded that voluntary programs
can also produce affordable housing when they are
83%
of all local inclusionary housing
programs across the country
are mandatory
8 treated as though they are mandatory (e.g., projects are approved only when they include affordable units) and/
or when there are appropriate incentives or offsets (see below) that make the voluntary option attractive.
36 In
places where mandatory inclusionary housing programs
are prohibited by state statute,
37 a voluntary program
is the only option. Rick Jacobus and others have noted
that voluntary programs that offer density bonuses or
other incentives in exchange for voluntarily building
affordable housing can be effective and also can protect programs from legal challenge.
38 3) Effective inclusionary housing
programs include incentives that offset
the cost to developers.

One of the primary criticisms about the economic literature around the impacts of inclusionary housing programs is that those studies assume that inclusionary housing programs include no incentives or offsets to counterbalance the
requirement to provide affordable housing. In fact, most programs include some sort of cost offset or incentive.

Density bonuses, modified development standards (e.g.,
reduced parking requirements), fee waivers, and expedited permit and/or approvals processes are all examples of the types of incentives that are commonly part of inclusionary housing policies.

According to a review of California’s inclusionary
housing programs by the Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern California, most jurisdictions
provide a financial incentive to developers under their inclusionary housing programs. In an assessment of
different approaches to designing local inclusionary
housing programs, Jenny Schuetz and her fellow
researchers found that mandatory programs with
no offsets can lead to lower overall numbers of units
produced (although the impact can vary depending on
local market and economic conditions), but mandatory
programs with cost offsets including density bonuses
and fast-track permitting are much more effective
at creating an environment where an inclusionary
housing program can both create more affordable
units and mitigate potential negative impacts on the
overall housing market. In their evaluation of programs in the San Francisco area, the researchers found that
the number of affordable units built increased with the presence of a density bonus.

According to a recent report by Rick Jacobus, increased density has become the most common incentive offered
by local inclusionary housing programs.
39 Density
bonuses can work well in a variety of strong housing
markets. However , there are some situations where
density bonuses are not as effective. In her analysis of Montgomery County, Maryland’s inclusionary housing
program, Karen Brown noted that density bonuses have
not been as effective in promoting affordable housing
development in areas of the county that are already
zoned for high-rise construction. After a certain height and density, land costs become an increasingly smaller
portion of overall development costs, and the benefits
of the extra density do not provide the same level of
subsidy that they would in a smaller-scale project.
40 Furthermore, increasing density can be a hot-button
issue in many communities. Offering a density bonus
in exchange for affordable housing production can
be difficult if there is strong community opposition to taller buildings and increased density.
41 It is important,
then, that the density increases work within the overall community planning process. In addition, density
bonuses do not work if a local jurisdiction changes
the underlying zoning to allow higher densities by
right—that is, without complying with any affordability requirements. Tying the density bonus and affordability requirements to rezoning is an important component of
making the link work.
42 4) Predictable programs with clear
guidelines are most effective.

Nicholas Brunick,43 Rick Jacobus44 and others who have
studies inclusionary housing programs in depth have
raised the importance of predictability in inclusionary housing programs. Ad hoc policies or programs with
rules that change at the whim of administrators or
elected officials have a good chance of stymieing
housing development in a locality. Knowing the rules
of the development process is key to builders as they
develop pro formas, seek financing for projects and
analyze market demand.

In interviews in Fairfax County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland—both suburbs of Washington DC—
researchers found that the most important factor to
developers working in a locality with an inclusionary
housing program was predictability in the program
requirements.
45 Clear requirements and consistent
administration of an inclusionary housing program were
important so that developers could better estimate their potential profit; a loss of this predictability could mean a decline in overall housing production as developers
choose to build in other markets.

When there is predictability, developers consider
affordability requirements as a cost of doing business
in a desirable location, similar to other requirements
that localities often impose, including design standards, green building techniques and open space dedications.
46 9
5) Successful inclusionary housing
programs have flexible compliance options.

Flexible compliance options give developers a choice in how to meet affordability requirements associated with
an inclusionary housing program. Building affordable
units on site as part of the market-rate development has traditionally been the default requirement, but many
policies allow developers to build affordable units off-site or contribute cash or land in lieu of building units. Flexible inclusionary housing policies help improve feasibility by offering developers various ways to meet affordability
obligations.
47 For example, a study of programs in the
Washington, DC suburbs showed that an in-lieu option
made smaller projects more financially feasible under
mandatory inclusionary housing requirements.
48 In several studies in California, researchers found that flexibility in compliance was a key element of productive inclusionary housing programs.
49 Ann Hollingshead
found that programs that require on-site units and those that allow developers to pay a fee in lieu of providing units can both be productive types of inclusionary
housing policies. The extent to which one approach is
better than the other depends on a range of factors,
including the cost of land in the jurisdiction, the ability for the jurisdiction to leverage other resources for
affordable housing, the extent of local NIMBYism, the
administrative capacity of the local government and the capacity of local non-profit developers. In her analysis, Hollingshead suggested that having a “blended policy”
that offers both an on-site option and an in-lieu option can lead to greater affordable housing production.

Rick Jacobus has noted that off-site production using
in-lieu fees can result in more overall affordable-housing production in some local markets. However , in addition to being able to leverage resources and having non-
profit developer capacity, the locality also has to have sufficient land on which to build off-site units.

While flexibility can lead to more affordable-housing
production, the types of alternative compliance options, if any, should be aligned with the local jurisdiction’s overarching goals. If the primary goal is to promote
economic and social integration, off-site or in-lieu options are less likely to be effective. Developers will likely build affordable units in places where land is cheaper , and
these units likely will be less connected to transportation, jobs and other community amenities. In large cities and urbanizing suburbs, a limited supply of available land
can limit the impact of in-lieu fees. Even with sufficient resources in a local housing trust fund and high-capacity non-profit developer partners, local jurisdictions will not be able to develop affordable housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods if no land is available. Thus, a local
jurisdiction’s ability to achieve a goal of economic integration through its inclusionary housing policy could be constrained without an on-site requirement.
50 However , if a jurisdiction
wants to maximize the overall supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction, regardless of the locations of affordable units, off-site and in-lieu options can be effective.
51 Striking a
balance among potentially competing goals is an important part of designing an effective inclusionary housing strategy.

Finally, the flip side of flexibility, of course, is a loss of predictability, which is also a valuable feature of
successful inclusionary housing programs. In its review of mandatory inclusionary housing requirements in
New Y ork City, the NYU Furman Center for Real Estate
and Urban Policy highlighted the importance of having
a flexible program that can respond to changing market
conditions. However , the authors of the report were
quick to point out that flexibility introduces uncertainty and creates a potential for inclusionary housing
requirements to become a “politicized process.”
52 Striking a balance among potentially competing goals is an important part of designing an effective
inclusionary housing strategy.
10 Conclusions
Almost every community in America struggles with
how to ensure there is a sufficient supply of housing
for individuals and families of all incomes. With
limited federal resources for affordable housing,
local jurisdictions continue to look for local tools to create and preserve housing affordable to lower-
income households. An inclusionary housing policy
can be one important strategy in a local jurisdiction’s comprehensive affordable housing strategy. In the
right market, adopting an inclusionary housing policy
can help facilitate the development of affordable
units and promote social and economic integration.

Other programs, such as the Low-Income Housing T ax
Credit (LIHTC), might produce more overall units, but
affordable housing produced through an inclusionary
housing program could more effectively distribute
housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods.
53 An inclusionary housing program utilizes local land use and zoning regulations, which gives local jurisdictions more control over the means by which affordable
housing is developed. However , despite this local
authority, it is important to keep in mind that housing developed under an inclusionary housing program
often requires the use of resources from other , federal programs to make homes affordable to lower-income
households, including the LIHTC and Housing Choice
Voucher (HCV) programs. Local inclusionary housing
programs will not work well in most places if these other resources are not available.

Whenever a policy changes the way housing is built in
a community, there is bound to be pushback. Knowing
that the best research generally finds either no negative impacts or only very small impacts on housing markets
is important for responding to potential criticisms of
proposed inclusionary housing programs. Furthermore,
in high- and rising-cost markets, there is good evidence that well-designed inclusionary housing programs
can be effective. In general, mandatory programs in
strong housing markets that have predictable rules,
well-designed cost offsets, and flexible compliance
alternatives tend to be the most effective types of
inclusionary housing programs. Requirements related
to other program elements, including income targets
and minimum project size, could also influence the
effectiveness. There is less research on the impacts of these program design elements on affordable housing
production and housing market outcomes.

The best approach to designing the most effective
inclusionary housing program for a particular
community is to conduct an economic feasibility analysis, which can help clarify the program requirements that
would work best in a particular market. In developing
its mandatory inclusionary housing program, New
Y ork City commissioned a study to evaluate how the
program would impact the financial feasibility of new
residential development in the city under a range of
market conditions and program requirements.
54 The
results of this analysis, which included economic and
financial forecasts as well as in-depth interviews with developers in the city, helped the city feel confident that the affordability requirements included in its mandatory inclusionary housing program would actually lead to
units being built and would not stifle overall housing
development. Not all jurisdictions have the capacity
to either conduct or contract out such a study, but a
systematic look at the possible ways an inclusionary
housing program could be designed and how those
elements might operate in a particular locality is an
important step for ensuring an effective and efficient
inclusionary housing program.

Endnotes

1. Hickey, Robert, Lisa Sturtevant, and Emily Thaden. 2014. Achieving Lasting Affordability through Inclusionary Housing . Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

2. California Affordable Housing Law Project of the Public Interest Law Project. 2002. Inclusionary Zoning: Legal Issues. San Francisco, CA; Hollister , Timothy S., Allison M. McKeen, and Danielle G. McGrath. 2007 . National Survey of Statutory and Case Law Authority for Inclusionary Zoning . Washington, DC: National Association of Home Builders; Mock, Brentin. 2015. “T aking Inclusionary Zoning All the Way to SCOTUS”. Citylab, September 17 , 2015.

3. Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden. 2014.

4. Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden. 2014.

5. The Urban Institute. 2012. Expanding Housing Opportunities Through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from Two Counties. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

6. Hickey, Robert. 2013. After the Downturn: New Challenges and Opportunities for Inclusionary Housing. Washington, DC: National Housing Conference.

7. See http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/pages/voluntarymixedin- comehousingdevelopmentprogram.aspx for a description of Charlotte’s volun- tary inclusionary housing policy, adopted in 2013.

8. See http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/mih/mandatory-inclusion- ary-housing.page for a description of New Y ork City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing proposal, which was approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council in spring 2016.

9. Calavita, Nico and Alan Mallach, eds. 2010. Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

10. The database was previously accessible online at http://www. calruralhousing.org, but it is no longer available.

11. Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Affordable by Choice: Trends in California Inclusionary Housing Programs (2007)

12. Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. 2007 . 11 13. Schuetz, Jenny, Rachel Meltzer , and Vicki Been. 2008. 31 Flavors of Inclusionary Zoning: Comparing
Policies from San Francisco, Washington, DC and
Suburban Boston. New Y ork, NY: Furman Center for
Real Estate and Urban Policy.

14. Powell, Benjamin and Edward Stringham. 2004.

Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Evidence from
Los Angeles County and Orange County. Los Angeles,
CA: Reason Public Policy Institute.

15. See, for example, Powell, Benjamin and Edward
Stringham. 2005. “The Economics of Inclusionary
Zoning Reclaimed: How Effective Are Price Controls?”
Florida State University Law Review 33: 471–499;
Hollingshead, Ann. 2015. When and How Cities Should
Implement Inclusionary Housing Policies. Portland,
OR: Cornerstone Partnership.

16. Jacobus, Rick. 2015. Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities. Cambridge,
MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
17 . Downs, Anthony, ed. 2004. Growth Management
and Housing: Do They Conflict? Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Press.

18. David Paul Rosen and Associates. 2002. City of
Los Angeles Inclusionary Housing Study: Final Report.

Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Housing Department.

19. Mukhija, Vinit, Lara Regus, Sara Slovin, and Ashok
Das. 2010. “Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective
and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence from Los
Angeles and Orange Counties,” Journal of Urban Affairs
32: 229–252.

20. Hollingshead. 2015.

21. Schuetz, Meltzer , and Been. 2008. The authors
did not have sufficient data to estimate impacts for
jurisdictions in the Washington, DC region.

22. Knapp, Gerrit-Jan, Antonio Bento, and Scott Lowe.
2008. Housing Market Impacts of Inclusionary Zoning.

Washington, DC.: National Center for Smart Growth
Research and Education.

23. Powell and Stringham. 2004.

24. Basolo, Victor and Nico Calavita. 2004. Policy
Claims with Weak Evidence: A Critique of the Reason
Foundation Study on Inclusionary Housing Policy in the
San Francisco Bay Area. San Francisco, CA: Non-Profit
Housing Association of Northern California.

25. National Association of Home Builders. 2015.

Inclusionary Zoning Primer. Washington, DC.

26. Brunick, Nicholas. 2003. Impact of Inclusionary
Housing on Development. Chicago, IL: Business and
Professional People for the Public Interest.
2 7. Shigley, Paul. 2009. Court Rules L.A. Inclusionary Housing Mandate Violates State Law. Ventura, CA:

California Planning & Development Report.

28. National Association of Home Builders. 2015.

29. Hickey (2013). Legal challenges were cited as
a reason for the ending of inclusionary housing
programs in several communities as well.

30. O’Connell, Jonathan. 2015. “Up Next for Tysons?
Another Y ear of Staggering Growth,” The Washington
Post, November 24, 2015.

31. Brunick, Nicholas, Lauren Goldberg, and Susannah
Levine. 2004. Voluntary or Mandatory Inclusionary
Housing? Production, Predictability, and Enforcement.

Chicago, IL: Business and Professional People for the
Public Interest; Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California. 2007; Mukhija, et al. 2010.

32. Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
California. 2007 .

33. The Urban Institute. 2012.

34. The National Housing Conference and the National
Community Land Trust Network, with support from the
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, developed a national
directory of local inclusionary zoning programs
that can be accessed online: http://cltnetwork.org/
wp-content/uploads/2014/08/National-Directory-of-
Inclusionary-Housing-Programs-8-26-14.pdf.

35. See http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/mih/
mandatory-inclusionary-housing.page.

36. Brunick, Goldberg, and Levine. 2004; Schuetz,
Meltzer , and Been. 2008.

37. Hollister , McKeen, and McGrath. 2007 .

38. Jacobus. 2015.

39. Jacobus. 2015.

40. Brown, Karen. 2001. Expanding Affordable
Housing Through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from
the Washington Metropolitan Area. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy.

41. Jacobus. 2015.

42. Hickey, Robert. 2014. Inclusionary Upzoning: Tying
Growth to Affordability. Washington, DC: National
Housing Conference.

43. Brunick, Goldberg, and Levine. 2004.

44. Jacobus. 2015.

45. The Urban Institute. 2012.

46. Brunick. 2003.
4 7. Hickey, Robert. 2015. Making Inclusionary
Housing More Flexible: Four Ideas for Urban Settings.

Washington, DC: National Housing Conference.

48. Brown. 2001.

49. David Paul Rosen and Associates. 2002; Non-Profit
Housing Association of Northern California. 2007 .

50. Jacobus. 2015.

51. Schwartz, Heather , Liisa Ecola, Kristin J.

Leuschner , and Aaron Kofner . 2012. Is Inclusionary
Zoning Inclusionary? A Guide for Practitioners . Santa
Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

52. NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban
Policy. 2015. Creating Affordable Housing Out of Thin
Air: The Economics of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
in New Y ork City. New Y ork, NY: NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.

53. Ellen, Ingrid Gould and Keren Mertens Horn. 2012.

Do Federally Assisted Households Have Access to High
Performing Public Schools? Washington, DC: Poverty &
Race Research Action Council.

54. BAE Urban Economics, Inc. 2015. Market and Financial Study: NYC Mandatory Inclusionary Housing. New Y ork,
NY: New Y ork City Housing Development Corporation.

Formed in 1931, the nonprofit
National Housing Conference is
dedicated to helping ensure safe,
decent and affordable housing for all
in America. As the research division
of NHC, the Center for Housing
Policy specializes in solutions
through research, working to
broaden understanding of America’s
affordable housing challenges and
examine the impact of policies and
programs developed to address these
needs. Through evidence-based
advocacy for the continuum
of housing, NHC develops ideas,
resources and policy solutions
to shape an improved
housing landscape.

Acknowledgements
NHC gratefully acknowledges
the Ford Foundation for its
generous support for this
publication. Any views or opinions
expressed in this paper are those
of the author and do not represent
the views of the Foundation.

National Housing Conference
1900 M Street, NW | Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 466-2121
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.nhc.org
Twitter: @nhcandcenter
12