HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - 7402 RELOCATION PLAN FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENTJuly 2012
Proposal to Prepare a
Relocation Plan for Low-Income Residents
Displaced by Redevelopment
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
In Association with the Manufactured
Home Owners Association of America
Clarion Associates LLC Community Planning
401 Mason Court, Suite 101 Zoning/Design Standards
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Impact Fees
970.419.4740 Growth Management
970.493.2216 fax Sustainability
CONTENTS
1. Methods and Approach ................................................................................................... 1
Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Tasks .................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Deliverables ..................................................................................................................... 5
3. Qualifications and Experience ...................................................................................... 6
Clarion Associates ........................................................................................................................... 6
Manufactured Home Owners Association of America ........................................................... 10
4. List of Project Personnel ............................................................................................. 12
Primary Contact ............................................................................................................................. 12
Key Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 12
5. Organization Chart/Proposed Project Team ............................................................ 14
Clarion Associates ......................................................................................................................... 14
Manufactured Home Owners Association of America ........................................................... 14
Organization Chart ......................................................................................................................... 15
6. Availability ...................................................................................................................... 16
7. Estimated Hours and Schedule of Rates and Cost by Task ................................... 17
8. Appendix ......................................................................................................................... 18
Résumés of Key Personnel .......................................................................................................... 18
Vendor Statement Form ............................................................................................................... 18
City of Fort Collins Page 1
1. METHODS AND APPROACH
Approach
Tasks
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Task 1. Initial Stakeholder Outreach
Task 2. Preliminary Inventory
Task 3. Possible Relocation Strategies and
Preliminary Report
City of Fort Collins Page 3
Task 4. Public Forums and Meetings
Task 5. Relocation Plan
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
City of Fort Collins Page 4
City of Fort Collins Page 5
2. DELIVERABLES
City of Fort Collins Page 6
3. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Clarion Associates
Denver, Colorado
Affordable Housing Best Practices and Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance Review
Contact Information:
Karen Lado, Regional Director, Enterprise Community Partners
899 Logan Street, Denver, CO 80204
303.376.5410 klado@enterprisecommunity.org
An Outside Look
Clarion Associates evaluated
barriers in the existing zoning
code and made
recommendations to
encourage affordable housing
in the new form-based code.
City of Fort Collins Page 7
State of Texas
Analysis of State-level Impediments to Fair Housing
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Affordable Housing
Contact Information:
David Dollahon, Director, Neighborhood Development, Las Cruces
575 South Alameda Boulevard, Room 146, Las Cruces, NM 88005
575.528.3060 downtown@dlcp.org
Contact Information:
Heidi Aggeler, Project Manager, BBC Research and Consulting
1999 Broadway, Suite 2200, Denver, CO 80202
303.321.2547 HAggeler@bbcresearch.com
Housing Supply
To improve the supply of
needed forms of housing in
Las Cruces, Clarion
Associates came up with
seven improvements in the
development regulations and
the city’s impact fee system.
City of Fort Collins Page 8
State of Colorado
Colorado Communities Manual: Reducing Housing Costs through
Regulatory Reform
State of Idaho
County Impediments to Fair Housing
Contact Information:
Pat Coyle, Colorado Division of Housing Director, Department of Local Affairs
1313 Sherman Street, Room 500, Denver, CO 80203
303.866.4123 pat.coyle@denvergov.org
Contact Information:
Erik Kingston, Idaho Housing and Finance Association
PO Box 7899, Boise, ID 83707-1899
208.331.4706 ErikK@IHFA.ORG
City of Fort Collins Page 9
State of Nevada
County Impediments to Fair Housing
Contact Information:
Carrie McLeod, Program Specialist/Administrator
Nevada Commission on Economic Development
808 West Nye Lane, Carson City, NV 89703
775.687.9900 cmcleod@diversifynevada.com
City of Fort Collins Page 10
Manufactured Home Owners Association of America
City of Tumwater
Local Zoning Ordinance - Chapter 18.49
Snohomish County
Local Zoning Ordinance - Ordinance 09-096
Contact Information:
Ms. Valenzuela, Previous Council Member, current Thurston County Commissioner
360.786.5440
Contact Information:
Brian Sullivan, Chair of Snohomish County Council
425.388.3494
City of Fort Collins Page 11
City of Lynnwood
Local Zoning Ordinance - Chapter 21.71
Contact Information:
Mark Smith, former Council Member, current Executive Director of the Housing
Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County
425.339.1015
City of Fort Collins Page 12
4. LIST OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
Primary Contact
Key Personnel
City of Fort Collins Page 13
City of Fort Collins Page 14
5. ORGANIZATION CHART/PROPOSED
PROJECT TEAM
Clarion Associates
Manufactured Home Owners Association of America
City of Fort Collins Page 15
Organization Chart
City of Fort Collins Page 16
6. AVAILABILITY
Clarion Associates
Manufactured Housing Owners Association of America
City of Fort Collins Page 17
7. ESTIMATED HOURS AND SCHEDULE
OF RATES AND COST BY TASK
Preliminary Budget - Relocation Plan, Fort Collins, CO
TASK CLARION MHOAA TOTAL
Elliott Herman Sommer Dickens
Billable Rate $ /Hour $190 $185 $85 $100
Task 1: Initial Stakeholder Outreach
Hours 8 8 24 40 80
Total Fees $1,520 $1,480 $2,040 $4,000 $9,040
Number of Trips 1 1 0 0 2
Travel Expenses $50 $50 $0 $0 $100
TASK TOTAL $1,570 $1,530 $2,040 $4,000 $9,140
Task 2: Preliminary Inventory
Hours 8 8 24 32 72
Total Fees $1,520 $1,480 $2,040 $3,200 $8,240
Number of Trips 1 1 0 1 3
Travel Expenses $50 $50 $0 $600 $700
TASK TOTAL $1,570 $1,530 $2,040 $3,800 $8,940
Task 3: Possible Relocation Strategies and Preliminary Report
Hours 16 8 32 28 84
Total Fees $3,040 $1,480 $2,720 $2,800 $10,040
Number of Trips 0 2 2 1 5
Travel Expenses $0 $100 $100 $600 $800
TASK TOTAL $3,040 $1,580 $2,820 $3,400 $10,840
Task 4: Public Forums and Meetings
Hours 32 16 16 20 84
Total Fees $6,080 $2,960 $1,360 $2,000 $12,400
Number of Trips 2 1 0 0 4
Travel Expenses $100 $50 $0 $0 $150
TASK TOTAL $6,180 $3,010 $1,360 $2,000 $12,550
Task 5: Relocation Plan
Hours 24 16 16 32 88
Total Fees $4,560 $128 $512 $3,200 $8,400
Number of Trips 1 1 0 0 3
Travel Expenses $50 $50 $0 $0 $100
TASK TOTAL $4,610 $178 $512 $3,200 $8,500
TOTAL PROJECT COST $16,970 $7,828 $8,772 $16,400 $49,970
TOTAL PROJECT COST (BY FIRM) $33,570 $16,400
City of Fort Collins Page 18
8. APPENDIX
Résumés of Key Personnel
Clarion Associates
Manufactured Home Owners Association of America
Vendor Statement Form
Qualifications of
Donald L. Elliott, FAICP
Clarion Associates
Don Elliott is a Vice President with Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC, a national consulting firm with offices in
Denver, Fort Collins, Chapel Hill, and Suntree, Florida; as well as affiliate offices in Chicago, Philadelphia, and
Cincinnati. Mr. Elliott’s practice focuses on land planning and zoning, growth management, and international
land and urban development issues. Prior to joining Clarion, Mr. Elliott was Project Director for the Denver
Planning and Community Development Office and was responsible for the Gateway Project and the Downtown
Zoning Project. He has also advised local governments in Russia and Indonesia on land use issues, served as
Democracy and Governance Advisor for USAID in Uganda, and practiced real estate, zoning, and land use law
with the Denver law firm of Davis, Graham & Stubbs.
Representative Major Projects
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Zoning Code
Detroit, Michigan | Zoning Code
Winnipeg, Manitoba | Land Use Bylaw
Long Beach, California | Independent Study of Redevelopment
Nashville, Tennessee | Urban Overlay Zoning Ordinance
Pennsylvania Cost of Sprawl Study
Deschutes County, Oregon | Transfer of Development Rights
Duluth, Minnesota | Unified Development Ordinance
Affordable Housing References
Heidi Aggeler, BBC Research and Consulting, 303.321.2547, HAggeler@bbcresearch.com
Karen Lado, Enterprise Community Partners, 303.376.5410, klado@enterprisecommunity.org
David Dollahon, Las Cruces Housing Department, (575) 528-3060, ddollahon@las-cruces.org
Education
Master of City and Regional Planning, Harvard J.F.K. School of Government
Juris Doctor, Cum Laude, Harvard Law School
Bachelor of Science, Summa Cum Laude, Yale University
Nathaniel Rogg Fellowship, Harvard/MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies
Professional Associations
Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2006-present)
American Planning Association: President of Colorado Chapter (1992-1994) -- Outstanding Chapter
Project Award; Chairman of National Planning and Law Division (1997-2000) --, Winner, Division
Achievement Award, Amicus Curiae Committee (1995-1999), National/ State Policy Coordinating
Committee (1991-1995), and International Division (1991-present)
Member of American, Colorado, and Denver Bar Associations
Qualifications of
Benjamin A. Herman, FAICP
Clarion Associates
Ben Herman is a Principal and Vice President, and leads the firm’s nationwide planning practice. He
has more than 30 years of national and international experience in all aspects of planning, and has
been responsible for managing and conducting complex, multidisciplinary assignments for private and
public sector clients. He specializes in complex, multi-disciplinary planning studies, and has extensive
experience in community, regional, and corridor plans; transit corridor plans; airport area land use
plans; development master plans; downtown plans; and regional growth management strategies. He
has particular expertise in Sustainable Community Plans, and conducts a 2-day training workshop on
the topic for the American Planning Association. Throughout his career, he has emphasized a
commitment to excellence, innovation and creative thinking, and consensus building. Mr. Herman is a
member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners.
Major Projects
Fort Collins, Colorado | Plan Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan
Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio| Sustainable Development Code
Saginaw, Michigan | Green Infrastructure Strategy
Boise, Idaho | Blueprint Boise Comprehensive Plan
Johnson County, Kansas | Johnson County 2030 Vision Plan
Cheyenne, Wyoming | PlanCheyenne 2007 and 2012 update (current)
Manhattan, Kansas | Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
San Diego, California | Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Carson City, Nevada | Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan
Lee County, Florida | New Horizon 2035 Plan (current)
DeSoto County, Mississippi | Regional Stewardship Plan
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Oklahoma River Corridor Strategic Development Plan
Professional History
Vice President, Clarion Associates (current)
Managing Director, EDAW Australia Pty. Ltd., Sydney, Australia
Senior Associate/Director of Operations, EDAW, Inc., Denver, CO
Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ
Senior Associate, R.E. Hughey and Associates, Inc., Margate, NJ
Professional Associations
College of Fellows, American Institute of Certified Planners
Member, American Planning Association
Past President, American Planning Association Colorado Chapter
References
Plan Fort Collins – Joe Frank, FAICP, City of Fort Collins (jfrank@fcgov.com)
Blueprint Boise – Patricia Nilsson, Planning Manager, City of Boise (PNilsson@cityofboise.org)
Commerce City C3 Plan – Steve Timms, City Planner (stimms@c3gov.com)
Qualifications of
Shelby Sommer, AICP, LEED AP
Clarion Associates
Shelby Sommer is an Associate in the Fort Collins office of Clarion Associates. Ms. Sommer’s areas
of expertise include sustainable development, neighborhood and community planning, historic
preservation, and developing GIS-based inventories, analysis, and maps. Ms. Sommer is also skilled
at public facilitation and encouraging participation through websites and social media. Prior to
joining Clarion Associates, she was a planner with the City of Fort Collins, Colorado and was
responsible for the detailed review and coordination of development proposals.
Recent and Current Major Projects
Fort Collins, Colorado | Plan Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan
Fort Collins, Colorado | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Adams County, CO | Comprehensive Plan Update
Aurora, Colorado | Annual Population Estimate
Commerce City, Colorado | Comprehensive Plan Update
Douglas County, Colorado| Sustainable Code Diagnosis
State of Colorado | Study of the Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation
Wheat Ridge, Colorado | Comprehensive Plan Update
Cheyenne, WY | PlanCheyenne Update
Chino, California | Airport Smart Growth Demonstration Project
Fort Wayne and Allen County, IN | Legislative and Development Code Streamlining
Green River, WY | Comprehensive Master Plan
Hamilton County, Ohio | Sustainable Code Diagnosis
Ithaca, NY | Comprehensive Plan
Professional History
Associate, Clarion Associates, Fort Collins, Colorado, 2008 – present
Planning Technician/Associate Planner and City Planner, City of Fort Collins, Colorado 2005-2008
Environmental Affairs/City Manager’s Office Intern, City of Boulder, Colorado, 2004-2005
Education
Green Building Certificate Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 2006
Bachelor of Environmental Design, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2004
School for International Training, Valparaiso, Chile, 2003
Professional Associations/Boards
American Institute of Certified Planners, 2011
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional, 2007
Volunteer Member/ Chair, City of Fort Collins Art in Public Places Board
References
Plan Fort Collins – Joe Frank, FAICP, City of Fort Collins (jfrank@fcgov.com)
Commerce City C3 Comprehensive Plan – Steve Timms, City Planner (stimms@c3gov.com)
Envision Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan – Sally Payne, Senior Planner (spayne@ci.wheatridge.co.us)
ISHBEL DICKENS Page 1
ISHBEL DICKENS
3306 E. John Street
Seattle WA 98112
206.851.6385
ishbel@mhoaa.us
__________________________________________________________________________________________
EDUCATION
Harvard University Kennedy School, Cambridge, Mass. Excellence in Education, Oct. 2008 – March 2010
University of Washington, School of Law, Seattle, Washington. Juris Doctor, June 2002
Equal Justice Works Fellow, September 2003 – August 2005
Charles Z. Smith, Public Service Student of the Year Award, May 2002
Washington Legal Foundation – Goldmark Fellow, Summer 2001
ABA John J. Curtin Justice Award, Summer 2000
Commencement Speaker at Law School Graduation, June 2002
Student Bar Association, President, April 2001 – May 2002
Student Bar Association, Vice President, April 2000 – April 2001
Best Brief – Environmental Moot Court Competition, Fall 2000
Active in Public Interest Law Association, October 1999 – May 2002
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. Bachelor of Arts with emphasis on History and Social
Administration, June 1975
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Executive Director
Manufactured Home Owners of America Association (MHOAA), November 2010 to present
Managing day to day activities
Grant writing
Writing training materials for manufactured home owners
Work with board to implement MHOAA’s strategic plan
Responsible for budgeting, policies and procedures
Represent MHOAA on committees and with national partners
Independent Consultant/Event Coordinator
CFED, August – October, 2010
Worked with Convention Committee to put on MHOAA’s National Convention
Outreach and registration
Work with convention speakers
Compile materials for Convention program book
Attorney
Columbia Legal Services, Seattle, WA, September 2005 – October 2010
Worked with four local jurisdictions to ensure passage of “mobile home park” zoning ordinances that guarantee long-
term security of tenure in land-leased communities to manufactured home owners.
Working with ROC USA technical assistant providers, I assisted two manufactured home owners’ associations to
purchase their communities under a resident-owned community model.
On behalf of manufactured home owners engaged in state-wide advocacy, putative class action litigation, legislative
work, and outreach and education.
Ensured successful passage of dispute resolution bill, providing the Attorney General’s office the resources to enforce
the Manufactured/mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act – new statute enacted – RCW 59.30
Wrote grants for Immigrant Banking Project, Economic Justice Project, and Manufactured Housing Project.
Attended Northwest Area Foundation event in Minnesota as the Washington “expert” on manufactured housing issues.
ISHBEL DICKENS Page 2
Helped manufactured home owners form a state-wide association (Association of Manufactured Home Owners
[AMHO]) to address policy and preservation issues.
Presented at the National Consumer Law Center’s annual conference, 2008 and at the Utah Housing Conference, 2009.
Provide trainings to private bar on manufactured housing law.
Presented both locally and nationally on manufactured housing policy and preservation issues, including at both the
MHOAA National Conventions and the CFED annual retreats.
Volunteer monthly at the Housing Justice Project in Kent.
Equal Justice Works Fellow
Columbia Legal Services, Seattle WA, September 2003 – September 2005
State wide advocacy on behalf of manufactured home owners living in manufactured housing communities. This
includes individual representation, class actions, policy and legislative work, as well as outreach and education to
manufactured home owners throughout the state.
Working on legislation to ensure enforcement of the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord/Tenant Act (MHLTA).
Presented MHLTA trainings at the Washington Law Institute’s Super Seminar on Housing, December 2004.
Presented MHLTA trainings at CLEs in Seattle 2004 and Spokane 2005.
Staff Attorney
Snohomish County Legal Services, Everett WA, June 2002 – September 2003
Responsible for all non-family law clients at this small public interest law agency. Provided either direct representation
for these clients on a variety of civil legal issues, or found volunteer attorneys from the community willing to provide
pro bono assistance.
Coordinated the establishment of a Housing Justice Project (HJP) at the Snohomish County Courthouse in Everett. The
HJP provides free attorney advice/negotiation/representation for pro se litigants facing unlawful detainer actions.
Staffed the HJP and recruited volunteer attorneys to help.
Rule 9 Intern
Snohomish County Legal Services, Everett WA, March 2002 – June 2002
Hired during law school to be the 3rd attorney with this small public interest agency. Responsible for all non-family
law clients. Provided direct representation or found volunteer attorneys in the community to help low income clients.
Established a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Clinic for eligible clients. Recruited volunteer attorneys willing to staff the clinic
each month.
Goldmark Fellow
Columbia Legal Services, Everett Washington, Summer 2001
Self designed project to work with manufactured home owners in three manufactured housing communities in
Washington. Researched ways to address the State Supreme Court’s decision to strike the “right of first refusal”
statute, and tried to find other legal remedies to address the needs of the 77,000 households, (9% of the state’s
population) primarily low-income seniors, people with disabilities, and families on fixed incomes, living in 1,600
manufactured housing communities in Washington.
Summer Law Clerk
Columbia Legal Services, Everett, Washington, June 2000 – September 2000
Researched and drafted educational materials for manufactured home owners regarding their right of first refusal
should their manufactured housing community be put up for sale. Educated and organized manufactured home owners,
and worked with them to establish Qualified Tenants’ Organizations (QTOs) so that these homeowners would be in a
position to exercise their right of first refusal.
Independent Consultant Seattle, Washington, October 1998 – June 1999
As the State-wide Coordinator for the City of Seattle Department of Housing and Human Services I helped implement
the Homeless Children’s Plan. This position was created by the State Coalition for the Homeless, to ensure an increase
in the provision of housing and services for homeless children and their families. Performed outreach to local
communities. Educated the general public and spoke in public forums about the need for these services. Prepared
relevant materials for the public as well as the media, and coordinated event
At the same time, I continued my interest in community organizing and I contracted with the Low Income Housing
Institute to assist manufactured home owners to organize in King, Pierce, Snohomish and other counties. Helped
ISHBEL DICKENS Page 3
Manufactured home owners establish resident associations, and drafted legislation to ensure protections for the
preservation of this affordable housing option.
Housing Outreach Coordinator
Low Income Housing Institute, Seattle, Washington, September 1996 – October 1998
Conducted statewide outreach for HUD Continuum of Care planning, contacted service providers, housing and
homeless advocates, the legal community and others, and invited them to come together for a series of meetings.
Discussions focused on identification of local housing needs, developing a plan to meet these needs, and accessing
HUD McKinney dollars and other matching funds. Worked with stakeholders in Skagit, Lewis, Mason, and San Juan
counties to help them produce their community continuum of care plans. Presented HUD Continuum of Care and
Supportive Housing Program information at various forums and events around the State, including the Washington
State Coalition for the Homeless annual conference in 1997. Hired and monitored the work of consultants throughout
Washington State, as well as supervising other staff and volunteers.
Prepared budgets, monthly, and quarterly reports for HUD. Continued outreach, education, and advocacy with
manufactured home owners throughout the State, helping them form resident associations, and worked on legislation
that would improve the enforceability of the MHLTA.
Program Coordinator
Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI), Seattle, Washington, September 1994 – September 1996
Facilitated self management of the Arion Court, Washington’s first self-managed permanent housing program for
homeless people. Produced and developed a video and guidebook on self managed housing and presented these
materials to various agencies throughout Washington State. Represented LIHI at community meetings, council
hearings, and legislative hearings, on a variety of issues. Frequently interviewed on television, radio and print media.
VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE, BOARD PARTICIPATION, and COMMUNITY AWARDS
Received the first ever “Housing Hero of the Decade” award at the WLIHA Advocacy Day, 2009.
Washington State Housing Finance Commission – 2007 “Friend of Housing” Award
Seattle Human Services Coalition – 1999 Excellence in Advocacy Award
Nominated for the Jefferson Award in 1995 and 1997
Appointed to Access To Justice Board (ATJ), 2010
Member ATJ Executive Committee, 2010
Co-chair ATJ Law School Relations Committee. September 2010
Member University of Washington, School of Law Alumni Board, September 2005 – June 2011
Chair the Student Engagement Committee.
Member Washington State Bar Foundation, Loan Repayment Program Advisory Board. October 2002 - 2009
Established an LRAP program for eligible graduates working in public interest positions within Washington State.
Board Chair: Broadview Community Church, 1994, 1995, 1998
Led the church membership through a variety of structural and spiritual changes, not least being a six-month
educational process to become an open and affirming congregation of gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual individuals.
Board member: Broadview Community Church, 1992 – 1998
Chaired the Social Justice Committee; Member of the Personnel and Budget Committees; Chaired the Organizational
Restructuring Task Force.
Board member: Church Council of Greater Seattle, 1994 – 1996
Member of the Racial Justice Coordinating Committee; Helped plan a summit on violence.
Board member: Seattle Displacement Coalition, 1992 to present
ISHBEL DICKENS Page 4
Worked with homeless youth in the University District; Working on ‘right of first refusal’ for low income renters in
Seattle. Responsible for annual fundraising event.
Advisory Board member: Real Change (Homeless newspaper), 1993 to 2005
One of original founding members of Real Change in Seattle. Continue to serve on Advisory Board and offer
occasional help with feature articles and fundraising.
PUBLICATIONS
2007 Clearinghouse Review, Journal of Poverty Law & Policy, American Dream or Nightmare? Identifying and
meeting the needs of Owners of Manufactured Homes.
2005 King County Bar Association Bulletin, Not just Bricks and Mortar.
GRANTS
As Executive Director of MHOAA, I wrote and was awarded the following:
CCHD national and local grants for partner organization, Association of Manufactured Home Owners (2011/12)
Unitarian Universalists Fund for partner organization, Association of Manufactured Home Owners (2011)
Woods Fund grant for partner organization, Mobile Home Owners Association of Illinois (2011)
As a staff attorney at Columbia Legal services, I wrote and was awarded the following:
CFED I’m Home catalyst grant to work on policy and preservation strategies for manufactured home owners –
2007 – 2009
CFED I’m Home policy grant to work on state and local policy initiatives to help preserve manufactured housing
communities – 2008 – 2010.
As a member of LIHI staff, I wrote and was awarded the following:
Legal Foundation of Washington Grant – manufactured home owner education – 1998
Campaign for Human Development Grant – manufactured home owner organizing and advocacy – 1998. 1999
A Territorial Resource Grant – manufactured home owner organizing and advocacy – 1998, 1999
As a member of the Tenants Union staff, I wrote and was awarded the following:
• City of Seattle Matching Fund Grant – manufactured home owner organizing in Seattle – 1992
Washington Mutual Bank Grant – work with manufactured home owners in Seattle and King County – 1993
REFERENCES
Council member Brian Sullivan, Chair, Snohomish County Council 425.388.3494
Mark Smith, former council member, City of Lynnwood 425.339.1015
Commissioner Karen Valenzuela, Thurston County, former council member, City of Tumwater 360.786.5440
PERSONAL INTERESTS
Playing field hockey – I am the president and the top goal scorer on the Seattle Women’s field hockey team.
Rejoicing in the lives of my four children, their partners, and my four grandchildren.
Reading contemporary British fiction, particularly A.S. Byatt, Margaret Drabble, A. L. Kennedy, and Iris Murdoch.
Vendor Statement:
I have read and understand the specifications and requirements for this bid and I
agree to comply with such specifications and requirements. I further agree that
the method of award is acceptable to my company. I also agree to complete
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT with the City of Fort Collins within
30 days of notice of award. If contract is not completed and signed within 30
days, City reserves the right to cancel and award to the next highest rated firm.
FIRM NAME: Clarion Associates
ADDRESS: 621 17th St. Ste 2250, Denver, CO 80293
EMAIL ADDRESS: lkrook@clarion PHONE: 303 .830.2890
associates.com
BIDDER'S NAME: Ben Herman
SIGNATURED
PRIMARY SERVICES ISSUES CONTACT: Don Elliott
TELEPHONE: 303.830.2890 x 26 FAX:303 . 860 .1809
EMAIL: delliott@clarionassociates . com
CELL: 303.748.0972 EMERGENCY: 303 . 830 . 2890 x 31
BACKUP: Ben Herman 970.419.4740
Compensation and Contract Process
1. After contract award, progress invoices shall be billed in quarterly installments,
subject to review and approval by the City's Project Manager. City payment
terms will be Net 30 Days from receipt of invoice.
2. The City reserves the right to award directly as a result of the written proposals.
The City may or may not opt to conduct oral interviews.
3. The selected Contractor shall be expected to sign the City's standard
Professional Services Agreement prior to commencing Services (see sample
attached to this Proposal).
RFP 7402 Relocation Plan for Low-Income Residents Displaced by Development Page 11 of 23
1
Land Use Regulations as Barriers to Affordable Housing
1. Introduction
The ability of private real estate markets to meet affordable housing needs is strongly affected by
zoning, subdivision, and land development regulations adopted by local governments, as well as by the
system of fees or development charges imposed on land and building development by those local
governments. In many cases, local regulations that are intentionally or unintentionally exclusionary can
offset the impact of affordable housing subsidies or increase the amount of subsidies necessary for the
market to meet affordable housing needs.1 In Zoned Out, analyst Jonathan Levine recently documented
the impact of zoning regulations on the supply of affordable housing, and his findings confirm the
conclusions of several earlier studies.
For example, a 1998 study of regulatory barriers to affordable housing in Colorado identified five
separate types of barriers, including zoning and subdivision controls.2 The other areas were development
processing and permitting (which overlaps zoning), infrastructure financing mechanisms, building codes,
and environmental and cultural resource protection tools. In the area of zoning and subdivision, the
Colorado study identified four specific types of barriers:
● Minimum house size, lot size, or yard size requirements;
● Prohibitions on accessory dwelling units;
● Restrictions on land zoned and available for multifamily and manufactured housing; and
● Excessive subdivision improvement standards.
Similarly, in 2007, a nationwide study prepared by the National Association of Home Builders for
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development documented which types of subdivision
regulations have the greatest impacts on housing costs.3 After establishing benchmark standards
representing the minimums necessary to protect public health and safety and the cost of constructing
single family housing with those standards, the study compared actual housing costs to that theoretical
baseline and concluded that:
65 percent of the added costs were caused by minimum lot size requirements; and
9 percent of the added costs were caused by lot width requirements.
A third contributor was minimum house size requirements. Although only eight percent of local
governments impose those controls, they were responsible for 17 percent of the added costs in those
cities and counties that use them. Using 2004 data, the study concluded that subdivision regulations
exceeding baselines for public health and safety added an average of $11,910 (4.8%) to the price of a
new home.
In addition, in U.S. ex. rel. Anti-discrimination Center v. Westchester County4, a U.S. District
Court confirmed that local government eligibility for federal Community Development Block Grant Funds
requires certification that the city or county is in compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act
Amendments of 1988. That, in turn, requires that the local government (a) conduct an analysis of
impediments to fair housing, (b) take actions to address the effects of those impediments, and (c)
maintain records of the analysis and the steps taken. In addition to barriers based on income, the
analysis cannot ignore issues of racial segregation or the role of public resistance in perpetuating
economic or racial segregation.
For all of these reasons, it is important that local governments review their zoning, subdivision
and land development regulations to ensure that they do not create barriers to private production of
1 Levine, Jonathan, Zoned Out (RFF Press, Washington, D.C., 2006).
2 Colorado Deportment of Local Affairs, Reducing Housing Costs through Regulatory Reform (Denver: Colorado Department of Local
Affairs, 1998).
3 Study of Subdivision Requirements as a Regulatory Barrier. EcoNorthwest, for National Association of Homebuilders Research
Center, 2007.
4 495 F.Supp.2nd 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
2
affordable housing, and that they include appropriate tools that could spur private production of
affordable housing to fill identified gaps in housing supply.
Because it is not possible to review all Nevada land use regulations within the scope of
this study, we have reviewed the regulations of Douglas and Elko Counties as samples
for the potential barriers that may be present in other Nevada local governments. We
emphasize that these two sets of regulations were not reviewed because they are
particularly good or bad examples of pro-affordability regulations, but to provide samples
that other Nevada cities and counties can use in reviewing any similar regulations in their
own zoning and subdivision codes.
2. General Guidance
Because the character, development patterns, and future plans of each county are different, their
zoning, subdivision, and development controls will also differ. No two county codes could or should read
alike. However, there are several land use practices that can help reduce barriers to housing choice, and
counties should review their regulations to ensure that they do not include unintentional barriers in these
areas. In some cases, the most appropriate areas for some of these tools to be implemented may be in
existing urbanized areas or near incorporated towns and cities.
County land use regulations that attempt promote housing choice should include as many of the
following tools as is consistent with the county’s future development plans. While it is not necessary that
each county code include all of these types of provisions, including more of them will further reduce
barriers to housing choice.
Purpose Statement. The code should reflect the county’s purpose to provide housing
choice for its residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law regarding
housing choice.
Small Lots. At least one zone district (or overlay district, or permit system) that allows
small lots for single family detached housing in some locations. While the appropriate
minimum lot size will vary with the character of the county, a zone allowing minimum lot
sizes in the 3,000-6,000 square foot range would be appropriate for more urbanized
areas of many counties. In addition, lot width requirements should be reasonable and
consistent with minimum lot sizes; while some codes require minimum lot widths of 70
feet or more, small homes can be constructed on lots as narrow as 40 feet (or even
less). Minimum lot size requirements are the type of regulation most responsible for
increasing housing costs.
Multi-family Parcels. At least one zone district (or overlay district, or permit system)
that allows the construction of multi-family housing, and mapping enough land into this
district to allow a reasonable chance that some multi-family housing will be developed.
In many rural counties, theses mapped areas may be close to incorporated or urbanized
areas. Maximum heights should be reasonable and consistent with the maximum density
permitted; avoid mapping areas for multi-family densities and then imposing height
restrictions that prohibit efficient development at those densities. Failure to provide
opportunities for multi-family development has been identified as one of the four leading
regulatory causes of increased housing costs.
Manufactured Homes. Manufactured housing meeting HUD safety standards should
be allowed somewhere (per the federal Manufactured Housing Act of 1974). While
restricting these homes to manufactured home parks is common, the better practice is to
allow them in at least one residential zone where the size and configuration matches the
scale and character of the area.
3
Minimum House Sizes. The zoning and subdivision regulations should not establish
minimum house or dwelling unit sizes (beyond those in the building code). Minimum
house size requirements have also been identified as a significant cause of increased
housing price in those communities where they are in place.
Group Housing. The code should clarify that housing for groups protected by the Fair
Housing Act Amendments of 1988 are treated as residential uses, and should generally
allow those group housing uses in at least one residential district. While some
communities require a special permit for these uses, others find that they can be allowed
by right provided that they comply with standards limiting scale, character, and parking.
Failure to provide for these uses in the code could subject the county to a developer’s
request for “reasonable accommodation” under the Act, and failure to provide
“reasonable accommodation” could be a violation of federal law. In light of the aging of
the American population, the code should also provide areas where congregate care,
nursing home, and assisted living facilities may be constructed.
Accessory Dwelling Units. The code should allow accessory dwelling units in at least
one zone district – either as an additional unit within an existing home structure or in an
accessory building on the same lot. While some communities require a special permit for
these uses, others find that they can be allowed by right provided that they comply with
standards limiting scale, character, and parking.
Mixed Use. In order to promote affordability, housing should be allowed near
businesses that employ workers, particularly moderate and lower income employees. To
do that the code should permit residential units in at least one commercial zone district
or should map some lands for multi-family development in close proximity to commercial
districts.
Lower Parking Standards. Although the traditional standard of two parking spaces
per dwelling unit may be reasonable for many areas of a county, a lower standard can
and generally should be used for affordable housing, multi-family housing, group
housing, and special needs housing.
Flexibility on Nonconforming Structures. Although zoning codes generally require
that nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed through fire or natural causes can
only be rebuilt in compliance with the zoning code, an increasing number of codes are
exempting affordable housing from this requirement. Often the most affordable housing
in a community is located on lots that are too small or narrow for the district where they
are located, or in multi-family buildings that have too many units for the district where
they are located. If forced to replat with larger lots or to reduce density following a
disaster, those affordable units may be lost, and allowing rebuilding with the same
number of units as before may be the most efficient way to preserve this these units in
the housing stock.
Incentives. In order to encourage the development of affordable housing, the code
should recognize the difficult economics involved and should offer incentives. Common
incentives include smaller lots, increased density in multi-family areas, reduced parking
requirements, or waivers or reductions of application fees or development impact fees.
Some communities provide additional incentives for housing that is restricted for
occupancy at lower percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI). For example,
developments restricted for households earning less than 50% of AMI could receive more
generous incentives than those for households earning less than 80% of AMI. While
4
zoning and subdivision incentives alone are often not enough to make development for
lower levels of AMI economically feasible, they can be part of a broader package of
incentives (for example, including financial incentives or land contributions) that make
those project feasible. Any incentives offered should be updated as new housing studies
are completed and new information about specific affordable housing needs is obtained.
Growth Management Exemptions. Most communities that operate a growth
management system exempt affordable housing or allow it to compete for a separate
pool of development rights in order to encourage this type of housing.
3. Sample Review from Douglas County Regulations
3.1. Purpose Statement
Section 20.01.020 includes the Purpose Statement for the full consolidated development code,
but does not mention affordable housing as one of the guiding principles. While not a barrier to
affordable housing, the lack of reference to this planning and development goal may make it harder to
defend the code if it its pro-affordability measures are challenged.
3.2. Affordable Housing Incentives
Section 20.440 provides for consideration of density bonuses and affordable housing agreements
for the purposes authorized by Nevada Revised Statutes. Bonuses or agreements are available for
development projects with 10 or more units (before any increase). A maximum 25% density bonus may
be granted for projects where:
20% of the units are affordable to households earning 51-80% of median income; or
15% of the units are affordable to households earning up to 50.9% of median income; or
20% of the units are single family homes affordable for sale to households earning up to
100% of median household income.
These affordability requirements run with the land, must be reflected in recorded covenants, and the
developer must ensure the continued affordability at these levels for 30 years in rental projects and 15
years in for sale projects. The county retains a first right of refusal to purchase affordable units
constructed to earn the bonus at fair market value.
These incentive provisions are commendable – both in terms of the median income levels listed
and the percentage of housing required to be affordable, and we recommend that local governments
consider including these types of incentives. While some larger local governments provide an automatic
bonus for affordable housing without a discretionary decision of the governing body, the norm in smaller
jurisdictions is to require a hearing and an individualized decision on each bonus application. This opens
the door to community opposition, however, so the real test is not whether the bonus is on the books but
whether the local government awards them.
3.3. Growth Management Exemption
Section 20.560 of the Douglas County Code contains a growth management/building permit
allocation system for areas outside of the Tahoe Basin. The regulations of that section define a
permanently affordable unit as “A dwelling unit that is deed restricted for a period of not less than 30
years for lease to households whose combined annual income from all sources is 80 percent or less than
the County’s median income or a dwelling unit that is deed restricted for not less than 15 years for
individual sale to households whose combined annual income from all sources is 110 percent or less than
the County’s median income, or as otherwise defined by state law”. Units that meet that standard are
exempted from the building permit allocation. This represents good affordability practice; almost all
jurisdictions that allocate building permits exempt defined affordable units where a covenant ensuring
continued affordability has been recorded.
5
3.4. Single Family Residential
Basic single family residential zoning districts in the county include the following:
SFR-T 3,000 (3,000 sq. ft. minimum – traditional town setting – attached and detached);
SFR-T 4,000 (4,000 sq. ft. minimum – traditional town setting – detached);
SFR-T 6,000 (6,000 sq. ft. minimum – traditional town setting – detached);
SFR-T 8,000 (8,000 sq. ft. minimum – traditional town setting – detached);
SFR-8,000 (8,000 sq. ft. minimum – suburban setting – detached);
SFR-12,000 (12,000 sq. ft. minimum – suburban setting – detached);
SFR-1/2 (1/2 acre minimum – suburban setting – detached);
SFR-1 (1 acre minimum – suburban and rural setting – detached);
SFR-2 (2 acre minimum – suburban and rural setting – detached);
RA-5 (5 acre minimum – rural setting – detached); and
RA-10 (10 acre minimum – rural setting – detached).
While the upper end of this size range is fairly typical for a western county, the inclusion of zones
allowing 3,000 and 4,000 square foot lots is unusual and commendable. The titles to these two districts
suggest that they were designed for use in established towns (where the county administers zoning and
the town councils serve as the advisory board). However, section 20.656.010.6 states that “no project
proposing attached housing or establishment of single-family residential–traditional 3,000 or 4,000 zoning
districts is allowed in the Towns of Minden and Gardnerville unless the project is a planned development.”
The effectiveness of this pro-affordability zoning tool depends on how much land is zoned into these
categories, whether the towns approve these types of planned developments, and whether that amount
of land covered by such zoning and/or planned developments is adequate to meet demand for smaller lot
single family housing.
Section 20.656.010 lists dimensional standards for the smaller single-family districts, and they are
reasonable: 30 ft. in the SFR-T 3,000 district, 40 ft. in the SFR-T 4,000 district, and 60 ft. in the SFR-T
6,000 district. While some communities are now adopting 25 foot minimum lot widths in their highest
density single family districts (and attached homes could be built on even narrower lots), these figures do
not create significant barriers to affordability. Nevertheless, local governments could permit narrower lots
in some other zone districts (for example, 30 ft. in a 4,000 or 5,000 sq. ft. zone) for affordable housing
projects.
3.5. Manufactured Housing
While manufactured housing is disfavored in many rural counties and towns, it remains a
powerful tool to promote housing affordability. The manufactured housing industry continues to expand
the variety of housing available, and many communities that previously tried to remove manufactured
housing have now begun to see it as a source of long-term affordable housing that can fit in with
community character.
Douglas County addresses manufactured housing as a form of housing that can be located in a
single family district subject to an MH overlay district and compliance with specific standards in sections
20.664.100, 20.664.110 and 20.674. An MH overlay district can be applied to individual lots in a single-
family residential district, or to an entire manufactured home park. Like most communities, Douglas
County requires that all manufactured homes meet the requirements of the National Mobile Home
Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, which sets minimum safety standards that are binding on
local government and requires that manufactured housing be treated as a residential use.
However, the Douglas County approach includes some provisions that could discourage this type
of housing. More specifically:
By requiring that all MH overlay districts comply with the requirements of the underlying zone
district, some of the land use efficiency inherent in manufactured homes is lost. At best, that
6
would impose a 3,000 square foot lot size requirement, while some well-designed
manufactured housing developments achieve lower lot sizes.
By requiring a rezoning to the MH overlay district, the system tends to politicize the use of
manufactured housing, which can allow community opposition to thwart even developments
that comply with the county standards. In contrast, an increasing number of communities
simply designate manufactured housing that complies with federal safety standards as a form
of single family home that can be placed in some single-family residential zones without
special approval. Some cities impose minimum width, minimum roof pitch, foundation quality,
or front entry requirements to ensure that the manufactured housing “fits in” with the
surrounding area (like those in Douglas County Code section 20.690.030.Z) and then delete
the requirement for individual rezonings or approvals.
3.6. Multi-Family Residential
Multi-family residential housing is often disfavored by county citizens, who may view this as an
“urban” use. However, numerous studies have documented affordability challenges in rural areas and
confirmed that many current and future county residents do not and will not earn incomes high enough
to permit them to buy single family homes. Adequate provision for multi-family housing zoning (including
zoning of lands where that use is permitted) is a key factor in most affordable housing strategies.
In Douglas County, multi-family housing is allowed in the “MFR” (Multi-Family Residential, section
20.664.120) and “MUC” (Mixed Use Commercial-section 20.664.125) districts. Key parameters in these
two districts are summarized below;
Standard MFR MUC
Lot size Min. 9,000 sq. ft.
Density Max. 16 du./ac. Max 16 du./ac.
Height N/A Max 35 - 50 ft. depending on
layout and area
Bonus N/A Projects > 45 ft. tall may apply
for affordable housing bonus
Commercial space N/A 50-75% of floor area
Usable open space Min. 25% of site Min. 10% of site
Ground floor patio / balcony Min. 150 sq. ft. or
25% of du size
Upper floor balcony Min. 75 sq. ft.
Enclosed storage space Min. 150 sq. ft./du Min.150 sq. ft./du
Washer / dryer or
common laundry
Required Required
Parking Min. 1.5 space/du Min 1.5 space/du
Recreational amenities Sliding scale –
up to 4 based on
# of units
Sliding Scale – up to 6
based on # of units
Design review (section
20.614)
Required Required
These are fairly rigorous standards for a county code, and some elements may act as barriers to
affordable housing. In particular:
The maximum density of 16 du/ac is fairly low (barely above densities achievable with
townhouse development),
7
The maximum height of 50 ft. does not allow multi-family housing builders to achieve some
of the building economies possible under the International Fire Code (which requires more
expensive construction above about 75 ft.)
The sliding scale of required amenities is somewhat unusual, particularly for affordable
housing developments.
The minimum parking requirement may be higher than that required to serve affordable
housing occupants.
While these requirements are reasonable for the scale and character of rural and low-density
counties, local governments with similar controls should consider allowing adjustments where the project
provides a significant amount of affordable housing. In the real estate market, affordable housing
projects must compete with market rate projects for the same supply of land. Since market rate projects
generally provide more development profit per unit, local governments interested in promoting affordable
housing need to consider allowing more units per acre in order to allow those projects to compete for
land. Adjusting maximum densities, maximum heights, and parking standards for affordable housing
developments would go far towards allowing competition in this area. In addition, local governments
could consider lowering or waiving the balcony, patio, and amenity requirements, since many cities and
counties consider the provision of affordable housing to provide an equivalent value to the community.
3.7. Non-Residential Districts
Section 20.658 addresses the county’s non-residential districts. The MUC zone allows multi-family
residential development (along with commercial), and has no minimum lot area and minimal building
setbacks. However, the maximum Floor Area Ratio is .35 or .50 (or .75 if all other provisions of the code
are met). Maximum heights are 35 ft. in general and 45 ft. for tourist commercial hotels. These are fairly
low density standards, and do not allow builders to take advantage of economies and potential internal
cross-subsidies for affordable housing that could occur if minimum densities and maximum heights were
raised. Counties with similar standards might consider allowing developments with significant amounts of
affordable multi-family housing to achieve the maximums permitted for special types of buildings (for
example, allowing mixed-use buildings with affordable housing to use the maximum heights permitted for
hotels).
3.8. Group Housing
Boarding Houses are allowed (with design review) in six commercial zones, which promotes
supply of this type of housing.
Large Group Care Homes are a special permit use available in four zones -- the Multi-family
Residential, Office-Commercial, Mixed Use Commercial, and Public Facilities districts – which is
reasonable. Some of the standards applicable to Large Group Care Homes in sections 20.664.090 and
20.668.070 are fairly restrictive, however – particularly the maximum density restriction of 3 dwelling
units per acre in the OC and MUC districts (a very suburban standard for a medium density use).
Independent Congregate Senior Living Communities are permitted as special permit uses in the
Multi-family Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Office Commercial, and General Commercial districts
provided they comply with the standards of the underlying zone district. Some communities would allow
these types of facilities in mixed use commercial zones as well. While the standards in sections
20.664.157 and 20.668135 are generally reasonable, it would be useful if the local the county provided
some flexibility for facilities that set aside a significant percentage of senior units for low- or moderate-
income households.
Nursing, Convalescent, and Residential Care Facilities are permitted as special permit uses in the
Multi-family Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Office-Commercial, Mixed Use Commercial, and
Public Facility districts, which is reasonable.
3.9. Accessory Dwelling Units
8
Douglas County allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right in all non-residential zone
districts and in the SFR-½, SFR-1, and SFR-2 zones. While allowing ADUs without a discretionary special
use permit is a good tool to promote affordable housing, the list of zone districts is very short, and some
local governments allow ADUs on single family lots as small as 6,000 sq. ft. The list of standards for ADUs
in sections 20.664.010 and 20.668.010 are reasonable and do not pose additional barriers to affordable
housing.
3.10. Off-Street Parking Requirements
Affordable housing builders often mention off-street parking requirements as a key contributor to
housing development costs – particularly for multi-family dwellings, and particularly for affordable
projects, where studies tend to confirm lower-than-average car ownership. This is an area that requires
careful thought, because automobile ownership and use patterns can vary significantly between urban
and rural areas (urban standards seldom work well in rural areas), and because many local governments
have a tradition of requiring more parking than the market needs or requires to prevent traffic
congestion. A review of Douglas County’s parking requirements (section 20.692) shows that:
Standards for small group care or group homes (.5 spaces per bed), independent congregate
senior living community (1 space per unit plus 1 space per 4 units), and accessory dwelling
units (1 space per unit) are generally reasonable for rural and low-density communities.
Standards manufactured home parks and multi-family dwellings (2 spaces per unit) may be
high, particularly for small lot and affordable housing developments. While 2 spaces per unit
has been the general U.S. standard for the past 50 years, many local governments are
concluding that it requires more parking than is needed for special housing types and
populations. An increasing number of cities and counties are adopting a 1.5 space per unit
standard – or a sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms -- for multi-family housing
and affordable single-family housing.
Similarly, an increasing number of communities are allowing affordable housing
developments to use tandem parking arrangements (one car parked behind the other), which
Douglas County allows for manufactured housing parks.
Finally, the code requirement that each residential parking space have minimum dimensions
of 9 feet by 20 feet (180 square feet total per space) is higher than many modern codes.
Some communities now permit spaces (or a portion of required spaces) with minimum
dimensions as small as 7.5 feet by 16 feet.
3.11. Nonconforming Structures and Uses
Traditionally, zoning ordinances have tried to eliminate nonconforming structures and uses (i.e.
structures that do not meet the requirements of the zones where they are located) by making it difficult
or impossible to change their use, to expand the structure, or to replace the use or structure after
destruction or abandonment. However, some communities are rethinking this approach and allowing the
limited expansion or replacement of nonconformities for several reasons. First, the continued operation of
those uses and structures is often supported by the surrounding community; second, their continued use
often contributes to the same types of mixed use that the zoning code is trying to encourage through
other zoning tools; and third, land economics would often make it impossible to replace desired uses in
ways that meet the current zoning code. For example, an increasing number of cities and counties are
allowing the replacement of affordable housing units after damage or destruction with a similar number
of affordable units even if the underlying zoning density would not permit the replacement of all those
units.
9
Section 20.698.030 of the Douglas County code allows nonconforming structures to be enlarged
or extended, provided that the existing non-conformity is not enlarged or expanded. For example, a
multi-family building located too close to one lot line would not be prohibited from expanding in
directions away from that non-conformity, as long as the expansion met the requirements of the zone
districts. This reflects good current practice.
Section 20.698.040 contains fairly standard provisions that (a) if a structure containing
nonconforming use is damaged and repairs will exceed more than 50% of the value of the structure, then
it may be reconstructed only for uses permitted in that district (except in the town of Genoa, where
damaged structures can always be rebuilt and the nonconforming use can be continued regardless of the
extent of damage), and (b) if repair costs are lower than that threshold then the building may be
restored and the nonconforming use can continue. Nevada cities and counties with these types of
provisions should consider exempting affordable housing and allowing the same number of units to be
reconstructed on the same site, because it is usually impossible to construct damaged affordable housing
with fewer units in the same structure and still keep them affordable. Some communities provide that as
long as residential uses are allowed in the zone, the same number of affordable units may be
reconstructed regardless of whether that density would otherwise be permitted under current zoning,
provided that the continued affordability of the units is ensured.
3.12. Tahoe Basin Regulations
The Douglas County code also contains detailed specific conditions applicable to areas of the
county in the Tahoe Basin and under the jurisdiction of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Those
regulations significantly amend the menu of zoning districts and the minimum lot sizes, setbacks, and
open spaces required in each. Given the environmentally sensitive nature of the Tahoe Basin and
longstanding efforts to manage development in the area, it is not surprising that the Tahoe Basin
Regulations generally allow lower levels of development than the base zone regulations they replace. As
noted above, those types of regulations can have a significant impact on affordability, but it is not clear
that Douglas County would have the authority to enact amendments to promote affordability in the
Tahoe Basin. Because the Tahoe area regulations are very complex, and because these issues do not
affect most cities and counties in Nevada, they have not been reviewed in detail as part of this analysis.
3.13. Other Regulations
Finally, the Douglas County Code contains additional provisions that could affect affordability.
Section 20.300.020 provides that “The board shall consider the imposition of impact fees on
new development as a potential revenue source for construction or expansion of capital
improvements projects in the formation and annual revision of the five-year capital
improvement plan.” Most jurisdictions that operate development impact fee systems exempt
dedicated affordable housing where continued affordability has been ensure through
recorded covenants.
Sections 20.690.030 contains general standards for design. Subsection C (Design
Considerations), subsection E (Exterior Building Walls), and subsection Z (Single-Family
Dwelling Design Standards) contain provisions that are generally reasonable but that would
have the effect of increasing costs of housing development. While subsection Z explicitly
exempts properties in the MH overlay district and accessory dwellings for employees’
quarters, other types of affordable single-family development are not exempt. Standards
include the following:
o Subsection Z.6 requires a minimum roof pitch of 4:12 for at least 75% of the total roof
area.
10
o Subsection Z.9 requires each unit have a garage or carport with a minimum interior
width of 12 feet.
o Subsection Z.11 provides that “All single-family dwellings shall utilize at least three of the
following architectural features: dormers; more than two gables; recessed entries;
covered porch/entry; bay window or alcove; building off-set; roof overhang at the eaves
of at least 24 inches; roof pitch of a least 6:12; a deck with railing or planters and
benches; or other compensating features that would make the dwelling architecturally
compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, as approved by the
director.”
While subsection Z.13 permits the director to vary these standards based through a minor
variance process based on specific criteria, those criteria do not mention affordability. While the goal of
integrating affordable housing with existing neighborhoods is good, some communities explicitly exempt
affordable projects from some design requirements or allow modifications of design standards based on
the size of the project and the level of affordability achieved.
4. Sample Review of Elko County Regulations
4.1 Purpose and Intent
Section 4-1-2 of the Elko County Code includes a Purpose and Intent Statement that does not
mention affordable housing as one of the guiding principles. While not a barrier to affordable housing,
the lack of reference to this planning and development goal may make it harder to defend the code if it
its pro-affordability measures were challenged.
4.2 Single-Family Housing
Section 4.3.2 of the Elko County Code lists the following menu of one- and two-family zone
districts available in the county:
R1-6,000 = 6,000 square feet minimum lot area
R1-8,000 = 8,000 square feet minimum lot area
R1-10,000 = 10,000 square feet minimum lot area
R1-15,000 = 15,000 square feet minimum lot area
R1-0.5 = One-half acre minimum lot area
R1-1.0 = One acre minimum lot area
R3 = Two and one-half acre minimum lot area
While 6,000 square feet lots were once considered the norm for basic single-family zones, many
communities now offer districts with smaller lot sizes in order to promote both affordability and
walkability. Because land costs often count for 25-40 percent of total housing cost, and because land
costs are a “fixed cost” of development, the number of units that can be built on each acre of land is a
major contributor to housing affordability. Spreading land costs over more housing units significantly
decreases the price of the final product. Communities with a similar menu of zone districts should
consider adding zones with smaller minimum lot sizes (if possible, down to 3,000 square feet) for use in
appropriate areas (for example, near towns and cities that have small lot development patterns).
The county already permits this type of flexibility in some circumstances. For example, section 4-
8-13 states that “the requirements on setbacks and minimum lot size shall not be applicable to those
platted lots in the townsites of Mountain City, Midas, Contact, Jarbidge, Lamoille, Montello, Deeth and the
Tuscarora townsite area. The minimum lot size for these areas shall be governed by the existing platted
11
lot size. The setback requirements shall be those set forth in the uniform building code with respect to
the various types of construction.”
On the positive side, Elko Count allows both single-family and two-family homes on its R-1 lots,
which allows smaller and more affordable units. If minimum lot sizes are reduced, some of the smaller
lots may need to be limited to single-family dwellings. Setbacks are reasonable, and the 20 foot front
setback is standard. However, some communities are amending their codes to provide that only the
garage portion of the home needs to be set back 20 feet (to allow a car to be parked in the driveway
without overhanging the street or sidewalk), and that other portions of the home can be built to within
10 or 15 feet of the front lot line (particularly on small lots).
4.3 Multi-Family Housing
Elko County permits multi-family housing only in its R2 Multi-family Residential district. Section
4-3-3 clarifies that the minimum lot size in this district is 10,000 square feet, minimum lot width is 75
feet, and building setbacks are also minimal, all of which are reasonable for multi-family housing. The
maximum height in the R2 districts is 50 feet or 4 stories. As noted earlier, this height does not permit
some of the building economies permitted by the building code, which often allow heights of
approximately 75 feet before more expensive forms of fire-resistant construction are needed. A taller
maximum height for affordable housing projects may be warranted if there are areas of the county where
buildings of that height would be compatible with nearby development.
4.4 Non-Residential Zone Districts
Sections 4-4-1 through 4-4-6 of the Elko County Code list four commercial districts (two general
commercial, one highway/tourist, and one high rise/tourist district). However none of those districts allow
multi-family residential development either alongside or above commercial development. The C2
(highway/tourist) district does allow mobile home parks, but it is the only district that does so. Many
cities are now amending their codes to allow a mix of multi-family and commercial districts in at least
some of their commercial districts in order to reduce average commuting distances and to enable builders
to cross-subsidize housing costs from commercial development revenues. As lower income homes have
to drive further to jobs, the amount of income remaining to pay for housing declines, so development
patterns that allow for shorter commutes make more of the household’s limited income available for
housing. Some counties are following this trend by either (a) amending their current zones to add multi-
family residential uses in existing districts and/or (b) drafting new mixed use districts.
4.5 Accessory Dwelling Units
Section 4-8-6 of the code includes standard language permitting accessory structures, but
includes a provision that “no use shall be deemed to be an accessory use which increases the number of
dwelling units on any lot beyond that permitted in the district.” While that language suggests that the
county will not permit accessory dwelling units, all of the county’s R1 single-family districts permit both
one- and two-family dwellings. If the county interprets this language to allow single-family homes to have
an accessory dwelling unit (since two dwelling units a lot do not exceed the two-family maximum for the
district) then the limiting language does not constitute a significant barrier to affordable housing.
Otherwise, it could constitute a barrier.
4.6 Invalid or Caretaker Secondary Housing
Elko County explicitly permits “a secondary independent living unit on a lot or parcel already
developed to the maximum density allowed in the District, for the housing of an invalid family member or
a caretaker of an invalid family member residing in the primary residence on the parcel” in all seven of its
agricultural/residential, agricultural/recreation, single-family residential, and multi-family residential, and
conservation reserve districts, which helps reduce housing barriers for the injured or disabled persons. A
conditional use permit is required, and the permit must be reviewed every two years. When the unit is no
longer used for an invalid or caretaker, mobile units must be removed and non-moveable units may not
be used for rental purposes.
12
4.7 Off-Street Parking
Elko County requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit in the R1 zones (single- and two-family
dwellings) and 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit in the R2 (multi-family) district. As noted above, these are
standard provisions in many zoning codes, but do not reflect the generally lower auto ownership rates
among affordable housing occupants. Some communities are also using the 1.5 space/unit standard (or
an even lower standard, or a sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms) for affordable housing
projects.
4.8 Nonconforming Uses and Buildings
Section 4-8-11 of the code addresses buildings and uses that no longer conform to the
requirements of the zone district where they are located. Subsection (A) contains traditional provisions
prohibiting any enlargement, extension, or structural alteration of a nonconforming building unless the
entire building is brought into conformance. However, subsection (B) provides an exception reading “A
dwelling in any "R" district which is nonconforming only with respect to a deficiency in yard dimensions or
in parking spaces, may be structurally altered or enlarged; provided that any addition or enlargement
shall itself be fully conforming and that the number of dwelling units in the structure shall not be
increased.” The exception allows conforming exceptions to non-conforming dwellings, which generally
supports affordability by allowing minor expansions that can keep older, smaller homes from becoming
obsolete or unable to accommodate growing families.
Subsection (D) includes standard language prohibiting reconstruction of any nonconforming
building damaged to the extent of 50% or more of the cost of duplicating the entire structure as it
existed prior to the damage. As noted earlier, it would be helpful if this language contained an exception
including the restoration of damaged affordable housing units where continued affordability has been
ensured through the recording of a covenant.
4.9 Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Parks
Section 4-11 of the Code contains definitions and development standards for Mobile Home Parks,
which many communities are recognizing as a valuable source of affordable housing supply. These
development standards include a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, a
50% maximum lot coverage limit, 5 foot setbacks, a minimum off-street parking requirement of 2 spaces
per unit, and a minimum parking space size of 9 by 20 feet. These standards are generally reasonable,
although the parking requirement and parking space dimensions could lowered for affordable housing
projects for the reasons discussed earlier.
4.10 Subdivision Regulations
Title 5 of the Elko County Code contains the county’s subdivision regulations. Some studies have
identified subdivision regulations as significant contributors to housing cost inflation. Most of these
standards are reasonable, and include the following:
Agricultural and agricultural-residential zoned subdivision street widths range from 26 to 34
to 50 feet, which are efficient and narrower than the minimums used by some counties.
Residential zoned subdivision widths range from 40 to 44 to 50 feet, although the county
may require a 56 or 70 arterial standard based on traffic flow projections. While these
standards match those used in many jurisdictions, some communities are now allowing
residential street widths between 30 and 40 feet in order to promote land use efficiency and
slow down traffic.
Minimum rights of way of 60 feet may be wider than needed to accommodate some the
street widths required. While there is a need for right-of-way beyond driving lanes for the
installation of utilities, storm water management, and safety margins, it is not clear why an
13
additional 34 feet is needed in those cases where driving lanes only occupy only 26 feet
(particularly since section 5-4-5 gives the county authority to require utility easements
beyond the right-of-way).
Provisions allowing the county to require street extensions to provide better access to
neighboring developments promote affordability by helping create street systems that allow
better walkability and shorter vehicle trips. Similarly, provisions allowing the county to
require pedestrian ways or semi-improved trails not less than 5 feet wide helps remove
housing barriers by allowing a wider range of residents (i.e. those without ready access to
cars or with limited ability to drive) to occupy housing in the subdivision.
However, standards on block length in section 5-4-3 undermine this interest in walkability
and efficient street systems by allowing blocks as long as 1,500 feet (though they do require
a 10 foot wide walkway if the block exceeds 1,200 feet long). Blocks that long discourage
walking and lengthen required driving trips within the subdivision. Many communities use a
lower standard (somewhere in the 600 – 800 foot range, with exceptions permitted if site
topography requires an unusual layout). For similar reasons, through-block walkways should
be required more often than once every 1,200 feet.
Provisions allowing for alternate compliance are positive, since they provide the Department
of Public Works the flexibility to modify development standards based on “practical
difficulties”. However, the criteria for modification could also include “adequacy for the
anticipated residents and users of the development”. That would allow the Department to
modify standards because of the types of persons anticipated to occupy the housing (i.e.
smaller or more elderly households) even if construction pursuant to the adopted standards
does not create practical difficulties.
5. Summary and Recommendations
Because each Nevada local government has adopted different zoning controls, subdivision
regulations, and development standards, it is important that each city and county review its standards to
identify and remove unintended or unnecessary barriers to housing affordability and choice. While many
counties in the western U.S. have adopted codes that encourage low-intensity residential development in
order to protect rural character and scenic vistas, support for those values should be balanced against a
careful analysis of their impacts on lower income or disadvantaged households. In many cases, county
plans can identify areas where smaller lots, higher development densities, and less expensive
development standards can be adopted in order to meet the housing needs of county residents and
workers. As noted above, an effective regulatory review should focus on:
Minimum lot sizes. Are these appropriate for the areas mapped, or are there areas where
smaller lots would be acceptable?
Maximum development densities and building heights. Are there zone districts that permit
construction of single, attached, and multi-family housing at intensities that allow affordable
housing builders to capture the efficiencies inherent in efficient building forms?
Accessory dwelling units. Are these allowed in some of the single-family zone districts?
Manufactured housing. Are the manufactured housing standards up to date, and does the
code permit manufactured housing on individual lots in some residential zones (not just in
mobile home parks) when the units meet the design character of that zone?
Special needs housing. Does the code permit those types of group, congregate, and senior
housing needed to serve the communities existing and anticipated population?
Zoning maps. Are adequate areas mapped in zones that allow smaller lots, multi-family
housing, accessory dwelling units, manufactured housing and special needs housing.
14
Off-street parking standards. Is the old two spaces per unit standard still needed in all zone
districts and for all types of housing, or could a lower standards be adopted in some cases?
Street and right-of-way widths. Do the street standards reflect best recent practice in
narrowing streets in order to promote land efficiency, storm water management, and traffic
slowing/pedestrian safety?
Lot and block requirements. Do the standards promote the level of connectivity needed to
provide walking options for those with limited access or abilities to drive, and to promote
shorter driving trips to nearby destinations?
Affordable housing incentives. Does the code permit the community to modify or waive
development standards for affordable or special needs housing? Does it offer density or
other incentives to allow affordable housing builders to compete with market rate builders in
the land market? Does it exempt affordable housing projects from growth management
allocation formulas?
If barriers are found in these areas, the city or county should consider whether amendments to
the zoning, subdivision, or development standards are necessary. In many cases, barriers can be
removed by providing different or more flexible standards for those projects willing to commit to ensuring
affordability or a particular type of needed housing over time through the recording of restrictive
covenants. Those projects unwilling to make those agreements would not be eligible for the modified
zoning or development standards.
Final Report
Las Cruces Affordable Housing
Strategies
Prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on
Affordable Housing
Final Report
July 28, 2009
Las Cruces Affordable Housing
Strategies
Prepared by
Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee
City of Las Cruces, Community Development
575 South Alameda
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88044
Prepared by
BBC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3868
303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448
www.bbcresearch.com
bbc@bbcresearch.com
and
Clarion Associates
621 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80293
303.830.2890 fax 303.860.1809
www.clarionassociates.com
Table of Contents
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i
I. Introduction and Background
II. Las Cruces Affordable Housing Programs
Federal Sources for Affordable Housing ...................................................................................... II–1
State and Local Funding ............................................................................................................. II–3
Major Housing Programs ............................................................................................................ II–4
Housing Providers ...................................................................................................................... II–8
Summary Impact ....................................................................................................................... II-11
III. Development Regulations Review
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... III–1
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. III–2
IV. Peer Cities Comparison
Albuquerque, New Mexico ........................................................................................................ IV–1
Tucson, Arizona ......................................................................................................................... IV–9
Yuma, Arizona ......................................................................................................................... IV–12
Fort Collins, Colorado ............................................................................................................. IV–12
El Paso, Texas .......................................................................................................................... IV–16
Lubbock, Texas ........................................................................................................................ IV–18
V. Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations on Affordable Housing Strategy
Guiding Principles in deciding upon Recommendations ............................................................. V–2
Programs/Policies the Committee Wishes Not To Recommend ................................................... V–3
Programs/Policies the Committee Desires To Recommend ......................................................... V–3
Programs/Policies the Committee Wishes To Table for Future Consideration .............................. V–6
Appendices
A. Program Discussion Chapters .............................................................................................. A–1
B. Model Ordinances ............................................................................................................... B–1
SECTION I.
Introduction and Background
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1
SECTION I.
Introduction
On June 2, 2008, the City of Las Cruces established the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Ad Hoc
Committee. The Committee’s purpose is to oversee the development of a plan to better meet
affordable housing needs in Las Cruces.
Mayor Miyagishima appointed 13 Committee members, representing a variety of stakeholder groups
in Las Cruces. Councillor Sharon Thomas was elected as Committee Chair by the Committee
members.
The Ad Hoc Committee includes the following members and organizations:
Committee Members Representing
Councillor Sharon K. Thomas City Council and Committee Chair
Mayor Ken Miyagishima City Council
Councillor Dolores Archuleta City Council
Ray Shipley Planning & Zoning Commission
Win Jacobs Housing Authority Board
Billy Moya Title Industry (employed at Dona Ana Title)
Shelly L. Sanders Mortgage Lending (employed at First National Bank NM)
Peggy Shinn Realtors (from Coldwell Banker Dewitter Hovious)
Rose Garcia Housing Nonprofit (Executive Director at
Tierra del Sol Housing Corporation)
J. Joe Martinez LC Chamber of Commerce
David Gordon LC Home Builders Association (owns Desert Sage
Building & Development)
Michael Sanchez Potential Homebuyer
Tom Chagolla Member-at-large
Vacant Section 8/Public Housing participant
In addition to the establishment of the committee, BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) and Clarion
Associates (Clarion) from Denver, Colorado and Williams Demographics from Las Cruces were hired
to assist the Committee fulfill its goals through the following tasks:
Evaluate the City’s existing policies and programs,
Identify opportunities for modifying current programs/policies, and
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 2
Recommend new programs and policies to better meet housing needs, including
programs to help finance the development of affordable housing.
The consultants also conducted a detailed review of the City’s land use codes and
ordinances to identify barriers to the development of affordable housing and
opportunities to create more incentives for such development.
The consultants’ work product includes detailed recommendations and an implementation plan for
the City to better facilitate affordable and workforce housing development.
The consultants met with the Committee on a regular basis from July 2008 through March 2009.
The first Committee/consultant meeting involved a review of the existing housing needs in Las
Cruces. In subsequent meetings, the consultants presented best practice programs and policies from
other communities and facilitated discussions about these programs/policies. One meeting was
dedicated to reporting the results of the zoning and development fees review and recommendations
for policy changes.
This report begins with background information on the City’s existing programs and funding
sources; provides information about the Committee meetings and the programs that were considered
to address the City’s affordable housing needs; contains a stand alone chapter dedicated to the zoning
and development fees review; and culminates with the Committee’s recommendations to better
address Las Cruces’ affordable housing needs.
SECTION II.
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Programs
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1
SECTION II.
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Programs
This section discusses the programs that the City of Las Cruces has historically used to meet the
housing needs of its low- and moderate-income residents. It sets the context for the remainder of the
report, which culminates with recommendations and an implementation plan for increasing the city’s
resources and capacity within the City to address housing needs.
Federal Sources for Affordable Housing
Las Cruces has historically depended upon federal funding to support housing and community
development activities. On average, the City of Las Cruces receives approximately $1.5 million
annually between the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME
Investment Partnership Program (HOME). CDBG and HOME are entitlement funds received from
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition to these federal
block grants, through funding received by nonprofit developers and the Housing Authority of the
City of Las Cruces (HACLC), the City’s low- to moderate-income residents benefit from the federal
Section 8 voucher program and the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.
Specifically, the federal programs that have been used to address housing needs in Las Cruces include:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)—Established in 1974, the program
provides a lump sum of funding to qualifying cities and every state for community development
activities. Federal regulations govern how the funds can be used. Housing activities are limited
to housing rehabilitation, downpayment assistance, property acquisition, property demolition,
infrastructure for developments that will contain affordable housing and construction of
facilities that serve special needs populations (e.g., homeless shelter). CDBG cannot be used
directly to build new affordable housing.
The City of Las Cruces has received CDBG since 1996. CDBG in Las Cruces has generally
been used for owner occupied rehabilitation and public improvements—streets and sidewalks,
bus shelters, nonprofit facilities—and owner-occupied home rehabilitation, along with
supporting the operations of social service and housing providers. Las Cruces’ CDBG allocation
has declined since its peak of almost $1.3 million in 1995 to just less than $1 million currently.
This reflects the overall decline of the national CDBG budget.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)—This program, enacted in 1990, is
also a block grant program but, unlike CDBG, is solely dedicated to the development of
affordable housing. Las Cruces first received HOME funds in 1994. Eligible activities include
new construction, rehabilitation of existing housing, downpayment assistance and direct rental
assistance to low-income renters. Developments funded with HOME have an “affordability
period” during which the units created from HOME remain affordable to low- to moderate-
income households. The City of Las Cruces receives about $500,000 each year in HOME
funds.
SECTION II, PAGE 2 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The City has historically used HOME dollars to fund three activities: 1) A home rehabilitation
program administered by the City (now funded with CDBG); 2) Funding for affordable
housing development (property acquisition, new construction); and 3) Funding to support the
operations of certified Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). In the past
years, the bulk of HOME has been dedicated to the acquisition of lots by nonprofits for
development of affordable housing.
As shown in the following exhibit, CDBG and HOME funds have been declining, most significantly
since 2003.
Exhibit II-1.
HUD Historical Funding for CDBG and HOME, 1993 to 2008
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
CDBG Funding
HOME Funding
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Section 8 voucher program. Annually, the Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces
(HACLC) receives $1.2 million for the Section 8 voucher program. This allows the housing
authority to assist about 900 households per year, for a per household cost of $1,333 annually
on average. The majority of families assisted through the voucher program have some source of
income, mostly through social security/general assistance or disability payments. Most residents
assisted are mostly female heads of household, two-thirds are families and one-fifth are elderly
and/or disabled.
Section 8 project-based units. This federal program subsidizes the rents of units in existing
rental and newly construction “project-based” Section 8 developments. The HACLC manages
102 units of Section 8 new construction at two sites. One site is family housing (61 units); the
other is elderly/disabled housing (41 units). Residents are mostly female heads of household,
and 46 percent are elderly/disabled.
Public housing authority units. HACLC also receives about $355,000 per year in capital
funds to maintain rental properties owned and managed by the housing authority, which
include 249 units of public housing located at four sites and 10 scattered single dwelling units.
The households assisted are mostly female heads of household, many families, and have sources
of income through government assistance. About 40 percent are seniors/disabled.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 3
Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. Administered by the federal Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), this program provides tax benefits to developers who invest in affordable housing.
This is strictly a rental program, where the investor is allowed to take a credit against federal
income taxes over a 10-year period, provided the property continues to operate as affordable
rental housing for a minimum of 30 years. Tax credits are competitive, and are awarded to
developers by the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA). The city has more than
500 tax credit units, more than half of which are senior developments.
Other federal funding sources. In addition to the block grant, Section 8 and LIHTC
programs, the City of Las Cruces is eligible to compete for other types of federal funding for
affordable housing. The most common programs include:
Section 202—funding for the construction and operation of low-cost senior
rental housing;
Section 811—funding for the construction of low-cost rental housing for persons with
disabilities;
Shelter+Care—funding to assist persons who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness with
their rent payment, in addition to providing them with supportive services (e.g., mental
health counseling, job training);
Continuum of Care—This program provides funds for communities to reduce and end
chronic homelessness and prevent residents at-risk of homelessness from becoming
homeless.
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG)—This program provides funding to assist organizations
that provide housing and services to homeless persons and their families. During the last 2
years, 4 organizations in Las Cruces have received ESG funding to help with their
operations and services.
HOPWA—The federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
program provides housing assistance to persons living with HIV/AIDS and operating
support to organizations serving this population. In New Mexico, HOPWA funds are
awarded on a competitive basis to MFA. The Camino de Vida Center for HIV Services has
been the recipient of HOPWA funds for the southwest section of New Mexico, including
Las Cruces.
State and Local Funding
State funds have also been used to provide housing assistance to citizens of Las Cruces. MFA
administers state programs for affordable housing. These programs are available to Las Cruces
residents, in addition to other New Mexicans. The state’s affordable housing programs that Las
Cruces residents may take advantage of include:
Below market-rate mortgages for first time homebuyers;
Downpayment and closing cost assistance to low-income homebuyers;
Owner-occupied weatherization improvements; and
Financial assistance in developing affordable rental housing.
SECTION II, PAGE 4 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The City’s local efforts to encourage and support affordable housing development have been applied
on an as-needed basis. The City has provided the housing authority with a loan for property
acquisition and waived building permit fees for nonprofit affordable housing developers. The City’s
development fee waiver program is the first formalized approach at incentivizing and subsidizing
affordable housing development.
Major Housing Programs
This section describes the main housing programs employed in and by the City of Las Cruces to meet
housing needs. These programs are funded all or in part by the sources described in the prior section.
Home Rehabilitation Program. The purpose of the city-administered Home Rehabilitation
Program is to assist families with low- and moderate-incomes in rehabilitating their homes. This is
done by enabling families to secure a low interest mortgage loan or grant, which may not be available
to them otherwise. Owner-occupants are eligible provided they live within the City of Las Cruces, are
in violation with the City of Las Cruces building code and/or Housing Quality Standards, and earn
less than 80 percent of the area median income (in other words, making less than about $34,000 per
year).
Key components of the Home Rehabilitation Program include:
Homeowners can get a maximum of $52,000 per year in a low-interest loan or grant to
make major repairs.
Eligible homeowners in the program must agree to vacate their unit while it is under repair
(sometimes as long as 6 months). Many live with families and friends; the city assists with
relocation if needed.
The homes assisted by the program have a variety of issues, although most need roof
and electrical repairs.
The households assisted are predominantly elderly and female-headed, many single
parent households.
Since 2004, 46 housing units have been rehabilitated from the Home Rehabilitation Program. The
City has a goal to assist 12 households per year. In 2007, the City assisted six households at an
average cost of $35,780 per home.
All of the households assisted through the program earn less than 80 percent of the median income
and about 22 percent of these households were extremely low-income households (earning 30 percent
or below the median income).
According to the staff that manage the program, the biggest challenge for the program is lack of
resources. If the program had more funding and could be expanded, staff projects that twice as many
households could be assisted per year.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 5
Mobile Home Ramp Program for the Disabled. This recent addition to the Home Rehabilitation
Program assists low-income, disabled individuals and families that live within mobile homes. The
program provides them an accessible ramp to their home for permanent members of their household
who have a mobility or other qualifying disability. This includes those who own their home or who
are renting, and it can be in a mobile home park or placed on their own land. The ramp is given in
the form of a grant and becomes the property of the low-income family. Since the program is
relatively new, the City is currently assisting its first client.
Affordable housing development. Las Cruces funds affordable housing projects differently each
year depending upon needs. The City has an informal policy of alternating its focus on for sale and
rental projects year to year.
The exhibits below summarize the types of developments the City has funded during the past few
years, along with the per household cost.
Exhibit II-2.
Households Assisted with
CDBG and HOME, 2003
to 2006
Source:
City of Las Cruces CAPER reports and BBC Research & Consulting.
Renters Assisted AMI Range
0-30% 113 45%
31-50% 116 46%
51-80% 21 8%
Total Renters 250 100%
Owners Assisted AMI Range
All owners 0-30% 34 23%
31-50% 56 37%
51-80% 60 40%
150 100%
Special populations 0-80% 30
As shown in Exhibit II-2, the City’s funding has heavily targeted the lowest-income households in the
City, particularly rental programs. The vast majority of renters assisted between 2003 and 2006
earned less than 50 percent of the City’s AMI, or less than about $20,000 per year.
SECTION II, PAGE 6 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Exhibit II-3.
Funding and Cost of Affordable Housing Development and Rehab, 2001 - 2007
Description
2007 CDBG $ 214,680 6 $ 35,780 Home rehabilitation Home rehabilitation of owner occupied properties.
2006 HOME $ 323,500 15 $ 21,567 Acquisition of lots Acquisition of 15 lots in the mixed-income subdivision of Sierra Norte
Heights Phase I. The lots will be given to nonprofit housing developers
for construction of for sale affordable homes.
2004-2005 HOME $ 371,976 13 $ 28,614 Relocation of mobile
home park
Relocation of 13 households in the Valley View Mobile Home Park to
prepare the site for the Housing Authority of Las Cruces Stone
Mountain Place Apartment Complex.
2002-2004 HOME $ 184,170 8 $ 23,021 Acquisition of land Purchase of lots for sweat equity homebuyer program.
2001-2005 HOME $ 1,018,661 14 $ 72,762 Section 811 new
construction
Construction of rental housing for persons with various types and
degrees of mental disability. This apartment project consists of
5 buildings containing 14 units for low-income, chronically ill adults,
with some supportive services on-site. HUD funding covered just
50 percent of construction costs
2004-2005 HOME $ 377,018 29 $ 13,001 Acquisition of land Purchase of land for sweat equity homeowner units. 104 total units,
of which 29 are HOME units.
2005 HOME $ 419,116 17 $ 24,654 New construction Development of an 84 unit rental project called Stone Mountain
using HOME and Low Income Housing Tax Credit funds.
2004 HOME $ 203,519 14 $ 14,537 Acquisition of lots Acquisition of 14 lots for construction of for sale affordable homes.
2003 HOME $ 342,744 100 $ 3,427 LIHTC Conversion of Desert Palms motel into a housing tax credit rental
project, assisting low-income households and seniors. HOME
dollars were provided as gap financing.
2003 HOME $ 106,539 48 $ 2,220 LIHTC Tax credit rental project assisting migrant farm workers and/or
retired low-income farmworkers.
2003 HOME $ 100,000 6 $ 16,667 New construction Construction of affordable single family units using sweat
equity program.
2001 HOME $ 275,000 60 $ 4,583 LIHTC Tax credit rental project assisting low-income seniors.
Relocation of residents Valley View Mobile Home Park relocation for Stone Mountain
Tax Credit Development
Assisted
Households
No. of
Cost per
ApprovedActivity Household Type of
Year Funding Funding
Source
Funding
Amount
Source: City of Las Cruces and BBC Research & Consulting.
Exhibit II-3 compares the per household cost of the affordable housing developments the City has
recently funded. (It also includes the home rehab program funding for 2007 for comparison of
program cost).It should be noted that comparisons across activities are not always appropriate, as
some projects were supplemented with other funding sources. For example, the cost per household
for development of Low Income Housing Tax Credit units is quite low because City funds are used
to supplement the tax credit financing available for these units. In contract, the per unit construction
costs for the Section 811 rental complex which provides housing and services to persons with
disabilities is relatively high, as supplemental funding sources were limited (HUD provided just half
of the construction costs).
The exhibit does show some general trends, however. Lot acquisition costs between $15,000 and
$20,000 per household. The $20,000 cost is more reflective of current conditions, as land costs have
been appreciating. The per household subsidy for new construction ranges from $17,000 to $25,000
(excluding the Section 811 development). Supplemental funding for tax credit projects has the lowest
per household cost, and home rehab has the highest because of the poor condition of the units that
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 7
Community Development Housing Organizations. The City is required by HUD to set aside
a minimum of 15 percent of its HOME funds for housing to be developed, sponsored, or owned by
Community Housing Development Organizations, or CHDOs. A CHDO is a non-profit housing
developer whose governing board, membership and organizational structure reflect its accountability
to low-income community residents. CHDOs must have a demonstrated capacity for carrying out
HOME-approved activities and a history of serving the community in which the HOME-assisted
housing is located. CHDOs are designated by the HUD and the City and are approved by City
Council. CHDOs must be recertified annually.
The City currently has two certified CHDOs, Mesilla Valley Habitat for Humanity (MVHFH) and
Tierra del Sol Housing Corporation. The City sets aside a minimum of 15 percent of its HOME
funds for housing to be developed, sponsored, or owned by its CHDOs. This amount has ranged
from
CHDO operating assistance. The City may set aside up to 5 percent of the fiscal year HOME
allocation to be used for operating expenses of CHDOs. These funds may not be used to pay
operating expenses incurred by a CHDO acting as subrecipient or contractor under the HOME
program. Operating expenses means reasonable and necessary costs for the operation of the CHDO.
Such costs include salaries, wages, and other employee compensation and benefits, employee
education, training and travel, rent, utilities, communication costs, taxes, insurance, equipment, and
materials and supplies.
CHDOs may receive up to 5 percent of the annual HOME allocation. In 2008, the two CHDOs
each were allocated $12,900 of HOME funds for operating assistance. A total of $107,300 of
HOME funds have been allocated to CHDO operating assistance during program years 2003 to
2008.
Shelter Plus Care. The City of Las Cruces, in conjunction with Mesilla Valley Community of
Hope (MVCH), was awarded a HUD Shelter Plus Care Grant in the amount of $327,060 for grant
years 2004 to 2009. Beginning in 2005, the City began implementation of its Shelter Plus Care
(S+C) Program, Community Housing Connection, in which tenant based rental assistance (TBRA)
was provided for the disabled homeless population of Las Cruces. Annually, $65,412 of S+C funds
are designated to assist 12 households with rental housing and services.
The City administers this program in partnership with Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces,
Southwest Counseling Center, and the Mesilla Valley Community of Hope (MVCH). This funding
provides Tenant Based Rental Assistance for the disabled homeless population of Las Cruces with
required match in the form of supportive services being provided to the tenants. MCVH and
Southwest Counseling Center are the primary supportive services providers. The Housing Authority
of the City of Las Cruces is responsible for the rental administration. The City of Las Cruces serves as
the fiscal agent of the grant funds, as well as ensures compliance with applicable federal regulations.
Development Impact and Fee Waiver Program. The City recently passed a new ordinance
authorizing development fee waivers for affordable housing units. A developer can be waived an
estimated $3,800 per unit in development fees for affordable units. The city has a cap on the amount
of total fees that can be waived in one year of $95,000.
SECTION II, PAGE 8 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Public facilities and infrastructure. As mentioned above, the types of housing activities allowed
by CDBG are limited. CDBG is a much more flexible community development program than a
housing program. As a result, many communities—including Las Cruces— use CDBG for
improvements and/or new construction of public facilities and infrastructure.
CDBG in Las Cruces has been used for a wide variety of public improvements, from a new kitchen
for the local Meals on Wheels program to construction of bus shelters at bus stops to road
construction in low- and moderate-income areas.
Public services. This category of assistance refers to dollars that are allocated to nonprofits in the
city that provide services to low-income residents, including residents with special needs (e.g.,
disabilities). Each year, organizations in Las Cruces apply for public service funds. These funds can be
used for many activities, and in the past have funded the operations of homeless shelters, medical
services for the poor and services to victims of domestic violence.
Mortgage lending assistance. The city has not allocated CDBG or HOME for homebuyer
assistance since 2004. In 2002, the city assisted 50 households with purchasing a home by using
CDBG; in 2003 and 2004; 13 to 15 households were helped using HOME funds. Since 2005,
mortgage lending assistance has been provided through the state’s MFA’s Payment$aver program.
Payment$aver is offered through local institutions in Las Cruces. The program provides a below-
market interest rate first mortgage loan as a second mortgage loan at zero-percent interest to cover
up-front costs (the down payment and other costs related to the purchase).
During 2007, 25 Las Cruces families received Payment$aver assistance. The level of assistance ranged
from $6,500 to $15,000.
Homebuyer education. In September 2005, The Las Cruces City Council approved the execution
of separate agreements with Tierra Del Sol Housing Corporation and YWCA El Paso Del Norte
Region to proceed with the implementation of the Homeownership Centers and the delivery of the
curriculum. Both agencies have established homebuyer education resource centers as well as offer
homebuyer education classes in both English and Spanish. They also provide one-on-one counseling
sessions. The program is intended to assist families with improving their credit and money
management skills and then to get them ready for potential homeownership.
In the mid-1990s, the City of Las Cruces received an Economic Development Initiative Special
Project grant from HUD to develop curriculum for a Homebuyer Education Project and implement
a Model Extension Program to increase homeownership in Las Cruces. The Model Extension
Program has been developed jointly by the City of Las Cruces and the Department of Extension
Home Economics at New Mexico State University (NMSU).
The goal of the Model Education Program is to educate prospective homebuyers in the skills
necessary to purchase affordable homes, thereby increasing their opportunities for homeownership.
The curriculum, available in both English and Spanish, has been developed by NMSU.
Housing Providers
In addition to the city’s efforts at meeting housing needs (described through its programs, above),
there are a handful of organizations in the city whose mission is to develop and maintain affordable
housing. These organizations are described in this section.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 9
Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces (HACLC). The HACLC has numerous ongoing
housing programs structured to serve the continuum of housing needs of low-income residents in Las
Cruces. The primary programs include:
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The HACLC administers the federal Section 8
program, which provides subsidies to low-income renters in the city. Through this program, renters
receive assistance with paying their monthly rent. Renters in the program may choose from any
rental units in the city that have rents under a certain level (called Fair Market Rent, or FMR)
which is set by the federal government. The HACLC currently provides vouchers to approximately
900 households; the waiting period for a voucher ranges from 18 months to 3 years.
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program. This program allows the first-
time homebuyer to use the Section 8 voucher subsidy to meet monthly homeowner expenses. The
housing authority started this program in 2007 and has subsequently housed 18 families to date.
Section 8 New Construction. The HACLC owns, manages and maintains rental properties in
neighborhoods in Las Cruces for low-income families, the elderly and disabled. 102 of these units
are Section 8 New Construction units; 61 are family units and 41 are elderly/disabled.
Workforce homeownership. The HACLC has pursued several efforts to address the needs of
workforce housing. The first, City In-Fill Development/Construction Trades program is a
partnership between the City, the housing authority and the Construction Trades Program. The
City donated 6 lots on which workforce housing has been constructed for persons working in
the career fields of law enforcement, education, health care and first responder.
In addition, the HACLC has collaborated with Fannie Mae, First Light Federal Credit Union,
the YWCA and local realtors and builders to deliver the Housing Opportunities for Workforce
(HOW) program. The program is a lease purchase program for workforce. The HACLC buys a
home for a qualifying household, leases it back to them for one year and allows the participant
to assume the mortgage when they are credit-ready. Finally, the HACLC has built 10 homes
that are leased to purchasers (the housing authority takes a soft second or third position) with a
purchase option.
HACLC-owned properties. The HACLC currently manages 249 units of public housing
located at 4 different sites and 10 scattered single dwelling units.
Montana Senior Villages I and II. These developments (total of 132 units) were created using
the LIHTC program and are managed by the HACLC. The units provide affordable housing
and a community center for low-income seniors.
Stone Mountain Place. The HACLC, in collaboration with a private developer built 84
affordable two- and three-bedroom apartments, a community center, laundry facilities and a
playground.
Tierra del Sol. Tierra del Sol is a local nonprofit developer of affordable housing. The organization
uses sweat equity and various mortgage and down payment assistance tools to make home ownership
accessible to low-income households. Tierra del Sol is a long time developer of affordable housing in
the Las Cruces area.
SECTION II, PAGE 10 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Tierra del Sol’s current projects consist of:
Paseo del Oro subdivision. This is new construction lots and self help homes with 3-4
bedrooms. 83 of the units will be affordable to 80 percent of AMI and below; 39 at 80
percent of AMI and above, although still below market ($92,000 to $130,000).
Sierra Norte subdivision. New construction lots and self help homes for 6 3-4 bedroom
units ranging from $89,000 to $120,000 in price (80 percent of AMI and below).
Scattered site homes, a total of 12 lots on which will be built self help 3-4 bedroom
homes averaging $92,000 per unit.
St. Genevieve’s apartments. These are 1 bedroom, elderly/disabled units priced to be
affordable at 50 percent of AMI. There are 32 units.
Alta Tierra apartments. This 57 unit complex was acquired from the FDIC in 1992.
These units are all 2-bedroom family units.
Habitat for Humanity. Like Tierra del Sol, Habitat for Humanity uses a sweat equity model to
build affordable housing. Habitat focuses on homeownership housing. Since 1987, Habitat has built
70 homes. Through sweat equity, Habitat it able to build lower priced market units at about half of
what the market price would be. Habitat also provides loans for their homes, with the terms of no
interest, a 25+ year payment period and a downpayment of one month’s mortgage.
In 2008, Habitat will build 5 houses in Las Cruces; its goal for 2009 is 6 houses. The process from
application to occupancy is about 5 years. Habitat’s unique program and loan terms mean that
households with median incomes as low as 30 to 50 percent of the AMI can afford to buy a home.
Habitat gets between 150 to 200 applications for its homes each year. Most applicants have lived in
Las Cruces for more than one year and show job stability and good credit, the exception due to
medical/health issues.
Community Action Agency. The Community Action Agency of Southern New Mexico works to
reduce poverty in the Las Cruces area. To this end, the agency is engaged in housing activities that
assist low-income households. CAA has worked with the city and the State of New Mexico to
conduct housing rehabilitation. About 2 years ago, they acquired 100 apartments in the City that are
rented to low-income households, many to single persons.
CAA has also been involved in the affordable component of Sierra Norte and plans to begin
construction of homes on these lots that will sell for approximately $110,000.
CAA also offers temporary housing to teen parents for up to 18 months. They currently can support
five women, each with one child, at any one point in time.
Special needs providers. There are several organizations in Las Cruces that provide targeted
affordable housing to populations with certain needs and persons who are homeless. These
organizations include:
FYI. Families and Youth, Inc. (FYI) provides emergency shelter (15 beds) for up to 90-days and
transitional housing (7 beds) for up to 18 months for youth. The apartments are leased from the
HACLC, and were purchased by the housing authority to ensure preservation of these units.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 11
Mesilla Valley Community of Hope. The Mesilla Valley Community of Hope (MVCH) is the
umbrella organization for the following resources that serve people experiencing homelessness in Las
Cruces: St. Luke’s Health Clinic, Jardín de Los Niños and EL Caldito Soup Kitchen. All services are
provided to persons experiencing homelessness or are near to homelessness and some programs
include those who qualify as low-income.
MVCH/YWCA (through the Family Shelter) provides emergency shelter and transitional housing,
primarily to families and women. Their facilities include 9 rooms—6 rooms for families and 3 rooms
for singles. Additionally, they provide some rental assistance involving case management and life skills
training. St. Luke’s Health Clinic offers health care to the working poor and homeless who have no
other resource for health care such as Medicaid/Medicare or other health insurance. Jardín de Los
Niños provides childcare and after school programs for children who are homeless or near homeless.
Caldito Soup Kitchen supplies meals to persons who are homeless and low-income. Also included in
the Community of Hope alliance are Casa de Peregrinos (providing basic food services) and the
Mesilla Valley Clothes Closet.
Community of Hope, along with the HACLC, also provides housing to homeless veterans through
the Oak Street Apartments. These units were purchased by the housing authority for preservation,
and then renovated to be used as transitional housing for homeless veterans.
The Las Cruces Gospel Rescue Mission operates an emergency shelter for persons who are homeless.
Persons experiencing homelessness are allowed three nights stay every 30 days, provided they are
clean and sober. Fourteen slots are available for longer stays up to 90 days, where clients perform
employment duties in return for food and shelter. Those who hold jobs or are students qualify for
extended stay. Transition into the 90-day program requires a client evaluation, which includes a
discussion of church service attendance if clients do not currently attend. Gospel Rescue Mission
provides a total of 120 beds, the majority of which are reserved for single homeless men.
Other resources include La Casa, Inc., which provides short-term transitional housing (37 beds) and
counseling for domestic violence victims and their children. Southwest Counseling Center’s
Transitional Living Center is the largest provider for persons with mental illnesses who are homeless,
supplying 29 beds for transitional living and one bed reserved for crisis situations.
Summary Impact
This section summarizes the impact of the City’s primary housing programs. It also demonstrates
where there are gaps in the resources available v. existing needs.
Home Rehabilitation Program. The Home Rehabilitation Program is administered by the City of
Las Cruces. In 2007, the City assisted 6 households with homes in severely substandard condition for
a per household costs averaging $35,780. In 2007, the number of households assisted was lower than
in past years because of the complexity and severity of needs of the households who received funding.
The most recent Las Cruces Consolidated Plan estimated that as many as 550 Las Cruces renters and
owners live in units that are in severely substandard condition; about half are renters, half are owners.
If the City assisted 10 low-income owners per year on average, the program could continue to meet
needs for at least 25 years. If the program were expanded to multifamily rental properties, the demand
would be higher.
SECTION II, PAGE 12 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Affordable housing development. On average, as shown in Exhibit II-2, the City has been able to
assist with the purchase of 15 lots for development of affordable for sale housing per year, in addition
to supplement the development of affordable rental housing (where the average number of
households assisted each year varies widely depending on the rental development). These units are
then sold to organizations like Tierra del Sol, Habitat for Humanity, Community Action Agency and
the HACLC for new home construction.
In 2005, only about 1,000, or 8 percent of renter households in the City could afford to buy the
average-priced home for sale. Recognizing that not all renters desire or are at a point in their lives
where they should be homeowners, we estimate that there are as many as 900 renters earning between
$35,000 and $45,000 for whom homeownership is not attainable because units are not available to
buy. There are another 900 renters earning between $45,000 and $50,000 in the same situation. If
the City is only able to make 15 lots available per year for these potential homebuyers, it will take
120 years to satisfy this demand!
In addition, there are 3,600 renters earning less than $15,000 per year who can’t find affordable
rental housing. If the City were able to fund 100 deeply affordable rental units per year to serve such
renters (along with other, larger funding sources such as the tax credit program), the City could fund
deeply subsidized rental housing for 36 years without running out of needs.
Section 8 voucher program. The Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces (HACLC)
administers the Section 8 program in the City, which provides subsidized rental housing for low-
income households. The HACLC receives $1.2 million on average annually for the program, which
enables them to assist 900 households at a per household cost of $1,333.
HACLC units. HACLC also owns and operates 249 of low-cost rental units in Las Cruces. The
housing authority receives $355,000 in capital assistance annually from HUD for this program,
resulting in a per unit subsidy of $1,425 on average. Also, approximately 102 household are assisted
each year through the project based Section 8 program that provides low-cost rentals and is managed
through the housing authority.
Other low-cost rental units. The HACLC, Community Action Agency and Tierra del Sol have all
acquired and/or developed affordable rental units through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit
program, the Section 202 program, the Section 811 program and through various other subsidies.
Although these units add a considerable number of units to the City’s affordable rental stock, the
subsidies available for such units are often not enough to provide rents low enough to address the
City’s greatest need: units for households earning less than $15,000 per year.
The City’s 2005 Consolidated Plan found a shortage of more than 3,600 units for renters earning less
than $15,000 per year—the target population for the housing authority’s rental programs. The
housing authority assists approximately 1,250 households assisted per year, meaning that the
HACLC’s programs could more than double before the Section 8 and public housing program were
able to fully meet the needs of existing renters without affordable housing—not accounting for new
growth.
Shelter+Care. The City administers this program in partnership with Housing Authority of the City
of Las Cruces, Southwest Counseling Center, and the Mesilla Valley Community of Hope (MVCH).
This funding provides Tenant Based Rental Assistance for the disabled homeless population of Las
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 13
Cruces with required match in the form of supportive services being provided to the tenants.
Annually, $65,412 of S+C funds are designated to assist 12 households with rental housing and
services.
The 2005 Las Cruces Consolidated Plan estimated that as many as 240 disabled households in the
City have housing needs. It is unclear how many of these individuals are housed in safe and sanitary
conditions.
The Consolidated Plan also estimated that, at any point in time, 13 households in the City are
homeless and have a mental illness. Given the limited resources for homeless disabled households in
the City and the significant needs these households have, it is safe to conclude that the City could
benefit from an ongoing Shelter+Care program and find demand for assisting more than 12
households per year.
Mortgage lending assistance. Since 2005, mortgage lending assistance has been provided through
the state with MFA’s Payment$aver program. Payment$aver is offered through local institutions in
Las Cruces. The program provides a below-market interest rate first mortgage loan as a second
mortgage loan at zero-percent interest to cover up-front costs (the down payment and other costs
related to the purchase). During 2007, 25 Las Cruces families received Payment$aver assistance. The
level of assistance ranged from $6,500 to $15,000.
Exhibit II-4 summarizes the per household funding, projected need and years to meet the need at
current funding rates for the City’s annual programs that fund affordable housing needs. As the
exhibit demonstrates, the need far outweighs the funding available.
Exhibit II-4.
Summary of Production v. Needs
Program
Housing Rehabilitation 10 $ 35,780 250 25 $ 8,945,000
Affordable Housing Development:
Low- to Moderate 15 $ 20,000 1,800 120 $ 36,000,000
Income Homebuyers
Low-Income Renters 90 $ 5,000 3,600 40 $ 18,000,000
Shelter+Care 12 $ 5,417 Ongoing Ongoing $ 65,000
Mortgage Lending Assistance 25 $ 10,750 Unknown
Per year
Meet Need
Number of Dollars to
Assisted/Year Household Need
Projected
Meet Need
Years to
Avg. No. of Avg. No. of
Households Dollars per
Note: Affordable Housing Development funding rotates each year between assisting homebuyers and renters. Subsidy for development of low-income
rental units assumes City dollars subsidize LIHTC funding.
Source: City of Las Cruces and BBC Research & Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1
SECTION III.
Development Regulations Review
As part of the consulting team’s review of Las Cruces’ affordable housing programs, Clarion
Associates reviewed the city’s zoning and impact fee ordinances. Experience shows that while
financial subsidies and thoughtful public-private investments are often needed to meet affordable
housing demands, it is also important to review basic governmental regulations to ensure that they
are not inadvertently discouraging needed forms of housing. More specifically, it is important to
review zoning regulations and development fees to identify:
Barriers to private production of affordable housing, and
Potential additional tools that could spur private production of affordable housing.
Stated another way, private market construction of a wider range of land-efficient, space-efficient,
and cost-efficient housing types can result in “private” solutions to a portion of affordable housing
demand and reduce the need for financial subsidies in some cases.
The following recommendations build on two of the key guiding principles identified by the Ad Hoc
Committee which oversaw this study:
Las Cruces needs to increase its supply of affordable housing, both for low income
renters and moderate income renters who want to be homeowners.
Affordable housing should be dispersed throughout the City.
Recommendations
This regulatory review resulted in the following recommendations, each of which is discussed in the
sections that follow. These recommendations are also summarized in the full report’s
Recommendations section (V).
Proactively rezone land into the R-4 zone. Proactively rezone lands along bus routes and major
one-way street pairs into the R-4 zone to encourage construction of multi-family housing.
Adjust the R-4/C-3 Zone height and density. Raise the height limit in the C-3 and R-4 zones from
60 feet to 75 feet and revise minimum density requirement.
Adopt minimum density regulations for the R-1-b, R-2, and R-3 Zones. Adopt minimum density
regulations for key zone districts.
Refine R-1-b Zone and provide templates. Revise the dimensional standards for the R-1-b district
and prepare template examples of smaller single-family housing on 3,500 square foot lots in order to
encourage wider use of this existing zoning tool.
Reduce residential parking requirements. Reduce the minimum off-street parking requirement for
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and multi-family dwelling units to 1 space per unit.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 2
Refine Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. Remove the requirement that ADUs be occupied by a
member of the same family that occupies the primary housing unit, and that the ADU be contained
within a primary structure.
Expand impact fee exemption. While the existing exemption from park, water, and sewer fees is
good, it covers too few units to make a significant difference in affordable housing supply.
Discussion
Proactively rezone land into the R-4 Zone. While Las Cruces has significant unmet demands
in both single-family and multi-family affordable housing, the city has focused largely on site-specific
single-family housing supply. Over time, a rising share of unmet demand for affordable housing may
need to be met through multi-family rental and ownership units, simply because the per unit land
and construction costs are lower, and an increasing share of families in need of affordable housing
may only be able to afford purchases or rentals of attached and multi-family units. Las Cruces’
zoning ordinance includes the R-2, R-3, and R-4 multi-family districts, which are fairly well designed
to permit potentially affordable development. The R-4 district regulations—which include a
minimum density high enough to help support bus/transit service and no maximum density—is
particularly well suited for use in constructing affordable multi-family units. Unfortunately, only 7.1
percent of the developed land in the city is zoned into multi-family districts, and only 1.3 percent of
the developed land is zoned in the R-4 category—which is the only one that requires (rather than
allows) multi-family construction. The table below summarizes the amounts of land in selected Las
Cruces zone districts.
Exhibit III-1.
Percent of Developed Land by Zone District
District
Min. Lot Size
(sq. ft.) Density Limits Acres
Percent of
Developed
Land
R-1-c 10,000 4/acre 52 0.1%
R-1-a 5,000 8/acre 8,733 19.6%
R-1-b 3,500 12/acre 4,087 9.4%
R-2 5,000 15/acre 978 2.2%
R-3 5,000 20/acre 1,580 3.6%
R-4 8,500 10/acre min
40/acre max for pre-2001
No max for newer rezones
545 1.3%
C-1 5,000 N/A 438 1.0%
C-2 10,000 N/A 1,214 2.8%
C-3 21,780 N/A 2,374 5.4%
Source: Clarion Associates.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 3
We recommend that Las Cruces proactively rezone more lands into the R-4 zone district in order to
encourage production of multi-family rental and ownership units. The rezoned lands should be
located along key one-way pairs of streets or other major arterials that serve as major transportation
corridors connecting downtown and the university area with other major activity centers in the city.
Although the city’s current looped bus routes are not focused on those corridors, experience shows
that as bus systems mature and expand those are logical routes for expanded service because (a) they
can help relieve traffic congestion and (b) there is less community opposition to bus routes in those
locations. Adding housing density along those corridors can also help support future bus system
expansions and contribute to housing affordability, since the combined costs of housing and
transportation can be reduced when bus service is available. In addition, Las Cruces should consider
pro-actively rezoning land into the R-4 category in other activity centers or near major arterial-arterial
and collector-arterial intersections currently served by the looped bus routes. Several other western
city plans—including Albuquerque’s Centers and Corridors plan – have recognized this symbiotic
relationship between public transit and affordable housing.
Adjust the R-4/C-3 Zone height and density. In general, the dimensional standards in the Las
Cruces zoning ordinance are reasonable for their intended purposes. The few exceptions include the
60 foot height limits on development in the R-4 and C-3 districts which limits the achievable density
of multi-family rental and ownership units. In both of these districts, the 2001 zoning ordinance
limits density to 40 dwelling units per acre for land previously zoned in these districts, but offers
unlimited density for those who rezone into these districts and become subject to other 2001
development standards. However, in both of these cases the 60 foot height limit serves as an effective
cap on density. Because of the high cost of constructing underground parking, many affordable
housing projects accommodate parking in surface or above-ground structures (i.e., by stacking
dwelling units over a parking deck or “podium”). Either way, the 60 foot height limit is a barrier to
development. If surface parking is chosen then the builder needs to accommodate housing units on
less site area (avoiding the parking lot), which tends to require taller buildings. If a structured parking
podium is used, then the housing can cover more of the site but needs to be accommodated in the
remaining available height above the parking structure. In general, a 60 foot limit restricts structures
to no more than six floors (including parking) and perhaps less.
In order to allow for the construction of more affordable units, we recommend that the city raise the
height limit in the R-4 and C-3 districts to 75 feet (roughly the height at which fires can be fought
without the use of high-rise firefighting equipment). In addition, we recommend that the city
consider lifting the 40 unit/acre maximum density for lands zoned R-4 or C-3 before 2001 if the
resulting dwelling units are affordable housing units with occupancy subject to income limits.
Finally, we recommend that the minimum density calculation in the C-3 be revised to require that
the combined residential and non-residential density be equivalent to at least 10 dwelling units per
acre. The C-3 zone is already a mixed use district (i.e., both residential and non-residential uses are
allowed), but as a practical matter it is sometimes difficult to construct ground floor commercial or
office uses (and their required parking) plus an additional 10 dwelling units per acre. By providing a
conversion factor—for example, by giving the builder “credit” against the 10 unit/acre minimum for
the non-residential floor area constructed—the city could encourage the type of mixed use
development that C-3 zoning anticipates. For example, if the residential portions of a mixed use
building have an average gross floor area (including hallways, elevators, and fire stairs) of 2,500
square feet per unit, then the builder would be “credited” with the equivalent of one dwelling unit
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 4
per 2,500 square feet of commercial and office development constructed. This is important because
many modern affordable housing developments use the income from ground floor commercial and
office uses to indirectly subsidize the construction costs of the upper floor housing.
Adopt minimum density regulations for the R-1-b, R-2, and R-3 Zones. Like many cities,
Las Cruces requires that new annexations and development proposals be consistent with the city’s
adopted master plans for the area, which means that the proposed development must meet minimum
as well as maximum development densities. Unfortunately, over the last decade the city has faced
numerous requests to amend the master plan simply to accommodate individual projects (or to
amend previously approved development plans for the site) in order to allow for development at
lower densities. While these requests have apparently been market driven—i.e., the builder believes
that fewer homes at lower densities will sell faster and for higher prices than those called for by the
plan—they have the effect of driving up housing prices and reducing the potential supply of
affordable housing. This impact is compounded by the fact that once lower-density housing is
constructed residents of the area often resist efforts to construct higher density housing nearby – so
one plan amendment may lead to requests for similar plan amendments on nearby properties in the
future.
We recommend that Las Cruces amend its residential zone districts to establish minimum densities
for the R-1-b, R-2, and R-3 districts, and that those minimum densities correspond to those shown
in the applicable plans for each area. This could increase the supply of both affordable ownership
units (at the lower end of the density range) and rental units (at the upper end of the range). This
would affect approximately 15.2 percent of the developed land in the city but would not affect the
19.7 percent of developed land in the R-1-a and R-1-c districts. In addition, we recommend that the
authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission be revised to prohibit variances to the minimum
zoning requirements. If the city wants to provide some avenue for relief from the minimum densities
we suggest that a super-majority vote of city council (i.e., a 2/3 or 3/4 majority) should be required.
Refine R-1-b Zone and provide templates. In addition to establishing a minimum density, the
effectiveness of Las Cruces’ current R-1-b district as an affordable housing tool could be improved by
revising some of the other dimensional standards applicable to that district. The R-1-b district
currently allows the platting and development of lots with a minimum size of 3,500 square feet and a
maximum density of 12 units per acre (which is probably high enough to help support future
bus/transit service). As a point of reference, minimum lot sizes actually platted and developed in Las
Cruces and other western cities often run between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet (which are not high
enough to build support for bus/transit service). Several studies have shown that large minimum
residential lot sizes are the single form of regulation most responsible for increasing housing prices.
Zone districts with single family lot sizes smaller than 5,000 square feet have proven useful tools in
helping reduce the cost of housing in many cities, and the housing industry has developed several
innovative housing products that work well on these smaller lots. The R-1-b district avoids that
problem by making smaller lots available.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 5
Exhibit III-2.
Las Cruces Requirements v. Other Cities
City Zone
Min.
Lot Size
(sq.ft.)
Front
Setback
(ft.)
Side
Setback
(ft.)
Rear
Setback
(ft.)
Max.
Height
(ft.)
Lot
Width
(ft.)
Lot
Depth
(ft.)
Las Cruces R-1-a 5,000 15 0-5 20 35 50 70
Comparison
Cities
Similar
Zones
2,000 –
7,000
15-25 5-20 10-25 16-35 50 N/A
Las Cruces R-1-b 3,500 15 0-5 15 35 40 70
Comparison
Cities
Similar
Zones
3,000 –
4,000
7-15 0-10 15 24-26 40 N/A
Note: Comparison cities include Santa Fe, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Silver City, NM; Tucson, AZ; and Boulder, CO. Since dimensions vary from city to city,
ranges were used for comparison..
Source: Clarion Associates.
Unfortunately, the R-1-b district dimensional standards now work against its small minimum lot size
to discourage affordable housing. As the table above shows, the district currently requires a
minimum lot width of 40 feet and a minimum lot depth of 70 feet. Experience shows that efficient,
livable housing products can be developed on 37.5 foot wide lots, and some larger and older cities are
developing templates to allow housing development on 25 foot wide lots. Because narrower lots
allow the builder to spread infrastructure costs (particularly roads and the water, sewer, and drainage
pipes located in the streets) over more property owners, the per unit infrastructure cost can be lower,
which promotes affordability. In addition, many cities do not regulate minimum lot depths. We
recommend that Las Cruces reduce the minimum lot widths in the R-1-b district to 37.5 feet (but
also limit front driveways on those lots to a maximum of 12 feet wide) and remove the minimum lot
depth requirement. We also recommend that the city allow 25 foot wide lots with reduced front
setbacks of 10 feet if alley access to parking is provided (i.e., if the lots will not have front driveways).
Often wider lots and deeper front setbacks have been required to accommodate the dimensions of a
car (or two cars) parked in a front driveway, but if rear access is provided in lieu of front driveways
those larger dimensions should be reduced accordingly.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 6
Unfortunately, even though 9.4 percent of the developed land in Las Cruces is zoned R-1-b, lots in
the 3,500 square foot range are not often platted or developed. Instead, owners of R-1-b land tend to
plat lots in the standard 5,000 square foot range, apparently to meet perceived market demand. In
order to help meet demands for more affordable single family housing it is important that smaller lot
products actually be platted and constructed. In order to encourage this, we recommend that the city
collect or develop “templates” showing efficient and financially successful housing products on 3,500
square foot lots and work with builders to encourage their use. Some cities have even “pre-approved”
template developments for small lots, meaning that applicants who submit housing products
designed to meet the templates get minimal review or can proceed directly to obtain a building
permit. An example of a simple template from Aurora, Colorado, is shown below.
Exhibit III-3.
Reduce Residential Parking Requirements
Source: Clarion Associates.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 7
In addition to minimum lot sizes and maximum development densities, minimum on-site parking
requirements are often a significant barrier to affordable housing development. That is because
minimum parking requirements are actually indirect limits on development density—every square
foot of lot area devoted to parking is a square foot that cannot be used to provide housing,
landscaping, walkways, or recreation areas. Las Cruces’ zoning ordinance follows the standard past
U.S. practice of requiring 2 off-street spaces for each single family unit and townhouse, regardless
of size or affordability restrictions. In addition, the code requires between 1.5 and 2 spaces per
apartment unit and between 1 and 2 spaces per unit for accessory dwelling units (so-called
“granny flats”).
Increasingly, U.S. cities are reviewing their minimum parking standards to require only 1.5 parking
spaces per unit for smaller housing units, attached units, or apartment units (or providing a sliding
scale based on number of bedrooms). While some of the occupants of these units will no doubt have
more than one car, some will not, and some of the “extra” cars can be accommodated through on-
street parking or public parking areas. More importantly, experience suggests that lenders and
developers will provide additional parking over the city-established minimums if those spaces are
needed to rent or sell the units being constructed. For medium and higher priced housing, additional
units are often provided, but for smaller and more affordable housing, 1 or 1.5 parking spaces per
unit is often adequate. Similarly, for accessory dwelling units, 1 parking space per unit is generally
adequate.
We recommend that Las Cruces reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for multi-
family housing to 1.5 spaces per unit, and the minimum for accessory dwelling units to 1 space per
unit. Further, we recommend that when dwelling units are part of the city’s managed affordable
housing pool (i.e., that occupancy is subject to income limits) the minimum be reduced to 1 space
per apartment or townhouse unit. This change could encourage additional supply of affordable
rental units.
Refine Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. Las Cruces permits accessory dwelling units in all
single family zoning districts, which is admirable. However, it then requires that ADUs meet a
number of conditions and restrictions that limit their potential for both general housing and
affordable housing. In particular, Section 38-53 of the zoning code defines ADUs as “a self-
contained living quarter containing independent kitchen (cooking/culinary) facilities attached to and
under the same roof as the main dwelling” and requires that “accessory dwelling units shall be created
solely to accommodate those related to the family.” Several cities permit accessory dwelling units to
be located not only within the main dwelling structure but in permitted accessory buildings — such
as a second story or attic space over an existing garage or barn. In addition, most cities do not limit
occupancy of an ADU to family members, which significantly limits their usefulness as a source of
low cost housing units. In reality, the impacts of an accessory dwelling unit on the neighborhood do
not depend on whether a family member is occupying the unit. Administratively, it is also difficult
to enforce “family-only” restrictions, since that requires regular record-keeping on ADU occupants
and (potentially) inspections to confirm who is living in the unit. Most local governments do not
want to engage in that type of enforcement, and most property owners would prefer not to have to
report to the city government about who is occupying the unit.
For all of the above reasons we recommend that Las Cruces remove the requirements that ADUs be
located in the primary dwelling structure and that occupancy be limited to family members.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 8
Expand impact fee exemption. Las Cruces currently imposes development impact fees of
$800/unit for parks, $1,855/unit for water infrastructure, and $1,165/unit for wastewater
infrastructure. When compared to municipal fee structures, these are fairly low fees, and they may
not cover the city’s actual costs of expanding park, water, and wastewater services to new
development. Chapter 13 of the Las Cruces Municipal Code provides a process whereby affordable
housing builders can apply for and receive exemptions to each of these fees, which removes
approximately $3,820 from the builder’s cost per unit. As part of Las Cruces’ budget process, the
city adopted a resolution that currently limits the exemption to $20,000 in park fees and $75,000 in
water and sewer fees annually. As a practical matter, this means that no more than 25 affordable
dwelling units can take advantage of the exemption each year. This is a very small number when
compared to the estimated unmet affordable housing demand of 3,600 low income rental units and
1,800 low- and moderate income ownership units (see Exhibit II-4). We recommend that the city
expand the development impact fee exemption so that it covers at least the average number of
affordable housing units produced in these categories each year—or 105 units annually.
Other topics considered. In the process of developing the recommendations above, Clarion
Associates also reviewed several other aspects of the Las Cruces zoning ordinance. More specifically,
we reviewed the menu of available zoning districts and overlay districts; the uses available by right,
with conditions, and by special permit in each district; landscaping standards; and other development
standards applicable to new development and redevelopment in the city. While there are many
improvements that could be made to the ordinance, we do not believe that those shortcomings
constitute significant barriers to the construction of affordable housing (except as noted above).
For example, although the city does not have any “mixed use” districts listed in the ordinance, many
of the existing districts in fact allow mixed uses. In addition, the city’s practice of allowing “pancake”
zoning—i.e., the application of more than one base zone district to a property—provides another
way to allow mixed use development. If the zoning ordinance is revised in the future, we would
probably recommend that these approaches to mixed use be revisited and that new mixed use districts
be developed—but it does not appear that the absence of those types of zones is in fact discouraging
affordable housing at this time.
Similarly, we received suggestions that perhaps the Las Cruces zoning ordinance would benefit from
one or more new zone districts designed only for affordable housing—i.e., zones in which the only
permitted development would be affordable housing. Most cities do not adopt single-purpose
affordable housing districts (with the exception of some very high cost resort communities), because
the creation of special purpose districts tends to concentrate rather than disperse affordable housing
and tends to take focus away from integrating affordable housing tools throughout the zoning
ordinance. For those reasons, we do not recommend the creation of new special purpose affordable
housing districts at this time.
Another possible way to promote affordable housing is by “streamlining” the development review and
approval process. Almost all zoning ordinances can be improved in this area—through better
internal staff coordination, clearer approval criteria, and delegation of decision-making authority to
reduce the number of steps in the process. Some cities have begun to use “ombudsmen” to speed up
processing and resolve issues that arise in affordable housing proposals. Although we heard criticism
of Las Cruces’ review procedures from housing builders, it appears that the city’s timeframes for
development review and approval are no longer than many comparable cities (and shorter than
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 9
many). In light of those preliminary findings, we did not pursue a detailed evaluation of the review
process. If the zoning ordinance is significantly revised in the future, however, we recommend that
this issue be reviewed to identify ways to improve both the efficiency and predictability of the
development review process.
Finally, the current zoning ordinance does not incorporate several recent trends in zoning practice,
including sustainable development, Smart Growth, transit-oriented development, New Urbanism,
some of the form-based principles articulated in the Smart Code, or incentives in the proposed
LEED-ND rating system (such as incentives for ADUs and smaller primary housing units). Each of
those trends is worthy of careful consideration as implementation tools after Las Cruces updates its
comprehensive plan. We have not focused on those broader zoning reforms in this review simply
because they address planning issues much broader than affordable housing and because the changes
recommended above will target specific barriers to affordable housing more directly.
SECTION III.
Development Regulations Review
Las Cruces Affordable Housing
Policy and Program Development — Regulatory Barriers ReviewMeeting
Presented to:
Heidi Aggeler
BBC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Dr., # 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3868
303-321-2547 X:256
haggeler@bbcresearch.com
November 18, 2008
Affordable Housing
Ad HOC Committee
Presented by:
Don Elliott,
CLARION ASSOCIATES
and
Jim Williams
Williams Demographics
In conjunction with:
BB... 1
Why are we here today?
Project Goal: Put the right tools in place to address
affordable housing needs in Las Cruces.
Thank Thank you you for for your your commitment commitment
to to this this vveerryy important important issue!issue!! !
CLARION
BB... 2
Where We Left Off
Last meeting conclusions / areas for more research:
¾ Community Loan Funds/CDFIs—Unsure if there is a market for
in Las Cruces. Explore interest with key funders (lenders, title)
¾ Inclusionary Zoning—Like the idea of a voluntary program or
IZ “light.” Explore feasibility with developers/builders.
¾ Land Banking—Worth keeping on the table despite concern
about tying up much needed funds with land purchases.
Since Las Cruces has land, land banking is more viable than in
other high-cost communities.
CLARION
BB... 3
Agenda for discussion today
Review Las Cruces’ existing regulatory framework
¾ Zoning regulations
¾ Fees and Charges
To identify
¾ Barriers that may be discouraging affordable housing
¾ Missing tools and incentives that might encourage more
production of affordable housing
Group discussion
CLARION
BB... 4
Zoning Regulations
Key Parameters: Residential Development
CLARION
C-2 (SF/AP)* 10,000 sf N/A 1,214 2.8%
10/acre min./ no 545 1.3%
max.
R-4 (AP) 8,500 sf
C-1 (SF)* 5,000 sf N/A 438 1.0%
C-3 (SF/AP)* 21,780 sf N/A 2,374 5.4%
R-3 (SF/ TH/ 5,000 sf 20/acre 1,580 3.6%
AP)
R-2 (SF/ TH/ 5,000 sf 15/acre 978 2.2%
AP)
R-1b (SF/TH) 3,500 sf 12/acre 4,087 9.4%
R-1a (SF/TH) 5,000 sf 8/acre 8,733 20%
Min. Lot Max. Density Acres % of Total
Size
District
BB... 5
Zoning Regulations
Key Parameters: Residential Development
CLARION
C-2 (SF/AP)* 10,000 sf N/A 1,214 2.8%
10/acre min./ no 545 1.3%
max.
R-4 (AP) 8,500 sf
C-1 (SF)* 5,000 sf N/A 438 1.0%
C-3 (SF/AP)* 21,780 sf N/A 2,374 5.4%
R-3 (SF/ TH/ 5,000 sf 20/acre 1,580 3.6%
AP)
R-2 (SF/ TH/ 5,000 sf 15/acre 978 2.2%
AP)
R-1b (SF/TH) 3,500 sf 12/acre 4,087 9.4%
R-1a (SF/TH) 5,000 sf 8/acre 8,733 20%
Min. Lot Max. Density Acres % of Total
Size
District
BB... 6
Zoning Regulations
Key Parameters: High-Density Districts (Res. & Comm.)
CLARION
60’
100’
40’
Lot
Widt
h
F = 20’
S = 7’
R = 7’
10/acre 60’ N/A 8,500 sf
min.
no max.
R-4
F = 15’
S = 5’ or 0’
R = 15’ or 0’
21,780
sf
C-3 N/A 60’ 70’
F = 15’
S = 5’ or 0’
R = 15’
R-1b 12/acre 35’ 70’ 3,500 sf
Lot Lot Size Setbacks
Depth
District Density Height
BB... 7
Zoning Regulations
Key Parameters: High-Density Districts (Res. & Comm.)
CLARION
60’
100’
40’
Lot
Widt
h
F = 20’
S = 7’
R = 7’
10/acre 60’ N/A 8,500 sf
min.
no max.
R-4
F = 15’
S = 5’ or 0’
R = 15’ or 0’
21,780
sf
C-3 N/A 60’ 70’
F = 15’
S = 5’ or 0’
R = 15’
R-1b 12/acre 35’ 70’ 3,500 sf
Lot Lot Size Setbacks
Depth
District Density Height
BB... 8
Zoning Regulations
Other Key Residential Development Standards
¾ Parking Spaces Required
• Single Family Dwelling: 2 / unit
• Apartment: 1.5 – 2 / unit
• Townhouse: 2 / unit
• Accessory Dwelling Unit: 1 – 2 / unit
¾ Landscaping Requirements
• Single family dwellings/ townhouses/duplexes have no
landscaping requirements;
• Multi-family housing (R-2, R-3, R-4): Minimum area equal
to 15% of total parking area must be landscaped.
CLARION
BB... 9
Zoning Regulations
Other Key Residential Development Standards
¾ Parking Spaces Required
• Single Family Dwelling: 2 / unit
• Apartment: 1.5 – 2 / unit
• Townhouse: 2 / unit
• Accessory Dwelling Unit: 1 – 2 / unit
¾ Landscaping Requirements
• Single family dwellings/ townhouses/duplexes have no
landscaping requirements;
• Multi-family housing (R-2, R-3, R-4): Minimum area equal
to 15% of total parking area must be landscaped.
CLARION
BB... 10
Zoning Regulations
Comparison of Standards with other Cities: Single Family Districts
(Santa Fe, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Silver City, NM; Tuscon, AZ; Boulder, CO)
CLARION
40’
40’
50’
50’
Lot
Widt
h
3k – 4k sf
3,500 sf
2k – 7k sf
5,000 sf
Lot Size
NA
70’
NA
70’
Lot
Depth
Other 15’-25’ 0’-10’ 15’ 24’-26’
Cities
5’ or 35’
0’
R-1b 15’-25’ 15’
10’- 16’-35’
25’
Other 7’-25’ 5’-20’
Cities
5’ or 35’
0’
R-1a 15’-25’ 20’
District Front Side Rear Height
BB... 11
Zoning Regulations
Comparison of Standards with other Cities: Multi-Family Districts
CLARION
15’- 24’-40’ 150’ 150’
25’
0’-
12.5’
10’-
25’
Other 1.6k – 3k
Cities
70’
22’-
60’
50’
22’-
50’
50’
Lot
Width
8,500 sf
2k – 6k sf
5,000 sf
2k – 5k sf
5,000 sf
Lot Size
R-4 20’ 7’ 7’ 60’ 100’
15’- 0’-10’ 15’ 24’-26’ N/A
25’
Other
Cities
R-3 20’ 7’ 7’ 35’ 50’
10’- 26’-35’ N/A
25’
5’-
12.5’
15’-
25’
Other
Cities
R-2 20’ 7’ 7’ 35’ 50’
Lot
Depth
Heigh
t
District Front Side Rear
BB... 12
Other Regulations
Infill Overlay District is Underutilized
¾ Only 11 residential infill projects in the past 5 years;
¾ Majority of infill projects involved city assistance to developer
(funding, expedited processing and/or deviations from
standards).
Is Flexible Development Standards Process a Barrier to
Affordable Housing?
¾ Developers possibly deterred by negotiating process related
to “public benefit” requirement (i.e., easier to build
conforming non-affordable project).
¾ And, because variances are hard to obtain, flexible standards
process is often only option for affordable projects that may
need flexibility.
CLARION
BB... 13
Fees and Charges
Impact Fees for Residential Development
¾ City currently imposes the following impact fees on
residential development:
Parks: $800/unit
Water: $1,855/unit
Wastewater: $1,165/unit
¾ Impact fees cannot be assessed or used to create
affordable housing.
CLARION
BB... 14
Fees and Charges
Summary of AH Impact Fee Waiver
¾ Chapter 13: Allows City to waive or pay for impact fees for
qualifying affordable housing projects
¾ Waiver Process: Park fees can be waived without
repayment, but City pays for waived water/wastewater
fees (from General Fund usually) to pay down existing
bonds;
¾ Annual Waiver Limit: City must establish an annual
funding maximum or waiver limit for each type of impact
fee:
Current Park Fee Waiver Limit:
$20,000 (approx. 25 units)
Current Water/Wastewater Fee Waiver Limit:
$75,000 (approx. 25 units)
CLARION
BB... 15
Preliminary Thoughts
Barriers
¾ Zoning does not contain obvious barriers to affordable
housing;
¾ 3,500 sf lot size is reasonable -- 9.4% of land is good;
¾ Multifamily zone densities are reasonable, and uncapped R-4
density is good;
¾ 7.1% of land zoned for multi-family housing could be higher;
¾ 60’ height limit in R-4 is low, possibly a constraint to AH
¾ Residential lot dimensions, setbacks, and parking regulations
are reasonable.
Incentives and Regulations
¾ Infill Overlay is an incentive – though apparently time
consuming to use;
¾ Fee waivers are a good tool but constrained by budget
limitations.
• Fees are pretty low to begin with
CLARION
BB... 16
Discussion
What barriers have we missed or misunderstood?
Additional incentives offered by other cities include:
¾ Special affordable housing zone districts with increased
density and height and reduced setbacks;
¾ Reduced parking requirements;
¾ Broad availability of accessory dwelling units
What are your thoughts on possible incentives?
Many cities are moving towards inclusionary housing
ordinances
¾ But they’re always controversial
CLARION
BB... 17
Next Steps
Outside of meetings, project team will continue
engaging community leaders and industry to build
support for potential solutions. Interviews with
Mayor and City Council, affordable housing
developers. Meetings with private developers,
Realtors, lenders and title companies.
December meeting: Peer cities presentation and
begin recommendations discussion.
2009: Recommendations and implementation plan.
CLARION
SECTION IV.
Peer Cities Comparison
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 1
SECTION IV.
Peer Cities Comparison
This section provides an overview of how cities similar to Las Cruces are addressing their affordable
housing needs. It is meant to answer the question of: What do other cities do to address their
affordable housing needs?
The cities examined in this section include:
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Tucson, Arizona
Yuma, Arizona
Fort Collins, Colorado
Boulder, Colorado
El Paso, Texas
Lubbock, Texas
The peer cities were chosen by using the following criteria: Location in the west or southwestern
U.S., presence of college town and/or a military facility and housing that is costly relative to median
household income. Each city’s programs and policies are described in detail below.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Albuquerque’s primary focus on workforce and affordable housing has been on the approval of the
public to use general obligation (GO) bonds for housing activities. The bond issue has the potential
to provide $25 million of funding for affordable housing activities in the city.
Another significant source of funding in the city is CDBG ($4.7 million annually) and HOME
(about $2.5 million). The city uses its CDBG and HOME funds for a wide variety of activities,
including:
Owner-occupied rehabilitation;
Affordable housing development, including rental acquisition and rehab and
transitional housing;
Public services;
Downpayment assistance; and
Affordable homeownership development.
Albuquerque is also a direct recipient of the federal Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 2
Albuquerque also has an active community land trust. The city is exploring a land banking and rental
rehabilitation program, as well as how to preserve the affordability of mobile home parks.
The city does not have an inclusionary zoning program. However, the annexation of Mesa del Sol—a
new planned development community in Albuquerque—did include provisions for a percentage of
the developed units to be affordable.
Workforce Housing Opportunity Act (Housing Trust Fund). In 2006, the City Council in
Albuquerque passed a bill that authorized a set aside of up to $10 million in general obligation bonds
issued by the city to be used for affordable housing activities. The set aside was required by the bill to
be presented as a separate bond question for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) bond issues; the
bill was approved by voters in 2007. The set aside expires in 6 years unless reauthorized by council.
The enabling legislation contains a number of requirements, which include:
A housing needs assessment be conducted and updated every 5 years to demonstrate the
city’s housing needs.
An Affordable Housing Committee is established to serve as the advisory committee for
development of the housing needs assessment and conduct an annual review of the
progress of meeting housing needs.
Affordable housing should be integrated throughout the city and are evaluated on
design and location criteria that include access to transportation, jobs, community
services and schools and incorporation of Universal Design features.
Housing that is developed should contain resale restrictions to preserve affordability.
The housing plan should be linked to the city’s growth management plan.
Land trust. The Sawmill Community Land Trust was formed as a community development effort
to protect low-income residents living in a downtown Albuquerque neighborhood as well as to
strengthen their role in redevelopment of the area. The stated vision of the organization is to “be a
New Mexico and national model of revitalization.”
According to the organization’s mission statement, the Sawmill Land Trust is a “community-based
development corporation whose principal purpose is to promote community ownership, long-term
affordability and economic opportunity through the community land trust model.”
The cornerstone of the Land Trust’s efforts is Arbolera de Vida, a mixed-use, master planned
community in the center of the Sawmill neighborhood. This 27-acre parcel was purchased by the city
of Albuquerque in 1995 and rezoned for mixed, compatible uses, including affordable housing,
community amenities, open space and commercial/retail space. The Sawmill Advisory Council
(SAC)—which is a neighborhood advisory group—assisted with the development vision for the
parcel.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 3
Parcels are deeded from the city to the Land Trust as each phase of the development is built. The city
sells the land to the Land Trust for $1.05 per square foot (well below market value. Total cost of the
27-acre parcel at $1.05 per square feet will be approximately $1.2 million).
Homebuyers. People who purchase homes rent the land from Sawmill Community Land Trust. The
fee for homeownership units is $19 per month (the ownership units are basically on the same size
lots). The Trust reports that demand for the homeownership units is high, but that it is difficult for
residents to qualify for purchasing the units. The Land Trust has a relationship with several local
financial institutions who underwrite the loans for homebuyers. Buyers of the Land Trust units are
restricted on how much appreciation they can gain when they sell the unit. The gain is pro-rated
according to how long they have occupied the unit, and is capped at 30 percent of the total
appreciation.
Renters. All of the rentals are live/work units; residents of these units earn between 40 and 60 percent
of AMI. The units are in high demand and have a waiting list.
The Arbolera de Vida development has developed a Property Owners Association (POA), which
represents the homeowners and manages the common areas in the community. Residents pay $31 per
month for POA activities, including upkeep of common properties. Three representatives of the POA
serve on the Sawmill Land Trust’s Board of Directors, and the Land Trust appoints representatives to
the POA Board.
Funding for the project has been contributed by the City of Albuquerque, the State of New Mexico
in addition to federal CDBG and HOME monies.
In addition to its role developing Arbolera de Vida, the Sawmill Land Trust has been working with
the Wells Park community, located near the Arbolera de Vida project, to revitalize the neighborhood.
Specifically, the Land Trust plans to acquire and rehabilitate 30 scattered site homes for low- and
moderate-income homebuyers and renters. The Land Trust has also taken a lead role in working with
the city and residents on a master redevelopment plan for Sawmill area neighborhoods.
Mesa del Sol. During the next 30 years, as many as 38,000 housing units will be developed in
Albuquerque on a parcel of land owned by the New Mexico State Land. As many as 7,600 of these
units could be affordable.
Mesa del Sol is a future master planned community that is a partnership between the State Land
Board, the University of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque. The State Land will receive
payment for the cost of the land upon with Mesa del Sol is built in addition to a 14 percent return on
the land value.
This mixed-use community is projected to produce 60,000 jobs. Businesses have been attracted to the
development by the state’s economic development incentive programs. Mesa del Sol is unique in that
the developer focused first on luring businesses to locate within the development and will build the
housing later.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 4
Mesa del Sol received tax increment financing (TIF), a condition of which was the development of
workforce and affordable housing within the community. The agreed upon Workforce Housing Plan
for Mesa del Sol contains the following:
15 percent of the units in Mesa del Sol will be “affordable workforce units.” These units
are affordable to households earning 80 percent of the AMI and less.
5 percent of the units will be “mid-range housing units.” These units are affordable to
households earning between 80 and 130 percent of the AMI.
The price ranges of these units will be:
2 percent of the units affordable to households earning less than 50 percent of
the AMI;
3 percent affordable to 50-60 percent of the AMI;
5 percent affordable to 60-70 percent of the AMI;
5 percent affordable to 70-80 percent of the AMI; and
5 percent affordable to 80-130 percent of the AMI.
The Workforce Housing Plan specifies how the affordable units will be phased in to the overall
development. It also specifies how the affordable units should be integrated into the overall
development—in general, the affordable developments must contain 15 percent market rate units, or,
if they are multifamily products with 100 percent affordable units, must be located within market
rate neighborhoods.
The developer receives a one-for-one density bonus for the affordable units. That is, for each
affordable unit that is developed, the developer is allowed one additional market rate unit.
Santa Fe, New Mexico
In May 2008, Santa Fe completed a Five Year Strategic Plan for housing. This plan describes the
city’s current programs, sets goals for the number of households to assist in the future and estimates
what it will cost to address the city’s housing needs.
Currently, the city’s housing resources include:
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) of about $575,000 annually;
HOME through Santa Fe County of $2.4 million countywide (allocated from the State
MFA);
The Housing Opportunity Program (old inclusionary zoning ordinance);
Santa Fe Homes (new inclusionary zoning ordinance);
Recently adopted Affordable Housing Trust Fund;
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 5
Fee waivers and providing water for affordable homes; and
General fund support for affordable housing ($570,000 in 2008).
The city’s proposal for a real estate transfer tax (RETT) to support its Housing Trust Fund has met
with opposition. (Currently the fund is supported by cash-in-lieu contributions by developers for
compliance with the city’s inclusionary zoning ordinance). Staff will also explore the possibility of
other tax initiatives including a property tax for rentals and a gross receipts tax for homeownership
production. A special tax on second and third home buyers using an occupancy test will be reviewed
as well as a tax on larger homes. In the reverse, tax waivers and/or reductions for production of rental
housing will be explored.
The city’s core programs include the following:
Homebuyer training. Described as one of the most successful programs that the city
has funded (based on the almost negligible foreclosure rate among homebuyers and
attendees of the program), this program teaches credit counseling, the responsibilities of
homeownership and post purchase counseling and education. The city projects that
nearly 900 individuals have attended the program at an average cost of about $450 per
attendee.
Downpayment assistance. Provided through the Payment$aver program.
Workforce housing development. The city uses a variety of resources to support rental
and homeownership development. A recent, innovative program is the proposed
Caretaker Housing in City Parks rental housing program. Under this program, seven
homes will be constructed on five City parks. These homes will be used to recruit and
retain municipal employees with an initial emphasis on police officers especially new
recruits. The construction cost of this program is estimated $1.4 million. A
combination of resources will be used for the initial phase of this project, including a
one-time allocation of general funds, and support from the MFA under Housing Trust
Fund, as well as a potential workforce housing grant from the MFA.
Home rehabilitation. The city uses HOME dollars from the State MFA for home
rehabilitation activities, which include major renovations ($25,000 per home) as well as
smaller, weatherization projects and accessibility improvements (averaging $800 per
home).
Other major initiatives that are used in the city to produce affordable housing are described in detail
below.
Tierra Contenta. Tierra Contenta is a nonprofit that owns and master plans land for the Tierra
Contenta (TC) development. The organization was formed by Santa Fe City Council in the early
1990s. City Council at that time was very proactive about wanting to address its affordable housing
crisis.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 6
TC is not subsidized by federal or local sources. The “subsidy” in the development is in the form of
the land that was obtained by the city when land was less expensive and sold to TC with a zero
interest loan.
The city obtained the land for TC from the local electric utility company during the Savings & Loan
crisis. Because of the state anti-donation law, the land was sold to Tierra Contenta Corporation at the
appraised price. The city carries a zero-interest mortgage on all of the developable acres. The
mortgage states that TC must pay back the city the appraised price / developable acres, or for
$10,600 per developable acre.
TC was able to obtain an interest-free mortgage as a condition for developing as an affordable
project. (This was a test of anti-donation clause, and it survived).
TC currently contains 2,300 homes, 1,000 of which are affordable. Staff at TC report that it has the
highest percentage of affordable housing of any master planned community in the United States. The
site is made up of 1,000 acres, 36 percent of which are developable. Much of the land contains huge
arroyos and/or elevation constraints; this land has been deeded to the city as open space.
TC works like this: TC develops a phase of property and goes through the approval process with the
city. After the phase is approved, TC finds builders, establishes pricing goals and the number of
affordable units and sells the land to the private sector builders. TC has its own design standards
which staff believe are streamlined and easy to follow, enabling builders to get through development
process faster. With each lot sale, TC pays the city back for the land.
TC has defined for pricing tiers for developers, three of which are affordable:
Under 65 percent of AMI,
65 to 80 percent of AMI,
80 to 120 percent of AMI, and
Market rate (anything above 120 percent).
Buyers must take a non-amortizing, zero interest soft second mortgage held by TC for the difference
between 90 percent of the appraised value of the unit at the time of sale and the purchase price. This
must be paid upon resale.
The units are not deed restricted, and therefore do not maintain permanent affordability. However,
this pricing structure allows families to build wealth and move up to more expensive housing units in
the city if they desire.
Housing trust fund (attempt). Santa Fe has established a trust fund, but it is lacking an ongoing
source of revenue. In June 2008, the Santa Fe City Council passed an ordinance that proposed to
fund affordable housing programs by levying a 1 percent tax on the portion of any home purchase in
excess of $750,000. (For example, a home that sold for $1 million would be subject to a $2,500 tax).
Voters will be asked to approve the measure in a special election in March 2009.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 7
In June, the Santa Fe Association of Realtors, along with four homeowners, filed a lawsuit
challenging the proposed tax, claiming the tax is “unlawful and unenforceable.” The lawsuit is
currently outstanding.
During the state legislative session in 2008, the state association of Realtors promoted a bill that
would have prohibited municipalities from imposing such taxes. The bill passed the Senate, but failed
to make it out of the House of Representatives.
Land trust. The Santa Fe Community Housing Trust was formed in 1991. The organization
started as a land trust and over time, has evolved into a certified Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) and recently became a Community Development Financial Institution
(CDFI).
The Santa Fe Housing Trust typically uses the land trust model to integrate for sale units affordable
to very low-income homebuyers (50 percent of the area median income and less) into its mixed-
income developments. The organization has developed 95 land trust units within the city and
county, which is equivalent to about 19 percent of the 500 units developed by the Santa Fe Housing
Trust.
Staff of the Trust said that although the land trust component to their developments has been very
important in getting very low-income buyers into homes, it is not without its challenges. These
include:
There has been a stigma with some of the Trust homes, particularly when they are grouped
together. The Housing Trust has faced some upkeep issues with residents, which has had a
negative effect in the neighborhood. Since the Santa Fe Housing Trust owns the land upon
which the homes are placed, it has a strong incentive to ensure that the units are well
maintained. The Housing Trust has a policy that they will only do land trusts with homes they
build themselves.
Some appraisers and lenders do not understand the land trust model and require education to
be comfortable with the program.
People who occupy the trust homes sometimes forget they do not own the land and that there is
a lien against their home (e.g., they are surprised when they apply for a home equity loan that
they have an outstanding lien).
The biggest issue with the land trust model, however, is that it “ties up resources…the subsidy is in
the ground and you can’t get it back.” The Housing Trust prefers to use second mortgages to reduce
the cost of housing for low-income homebuyers. With a second mortgage, when the home is sold
and/or the loan is paid off, the “subsidy” comes back to the Housing Trust in cash, which can be
reinvested in other housing programs as needed. Land trusts are less flexible than a revolving loan
program.
That said, the Santa Fe Housing Trust recently used a land trust on a rural project that was an “ideal
use” of the land trust model. Two affordable homes were built on an existing large parcel of land with
a residential home and a historic working farm. The land was subdivided and two additional homes
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 8
were built on the farm as land trust properties. This achieved higher density and preserved the farm
as well as adding some conversation easements for wildlife.
The Santa Fe Housing Trust is unique in that it has a broader role than just a trust fund: the
organization was founded, in part, to be an umbrella organization to bring together parties to obtain
land, raise funds and facilitate more affordable housing production in Santa Fe.
Homewise, Inc. Homewise is a nonprofit, community development financial institution in Santa
Fe, dedicated to helping New Mexicans become homeowners by offering home purchase, home
improvement and educational programs. Through a partnership with the Santa Fe School District
called Teacherwise, Homewise offers a special program designed to help teachers and other school
employees buy or repair homes in Santa Fe, through downpayment assistance and low-interest
mortgage loans. Homewise also operates as a housing developer and recently developed an 80-unit
affordable homeownership development in Santa Fe.
Inclusionary zoning. Santa Fe’s inclusionary zoning program, established in 2005, is called Santa
Fe Homes. It requires that 30 percent of housing units developed as part of a new residential
development be affordable. The program applies to all residential subdivisions with 10 or more lots.
Fifteen percent of the units developed must be rental units.
Pricing of the constructed homes and manufactured home lots developed through Santa Fe Homes
must be as follows:
10 percent of the total units or lots must be sold at a price of between $74,500 and
$122,000 per unit, depending upon family size, or $27,250 per lot (pricing at the time
the ordinance was created);
10 percent must be sold at a price of between $100,500 to $158,000 per unit or
$35,500 per lot; and
10 percent must be sold at a price of between $125,500 and $194,000 per unit, or
$43,750 per lot.
Santa Fe’s ordinance also specifies the minimum number of bathrooms and square feet by unit size
(e.g., studios must have at least 750 square feet and 1 bathroom). Twenty-five percent of the units
must be studios, 1 or 2 bedroom units; 50 percent must be 3 bedroom units; and 25 percent must be
4 bedroom units.
The ordinance also provides pricing for rental units and minimum sizes per unit type.
Preserving affordability. Units created through the inclusionary requirement of Santa Fe Homes are
deed-restricted for affordability. Santa Fe Homes uses a shared equity approach when the deed-
restricted units are sold. The city’s share of appreciation is equal to the proportion of subsidy
(difference between market and affordable price) divided by the initial market value. Proceeds from
the sale of the home are placed in a housing trust fund.
Development incentives. Developers are provided with a number of options to offset the cost of the
program, including:
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 9
Density bonuses—15 percent over allowable density in a district;
Fee waivers—Development review and building permit fees are reduced proportionate
to the number of Santa Fe Home units developed; and
Nonprofit developers may also request waivers from impact fees and utility expansion
charges (private sector developers can request reimbursements).
Other specifications. Units that are exempt from the program include those that were agreed to
before the adoption of Santa Fe Homes in 2005 and dwelling units or manufactured home lots that
are used exclusively by employees of a school, hospital or similar institution.
In the case of an annexation, the city and entity proposing the annexation negotiate the number and
type of affordable units, which are included in the annexation agreement. The annexation must
contain at least the same number of units or cash-in-lieu amount required under Santa Fe Homes.
Prior to enacting the Santa Fe Homes program, the city had a program called the Housing
Opportunity Program (HOP). The HOP used a more complex formula than Santa Fe Homes to
determine the inclusionary requirement; the Santa Fe Homes legislation is much more transparent.
According to the city, Santa Fe Homes was adopted because the city felt that HOP had “limited
effectiveness in stemming the growing affordable housing crisis” in the city.
Tucson, Arizona
Tucson’s General Plan (Comprehensive Plan) has a goal that 10 percent of units in the city should be
affordable. The city monitors this through an annual production report.
Tucson largely relies on federal block grant programs to fund its affordable housing activities. The
city recently established a trust fund; however, funding is limited at this point. The city’s primary
resources for affordable housing currently include:
$6.3 million in CDBG funds;
$4 million per year in HOME funds as part of a county consortium (most of which are
spent within the city); and
$475,000 from a new housing trust fund.
The city is also a direct recipient of the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities
for Persons with Aids (HOPWA).
The city has been constrained by lack of support locally and at the state level for resources such as
inclusionary zoning and real estate taxes to fund the city’s new housing trust.
The city will seek approval from City Council to start a land trust in October 2008. The plan is for
the city to “nurture” the land trust for a few years and then evaluate if the trust should be converted
into a nonprofit. The city may use administrative money from the national Housing Recovery Act to
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 10
get the fund up and running. A land trust might also be supported by a state effort to stimulate trust
funds in Arizona communities.
The city has not explored inclusionary zoning with much effort because the state legislature has tried
to make such programs illegal in the state twice (both efforts met with vetos by the governor). In the
future, the city will likely explore case-by-case negotiations as part of subdivision agreements—e.g.,
requiring developers to dedicate a portion of each sale of market rate units to the trust fund.
Housing trust fund. Tucson’s mayor and council unanimously approved establishment of a trust
fund in fall 2006. A committee was formed to recommend revenue sources and implement the fund.
According to staff, the city established the trust fund to bring in “local creativity” and local sources of
funding.
The trust fund was originally funded with a multifamily conversion fee (conversion of rental to
homeownership product) and unexpended funds from the Utility Services Low Income Assistance
Program. Funds were to be targeted as follows: approximately 1/3 for home repair; 1/3 for
homeownership and 1/3 to rental programs.
The trust fund also gets revenue through development agreements: When the city agrees to
development agreements where a developer asks for city land or infrastructure assistance, Tucson is
negotiating arrangements where in return for city assistance, the developer provides 1 percent of the
sales price to the trust fund.
As of January 1, 2008, the trust fund had a balance of approximately $475,000. The conversion fee is
the only dedicated source of revenue for the fund. The fund’s oversight committee has determined
that the original sources of funding are “not sufficient to support an ongoing meaningful effort to
address housing issues in Tucson.” The city is still trying to identify additional sources of funds.
The trust fund enabled the city to start an employer-assisted housing program for downpayment
assistance and to provide assistance to households earning up to 100 percent of AMI (higher than
what federal programs allow).
Tucson is the only municipality in Arizona with a housing trust fund.
Programs for homeowners. The city operates a variety of homeowner repair loan and grant
programs, has a downpayment assistance program and funds affordable housing development.
Home repair. Tucson’s Community Services Department operates several home rehab programs,
which target different populations and neighborhoods. The bulk of the city’s CDBG allocation
(about $2 million) is spent on home rehabilitation. Together these programs assist approximately 200
families annually, and provide reinvestment in some of the community's most needy neighborhoods.
Below Market Interest Rate program—Low or zero percent loans for owner occupied
properties, including modular/mobile homes if affixed to land. Households must earn
less than 80 percent of AMI and cannot have more than $20,000 in liquid assets.
Minimum loan amount is $5,000; highest is $40,000.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 11
Lead Hazard Control program—A program to remove lead from homes occupied by
eligible low-income households with children under 6 years old. Testing for the
children is also provided if lead is detected in the home.
Repair/demolition—This program specifically addresses low-income homeowners who
have been cited by code enforcement. Up to $30,000 in grant funds can be used to
make substantial repairs (e.g., water line, sewer line, roof) or demolish a home. A
maximum of 4 homeowners can be assisted each year.
Elderly home repair program—Up to $4,000 in grant funds are provided for low-
income elderly. Repairs are for health and safety hazards and to improve accessibility
(this is not a full rehab program).
Deferred loan program-A 10 year deferred, forgivable loan for low-income homeowners
to make needed repairs. The loan is required to be repaid if the property is sold within a
10 year period. The loan is amortized at 10 percent per year and requires no interest or
periodic payments. Minimum loan amount is $2,000; maximum is $15,000. After
rehab, the property must meet local building codes and zoning ordinances. Households
must earn less than 80 percent of AMI and cannot have more than $20,000 in liquid
assets.
Emergency assistance—This program is specific to homeowners in a certain geographic
area (downtown) who have urgent repair needs. Assistance ranges from $500 to $9,000.
Households must earn less than 80 percent of AMI and cannot have more than
$10,000 in liquid assets. Homeowners are referred to the program through local
housing and service providers.
Citywide sustainability—This emergency repair program is eligible to all homeowners
and contains two components: a $7,500 grant with no repayment required and a
$7,500 deferred loan with 2 percent interest. Households must earn less than 80
percent of AMI and cannot have more than $20,000 in liquid assets.
Property tax relief. The city has a concerted effort to redevelop its downtown area. To help existing
homeowners in downtown manage potential increases in property taxes as a result of the
development, the city offers a limited number of refunds to qualifying owners. The average refund is
$35 per household; 11 households received refunds in 2007.
Downpayment assistance. The city provides downpayment assistance through its Industrial
Revenue Development Authority bonding capacity with Pima County. In this program, up to 7
percent of the first mortgage amount is available as a second lien mortgage loan and can serve as
downpayment. About 200 households are assisted per year.
Affordable housing development. The city’s affordable housing development is mostly funded
by HOME dollars. In 2008, the city allocated $1.2 million to rental housing development and
preservation, $550,000 to develop affordable homeownership units and $400,000 to its El Portal
program.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 12
The city’s community development department is also the housing authority. As such, the city
manages its share of the Section 8 program and owns and operates public housing.
The city also owns and rents affordable properties separate from its public housing authority. This is
called the El Portal program. Units are acquired through direct purchase by the city through various
funding mechanisms as they become available, including HOME. The city uses a private
management firm to rent and manage the properties. The city’s portfolio of non-PHA properties
between 200 and 300 units.
Yuma, Arizona
The City of Yuma offers a standard assortment of homeownership assistance and rehab programs to
its residents. In 2007, Yuma received $953,202 in CDBG entitlement grants as well as $281,872 in
CDBG program income. In sum, Yuma had $1.24 million in funds available. The city also receives
HOME funding from the State of Arizona Department of Housing.
These funds are spent on a variety of programs, such as transportation services for elderly residents,
fair housing education and youth counseling services. These programs include:
Individual Development Account Home Ownership program. The Yuma Neighborhood
Development Organization (YNDO), in partnership with the City of Yuma, leverages IDA funds to
increase homeownership opportunities. First time homebuyers are able to set up Individual
Development Accounts (IDA) and make monthly deposits. After they have reached their savings
goal, YNDO and/or the City will match the amount they have saved. This money will be used as a
downpayment on a loan from a private lending institution to purchase a home or to start a business.
In 2007, 11 new accounts were opened through this program.
SMILE program. This program is designed to help fund home accessibility modifications for elderly
and disabled homeowners within the City of Yuma. The home must be owner-occupied, single
family housing. All improvements must be completed by licensed contractors. This program received
$50,000 in CDGB funding in 2007. In 2007, this program assisted 11 elderly and disabled
households.
Housing Rehab program. This program includes two separate sub-programs: the Home
Improvement Loan program and the Emergency/Minor Rehab program. The Home Improvement
Loan program issues 10-year deferred loans in the Yuma High neighborhood (maximum value of
$45,000), while the Emergency/Minor Rehab Loan program offers 5-year deferred loans to all
households within Yuma (maximum value of $10,000). These loans are used to address accessibility
issues, code violations, overcrowding and safety issues. In addition to the $50,000 of CDGB funding,
this program also received a State of Arizona Housing Trust Fund grant of $75,000. In 2007, this
program assisted 26 families.
At this time, Yuma does not provide any incentives for developers to encourage affordable housing
construction. However, the Housing Element found in the City’s General Plan states “The City shall
help mitigate the constraints to housing development through financial and regulatory incentives.”
This indicates the City could provide incentives in the future through methods such as density
bonuses and reduced permitting fees.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 13
Fort Collins, Colorado
Fort Collins combines federal block grant funds with a handful of progressive programs to address its
affordable housing needs. These include significant developer incentives, a housing trust fund and a
land banking program. The trust fund and land banking programs are not as productive as they
might be if they were more aggressively used, but the city has the structure in place to make use of
these tools when/if funding increases.
The city’s core programs funded by CDBG and HOME include:
Homebuyer downpayment loan program—A loan to eligible households to cover
downpayment and closing costs up to a maximum of 6 percent of the sales price. The
assistance is in the form of a loan which is paid back when the house is either sold,
transferred out of the buyer's name, rented, or if buyer seeks another second lien (like a
home equity loan) on the property. A simple interest charge of 5 percent of the loan
amount will be added to the payment which is also due at sale, rental or transfer.
Housing rehabilitation and accessibility improvements for nonprofit housing providers.
Lot acquisition for affordable housing development.
Occasionally provide tenant based rental assistance through the local housing authority.
Developer incentives. When asked to described the city’s primary housing programs, staff first
cited the “bunch of incentives for developers.” Developers of affordable housing in the city receive:
Reduced planning application fees (reduced by the proportion of affordability, so a
development that is 100 percent affordable pays nothing for entitlement fees).
Priority processing—reduced city staff turnaround time (project goes to top of
workload).
Once entitlement is achieved and the development is in the building permit process,
the city delays development impact fees until certificate of occupancy. The city does not
waive these fees, although CDBG and HOME are available for eligible developers to
pay impact fees.
Density bonus in one of the city’s residential zones—for example, if the current zoning
maximum is 8 units/acre, an affordable development would be allowed 12 units/acre.
Reduced landscaping requirements (e.g., gallon sized shrubs v. three gallons).
The city does not have an inclusionary zoning ordinance. The city considered adopting an ordinance,
but was dissuaded by Colorado’s prohibition from including rental units as part of IZ.
Housing trust fund (sort of). The city has a housing trust program that is funded through
general fund contributions. The “city budget” is the trust’s sole source of revenue. Because of budget
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 14
cuts, the annual contributions have dropped from $875,000 to $285,000 currently. The trust fund
dollars are used to supplement federal grants (CDBG and HOME).
Land banking. Fort Collins established its land banking program 5 years ago, with a general fund
contribution of $1 million. The city’s program is specifically designed to acquire property for
development of affordable housing units—it is basically a hedge against rising land costs. Under the
program, the city acquires property and holds it long-term (a minimum of 5 years, but more likely in
the realm of 7-10 years). After a holding period, the city issues an RFP for property development.
However, the city is not permitted to use the land bank as an investment vehicle (e.g., to generate
monies to fund affordable housing development).
As of 2008, no units have been produced as a result of the program. According to city officials, when
properties are sold they will be sold for more than the city paid for the land—enabling the city to
realize a small profit—but for less than market value.
Boulder, Colorado
The City of Boulder has a fairly broad but typical menu of affordable housing resources. The biggest
difference between Boulder and the other peer cities in this section is that most of the city’s programs
were adopted very early, prior to 2000.
The city’s menu of resources includes:
Annual general fund support (about $400,000 per year);
A housing trust fund ($1.5 million per year for affordable housing);
Inclusionary zoning (has generated about 280 units since adopted in 1999);
Special downpayment assistance programs;
Owner occupied rehab, including mobile homes; and
Use of federal block grant funds for affordable housing activities, including affordable
housing development, property acquisition, owner-occupied rehab and public services
($950,000 in CDBG annually and $1 million in HOME).
In 1990, the City of Boulder set a goal of having 5 percent of its housing stock be permanently
affordable. Two years later after adopting this goal, the city established a housing trust fund. In 1995,
the city revised its goal of permanently affordable housing stock to 10 percent. The city currently has
2,800 permanently affordable properties and has another 1,700 to go before reaching its goal (4,500).
In addition to the resources discussed below, Boulder has a handful of nonprofit development
partners and a local housing authority that produce much of the city’s affordable housing. The city
works closely with these housing providers and developers
General fund contributions. The city supports affordable housing activities with a General Fund
contribution of approximately $400,000 each year. The funds are allocated as follows: $95,000 for
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 15
reimbursement of development fee waivers; 5 percent for administration; the balance for acquisition
and rehab and new construction of affordable homes.
Housing trust fund. Boulder’s Community Housing Assistance Fund Program (CHAP) is funded
by property taxes. The CHAP receives .8 mills of a property tax level, equivalent to about $19 per
year on a $300,000 home. Additionally, the city levies an excise tax on all new non-residential and
residential development of:
$.0092 per square foot of floor area for new, annexed or additional non-residential area;
$73.92 for new and annexing detached residential units; and
$50.10 for new and annexing attached residential units or mobile homes.
These funding sources mill levy generates about $1.5 million annually for affordable housing
activities.
CHAP funds have helped create 186 affordable homeownership units since 1991, making the CHAP
the second most productive homeownership affordable housing program in the city (inclusionary
zoning is first at 241 units). CHAP contributed $2.7 million in subsidies to affordable
homeownership in the city.
CHAP had produced more affordable rental units than any other program at 510 since 1990
(HOME is second with 480 units). CHAP has contributed more than $6.6 million in subsidies to
affordable rental units since its inception. CHAP has also been used to create 39 shelter beds/group
home units.
Inclusionary zoning. Boulder’s IZ ordinance requires that 20 percent of a residential development
be affordable. All sizes of residential developments are included. The 20 percent requirement can be
met by onsite or offsite development, land donation or cash-in-lieu payments. For-sale developments
must provide at least half of the requirement onsite. Rental projects may fulfill the requirement
through for sale units only, onsite or offsite development. 1
The sales prices for the affordable units are set by the city on a quarterly basis. The units must be
affordable to low-income households as defined by HUD.
A developer who wishes to fulfill their IZ requirement “offsite” has a number of options:
Contribute to the city’s affordable housing fund through a cash-in-lieu payment;
Dedicate land within the City of Boulder boundary to the city. The value of the land
must be equivalent to the cash-in-lieu payment plus an additional 50 percent (to cover
the carrying costs associated with the land) or of equivalent value to the land upon
which the units would have otherwise been constructed to satisfy the IZ requirement.
1 This is due to Colorado law, which inhibits the creation of rental units under IZ programs due to a prohibition of rent-
controlled units. Developers do have an option of forming not-for-profit corporations to develop and manage rental units in
satisfaction of their IZ requirement.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 16
Restrict existing dwelling units as affordable. The units must be equivalent to the units
that would have otherwise been constructed to satisfy the IZ requirement.
Detached IZ units must be equal to 48 percent of the average size of the market rate units, up to a
maximum average of 1,200 sq. ft. per affordable unit. Attached IZ units must be equal to 80 percent
of the average size of the market rate units, up to a maximum average of 1,200 sq. ft. per affordable
unit. The type of IZ units must resemble the distribution of market rate units (e.g., if all of the
market rate units are single family detached, all of the IZ units must be single family detached).
To keep the units affordable, the IZ units are deed-restricted in appreciation, the amount of which is
determined by the city. Sellers of IZ units must make a good faith effort to select another low-income
household to purchase the unit. The city maintains a list of eligible households if needed by the seller.
Downpayment assistance. In addition to programs offered by the state housing finance authority,
the City of Boulder offers its own downpayment assistance programs. These include:
The city’s First Home program provides a grant of up to 20 percent of the purchase
price of market rate homes located in the city. The maximum grant is $56,000,
although household of 3 persons or more purchasing a home with 3 or more bedrooms
the grant can extend to 30% or a maximum grant of $90,000. Homes become
permanently affordable and are deed-restricted in future resale.
Boulder also partners with a local CDFI called Funding Partners to offer a deferred loan
program (H2O) of up to 15 percent of the purchase price of a home. The loan is repaid
after 10 years, upon refinancing or when the home is sold. The loan accrues interest at a
fixed rate of 3 percent for the first two years and then is indexed to appreciation in
housing prices. There is no price ceiling or deed restriction when the homebuyer sells
the home.
Finally, the city offers an alternative downpayment program for households that do not
qualify for programs offered through the local housing finance authority. This program,
called the “3% Solution,” is offered in conjunction with the H2O program or through
a city nonprofit’s land trust program. To qualify, the purchaser must first be denied a
loan through the state housing finance authority and have less than $12,500 in assets.
Homes become permanently affordable and are deed-restricted in future resale.
Housing rehab. Through Longs Peak Energy Conservation of Boulder County, Boulder residents
can get low interest loans (1 to 3 percent) for health, safety, code repairs and energy conservation
subject to a maximum of $25,000.
The city also offers a Mobile Home Rehab Program which provides health and safety repairs and
energy conservation to mobile homes within Boulder City limits. This is a 2-year forgivable loan
limited to $7,500 in repair work.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 17
El Paso, Texas
El Paso utilizes a small number of grant sources to fund its limited housing programs. While the city
hopes to expand its housing programs in the future, its current offerings are fairly standard:
The primary grants El Paso receives are:
CDBG ($8.7 million);
HOME ($3.7 million); and,
ESG ($376,400).
In addition, the city receives approximately $2.6 million in CDBG Revolving Loan Fund income,
HOME program income and American Dream Down Payment funds. The city hopes to receive
HOPWA funding for the first time in the near future, but has yet to receive official notification.
Similarly, the city expects to receive Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding in the near future.
First Time Homebuyer. El Paso’s “First Time Homebuyer Program” assists low and moderate
income individuals and families in achieving their goal of homeownership, as well as promotes
housing affordability. These goals are achieved through two primary programs: 1) a principal
reduction assistance program and 2) a downpayment and closing costs assistance program.
To qualify, a family’s gross household income must fall between 60 and 80 percent of the median
income for the city. Other applicants may be considered if other secondary financing is being utilized
(i.e., Section 8 Homeownership, IDA’s, FHLB, etc.) as long as the housing cost ratio does not exceed
35 percent of applicants’ monthly gross income. In addition, eligible families may not own any real
property.
For the principal reduction program, the maximum assistance provided is $35,000 in the form of 3
percent interest loan amortized up to thirty years. For the downpayment and closing costs assistance
program, the maximum assistance provided is $5,000 in the form of a 3 percent interest forgivable
loan with a term of 10 years.
Housing rehab. El Paso’s Single Family Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program assists low- to
moderate-income homeowners bring their dwelling unit into compliance with the International
Residential Codes and local ordinances. To qualify, the gross annual household income of the
applicant’s family my not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the city. Each qualified unit is
eligible for up to $65,000 in loans and/or deferred loans through the program. These loans can be
used to bring a dwelling unit into code compliance as well as for improvements related to
accessibility, energy conservation, lead/asbestos abatement and historic preservation.
Developer incentives. El Paso does not currently provide developer incentives that encourage the
construction of affordable housing. However, the city hopes to incorporate such incentives into its
strategic plan in the future.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 18
Empowerment Zone. A 10.8 square mile area of El Paso was designated by HUD in 1999 as an
Empowerment Zone. This designation indicates the area is federally recognized as being distressed
and in need of sustainable community development. While El Paso does receive federal funding for
community development projects within the Empowerment Zone, all projects are related to the
establishment and revitalization of businesses; none of the funding is directed towards housing
programs. It is unclear whether this trend will change in the future.
Lubbock, Texas
The City of Lubbock provides a fairly typical range of housing programs. These programs include
downpayment assistance and rehab loans. Lubbock anticipates to receive the following federal grants
in 2008-2009:
$2.41 million in CDGB grants;
$1.35 million in HOME grants;
$10,150 in American Dream Downpayment Initiative grants; and,
$101,900 in ESG grants.
In addition, each non-profit project considered for HOME or ESG funding must provide a
minimum of 25 percent of the total project costs from non-Lubbock Community Development
funds. This matching requirement stimulates cooperation and partnership between public and private
entities and is a reflection of the community support for and involvement in the project.
In addition, Lubbock receives state funds in the forms of Community Services Block Grants, funds
from the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program and Weatherization Assistance Program.
HEEELP program. The principle purpose of this program is to improve neighborhoods by helping
low to moderate-income families and individuals within the city limits by making limited exterior
repairs and/or to provide energy efficient improvements to the home. Approximately 30 households
benefit from this program each year. The program provides Below Market Rate Loans (BMRL) at 3
percent interest with a flexible term of up to 10 years and No-Interest Deferred Payment Loans
(NIDP) with a term of 5 years. Both types are capped at $15,000. Eligible households must be at 80
percent or less of the median income for its specific family size.
Barrier Free program. This program is designed to assist citywide, low-income homeowners in
obtaining handicapped accessible items within single-family structures. Eligible repairs include
building/installing wheelchair ramps; grab bars, accessible showers, handicap toilets, sinks/faucets and
widening of doors. Approximately four homes benefit from this program annually. The program
provides one-time grants to eligible households of up to $7,500, plus costs to address lead paint
issues.
New Construction program. The New Construction Program is designed to build quality
affordable housing in the targeted areas and/or in Lubbock Community Development eligible areas
by providing infill of newly constructed houses on vacant lots. Low-income families and individuals,
who have not owned a home in the last three years (or if the current home has been determined to be
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 19
substandard), have the opportunity to become first-time homeowners through this program. The
houses are constructed of insulated concrete forms, brick exterior, metal siding on fascia and
insulated aluminum glass windows, which make them highly energy efficient and low maintenance.
Houses average 1,100 to 1,400 square feet consisting of 2 to 4 bedrooms, 1 to 2 baths and a one-car
attached garage.
The program offers New Construction Loans at 3 percent interest for 20 years and NIDP at zero-
percent interest for 20-years. New Construction Loan payments are determined on a sliding-scale
based on family size and family income, while NIDP requires no payments as long as the homeowner
lives in the home.
Community Housing Resource Board program. This program was established through a non-
profit applying for HOME funds. The applicant proposed to purchase existing single-family homes,
rehabilitate them and then lease them to prospective homebuyers who may not be ready to buy a
home. Participants must be income eligible and the proceeds from the sale of these homes is reused to
purchase more homes. The Lubbock Community Development department approved this
application and provided $170,000.
Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program. One component of this state-funded program is
co-payment of energy related expenses. The purpose of the co-pay component is to reduce the energy
cost burden of low-income households through case management. Households must be enrolled for a
minimum of three months and attend workshops.
Las Cruces Affordable Housing
Policy and Program Development—Peer Cities Discussion
Presented to:
Heidi Aggeler
Presented by:
Don Elliott
In conjunction with:
Heidi Aggeler
BBC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Dr., # 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3868
303-321-2547 X:256
hl @bb h
Affordable Housing
Ad HOC Committee
Don Elliott,
Clarion Associates
and
Jim Williams
Williams Demographics
haggeler@bbcresearch.com
December 9, 2008
gp
Why are we here today?
Project Goal: Put the right tools in place to address
affordable housing needs in Las Cruces.
Thank you for your commitment
to this vveerryy important issue!!
1
Agenda for discussion today
Peer cities to discuss today: y
¾ Albuquerque, New Mexico ¾ Fort Collins, Colorado
¾ Boulder, Colorado
¾ El Paso, Texas
¾ Santa Fe, New Mexico
¾ Tucson, Arizona ,
¾ Lubbock, Texas
,
¾ Yuma, Arizona
2
Albuquerque
Affordable housing goal: through Consolidated Plan goals
Funding: General obligation fund (up to $25 million)
CDBG ($4.7 million); HOME ($2.5 million)
Mj Major P Programs
1) Housing trust fund—Funded by general obligation bond (recycling bond
funds. Did not involve a property tax increase). Can use up to $25 million
for affordable housing activities activities. Funds are used for gap financing, financing rental
development, property acquisition for affordable housing
2) Land trust community (Sawmill Land Trust)
3) O Owner-occupied id rehab hb program
4) Affordable housing development program
5) Downpayment assistance program
3
) py p g
Albuquerque (cont’d) cont d)
Other program notes:
1) Nili No inclusionary zoning i except through h h negotiated i d agreements
(e.g., annexation into city of planned unit developments)
2) City has goals to explore: Rental rehab program, mobile home park
preservation and land banking program
3) Mesa del Sol, the city’s large scale master planned urban community,
has the potential to bring 7,600 affordable units to the city.
4
Albuquerque (cont’d) cont d) — What‘s What s notable?
General obligation bond recycling program with affordable housing
component. pg Affordable housing piece ppp was met with some opposition
but passed public vote with a comfortable margin. Grass roots
campaign important
Mesa del Sol—Partnership p with State Land and UNM. The workforce
housing plan that was agreed on through the TIDD requires:
¾ 2% of units at less than 50% of the AMI
¾ 3% of units at 50-60% of AMI
¾ 5% of units at 60-70% of AMI
¾ 5% of units at 70-80% of AMI
¾ 5% of units at 80 80-130% of AMI
Large community land trust program that also has a neighborhood
revitalization component
ll d hi h d d ll f h ff
5
Local leadership spearheaded all of these efforts
Santa fe
Affordable housing goal: meeting 25% of need would require
subsidizing g 1,650 units
Funding: CDBG ($575,000); General Fund Allocation ($575,000);
HOME (county allocation); production and cash-in-lieu from
inclusionary zoning
Major Programs:
1) Hbt Homebuyer training i i
2) Workforce housing development
3) Home oe rehabilitation e abtat o
4) Downpayment assistance (through MFA)
6
Santa fe (cont’d) cont d) — What‘s What s notable?
Tierra Contenta (TC) — Land sold to a nonprofit from city at a zero-
interest loan for a mixed-income development. p To date, 1,000 of the
2,300 units developed to date are affordable. TC is the master developer
and selects (mostly private sector) builders to develop units. City is paid
back $10,600 per acre when the lots are sold to the builders. Primary
subsidy is in the low cost of land land. Buyers take a soft second mortgage
(non-amortizing, zero interest) that represents the difference between
90% of the appraised price and the purchase price. No deed-restriction
Aff Affordability d bilit tiers: ti
¾ Under 65% of AMI
¾ 65% to 80% of AMI
¾ 80% to 120% of AMI
¾ Market rate (anything above 120%)
7
Tucson
Affordable housing goal: 10% of stock affordable
Funding: Affordable housing programs are mostly block grant funded
($8-10 million in CDBG and HOME annually); Small trust
fund ($475,000) established in 2006
Major Programs:
1) Home rehab—many options from lead-based paint mitigation to
emergency assistance to program targeting the elderly
2) Housing trust fund—Funded by fees on condo conversions.
Seeking additional revenue sources. Have used to target workforce
(100% AMI), gap financing and to start an employer employer-assisted
downpayment program
3) Property tax relief program (minimal)
4) Downpayment assistance program
8
4) Downpayment assistance program
Tucson (cont’d) cont d) — What‘s What s notable?
Major Programs:
5) Affordable housing development — City and housing authority are one
and the same. City acquires multifamily developments, and owns and
operates (much like public housing but with more flexibility)
Uniqueness: El Portal program. City operates like a nonprofit
housing provider
Ft Future initiatives: iititi
¾ Land trust to be brought to Council for approval.
¾ Inclusionary zoning likely negotiated through development
agreements. t No N citywide it id program
9
Yuma
Affordable housing goal: through Consolidated Plan goals
Funding: CDGB ($950,000) and State Housing Trust ($75,000)
Major Programs:
1) IDA Home Ownership – Matching funds to purchase home.
2) SMILE – Funds home accessibility modifications for elderly and
di disabled bl d h homeowners.
NOTE: Yuma does not receive HOME funds, HOPWA
grants or offer developer incentives.
10
Fort Collins
Affordable housing goal: through Consolidated Plan goals
Funding: CDBG ($1 million); HOME ($650,000).
Small “trust fund” (general fund contributions)
Mj Major P Programs:
1) Homebuyer assistance/downpayment loans
2) H Housing i rehab, h b accessibility ibili improvements i for f nonprofit fi housing h i
providers. Lot acquisition for affordable housing development
3) Land bankingg
Fort Collins also has a progressive CDFI nonprofit, which is independent
of the city.
11
Fort Collins (cont’d) cont d) — What‘s What s notable?
Development incentives for affordable production:
1) Reduced planning application fees (reduced by the proportion of
affordability, so a development that is 100% affordable pays nothing
for entitlement fees)
2) Priority processing—reduced processing reduced city staff turnaround time (project goes
to top of workload)
3) Delayed development impact fees until certificate of occupancy. The
city does not waive these fees fees, although CDBG and HOME are available
for eligible developers to pay impact fees
4) Density bonus in one of the city’s residential zones—for example, if
the current zoning maximum is 8 units/acre acre, an affordable
development would be allowed 12 units/acre
5) Reduced landscaping requirements (e.g., gallon sized shrubs v.
three gallons)
12
three gallons)
Boulder
Affordable housing goal: 10% of housing units permanently affordable
Funding: Trust fund ($1.5 million), HOME ($1 million), CDBG
($950,000), General Fund transfers ($400,000)
Mj Major P Programs:
1) Housing trust fund—funded by property taxes. Very important for
affordable rental development and special needs housing.
2) Inclusionary zoning—Adopted in 1999, requires 20% of units be
affordable. Cash-in-lieu, land donation, buy-and-restrict options.
3) Di Downpayment assistance—innovative ii programs, provide id generous
assistance and require deed-restriction on assisted properties.
13
Boulder (cont’d) cont d)
Major Programs (cont’d):
4) Home rehab — Low interest loan program administered by county
program. Option for mobile home owners (health and safety repairs up
to $7,500)
5) Federal block grant funds used for affordable and special needs
housing development.
14
Boulder (cont’d) cont d) — What‘s What s notable?
Serious about 10% affordable housing goal. Monitors annually. Terrific
data about which programs pg p produce affordable housing g
Innovative downpayment assistance programs Æ preservation of
homeownership units through deed restriction exchange
Very limited ability to use land banking or land acquisition to produce
affordable housing because of anti-growth policies and residents’
preferences pp for open space p
15
El Paso
Affordable housing goal: through Consolidated Plan goals
Funding: CDGB ($8.7 million), HOME ($3.7 million) and ESG ($375,000)
Major Programs:
1) First Time Homebuyer – provides loans for principal reduction and
downpayment/closing costs
2) Housing Rehab – provides up to $65,000 in deferred loans for
households earning less than 80% of median
A portion of El Paso is a federally identified “Empowerment Zone.”
However However, all federal funds received due to this designation are spent on
economic revitalization of the area
16
Lubbock
Affordable housing goal: through Consolidated Plan goals
Funding: CDGB ($2.4 million), HOME ($1.35 million), ADDI ($10,150)
and ESG ($102,000)
Mj Major P Programs:
1) New Construction Program – funds construction of quality affordable
housing in targeted Lubbock neighborhoods
2) Community Housing Resource Board – program purchases existing
single-family homes and leases them to low-income families
Lubbock requires each non-non profit project considered for HOME or ESG
funding must provide a minimum of 25% of the total project costs
17
Summary
Albuquerque Santa Fe Tucson Yuma Ft. Collins Boulder El Paso Lubbock Las Cruces
Housing trust fund
Financing source
X
(state)
X
GO Bond
recycling. No
property tax
increased
involved with
X
Cash-in-lieu
from
inclusionary
zoning
XX
(State)
X
General
fund
X
Property tax,
cash-in-lieu
from
inclusionary
zoning
X
(State)
X
(State)
Owner-occupied rehab program
Rental rehab program
Local downpayment assistance
X
X
involved with
issuance
XXX
X
X
X
X
zoning
X
X
X
X
X
Inclusionary zoning
Land banking
No No
Potential
Through GO
Bond activities
YesNoNoNo
X
Yes No No
Potential
Discussion Questions
Is there a menu of programs you like best? Least?
If we had to decide right now about what to recommend
to City Council, which programs would you choose?
Recommendations and implementation plan — to be
continued in 2009 (Happy New Year!)
19
Next Steps
January 2009: Agree on recommendations for program and
policies, including zoning changes. Discuss
implementation plan
February 2009: BBC will present draft recommendations chapter
and report. Committee to comment and discuss.
Final report preparation in late February
Rest of 2009: Presentations to Planning Commission, City
Council, timing TBD
20
SECTION V.
Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations
on Affordable Housing Strategy
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 1
SECTION V.
Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations
on Affordable Housing Strategy
During summer and fall 2008, the Las Cruces Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing met on a
monthly basis to consider solutions to the affordable housing needs in Las Cruces. The goal of the
Committee was to develop recommendations of housing policies and programs that would enable the
City to better meet housing needs.
The overall vision of the Committee was to: Provide an adequate supply of housing for Las Cruces
residents of all income levels, now and as the community grows.
Identification of needs. The committee discussions began with an overview of the top affordable
housing needs in Las Cruces, as well as existing programs and policies the City has in place to meet
needs. These needs are documented in the City’s 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan, specifically the
housing market section.
The City’s greatest housing needs include the following:
1. It is very difficult for renters to buy in Las Cruces, both low and moderate income
renters. Only 8 percent of renters could afford to buy housing in 2005; just 5 percent
could afford to buy a newly built home. This means that more than 12,000 renters
cannot afford to buy a home in Las Cruces.
A household earning 80 percent of the Median Family Income (MFI)—a common
measure of a low to moderate income household—could afford to buy a home priced at
$109,000. This compares to an average price of homes on the market of $226,000 and
new construction of $192,000.
2. Renters earning less than $15,000 per year have 3,600 too few affordable rental units.
These renters are “cost burdened” meaning they are living in rental units that are more
expensive than they can afford. In addition, 2,300 renters report having “significant
trouble paying rent” and 2,000 cannot cover the monthly cost of utilities alone without
being cost burdened. Finally, an estimated 850 are living in rental units that are in
“unlivable” condition.
3. An estimated 700 owners have significant trouble paying their monthly mortgage costs,
and 200 are in housing that is in “unlivable” condition.
4. Many Las Cruces residents have special needs. This ranges from 1,100 residents with
severe developmental disabilities to 3,000 elderly with disabilities to 5,000 residents
with mental illnesses. The City has a shortage of units to adequately serve these
residents.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 2
Policies and programs considered. To address these needs, the Committee considered a wide
variety of programs and changes to land use policies to reduce regulatory barriers to housing
development.
The programs considered were:
Land banking;
Community loan funds/community development financial institutions;
Inclusionary zoning;
Community land trusts;
Housing trust funds; and
Development incentives and issues.
The regulatory barriers review conducted for this study examined the City’s zoning regulations and
development fees to identify:
Barriers that may be discouraging affordable housing, and
Missing tools and incentives that might encourage the production of affordable
housing.
This section contains the Committee’s agreed-upon recommendations for addressing Las Cruces’
affordable housing needs.
Guiding Principles in deciding upon Recommendations
The Committee agreed upon the following guiding principles in crafting its recommended strategies
to meet affordable housing needs:
1. There is no perfect solution to addressing the City’s needs and all solutions involve
some level of compromise. We believe that housing is a community benefit, the
provision of which should be shared throughout the community. In an ideal situation,
the responsibility for meeting housing needs should be spread throughout the City.
3. The City of Las Cruces needs more than its current revenue sources, which are largely
federal sources, to address its housing needs. Additional revenue is necessary to build
more housing that is safe, decent and affordable, as well as ensure that the City’s needs
do not worsen as it continues to grow.
4. Affordable housing should be dispersed throughout the City.
5. Las Cruces needs to preserve and augment its supply of affordable housing, both for
low income renters and renters who want to become homeowners. The City also desires
to increase the supply and adequacy of housing for residents who have special needs.
Finally, the City needs to sustain its current affordable housing stock.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 3
Programs/Policies the Committee Desires To Recommend
1. Set production and preservation goals. The City should set a goal for an overall proportion
of affordable rental and units for sale. It should also set annual production goals to meet these overall
goals and monitor the affordable stock on an annual basis, through a report to Planning Commission
and City Council.
Rental units: Approximately 40 percent of the City’s renters earn less than $15,000 per year. Fifteen
percent of the City’s rental units (including voucher subsidies) are affordable to these renters. The
Committee recommends this proportion be increased to a minimum of 20 percent in the next 3 to 5
years, so at least half of these renters have an opportunity to avoid being cost burdened. This would
require development and/or subsidies of approximately 750 rental units that are priced under $375
per month.
If the dollars available—federal, state and local—to address affordable housing needs grow and as the
economy improves, the Committee recommends that this target percentage be increased beyond 20
percent so the City will more aggressively address this very acute housing need. The Committee
recommends that the target percentage be reevaluated as part of the City’s next Five-Year
Consolidated Planning process.
Affordable homeownership units: At the time the City’s market study was completed, just 12
percent of the units for sale were affordable to moderate income households (earning $38,880). The
Committee recommends that the City establish a goal that between 15 and 20 percent of units on the
market in any given year are affordable to moderate-income households.
How should these goals be monitored? The City should begin with the inventory of rental units in the
2006-2010 Consolidated Plan, add new units developed since the Plan was published and, on an
annual basis compare the number of units affordable to households earning less than $15,000 per
year (rents of $375 and less) to the total number of rental units to calculate the proportion. If not
available internally, an estimate of the total number of rental units is published on an annual basis by
the Census American Community Survey1.
The proportion of for sale units affordable to moderate income households can be monitored
annually through the MLS with assistance from the Board of Realtors.
2. Establish a land bank. Land banking is a program whereby land is acquired by a division of
government or nonprofit with the purpose of developing affordable/workforce housing or engaging
in revitalization activities. After a holding period, the land is sold to a nonprofit or private developer,
often at a price lower than market, who agrees to the land use conditions (e.g., creation of
affordable/workforce housing).
Land bank programs can serve dual purposes. While some programs are created solely for the
acquisition of land for future affordable housing development, others have broader long-term
1 www.census.gov, American Community Survey, tables B25003 for renter occupied units plus C25004 for vacant rental
units.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 4
community planning goals. In distressed communities, land banking programs allow cities to acquire
vacant and underperforming parcels, be a catalyst for redevelopment, and to benefit from increased
tax revenues from the properties. In communities with rapidly rising land costs, land banking
programs promise a long-term savings to taxpayers: for example, when public buildings need to be
constructed, they can be built at less than the current market cost due to the earlier acquisition of the
property by the land bank.
Las Cruces should establish a land bank to which private property may be donated (with potential tax
benefits) and public property may be held for future affordable housing development. The City can
also purchase appropriate parcels to add to the land bank as they become available. The City should
explore partnerships with the school district, utility companies and other public landowners to donate
the land for affordable housing in exchange for a certain proportion of the units that have first right
of refusal to public sector employees (e.g., teachers).
3. Make the following changes to development policies. Experience shows that while
financial subsidies and thoughtful public-private investments are often needed to meet affordable
housing demands, it is also important to review basic governmental regulations to ensure that they
are not inadvertently discouraging needed forms of housing. More specifically, it is important to
review zoning regulations and development fees to identify any existing barriers to private production
of affordable housing and potential additional tools that could spur private production of affordable
housing.
Stated another way, private market construction of a wider range of land-efficient, space-efficient,
and cost-efficient housing types can result in “private” solutions to a portion of affordable housing
demand and reduce the need for financial subsidies in some cases.
The following recommendations build on two of the key guiding principles identified above:
Las Cruces needs to increase its supply of affordable housing, both for low income
renters and moderate income renters who want to be homeowners.
Affordable housing should be dispersed throughout the City.
A technical discussion of these recommendations is contained in Section III of the full report.
Proactively rezone land into the R-4 zone. Proactively rezone lands along bus routes and major
one-way street pairs into the R-4 zone to encourage construction of multi-family housing.
Adjust the R-4/C-3 Zone height and density. Raise the height limit in the C-3 and R-4 zones from
60 feet to 75 feet and revise the minimum density requirement.
Adopt minimum density regulations for the R-1-b, R-2, and R-3 Zones. Adopt minimum density
regulations for key zone districts.
Refine R-1-b Zone and provide templates. Revise the dimensional standards for the R-1-b district
and prepare template examples of smaller single-family housing on 3,500 square foot lots in order to
encourage wider use of this existing zoning tool.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 5
Reduce residential parking requirements. Reduce the minimum off-street parking requirement for
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and multi-family dwelling units to 1 space per unit.
Refine Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. Remove the requirement that ADUs be occupied by a
member of the same family that occupies the primary housing unit, and that the ADU be contained
within a primary structure.
Expand impact fee exemption. While the existing exemption from park, water, and sewer fees is
good, it covers too few units to make a significant difference in affordable housing supply.
4. Establish a housing trust fund. A top priority of the City should be to establish a housing
trust fund in the next 1 to 2 years. Housing trust funds are specific funds that are developed by
legislation, ordinance or resolution to dedicate a source of public revenues to affordable housing
activities. There are now more than 500 housing trust funds at the local and state level.
Housing trust funds create their own policies to determine how the funds generated will be used
(e.g., downpayment assistance v. new construction). The trust funds are usually governed by a board
of directors, which has a role in determining the allocation process.
The two main benefits of housing trust funds are 1) The cost of affordable housing is shared
throughout the community, supporting the idea that affordable housing is a community benefit; and
2) The dollars can be used for a variety of affordable housing activities and can be tailored and
changed to meet the needs of the market.
The Committee recommends that the Las Cruces Housing Trust Fund be funded through one of
two sources:
A General Obligation (GO) Bond. In this case, the public would support a GO Bond
(resulting in a property tax increase) that would fund affordable housing activities.
Recycling of existing bonds. In this case, existing bond revenues would be extended
with the revenue dedicated to affordable housing activities. The downside of this
revenue source relative to a new bond dedicated to affordable housing is that the
activities would need to be completed within 3 years and in some cases the
development of affordable housing can take longer.
The City of Albuquerque passed a GO Bond for affordable housing in 2006 worth about $25
million. Pro rated for Las Cruces’ size, the Committee recommends that the City of Las Cruces aim
for a $5 million bond. At 39,700 housing units, such a bond would be equivalent to a cost of about
$109 per housing unit (although the actual cost for an individual unit would depend on its assessed
value).
The Trust Fund should be structured so it can accept donations and enable the contributor to receive
a tax benefit. The Trust Fund should also contain a revolving component (e.g., low interest loans that
are repaid) in addition to offering grant funds so that a portion of the Fund is replenished over time.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 6
The City should work with the development community, including developers, Realtors, lenders and
title insurance providers to campaign for such a fund.
Programs/Policies the Committee Wishes To Table for Future Consideration
Inclusionary zoning. At this time, inclusionary zoning is not a recommended tool for production
of affordable units. We recommend that the City reconsider inclusionary zoning as a production tool
in 3 to 5 years, after it has an opportunity to apply the changes to development policies, development
incentives and housing trust fund programs recommend in this report.
If the City were to require inclusionary zoning, it should consider requiring a contribution in the
form of inclusionary zoning for annexations. For example, as part of the annexation agreement with
the City, a developer would need to demonstrate that they are making at least 10 percent of the units
in their planned development affordable. This contribution might be made through a land donation
(on or offsite), a payment to the City representing the value of the affordable subsidy, constructing
the affordable units on site or constructing the affordable units offsite. In turn, the City could offer
incentives to offset the cost of this requirements such as density bonuses, reduced parking and street
requirements and faster track approval.
What should the City monitor during the next 3 to 5 years to determine the need for additional
production tools such as inclusionary zoning?
Creation of a Housing Trust Fund to raise additional revenues for production of
affordable housing.
Increases in federal and state dollars to support affordable housing creation.
Attainment of the goals of increasing the stock of deeply affordable rentals and
affordable starter homes (see Recommendation No. 1).
How much the private sector is able to contribute to the affordable housing stock
(mostly affordable for sale units) with the changes in development policies and
incentives.
What should the city do now?
We recommend that the City engage private sector developers in a discussion about
how they can more readily contribute to the affordable housing stock. This discussion
would include a review of the incentives the City has in place (e.g., impact fee waivers,
changes to development regulations), articulation of the City’s goals related to
affordable housing and how the development community can support the
establishment of a land bank and housing trust fund.
The City should also actively encourage and be open to creative development strategies
to create more affordable housing and sustainable communities, including solar energy,
small lot housing, narrower streets and walkable communities integrated with
neighborhood services. More incentives should be provided to annexations that
embrace these concepts.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 7
Vacant building ordinance. As part of its affordable housing strategies tasks, the Committee
researched vacant building ordinances in other communities. Since vacant (particularly neglected and
vacant) properties can contribute to deterioration of neighborhoods and are unproductive uses of
existing development which could be used for affordable housing in some cases, the Committee felt it
was appropriate to explore potential ordinances for Las Cruces.
Many communities are enacting such ordinances which require commercial and, in some cases,
residential owners, to file an improvement plan with a city once their property becomes vacant. This
plan must detail how the property owner will improve the property, either through leasing the space,
redeveloping the space or selling the property. Many communities require that a property must be
improved within a certain amount of time (e.g., 90 days in Wichita) or the property owner is fined.
In Wichita and San Diego, owners are fined $250 for every 90 days a property is vacant for a
maximum of $5,000 in fines. Fresno’s fees are much higher (exceeding $10,000 depending on the
time period of vacancy). Fresno also has a foreclosure ordinance where banks and real estate agents
can notify the city that the property will be vacated and submit a maintenance and disposal plan.
The Committee believes such an ordinance could improve conditions in Las Cruces, particularly that
of commercial properties and recommends that the City consider implementing a vacant building
ordinance in the next 3 years.
Mobile home park redevelopment. Mobile homes provide some of the most affordable
homeownership option in the City of Las Cruces. The City wishes to have in place an incentive for
the redevelopment of mobile home parks so that not all of the units are lost from the affordable
housing stock. The City should consider adopting an ordinance similar to a recent ordinance adopted
in Bend, Oregon, which provides incentives for developers to include affordable housing into the
redeveloped stock of mobile home parks.
Programs/Policies the Committee Wishes Not To Recommend
The Committee considered the following programs and does not wish to recommend them for
implementation at this time:
Community loan funds/community development financial institutions. Such a program would
require a regional effort, and it is unclear if there is a gap in the market for the capital that would be
provided by such a fund. In addition, a regional fund has already been proposed and is awaiting
designation as a community development financial institution from the U.S. Department of
Treasury.
Community land trusts. The Committee recognizes the value—and deep level of affordability,
especially for homeownership—that a land trust can bring. The Committee believes land trusts
should be introduced into the market on a case by case basis in small quantities (e.g., a small number
of trust units integrated into new subdivisions). Larger scale land trusts may come in time depending
on the market response to such beginnings.
APPENDIX A.
Program Discussion Chapters
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 1
APPENDIX A.
Program Discussion Chapters
This appendix contains all of the program chapters, discussion questions and accompanying
presentations that were presented to the Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee throughout its
strategic planning meetings. They are arranged by program topic and include:
Land banking;
Community loan funds/community development financial institutions;
Inclusionary zoning;
Community land trusts;
Housing trust funds; and
Development incentives and issues.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING LAND BANKING, PAGE 1
LAND BANKING
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Study
Land banking is a program whereby land is acquired by a division of government or nonprofit with
the purpose of developing affordable/workforce housing or engaging in revitalization activities. After
a holding period, the land is sold to a nonprofit or private developer, often at a price lower than
market, who agrees to the land use conditions (e.g., creation of affordable/workforce housing).
Land bank programs can serve dual purposes. While some programs are created solely for the
acquisition of land for future affordable housing development, others have broader long-term
community planning goals. In distressed communities, land banking programs allow cities to acquire
vacant and underperforming parcels, be a catalyst for redevelopment, and to benefit from increased
tax revenues from the properties. In communities with rapidly rising land costs, land banking
programs promise a long-term savings to taxpayers: When public buildings need to be constructed,
they can be built at less than the current market cost due to the earlier acquisition of the property by
the land bank.
Interest in land bank programs is growing, particularly in areas with high foreclosures. San Diego
formed a task force in February to study how to implement such a program, and Fairfax County,
Virginia set up such a program on July 1, 2008. In addition, on July 26, 2008 the U.S. Congress
passed a housing rescue bill that contained a budget for federal grants made to states for the land
banking of foreclosed properties.
Case studies of land banking programs follow.
Eugene, Oregon
Eugene has one of the oldest land banking programs in the country. In 1968, city council adopted a
broad platform to address housing needs, including directions to purchase and land bank sites for
lower-income housing. The city’s current Land Banking for Affordable Housing program was
formally adopted in 1983, when the city was in an economic downturn. When the economy
recovered, the city was uniquely positioned to offer banked land parcels to developers. The first
development using a land banked parcel was completed in 1990.
Forty years later, almost 90 acres have been purchased for affordable housing. This acquisition has
resulted in 510 units of affordable housing, mostly multifamily units (25 single family detached units
have been created). More than 200 units are in the pipeline for development. The vast majority of
units serve very-low income households (those earning less than 50 percent of the AMI).
The city’s goal is to maintain 10 acres of land in the bank for future development. City staff take the
lead in identifying and analyzing the feasibility of potential sites. Site selection is overseen by the
Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board (IHPB), comprised of elected officials and citizens,
although city council has the final say in land purchases.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING LAND BANKING, PAGE 2
Land has been purchased from private individuals and businesses as well as schools (lower and higher
educational institutions). Several parcels were already owned by the city and were transferred to the
land bank at no cost.
The assessment process for purchasing land parcels examines the following factors:
1) Location related to jobs, services, amenities and public transportation;
2) Dispersal of affordable housing;
3) Site environmental conditions;
4) Cost;
5) Allowed density (ideally, zoned multifamily with the capacity of 40 to 80 units);
6) Existing on-site structures and improvements; and
7) Existing utility and street infrastructure.
The city offers land bank sites, one at a time, for development through a Request for Proposals (RFP)
process. The proposals are evaluated by city staff and the HPB. City Council makes the final
decision, choosing the development application that best meets the goals of the program and is most
appropriate for the particular land parcel.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Fort Collins established its land banking program 5 years ago, with a general fund contribution of $1
million. The city’s program is specifically designed to acquire property for development of affordable
housing units—it is basically a hedge against rising land costs. Under the program, the city acquires
property and holds it long-term (a minimum of 5 years, but more likely in the realm of 7-10 years).
After a holding period, the city issues an RFP for property development. However, the city is not
permitted to use the land bank as an investment vehicle (e.g., to generate monies to fund affordable
housing development).
As of 2008, no units have been produced as a result of the program. According to city officials, when
properties are sold they will be sold for more than the city paid for the land—enabling the city to
realize a small profit—but for less than market value.
Dallas, Texas
In 2003, the State of Texas passed the Urban Land Bank Demonstration Act. The act enables large
metropolitan areas in the state to establish pilot land banking organizations.
The land banks have the authority to take ownership of unimproved tax-foreclosed properties, which
they must sell within 3 years for the purpose of affordable housing development. The developers that
can buy the properties must meet certain eligibility requirements, and the number of properties they
can buy is limited based on their recent housing production experience. The developer must apply for
a building permit, and construction financing must be in place within 24 months of acquiring the
property or it reverts back to the land bank.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING LAND BANKING, PAGE 3
The properties sold by the land bank must be deed restricted for the development of affordable
housing and the occupants of the developed housing have income restrictions. If the property is sold
for development of rental housing, the rental property owner must file annual occupancy reports.
Nonprofit community housing development organizations have the first right of refusal on the
purchase of the properties, as long as they provide housing within the same area as the land bank's
properties.
The land banks created are required to adopt an annual plan—and subject to a public hearing—for
the program's operation. In addition, the state bill requires the land bank to comply with open
meetings and open records requirements for governmental bodies and to meet certain recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.
The City of Dallas recently used its authority under the 2003 Act to create its own Urban Land Bank
Demonstration Program. The stated purpose of its program is to acquire unproductive, vacant, and
developable lots and/or substandard homes to be “banked” for affordable housing development in the
future. The goal of the lot acquisitions is to enable new single family development to house low- and
moderate-income homeowners, in addition to stabilizing distressed communities.
At least 25 percent of land bank properties in Dallas must be deed restricted for sale to households
with gross household incomes less than 60 percent of the AMI, and not more than 30 percent of land
bank properties may be deed restricted for sale to households with gross household incomes greater
than 80 percent of the AMI.
The City of Dallas’ Urban Land Bank program has a goal of selling up to 250 properties per year to
benefit low- and moderate-income families of the metro area. The properties are offered for sale at
$3,000 for the first 7,500 square feet of land plus $0.133 for each additional square foot plus any
regulatory and contractual costs (e.g., maintenance, post foreclosure property taxes). Buyers are
required to submit development plans for the parcels along with their requests for purchase.
Flint, Michigan
The Genesee County Land Bank Authority (LBA) was formed in 2002, a result of an inter-local
agreement between Genesee County and Flint, Michigan.
The Genesee County LBA was enacted prior to the actual passing of the State of Michigan’s Land
Bank “Fast Track” Act in 2004. The Act enables local governments to create land bank authorities
with independent powers to acquire, hold, and distribute vacant, abandoned, and tax-delinquent
properties.
The Genesee County LBA uses its land banked properties first for residential redevelopment,
secondly for park and open space, and lastly for retail, commercial and industrial purposes. The main
goal of the Genesee County Landbank is to get properties back on the tax roll, through both
affordable housing and commercial development and redevelopment. The Landbank is not a
developer; it partners with local nonprofits for construction of affordable housing.
Since its inception, the Genesee County LBA has acquired over 4,400 properties into its land bank
holdings and transferred 200 of the properties to nonprofits for revitalization.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING LAND BANKING, PAGE 4
The Genesee County LBA acquires most of its property through tax foreclosure. It also accepts gifted
properties and purchases for redevelopment.
To fund its operations, the LBA received an initial injection of land reutilization funds from the
treasurer’s office. For its ongoing operations, the Genesee County Land Bank is funded through three
main mechanisms:
1. Revenues generated through the sale of Landbank properties;
2. 5 year/50 percent tax capture of Landbank properties returned to the tax roll; and
3. Monies given to the Landbank by the County Treasurer. This amount is a percentage
of the amount taken in for the increased fees generated through the changes from the
enabling legislation.
Other sources of funding include appropriations, sales of properties, and grants. No general fund
dollars are appropriated for the Landbank.
One of the biggest challenges of the Landbank is maintenance of the sites. The LBA has found that
properties that are publicly labeled and marked as Landbank properties become public dumping sites
due to the apparent lack of private ownership. In response to this challenge, the LBA has stopped
publicizing the locations of their properties and has tried to establish several “Clean and Green”
programs which emphasize community assistance in the maintenance and redevelopment of these
properties. The LBA has generally found wide support in the community.
Cary, North Carolina
This city near the Research Triangle, very recently established a land banking program with a $23
million seed to reserve land for future public uses, including schools, post offices, parks, greenways,
open space, community centers and fire stations. The current plan is to purchase 700 acres for public
use, including up to 500 acres for parks, 250 acres for public schools, 12 acres for a post office and
3 to 4 acres for a fire station. The motivation for the program is to “insulate…taxpaying
citizens…from rising land costs.” Development in Cary consumes as much as 1,000 acres per year.
The city is mostly looking at acquiring large, un- or under-developed parcels that are ideal for
“community uses in the future.”
The sites will be acquired through purchase by the town solely or with a partner agency. Land might
also be acquired through donations, developer set asides or preservation easements.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING LAND BANKING, PAGE 5
Land Banking Group Discussion Questions
1. List the pros and cons of establishing a land banking program in Las Cruces.
2. If the City of Las Cruces were to establish a land banking program, what would be the program’s
purpose—affordable housing creation, community revitalization, neighborhood
stabilization/foreclosure mitigation? A combination of all?
What would be the criteria for the purchase of land?
3. Outline a vision for how such a program in Las Cruces might be structured:
How long would the city hold property?
What organizations would get first right of refusal to purchase the property?
At what cost would the city sell the parcels—cost plus a small profit? Deep discount?
Cost plus carrying costs?
4. Who would manage such a program? The city, the downtown redevelopment organization, or
someone else?
5. Do you see an opportunity to match such a program with the city’s current home rehabilitation
program and/or downtown revitalization efforts?
6. Think about the tradeoff of buying land and restricting funds v. allocating funds to develop
affordable housing now. Would this be a major barrier to passing such a program in Las Cruces?
7. Given the challenges faced by other land banking programs (small amounts of funding, delay in
developing units, maintenance of property), do you think these challenges can be overcome in
Las Cruces?
8. Do you have follow-up questions for BBC to research to help you make a decision about land
banking as a program to recommend in Las Cruces?
What is your recommendation for continuing to explore this potential program at this point?
GO or NO GO
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LOAN FUNDS, PAGE 1
Community Loan Funds
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Study
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) are lending institutions with a specific
purpose of serving a particular community by increasing the amount of loan capital in an
underserved area. The services offered by CDFIs differ—some operate much like a traditional bank
or credit union and offer consumer as well as commercial products; others operate only to make loans
for creation of affordable housing.
According to the general defintion by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, a CDFI has a primary
mission of community development, serves a target market, is a financing entity, remains accountable
to its community and is a nongovernment entity. CDFIs can be regulated instutions, such as
community development banks, or unregulated instutions, such as community loan funds,
community development venture funds or micro-enterprise funds. CDFIs can be for-profit or non-
profit entities.
Depending on the type of institution, CDFIs generate revenue in different ways. In many cases,
CDFIs make money much like traditional banks do—by charging a higher interest rate on the money
they lend than what they pay for the funds. They might also receive contributions from the private
sector and government (see CDFI Fund below).
Nonprofit CDFIs are limited by their abililty to raise capital, since they do not issue stock like for-
profit companies. The ability to have a strong capital base allows CDFIs to better reach their target
markets by allowing them to make higher-risk and longer-term loans. To address this issue, in 1995,
Citibank and the National Community Capital collaboration invented an investment product called
an equity equivalent investment, or EQ2. An EQ2 is a long-term, deeply subordinated loan with
some equity features (carrying interest rates of between 2 and 4 percent). Regulated banks can receive
community development credit for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) if
they invest in EQ2s.
The U.S. Departmentof the Treasury has a CDFI Fund with the mission of expanding the capacity
of financial institutions to provide credit, capital, and financial services to underserved populations
and communities in the U.S. The Fund provides monetary awards for financial assistance and
technical assistance to support economic development (job creation, business development, and
commercial real estate development); affordable housing (housing development and
homeownership); and community development financial services (provision of basic banking services
to underserved communities, financial literacy training, and predatory lending alternatives).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LOAN FUNDS, PAGE 2
CDFIs in New Mexico
New Mexico has a handful of CDFIs, the vast majority of which are dedicated to micro-business and
small business development through access to credit. New Mexico’s CDFIs include:
ACCION New Mexico (Albuquerque). ACCION is a nonprofit organization that makes loans to
small businesses and provides training to emerging entrepreneurs. ACCION New Mexico offers
loans ranging from $200 to $150,000 to support self-employed individuals who have limited or no
access to traditional business credit. ACCION New Mexico uses a "stepped lending" model in which
many clients start with a smaller first-time loan and, once they establish a strong repayment history,
apply for larger loans.
Wells Fargo Bank in Las Cruces is a partner bank to ACCION. For more information, see
http://www.accionnewmexico.org/
Homewise, Inc. (Santa Fe). Homewise is dedicated to helping New Mexicans become homeowners
by offering home purchase, home improvement and education programs. Through a partnership
with the Santa Fe School District called Teacherwise, Homewise offers a special program designed to
help teachers and other school employees buy or repair homes in Santa Fe, through downpayment
assistance and low-interest mortgage loans. Homewise also operates as a housing developer and
recently developed an 80-unit affordable homeownership development in Santa Fe. For more
information, see http://www.homewise.org/.
The Loan Fund. The New Mexico Community Loan Fund, located in Albuquerque, is a nonprofit
that provides financing and business consulting for entrepreneurs, business owners and nonprofit
organizations.
The loan fund receives low-interest loans from traditional financial institutions, units of local
governments, individuals and nonprofit organizations. The interest rate on these loans range from 0
to 4 percent; the notes are secured by loans receivables. The loan fund uses these monies to provide
below-market rate loans to entrepreneurs and business owners.
The Loan Fund has also received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the
City of Santa Fe to operate the city’s Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). The RLF provides loans to start
up and existing businesses to begin/expand their activities, particularly for low and moderate income
and minority persons in Santa Fe.
See http://www.loanfund.org/index.htm for more information about The Loan Fund.
New Mexico Community Capital. This organization is a community development venture capital
fund. The objective of the organization is to promote economic development in New Mexico
communities—particularly outside the Albuquerque/Santa Fe/Los Alamos areas—while generating
returns for the fund’s investors.
The fund typically invests $500,000 to $1,000,000 in qualified companies in exchange for preferred
stock. Industry preferences include artisan and tourism related products and services, consumer and
business services and products, food processing, light manufacturing and sustainable energy and
environmental remediation. See www.nmccap.org for more information.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LOAN FUNDS, PAGE 3
Case studies of other CDFIs follow.
Low Income Investment Fund
The primary goal of the Low Income Investment Fund (LIIF) is to alleviate poverty. The
organization aims to do this by providing capital and technical assistance to low-income communities
to finance and build facilities for education, affordable and supportive housing, childcare and other
community revitalization programs.
LIIF has three market areas: Northern California, Southern California and New York.
LIIF has several lending products:
Predevelopment. Organizations can get short-term (up to 2 years) predevelopment
loans and lines of credit for affordable and supportive housing, childcare centers and
educational facilities.
Acquisition, construction loans and mini-perm loans. These loans are a maximum of
$750,000 (unsecured) and can be used for site/building acquisition and construction of
affordable and supportive housing developments, childcare centers and educational
facilities and permanent financing for up to 10 years.
Permanent loans. These loans must be a minimum of $500,000 and a maximum of $7
million and are fully amortizing, up to 30 years.
LIIF also provides operating and facility grants to childcare centers and technical assistance to
housing, childcare and educational organizations.
LIIF is a very large organization, with assets exceeding $135 million in 2007. LIIF gets the money it
loans and grants from individuals, religious organizations, banks, mutual funds, foundations and
corporations. Its list of donors is extensive and includes many high-profile organizations such as
Citigroup and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
To date, LIIF has achieved the following:
Childcare. LIIF has provided $51 million in loans, grants and technical assistance to
child care providers, supporting nearly 52,000 childcare spaces to-date.
Education. To date, LIIF’s education program has provided 117 education loans to
benefit students in low income neighborhoods totaling nearly $210 million; this
activity created 46,000 quality classroom spaces for low income children.
Housing. Nearly 80 percent of the 55,000 affordable housing units LIIF has financed
since 1984 are occupied by very low-income households.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LOAN FUNDS, PAGE 4
Mile High Community Loan Fund
The Mile High Community Loan Fund (formerly the Mile High Housing Fund) was established in
Denver, Colorado in 1999. The fund was an outgrowth of a joint initiative of the City and County
of Denver, Fannie Mae Foundation, Enterprise Foundation and U.S. Bank. These four founders
provided the initial capital including $3 million in grant funds from the City of Denver.
MHCLF provides loans to nonprofit and private sector developers to support the development of
affordable housing and community facilities.
MHCLF is capitalized through equity investments, low-interest loans and grants from local, regional
and national funders including U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Key Bank, the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund of U.S. Treasury Department, Enterprise Foundation,
Fannie Mae Foundation, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, and the cities of Denver,
Arvada, Boulder, Englewood, and Lakewood. The fund has approximately $10 million in assets.
To date, MHCLF has made 97 loans totaling more than $33 million and has helped finance more
than 3,000 units of affordable housing and more than 50,000 square feet of nonprofit community
facilities space in the metro area. MHCLF recently entered into an agreement with Habitat for
Humanity to service the organization’s loan portfolio.
Funding Partners
Funding Partners for Housing Solutions (Funding Partners), located in Fort Collins, Colorado, is a
nonprofit that was incorporated in 1996. It became a CDFI in 1999.
Funding Partners has several programs:
Mammel Affordable Housing Loan Fund. This fund provides loans for acquisition of
property, predevelopment work, construction and gap financing for affordable
residential and mixed-use developments. The loan terms are usually 24 months or less
and carry a below market interest rate; the loan terms might also include deferred
interest and/or principal repayments.
House to Homeownership (H2O). This program provides downpayment and closing
cost assistance to qualified first-time homebuyers—up to 5 percent of the purchase
price. It was introduced as a private sector alternative to governmental downpayment
assistance programs. The program is marketed through mortgage and real estate
professionals.
Employee Homeownership Program. An employer-sponsored downpayment
assistance program, this program is offered by employers (through Funding Partners) to
their employees. Funding Partners works with specific employers to define the
objectives they would like to achieve, key staff positions to target, eligibility
requirements and program procedures. The employer ultimately determines what the
program offers and which employees are eligible to use the program.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LOAN FUNDS, PAGE 5
The organization also provides third-party loan servicing and program and policy
implementation for clients.
Funding Partners has a capital base of $8 million. Its loan capital is provided by 27
organizations, 56 percent of which are financial institutions, 36 percent governmental units,
with the remainder from the private sector.
Since its inception, the organization has financed 53 housing projects, creating or preserving
1,900 affordable units and financed 951 downpayment assistance loans.
Housing Development Project
Although not a CDFI, the Housing Development Project (HDP) in Denver functioned somewhat
like a loan fund, except that it provided grants rather than loans. The HDP was developed in Denver,
Colorado by Enterprise Community Partners (formerly The Enterprise Foundation). The purpose of
the HDP was to support the development and preservation of affordable housing in the Denver
metro area. The HDP was made up of a collaborative of funding organizations, including The
Enterprise Foundation, the City and County of Denver, the United Way, financial institutions and
construction companies, who provided annual grants to the program. Funders had representatives on
the HDP Board who oversaw the administration of the program and evaluated the organizations that
would receive funding.
There were two parts to the program:
Three year funds provided to four nonprofit housing developers for operations and
technical assistance. The organizations received $100,000 for operations and an average
of $25,000 each year for technical assistance.
One-year funds provided to nonprofits for special, one-time projects such as roof
repairs on affordable rental developments, staff training and software system
implementation.
During its existence, the HDP supported the development, rehabilitation and preservation of more
than 5,000 affordable housing units and helped more than 1,400 families achieve homeownership
through counseling, financial education and down payment assistance. Together, HDP funders have
provided more than $8 million in operating support and technical assistance to nonprofit developers
in metro Denver. The program was active until 2008, when Enterprise began a new green initiative
and reallocated funding.
University National Bank
This CDFI in St. Paul, Minnesota has a unique program called “Houses to Homes.” The program
was created in May 2000 with the goal of financing the rehabilitation of 1,000 homes in the Twin
Cities in five years. The goal was achieved over a year ahead of schedule. To date, more than 1,500
homes have been revitalized through the program.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LOAN FUNDS, PAGE 6
The program operates like this:
University Bank finances renovators with a successful track record of buying, fixing and
selling homes in distressed communities;
The bank lends 100 percent of the home's acquisition price. Renovation work is
completed within a reasonable period of time; and
Homes are targeted to first-time homebuyers or low- to moderate-income homebuyers.
The program is funded through the bank’s social responsible deposit program, in which
consumers and businesses can invest.
CDFI/Loan Fund Group Discussion Questions
1. Is there a role for a CDFI in Las Cruces?
2. If a CDFI were established, what type do you feel is most needed in Las Cruces?
Community development bank or credit union
Loan fund for affordable housing development
Loan fund for small business development
Loan fund for nonprofit facilities (childcare centers, special needs centers, nonprofit
offices)
A combination of the above (what type of combination?)
3. Would the CDFI cover a market area larger than Las Cruces?
What would the market area be? The county? Regional/multi-county?
4. Would local financial institutions and other private sector businesses be interested in investing in a
local or regional CDFI?
What businesses would be the most likely investors? Why? Any guess of how much capital might be
raised?
5. What is your vision for how such a program in Las Cruces might be structured?
6. Do you have follow-up questions for BBC to research to help you make a decision about CDFIs as
a program to recommend in Las Cruces?
What is your recommendation for continuing to explore this potential program at this point?
GO or NO GO
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING INCLUSIONARY ZONING SECTION, PAGE 1
Inclusionary Zoning
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Study
Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is a very common tool for affordable housing development in high cost
communities1. In general, inclusionary zoning is the integration of affordable housing into an
otherwise market rate residential development plan. The primary goal for inclusionary zoning is to
increase the supply and economic integration of affordable housing in a community.
Inclusionary zoning programs may be voluntary or mandatory; most are mandatory (as a condition of
permit approval) and have specific ordinances governing the program2. The absence of an ordinance
does not mean that developers are exempt from inclusionary zoning: Municipal governments without
inclusionary zoning ordinances sometimes require affordable housing as part of subdivision approvals.
Most inclusionary zoning ordinances specify that a share of the units in developments of a certain size
be affordable. Affordability, unit type and size, level of integration, allowance of offsite development
of the affordable units and the option to pay cash-in-lieu or donate land to satisfy the IZ requirement
are generally specified in the ordinances.
It is estimated that there are more than 200 inclusionary zoning programs in the U.S. The primary
reason for the popularity of IZ is its relatively efficient and quick way of developing affordable
housing. There are significant economies of scale realized by building affordable housing and market
rate housing together. The units share land, infrastructure, construction costs, and predevelopment
costs. Inclusionary zoning also has desirable social benefits, since (when onsite development is
required) mixed-income communities are created.
However, inclusionary zoning can be a controversial tool for affordable housing production.
Advocates for IZ argue that a casual relationship exists between the development of market rate
housing and the increased for affordable housing in a community. As such, developers of market rate
housing (and the buyers of market rate housing, since some or all of the cost is likely to be passed on
to them) have an obligation to participate in the creation of affordable housing.
Builders/developers and Realtors are often opposed to inclusionary zoning, since they view this
method for creating affordable housing as an undue burden on them. A recent quote from an article
on inclusionary zoning summed up the concern well: “Isn’t the affordability problem the
responsibility of all of us as citizens? The lack of public funding for affordable housing is a significant
public policy issue that should concern more than Realtors and developers.” That is, since affordable
and workforce housing is a community asset, the cost should be more widely borne by the members
of a community (employers, general citizenry).
2 Some communities start with voluntary programs and later convert to mandatory programs. Cambridge, Massachusetts
converted its voluntary program to a mandatory program after it failed to produce any units over 10 years. The success of a
voluntary program depends on how difficult it is to produce market rate v. affordable housing.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING INCLUSIONARY ZONING SECTION, PAGE 2
Successful IZ programs balance stakeholder interests and offer developers some assistance in fulfilling
their IZ obligation. For example, inclusionary zoning programs need to have ways of adjusting to
market conditions, so the units stay in demand even when the market is soft.
It is common for units developed under IZ programs to have some controls in place to ensure
affordability. Some communities use deed restrictions, under which IZ units are limited to a certain
amount of appreciation each year to preserve affordability over time. A modified approach is a shared
equity model, where the owner of the IZ unit and the municipality overseeing the program share in
the appreciation on the home, the amount of which varies depending upon the length of occupancy.
This section describes the IZ programs in key communities—programs in New Mexico communities,
programs in similarly sized towns with universities, and programs in communities with other
similarities to Las Cruces.
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Santa Fe’s inclusionary zoning program, established in 2005, is called Santa Fe Homes. It requires
that 30 percent of housing units developed as part of a new residential development be affordable.
The program applies to all residential subdivisions with 10 or more lots. Fifteen percent of the units
developed must be rental units.
Pricing of the constructed homes and manufactured homes lots developed through Santa Fe Homes
must be as follows:
10 percent of the total units or lots must be sold at a price of between $74,500 and
$122,000 per unit, depending upon family size, or $27,250 per lot (pricing at the time
the ordinance was created);
10 percent must be sold at a price of between $100,500 to $158,000 per unit or
$35,500 per lot; and
10 percent must be sold at a price of between $125,500 and $194,000 per unit or
$43,750 per lot.
Santa Fe’s ordinance also specifies the minimum number of bathrooms and square feet by unit size
(e.g., studios must have 750 square feet and 1 bathroom). Twenty-five percent of the units must be
studios, 1 or 2 bedroom; 50 percent, 3 bedroom; and 25 percent 4 bedroom.
The ordinance also provides pricing for rental units and minimum sizes per unit type.
Preserving affordability. Units created through the inclusionary requirement of Santa Fe Homes are
deed-restricted for affordability. Santa Fe Homes uses a shared equity approach when the deed-
restricted units are sold. The city’s share of appreciation is equal to the proportion of subsidy
(difference between market and affordable price) divided by the initial market value. Proceeds from
the sale of the home are placed in a housing trust fund.
Development incentives. Developers are provided with a number of options to offset the cost of the
program, including:
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING INCLUSIONARY ZONING SECTION, PAGE 3
Density bonuses—15 percent over allowable density in a district;
Fee waivers—Development review and building permit fees are reduced proportionate
to the number of Santa Fe Home units developed.
Nonprofit developers may also request waivers from impact fees and utility expansion
charges (private sector developers can request reimbursements).
Other specifications. Units that are exempt from the program include those that were agreed to
before the adoption of Santa Fe Homes in 2005 and dwelling units or manufactured home lots that
are used exclusively by employees of a school, hospital or similar institution.
In the case of an annexation, the city and entity proposing the annexation negotiate the number and
type of affordable units, which are included in the annexation agreement. The annexation must
contain at least the same number of units or cash-in-lieu amount required under Santa Fe Homes.
Prior to enacting the Santa Fe Homes program, the city had a program called the Housing
Opportunity Program (HOP). The HOP used a more complex formula than Santa Fe Homes to
determine the inclusionary requirement; the Santa Fe Homes legislation is much more transparent.
According to the city, Santa Fe Homes was adopted because the city felt that HOP had “limited
effectiveness in stemming the growing affordable housing crisis” in the city.
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder’s IZ ordinance requires that 20 percent of a residential development be affordable. All sizes
of residential developments are included. The 20 percent requirement can be met by onsite or offsite
development, land donation or cash-in-lieu payments. For-sale developments must provide at least
half of the requirement onsite. Rental projects may fulfill the requirement through for sale units only,
onsite or offsite development3.
The sales prices for the affordable units are set by the City on a quarterly basis. The units must be
affordable to low-income households as defined by HUD.
A developer who wishes to fulfill their IZ requirement “offsite” has a number of options:
Contribute to the City’s affordable housing fund through a cash-in-lieu payment;
Dedicate land within the City of Boulder to the city. The value of the land must be
equivalent to the cash-in-lieu payment plus an additional 50 percent (to cover the
carrying costs associated with the land) or of equivalent value to the land upon which
the units would have otherwise been constructed to satisfy the IZ requirement.
Restricting existing dwelling units as affordable. The units must be equivalent to the
units that would have otherwise been constructed to satisfy the IZ requirement.
3 This is due to Colorado law, which inhibits the creation of rental units under IZ programs due to a prohibition of rent-
controlled units. Developers do have an option of forming not-for-profit corporations to develop and manage rental units in
satisfaction of their IZ requirement.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING INCLUSIONARY ZONING SECTION, PAGE 4
Detached IZ units must be equal to 48 percent of the average size of the market rate units, up to a
maximum average of 1,200 sq. ft. per affordable unit. Attached IZ units must be equal to 80 percent
of the average size of the market rate units, up to a maximum average of 1,200 sq. ft. per affordable
unit. The type of IZ units must resemble the distribution of market rate units (e.g., if all of the
market rate units are single family detached, all of the IZ units must be single family detached).
To keep the units affordable, the IZ units are deed-restricted in appreciation, the amount of which is
determined by the city. Sellers of IZ units must make a good faith effort to select another low-income
household to purchase the unit. The City maintains a list of eligible households if needed by the
seller.
Burlington, Vermont
Home to the University of Vermont, this community of about 40,000, adopted inclusionary zoning
in 1990. It was the first community to adopt an IZ program with requirements that are indexed to
the price of market rate housing.
Burlington’s IZ requirement applies to all new market rate developments of five or more units and to
any converted nonresidential structures that result in 10 homes or more. The percentage of units
required to be affordable varies depending on the pricing of the market rate units in a development,
and ranges between 15 and 25 percent (higher percentages are required of the most expensive
developments). The for sale units are targeted to households earning 75 percent of less of the AMI;
rental units are targeted at 65 percent or less.
Burlington’s ordinance does not allow cash-in-lieu payments or land donations to fulfill a developers
IZ obligation. However, developers are allowed to provide the required affordable housing offsite if
they provide 125 percent of their onsite obligation.
Developers required to comply with the IZ ordinance are eligible to receive fee waivers and a 15 to 25
percent density and lot coverage bonus.
The units created through the IZ ordinance are sold through the Burlington Community Land Trust
and carry a 99-year land lease to preserve affordability.
Burlington’s website offers the following “advice on inclusionary zoning: Make the program
mandatory, but offer real incentives/bonuses/waivers that mitigate the impact to developers. Having a
nonprofit partner to steward the covenant and leverage other subsidies to get the target population
into the home is key.”
Inclusionary Zoning Group Discussion Questions
1. List the pros and cons of establishing an inclusionary zoning program in Las Cruces.
2. Which would work better—a voluntary program, mandatory program or a mix?
3. Specify the program details:
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING INCLUSIONARY ZONING SECTION, PAGE 5
Threshold at which developments would qualify (e.g., developments of 30 units or
more)
Percentage of units required to be affordable (e.g., 15 percent of all units)
Incentives/concessions developers would get for complying with the program (if any).
For example, reduced parking requirements, density bonuses, reduced landscaping
requirements.
Requirement to build units onsite v. offsite
Minimum square footage requirements, if required
Tenure (renter/owners) split, if required
Option for cash-in-lieu payment or land donation instead of constructing affordable
units
Option for acquisition and rehab of existing housing instead of constructing affordable
units
4. How would the affordability of the units be preserved? Deed-restriction? Equity share?
5. In your judgment, would a mandatory IZ program drive development outside of the city, into the
county?
6. Given the challenges faced by other communities with inclusionary zoning programs (fairness
issues, resistance by the development community, market response to product), do you think these
challenges can be overcome in Las Cruces?
7. Do you have follow-up questions for BBC to research to help you make a decision about
inclusionary zoning as a program to recommend in Las Cruces?
What is your recommendation for continuing to explore this potential program at this point?
GO or NO GO
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, PAGE 1
COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Study
Community land trusts are affordable homeownership programs that are becoming more common in
communities throughout the United States1. Land trust programs keep housing affordable by taking
the rising cost of land out of the housing cost equation. The homeowner owns the home while a
nonprofit owns the land upon which the home is built. The homeowner leases the land from the
nonprofit for a small monthly or quarterly fee.
In addition to lowering the purchase price of a home, the land trust model helps the homeowner
create equity by allowing the homeowner to realize a certain amount of appreciation when the home
is sold. The amount of appreciation allowed is restricted, however, so that the home can be preserved
as affordable for future low-income buyers.
Community land trusts can also be used for broader purposes, including acquiring and holding land
to facilitate workouts for foreclosures.
Ten features of land trusts. The Institute for Community Economics defines the “classic” land
trust model as having the following ten features (based on the federal definition of a land trust):
1. Nonprofit. A land trust is an independent, nonprofit corporation.
2. Dual ownership. The properties managed by the land trust have dual ownership, with
the land trust owning the land and another entity (i.e., homeowner, land developer/
builder) owning the structures on the land.
3. Leased land. Land trusts never intend to sell their land (in contrast to a land bank). Land
trusts provide long-term land leases to the homeowners who purchase the structures on
their land.
4. Perpetual affordability. The land trust retains the option to repurchase any structures
located upon its land should their owners sell. The resale price is set by a formula,
documented in the deed-of-trust that typically shares the equity gain on the structure
between the current owner and the land trust. That is, the land trust is structured to
achieve perpetual affordability.
5. Perpetual responsibility. The ground lease requires owner-occupancy and responsible
use of premises. If the owners of a home or commercial structure on land owned by the
land trust do not keep up their property, the land trust can step in and force upkeep or
repairs. Should property owners default on their mortgages, the land trust can step in and
cure the default, avoiding foreclosure.
1 A review of land trust lists on websites suggests that as many as 200 programs currently exist in the United States.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, PAGE 2
6. Community base. The land trust operates in a designated geographic area. Residents on
land trust properties may be voting members of the land trust.
7. Resident control. In most trust models, the majority of the board of directors are elected
by and/or comprised of residents of the land trust.
8. Tripartite governance. One-third of board members represent residents of the land trust;
one-third represents residents of communities adjacent to the trust; and one-third is made
up of public officials, nonprofit housing providers and other individuals presumed to
speak for the public interest.
9. Expansionist acquisition. Land trusts operate to increase their holdings of land and the
supply of affordable housing. They are not focused only on a single project.
10. Flexible development. Land trusts can be used to accommodate a wide range of
income levels and housing types (e.g., single family and multifamily housing) and can
provide land for community purposes (playgrounds, gardens) in addition to housing.
Land trusts in practice. A typical land trust model works as follows:
A land trust organization is created as a nonprofit. A land trust may be a stand-alone organization
or part of a larger affordable housing nonprofit.
Land is acquired by the nonprofit through public or private donation or purchase. In the case of
large land donation, the board members of the land trust might include a representative of the
donating entity.
The land trust develops housing (and perhaps community facilities or spaces) on the land. The
housing is developed with a specific pricing strategy in mind, affordable to households in a low- to
moderate-income range.
The housing is marketed and sold to low- or moderate-income homebuyers. The terms of the sale
include a ground lease agreement, which is a contract between the land trust and the homebuyers.
The agreement specifies the terms of the lease including: the length (usually 99 years); use of the
property (e.g., owner occupancy); amount of the ground lease fee; allowed improvements; and the
“credit” the homeowner can receive upon resale, required insurance coverage and resale provisions.
Once all of the units have been sold, the land trust continues to operate, acquiring property and
developing housing in other geographic areas, as well as managing existing trusts.
When a homeowner wants to sell, they must notify the land trust of their intent. The homeowner
and the trust review the provisions of resale, so the homeowner has a full understanding of the
process.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, PAGE 3
Land Trusts in New Mexico
We identified three land trust programs in New Mexico—two of the programs are pure land trusts
and one (Santa Fe’s) is a nonprofit that has used the land trust model to create deeply affordable for
sale housing.
Sawmill Community Land Trust (Albuquerque). The Sawmill Community Land Trust was
formed as a community development effort to protect low-income residents living in a downtown
Albuquerque neighborhood as well as to strengthen their role in redevelopment of the area. The
stated vision of the organization is to “be a New Mexico and national model of revitalization.”
According to the organization’s mission statement, the Sawmill Land Trust is a “community-based
development corporation whose principal purpose is to promote community ownership, long-term
affordability and economic opportunity through the community land trust model.”
The cornerstone of the Land Trust’s efforts is Arbolera de Vida, a mixed-use, master planned
community in the center of the Sawmill neighborhood. This 27-acre parcel was purchased by the city
of Albuquerque in 1995 and rezoned for mixed, compatible uses, including affordable housing,
community amenities, open space and commercial/retail space. The Sawmill Advisory Council
(SAC)—which is a neighborhood advisory group—assisted with the development vision for the
parcel.
Parcels are deeded from the city to the Land Trust as each phase of the development is built. The city
sells the land to the Land Trust for $1.05 per square foot (well below market value. Total cost of the
27-acre parcel at $1.05 per square feet will be approximately $1.2 million).
The development phases include:
Phase 1: 3.74 acres with 23 single family homes and a three-quarter acre neighborhood
plaza. Twelve of the homes are detached single family homes; 11 are townhomes.
Phase 1 was completed in 2001 and all homes are currently occupied. Ninety-
percent of the households in the community earn less than 60 percent of the
AMI.
Phase II: Currently being developed in two components, IIA and IIB. Phase IIA has
30 units and was completed in 2007, including a 2-acre park designed by the
community. Phase IIB is the next phase to be completed. When built out, the
total units constructed in this phase will be 170 and will include homeownership
units, rental units and senior housing.
Phase III: Is planned to include commercial/industrial sites, a community center and a
neighborhood park, as well as a community garden.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, PAGE 4
Homebuyers. People who purchase homes rent the land from Sawmill Community Land Trust. The
fee for homeownership units is $19 per month (the ownership units are basically on the same size
lots). The Trust reports that demand for the homeownership units is high, but that it is difficult for
residents to qualify for purchasing the units. The Land Trust has a relationship with several local
financial institutions who underwrite the loans for homebuyers. Buyers of the Land Trust units are
restricted on how much appreciation they can gain when they sell the unit. The gain is pro-rated
according to how long they have occupied the unit, and is capped at 30 percent of the total
appreciation.
Renters. All of the rentals are live/work units; residents of these units earn between 40 and 60 percent
of AMI. The units are in high demand and have a waiting list.
The Arbolera de Vida development has developed a Property Owners Association (POA), which
represents the homeowners and manages the common areas in the community. Residents pay $31 per
month for POA activities, including upkeep of common properties. Three representatives of the POA
serve on the Sawmill Land Trust’s Board of Directors, and the Land Trust appoints representatives to
the POA Board.
Funding for the project has been contributed by the City of Albuquerque, the State of New Mexico
in addition to federal CDBG and HOME monies.
In addition to its role developing Arbolera de Vida, the Sawmill Land Trust has been working with
the Wells Park community, located near the Arbolera de Vida project, to revitalize the neighborhood.
Specifically, the Land Trust plans to acquire and rehabilitate 30 scattered site homes for low- and
moderate-income homebuyers and renters. The Land Trust has also taken a lead role in working with
the city and residents on a master redevelopment plan for Sawmill area neighborhoods.
Santa Fe Community Housing Trust. The Santa Fe Community Housing Trust was formed in
1991. The organization started as a land trust and over time, has evolved into a certified Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO) and recently became a Community Development
Financial Institution (CDFI).
The Santa Fe Housing Trust typically uses the land trust model to integrate for sale units affordable
to very low-income homebuyers (50 percent of the area median income and less) into its mixed-
income developments. The organization has developed 95 land trust units within the city and
county, which is equivalent to about 19 percent of the 500 units developed by the Santa Fe Housing
Trust.
Staff of the Trust said that although the land trust component to their developments has been very
important in getting very low-income buyers into homes, it is not without its challenges. These
include:
There has been a stigma with some of the Trust homes, particularly when they are grouped
together. The Housing Trust has faced some upkeep issues with residents, which has had a
negative effect in the neighborhood. Since the Santa Fe Housing Trust owns the land upon
which the homes are placed, it has a strong incentive to ensure that the units are well
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, PAGE 5
maintained. The Housing Trust has a policy that they will only do land trusts with homes they
build themselves.
Some appraisers and lenders do not understand the land trust model and require education to
be comfortable with the program.
People who occupy the trust homes sometimes forget they do not own the land and that there is
a lien against their home (e.g., they are surprised when they apply for a home equity loan that
they have an outstanding lien).
The biggest issue with the land trust model, however, is that it “ties up resources…the subsidy is in
the ground and you can’t get it back.” The Housing Trust prefers to use second mortgages to reduce
the cost of housing for low-income homebuyers. With a second mortgage, when the home is sold
and/or the loan is paid off, the “subsidy” comes back to the Housing Trust in cash, which can be
reinvested in other housing programs as needed. Land trusts are less flexible than a revolving loan
program.
That said, the Santa Fe Housing Trust recently used a land trust on a rural project that was an “ideal
use” of the land trust model. Two affordable homes were built on an existing large parcel of land with
a residential home and a historic working farm. The land was subdivided and two additional homes
were built on the farm as land trust properties. This achieved higher density and preserved the farm
as well as adding some conversation easements for wildlife.
The Santa Fe Housing Trust is unique in that it has a broader role than just a trust fund: the
organization was founded, in part, to be an umbrella organization to bring together parties to obtain
land, raise funds and facilitate more affordable housing production in Santa Fe. The Housing Trust
was instrumental in establishing the Santa Fe Affordable Housing Roundtable and the Santa Fe
Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is a multi-million dollar fund used to enhance nonprofit
housing production.
The trust also provides homeownership counseling and rental assistance for persons who are homeless
and persons with disabilities, including people with HIV/AIDS. It recently became a CDFI in an
effort to help potential homebuyers with very low-incomes purchase homes when they cannot qualify
for traditional loan products. They offer first mortgages to homebuyers who have been denied loans
using more traditional underwriting criteria.
Tierra Madre (Sunland Park). Tierra Madre is a nonprofit that provides a mix of self-help housing,
straw-bale construction as well as a community land trust to develop affordable properties. The
development is on land that is leased from the State of New Mexico.
Families build homes in groups of five and they must build these units at the same time. Tierra
Madre provides all of the materials to build the homes (using straw bale construction methods), along
with construction support (e.g., electrician, construction supervisor). Once the home is built and
passes inspection, the families must get a mortgage (USDA finances all of their mortgages). The
amount of each mortgage is equivalent to the cost of the materials and professional time spent on the
home (usually $60,000 to $70,000). As the loan is paid down, Tierra Madre is reimbursed for their
investment in each of the homes.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, PAGE 6
Tierra Madre has 32 buildings constructed and will build a total of 47. The infrastructure for the
development was provided by a water and sewer grant.
Shared Equity
Land trust programs use a shared equity model to give homeowners an opportunity to share in any
appreciation of their home while they occupy it. The model that most trusts use is simple: Upon the
sale of the home, the difference between the current appraised value and the appraised value at the
time of purchase is divided between the land trust and the homeowner/seller. Usually the
homeowner/seller gets 25 to 30 percent of the equity gain plus the principal paid and the
downpayment. The land trust keeps 70 to 75 percent of the equity gain.
In most land trust programs, the land trust has first right of refusal on the sale of land trust homes.
Rehabilitation Model
A land trust in Minneapolis has a program that enables homebuyers to choose an existing home to
add to the land trust. Homeowners find qualifying properties, receive grant money to rehabilitate the
home, up to $65,000 in assistance to purchase the home and downpayment/closing cost coverage.
The home then operates just like a newly constructed trust home, where the homebuyer owns the
property and the trust owns the land.
The land trust also acquires and rehabilitates homes and then sells them as part of their trust
portfolio.
Land Trust Group Discussion Questions
1. The land trust model seems to work best when it is applied to a specific development
opportunity—something as large as the Sawmill Community Land Trust or as small as the Santa
Fe working farm described above. Does Las Cruces have such opportunities? Where are they?
2. Do you think low- to moderate-income renters would be willing to purchase a home on leased
land? In your opinion, how inexpensive would the homes need to be for people to make the trade-
off between buying a market rate home without any restrictions v. a land trust home? For
example, if the cheapest, decent quality market rate home they could find was $180,000, how
much less would a comparable land trust home need to be?
3. Who would be the likely homebuyers of a land trust home? Identify family type, income level and
types of occupation.
4. Are rising property taxes an issue for low- to moderate-income households in Las Cruces? In a
land trust model, the homeowner typically pays all of the property taxes (despite not owning the
land). This could dampen the affordability of the land trust product. Would there need to be
some type of program to adjust property taxes to retain affordability of the trust product?
5. What is your vision for how such a program in Las Cruces might be structured?
6. Do you have follow-up questions for BBC to research to help you make a decision about land
trusts as a program to recommend in Las Cruces?
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, PAGE 7
What is your recommendation for continuing to explore this potential program at this point?
GO or NO GO
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING HOUSING TRUST FUNDS, PAGE 1
HOUSING TRUST FUNDS
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Study
Housing trust funds are specific funds that are developed by legislation, ordinance or resolution to
dedicate a source of public revenues to affordable housing activities. There are more than 275
housing trust funds at the local and state level.
Housing trust funds determine how the funds generated will be used (e.g., downpayment assistance
v. new construction). The trust funds are usually governed by a board of directors, which has a role in
determining the allocation process.
The Center for Community Change (CCC)’s definition of a housing trust fund is tied to the revenue
source: CCC says that a true trust fund should receive on-going revenues from a dedicated source such
as taxes, fees or loan repayments. In reality, however, trust funds differ in their approaches to raising
revenue for housing activities.
The following section first discusses the typical revenue sources for trust funds and, then, provides
case studies of local housing trust funds.
Revenue Sources
There are a number of revenue sources that are used to fund housing trust funds. This section
provides an overview of the most common types of revenue sources and is organized by the type of
contributor.
Taxes imposed on Private Sector
Cash-in-lieu payments—Made by developers to satisfy inclusionary zoning
requirements on new development. Usually, the per unit amount paid is equal to the
subsidy required to “buy down” a market rate unit to make it affordable. This is
multiplied by the number of units the developer is required to include in its
development plan. For example, if 10 percent of units were required to be affordable
and the developer built a 200 unit development, he/she would pay 20 * the cash-in-lieu
amount per unit.
Permit fees on development/development impact fees—Lump sum fees paid on a
per unit basis by developers of new residential housing. Often waived for affordable
units.
Linkage impact fees—Fees paid by construction of new commercial property to
mitigate the housing needs of the employees that will be needed when the commercial
property is built. Usually applied on an employee per square feet of commercial space
basis. Requires a “nexus” study, or a demonstrated connection between the construction
of the commercial property and the need for employee housing.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING HOUSING TRUST FUNDS, PAGE 2
Property tax—A dedication of residential and commercial property taxes to trust fund
revenues.
Excise tax—A tax on a commodity (usually the construction of residential or
commercial property).
Taxes imposed on Public Sector (including taxpayers)
General fund contributions—Annual contributions from a local or state general fund.
General obligation bonds—General obligation bonds (GO bonds) are bonds issued by
municipalities that are repaid through a variety of revenue sources, mostly tax revenues.
The benefit of GO bonds for affordable housing projects (rather than revenue bonds) is
that the projects they fund are not expected to generate the revenue necessary to repay
the debt. Therefore, the funds raised through a GO bond issue can be used for grants to
develop affordable housing, enabling greater subsidies.
Property tax—A dedication of residential and commercial property taxes to trust fund
revenues.
Real estate transfer tax—A percentage imposed on the sale of real estate, sometimes
only imposed on high-cost homes. For example, a ¼ of a percent fee would mean that
$1,250 is added to closing costs of a $500,000 home. Who pays the fee (buyer or seller)
is usually negotiated as part of the sale.
Sales tax—A dedication of a portion of sales tax to trust fund revenues.
Use fees (parking garage, hotel)—Fees tacked on to parking or lodging costs.
Document recording fees—Fees tacked on to the recording of real estate documents
(e.g., deed of trust).
Local Examples
Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 2006, the City Council in Albuquerque passed a bill that
authorized a set aside of up to $10 million in general obligation bonds issued by the city to be used
for affordable housing activities. The set aside was required by the bill to be presented as a separate
bond question for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) bond issues; the bill was approved by voters
in 2007. The set aside expires in 6 years unless reauthorized by council.
The enabling legislation contains a number of requirements, which include:
A housing needs assessment be conducted and updated every 5 years to demonstrate the
city’s housing needs.
An Affordable Housing Committee is established to serve as the advisory committee for
development of the housing needs assessment and conduct an annual review of the
progress of meeting housing needs.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING HOUSING TRUST FUNDS, PAGE 3
Affordable housing should be integrated throughout the city and are evaluated on
design and location criteria that include access to transportation, jobs, community
services and schools and incorporation of Universal Design features.
Housing that is developed should contain resale restrictions to preserve affordability.
The housing plan should be linked to the city’s growth management plan.
Santa Fe, New Mexico. In June 2008, the Santa Fe City Council passed an ordinance that
proposed to fund affordable housing programs by levying a 1 percent tax on the portion of any home
purchase in excess of $750,000. (For example, a home that sold for $1 million would be subject to a
$2,500 tax). Voters will be asked to approve the measure in a special election in March 2009.
In June, the Santa Fe Association of Realtors, along with four homeowners, filed a lawsuit
challenging the proposed tax, claiming the tax is “unlawful and unenforceable.” The lawsuit is
currently outstanding.
During the state legislative session in 2008, the state association of Realtors promoted a bill that
would have prohibited municipalities from imposing such taxes. The bill passed the Senate, but failed
to make it out of the House of Representatives.
Salt Lake City, Utah. In 2000, the City of Salt Lake established the Salt Lake City Housing Trust
Fund and the Trust Fund Advisory Board. The enabling legislation declared the trust fund as
necessary to support the “policy of the city to address the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by
providing assistance for affordable and special needs housing within the city.”
The trust fund is actually a restricted account within the city’s general fund to which money can be
allocated for housing activities.
The fund receives money from five revenue sources:
Interest earned on the trust fund balance,
Repayments from current housing trust fund loans (revolving funds),
Contributions from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. This is the single largest
contributor to the trust fund, generating about $700,000 annually. In Utah, all
redevelopment agencies in the state are required to spend at least 20 percent of their
project revenues on affordable housing. The RDA also allocates a percentage of its
revenues from each of its tax increment financing districts (TIFs) to the trust fund.
Repayments from a previous HUD loan, and
Mitigation fees assessed by the city to developers eliminating housing stock through
demolition and new construction (negligible amount of revenue for the trust fund).
Activities funded by the housing trust fund can include the following:
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING HOUSING TRUST FUNDS, PAGE 4
Acquisition, leasing, rehabilitation and/or new construction of housing units
for ownership or rental, including transitional housing;
Emergency home repairs;
Accessibility improvements to units occupied by persons with disabilities;
Downpayment and closing cost assistance;
Construction and gap financing for affordable housing units;
Land acquisition to be used for affordable housing;
Technical assistance, and;
Other activities and expenses that directly assist in the provision of affordable
housing.
Funds may not be used for administrative expenses.
The Trust Fund Advisory Board makes recommendations on how to allocate trust fund monies,
develops the application process for funds, monitors the activities of grantees and serves as the
coordinating body for organizations interested in housing issues in the city.
Boulder, Colorado. Boulder’s Community Housing Assistance Fund (CHAP) is funded by
property taxes. The CHAP receives .8 mills of a property tax level, equivalent to about $19 per year
on a $300,000 home. Additionally, the city levies an excise tax on all new non-residential and
residential development of:
$.0092 per square foot of floor area for new, annexed or additional non-residential area;
$73.92 for new and annexing detached residential units; and
$50.10 for new and annexing attached residential units or mobile homes.
These funding sources mill levy generates about $1.5 million annually for affordable housing
activities.
CHAP funds have helped create 186 affordable homeownership units since 1991, making the CHAP
the second most productive homeownership affordable housing program in the city (inclusionary
zoning is first at 241 units). CHAP contributed $2.7 million in subsidies to affordable
homeownership in the city.
CHAP had produced more affordable rental units than any other program at 510 since 1990
(HOME is second with 480 units). CHAP has contributed more than $6.6 million in subsidies to
affordable rental units since its inception. CHAP has also been used to create 39 shelter beds/group
home units.
Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara County is home to the epicenter of the American
technology industry, the Silicon Valley and experienced rapid growth in the 1990s. By 1995, five
jobs were created there for every one unit of new housing. The median home price in the county
exceeds $600,000.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING HOUSING TRUST FUNDS, PAGE 5
In 1999, representatives of the Community Foundation Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group, the County Collaborative on Housing and Homelessness and the County of Santa Clara met
to create the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County. The Trust was designed to serve as a rapid-
response investment tool to aid the creation of new affordable housing developments and to help
first-time homeowners buy affordable homes.
An ambitious fundraising plan was established for the fund and, within 2 years, $20 million was
raised. The Trust is unique in that more than 50 percent of its funding comes from private sector
sources (30 percent comes from government)—for example, three homebuilders donated $400,000
to the fund at its inception. Initially, the trust fund was planned to be financed through a ballot
initiative. However, a poll found that residents would not support a tax to support the fund. As
successful at the fund was at receiving its initial seed, there is no dedicated funding source for the
Trust and donations do not renew annually.
The purpose of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara (Trust) is to administer three programs, each of
which is targeted at different groups:
First-Time Homebuyer Program—offers zero-interest loans to help cover closing costs;
Multifamily Rental Program—provides short and long-term loans at low interest rates to
nonprofit developers of affordable rental housing; and,
Homeless and Special Needs Program—similar to Multifamily Rental Program, but loans
designed for construction of developments targeted toward specific groups in need.
The three programs that make up the Trust have helped create a total of 5,310 housing opportunities
for county residents. The Multifamily Program has lent $6.1 million to developers of rental housing,
which has led to the construction of 1,275 housing units. In addition to the increase in the county’s
affordable housing stock, the program has also fostered a stable workforce.
Housing Trust Fund Group Discussion Questions
1. List the pros and cons of establishing a housing trust fund program in Las Cruces.
2. In your opinion, what are the best choices of revenue sources for a housing trust fund in Las
Cruces? Discuss the pros and cons of each source of revenue source, focus initially on how much each
would be opposed by the contributors. (BBC will continue researching feasible revenue sources if the
committee decides a trust fund is one of the programs to pursue).
Real estate transfer tax
Sales taxes
General fund contributions
General obligation bonds
Private sector contributions, including from major employers
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING HOUSING TRUST FUNDS, PAGE 6
Mandated cash-in-lieu funding generated from inclusionary zoning requirements
Housing excise tax
Increase in residential and commercial property tax mill levy
3. What would be the best way to reduce public and private opposition to establishing such a fund?
4. What types of housing programs would a trust fund provide monies to support?
What is your recommendation for continuing to explore this potential program at this point?
GO or NO GO
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, PAGE 1
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Las Cruces Affordable Housing Study
This section discusses local policies that can affect affordable housing development and preservation.
They mostly concern planning and code enforcement regulations and involve issues common in
cities facing affordable housing challenges.
The policies and issues covered in this section include:
Developer incentives—Is it common for cities to provide incentives to developers of
affordable housing to help reduce the cost of development and encourage affordable
housing? Which incentives are most effective? Least effective?
Mobile homes—How do most communities view mobile homes in the context of
affordable housing? Do they encourage or discourage mobile homes? How do
communities deal with relocation issues when mobile home parks are purchased for
redevelopment?
Developer Incentives
Many high-cost communities provide incentives to developers that build affordable housing. The
purpose of providing incentives is to reduce the cost of housing development and, thus, make the
housing more affordable. Common incentives include:
Streamlined development approval. Developers of affordable housing receive “fast track”
treatment in the approval process. Their developments go to the top of the review pile, and, in some
communities, developers are guaranteed a specific timeframe (e.g., 90 days) for consideration and
negotiation of their proposal.
Developers pay interest each month on the money they borrow to purchase land and build homes.
Reducing the time it takes to receive approval on their development plan in turn decreases the
amount of interest they pay, in theory leading to reduced cost of housing. A faster approval process
also reduces exposure to market fluctuations and changes in product demand over time.
Density bonuses and building variances. Density bonuses give developers the right to build more
units on a parcel of land than what is currently allowed. Increasing allowable density means that
developers can generate additional revenue by building more units. They then use that revenue to
lower the per unit selling price, making all the units more affordable.
Other ways to decrease development costs are to grant building variances—for example, allowing
fewer parking spaces than would otherwise be required by zoning ordinances to allow more land for
development. If a developer can add units or reduce costs of a development through height
variances, reduced parking requirements, reduced setbacks, and landscaping or design requirements,
they can better afford to add cost-effective housing to the overall development plan.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, PAGE 2
Fee waivers. Waiving fees that cities/towns charge for development helps lower development costs
and reduces the price of housing. These fees might be basic development fees, development impact
fees and, in some cases, water and sewer fees. Some communities offer fee waivers that are
proportionate to the level of affordability in a project (e.g., the more affordable the housing, the
higher the fee waiver).
Las Cruces recently began offering fee waivers for affordable units (defined as those benefiting
households earning 80 percent of the area median income and less). The city allows the waiver or city
payment of development impact fees for affordable units. The savings to the developer is estimated
to be as much as $3,800 per affordable unit.
Challenges to implementing incentives. Developers are generally appreciative of the above
development incentives. However, in practice, such incentives can be difficult to realize mostly
because of public opposition to development. Density bonuses in particular are often challenged in
public hearings by neighbors opposed to density.
Examples in practice. The community programs highlighted below all provide incentives to
developers for the construction of affordable housing units.
Austin, Texas. Austin recently implemented its S.M.A.R.T. program—which stands for Safe, Mixed
income, Accessible, Reasonably priced and Transit oriented—to encourage the development of
affordable housing units in the city. The three basic incentives of this program are: fee waivers,
expedited review and an advocacy consultant to resolve development-related issues with other city
departments. For a new development to qualify for the S.M.A.R.T. program, it must conform to the
following characteristics:
Safe: Compliance with the city’s land development and building codes;
Mixed Income/Reasonably Priced: A portion of the development must be
affordable to households making up to 80 percent of the AMI and spending no more
than 30 percent of their family income on housing;
Accessible: Compliance with federal, state and local accessibility standards, some of
which are specific to the S.M.A.R.T. Housing program;
Transit-oriented: Location of new development either on a major bus line or a
proposed light-rail line; and
Green: Conformance to a minimum level of Austin’s green building standards.
Fee waivers (i.e., for the city’s capital recovery fee, development review and inspection fee, as well as
other construction inspection fees) are linked to the percentage of reasonably priced units. For
example, if a builder dedicates 20 percent of the new development to S.M.A.R.T. reasonably priced
units, the city provides a 50 percent waiver on all fees. Forty percent S.M.A.R.T. reasonably priced
units earns a full 100 percent fee waiver.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, PAGE 3
In addition to fee waivers, developments that meet S.M.A.R.T. housing standards receive an
expedited review process performed by a special S.M.A.R.T. housing review team. This leads to a
much faster approval time for S.M.A.R.T. developments, with the average completion time for plan
reviews almost twice as fast as conventional reviews. The S.M.A.R.T. housing staff also acts as a
mediator to resolve issues with other city departments regarding potential S.M.A.R.T. developments.
This facilitates a faster approval process as well.
The results of the S.M.A.R.T. program have been very encouraging. In the first year of the program,
the housing staff expected around 600 applications to build S.M.A.R.T. units. Instead, they received
over 6,000. In the three years before the program was implemented, only 325 units were built that
met S.M.A.R.T. standards. Within the first three years of the program being implemented, over 4,000
S.M.A.R.T. units were built. An internal review has also concluded that the fee waivers and expedited
reviews are self-funding.
State of Massachusetts. In 1969, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (State) enacted Chapter 40B
of the Massachusetts Administrative Code (40B) with the goal of making 10 percent of the state’s
housing stock affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of the AMI.
For those municipalities containing less than 10 percent affordable housing, developers in that
municipality can circumvent zoning ordinances if their planned development contains a certain
percentage of affordable units. Those developers, instead of going through the conventional approval
process, get approval for their projects through local zoning boards of appeal in a much faster
streamlined process. Many regulatory and zoning roadblocks to affordable housing construction are
avoided in this streamlined approval process. To qualify for approval under 40B, a development
must adhere to the following criteria:
Must be approved or funded by an affordable housing program administered by a state agency,
federal agency or private housing trust fund;
Must have long-term affordability controls on at least 25 percent of the planned units;
Those units with affordability controls must be priced to be affordable to households earning
80 percent of the AMI; and
The developer must be a nonprofit organization, a governmental or quasi-governmental agency
or a limited partnership that agrees to less than a 20 percent profit margin on the project (any
profit over 20 percent is paid directly to the municipality).
The program has been quite successful since its inception. Approximately 34 percent of the state’s
existing affordable housing stock was constructed under 40B regulations. However, only 31 of the
state’s 351 local jurisdictions presently have a housing stock with 10 percent or more affordable
units. The state has also noticed an indirect effect of 40B: there has been a noticeable increase in
other housing programs at the local level since 40B was enacted.
Santa Fe, New Mexico. Santa Fe provides density bonuses and impact fee waivers for affordable
units (those required through the city’s inclusionary zoning program). However, an interview with a
mixed-income developer in town revealed that density bonuses are difficult to apply because of
neighborhood opposition to growth.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, PAGE 4
Seattle, Washington. Seattle also provides a variety of financial incentives for developers to
construct affordable housing units. Below is a list of a few of those programs:
Homes Within Reach Program: This program encourages and stimulates the construction of
new multifamily, affordable housing units in the city by providing a property tax exemption for
a maximum of ten years for all residential units in the development. This tax exemption is
transferable to new property owners as long as they continue to meet compliance requirements.
Affordability requirements are based on the AMI and FHA mortgage limits for Seattle.
Downtown Residential Bonus Program: The Downtown Residential Bonus Program allows
additional residential gross floor area and height in developments in exchange for affordable
housing. This affordable housing can be located either in the same building or adjacent to the
property. The for rent units must be affordable to families earning less than 80 percent of the
AMI and for sale units must be affordable to families earning less than 100 percent of the AMI.
By allowing for additional floor area ratios1 (FAR) and height, developers can theoretically fit
more units into a building and therefore earn more revenue.
Mobile Homes
Mobile homes can be a controversial component of affordable housing provision. Opponents argue
that mobile homes do not offer the same benefits as other types of homeownership since they are
very unlikely to appreciate in value over time, are usually paired with a land lease for the parcel on
which they are placed, and are difficult to maintain. Proponents argue that mobile homes offer
homeownership at a price that cannot be found anywhere else in most municipalities.
Many communities allow mobile homes in areas specifically zoned for such use but do not promote
or encourage such development. Mobile homes are thus a tolerated but not embraced method of
affordable housing provision.
Mobile home relocation issues have grown recently as mobile home parks—particularly in resort
areas—have become targeted for redevelopment. The owners of such parks are selling their land to
private developers of higher-end residential and commercial properties. This leaves the folks
occupying mobile homes with few choices, especially as more and more mobile home parks in the
area are redeveloped into other uses.
Most mobile home relocation happens on a case-by-case basis. The following three communities
have recently dealt with mobile home relocation issues in different ways.
Santa Fe, New Mexico. Santa Fe recently had a unique and successful relocation effort of residents
living in single-wide manufactured homes. The land had been purchased for redevelopment
containing commercial property, including a Target store. The current residents were very low-
income; they owned their homes but lived on rented lots. The developer provided funds for
relocation of all of the homes, including funds for the residents to buy their own lots in a new mobile
home park (at $40,000 to $60,000 per lot).
1
A floor area ratio (FAR) is a representation of the density of a building (or buildings) on a site.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, PAGE 5
Bend, Oregon. Redevelopment of mobile homes parks—and displacement of the low- and
moderate-income residents who primarily reside in them—has been a particular issue in Oregon,
where rapidly appreciating land values and population growth have led to park redevelopment. An
estimated 2,736 families have been displaced by the closure of 71 mobile home parks since 1995
(about 5 percent of all parks in the state).
The City of Bend recently added a mobile home redevelopment overlay district into its land use code.
The purpose of the ordinance is to provide incentives to mobile home park owners to continue the
use of the land as a mobile home park and, when redevelopment does occur, to provide for a
mechanism to capture a portion of the redeveloped residential units as affordable housing.
Under the ordinance, existing mobile home parks with at least an 80 percent occupancy rate can
redevelop and increase their density to Urban Medium or Urban High Density designations
(depending on existing density). The ordinance also allows for 10 percent of existing trees to be
removed to accommodate the new density. (State law allows a maximum density for mobile home
parks of 10 units per acre. Most mobile home parks are not developed at this maximum density).
Newport Beach. In Newport Beach, California, the city council is prohibited from removing a
mobile home designation from its zoning plan unless several findings have been made, including a
detailed “mobile home phaseout plan” that has:
A time schedule and method for relocating existing mobile homes and attached
structures; and
Methods of mitigating housing impacts on tenants having low and moderate incomes,
elderly tenants and tenants who are disabled.
State of New Hampshire. Although not a land use policy, this program is worth noting in this
section. The New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, a nonprofit organization, has a program that
offers residents of mobile home parks the option to purchase the park through loans, technical
assistance and development expertise.
The Loan Fund's Cooperative Assistance Team helps homeowners in manufactured housing parks in
New Hampshire buy the park as a cooperative through a process that:
Assists homeowners in organizing as a cooperative and establishing a board of directors
and committees;
Helps to arrange financing and/or lending funds to the resident-owned cooperative for
predevelopment work, deposit financing, purchase and rehab; and
Provides ongoing technical support and training to cooperatively owned parks.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, PAGE 6
Housing Policies Group Discussion Questions
Development Incentives
1. Las Cruces recently began providing impact fee waivers to developers of affordable housing. In
addition to such waivers, what else could the city be doing to encourage developers (particularly
private-sector developers) to build more affordable housing?
2. Would density bonuses work in Las Cruces? Would variances from building code (e.g., reduced
setbacks and landscaping requirements, reduced parking requirements) work?
3. Is there an opportunity to streamline the development approval process in Las Cruces to
encourage more affordable housing? How could the system be modified to reduce development
costs (e.g., affordable housing developments being reviewed first, before non-affordable
developments)?
4. Should the city be more active in helping to build support for affordable developments in a
community (helping affordable developers fend off NIMBYism)?
Mobile Homes
5. How does the group feel about mobile homes as a mechanism to provide affordable housing in
Las Cruces? Should the city take an official position on mobile homes as affordable housing?
The city recently made mobile homes eligible for rehabilitation under its home rehab program
that benefits low- to moderate-income residents, and the city continues to allow mobile homes in
areas zoned as such. Other than these, the city has not had an official position on mobile homes.
6. Should the city consider incorporating a mobile home redevelopment program into its zoning
plan? If so, what is your vision of such a program?
Las Cruces Affordable Housing
Policy and Program Development—Program Review Meeting 1
Presented to:
Heidi Aggeler
Presented by:
Don Elliott
In conjunction with:
Heidi Aggeler
BBC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Dr., # 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3868
303-321-2547 X:256
hl @bb h
Affordable Housing
Ad HOC Committee
Don Elliott,
Clarion Associates
and
Jim Williams
Williams Demographics
haggeler@bbcresearch.com
August 12, 2008
gp
Why are we here today?
Project Goal: Put the right tools in place to address
affordable housing needs in Las Cruces.
Thank you for your commitment
to this vveerryy important issue!!
1
Who is the consultant team?
BBC Research
& Consulting
Clarion
Associates
Williams
& Consulting Associates Demographics
Two Las Cruces
housing market studies
Las Cruces homeless
Colorado Department of Local
Affairs – Regulatory Barriers to
Affordable Housing
Local demographer
Professor at New Mexico
Las Cruces homeless State University
counts and surveys
Recent housing studies in:
• Santa Fe and Albuquerque,
New Mexico
Aurora Colorado, Small Lot
Development/Mix Standards
Denver, Colorado, Affordable
Housing Barrier Analysis
State University
Surveys with farm workers
Border population estimates
New Mexico LC h l
• Boulder and Fort Collins,
Colorado;
• Coeur d’Alene and
Driggs, Idaho
Civic Results, “The Art of the
Deal” Workshops
Arvada, Colorado, Affordable
Housing Zoning Regulations
Las Cruces homeless counts
and surveys
• Yuma and Glendale, Arizona
• Southern Ute
Reservation in Colorado
Detroit, Michigan, Small Lot
Infill Development Zone
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Lot
Dimension Flexibility Reforms
Pitkin County Colorado
2
Pitkin County, Colorado,
Affordable Housing PUD
Reforms
Workscope
Gaps analysis of existing programs
and policies (needs v. resources)
Review of existing barriers to
affordable housing gp development
Best practices analysis of
peer communities
Public input, stakeholder interviews
Recommendations
Implementation plan
3
Agenda for discussion today
Introduction of three programs you will help us assess:
¾ Ld Land banking bki
¾ Community loan funds/community
development p financial institutions
¾ Inclusionary zoning
Group analysis of pros and cons of programs in Las Cruces
Full committee GO/NO GO decisions
4
Land Banking
Definition: Acquisition of land and/or infill parcels, generally
by a public entity, for community and/or affordable
housing development.
Land banking programs are usually either:
1) Acquisition of land for future affordable housing development
(Eugene, Oregon and Fort Collins, Colorado); or
2) Acquisition of vacant parcels, substandard housing, properties
in tax default and foreclosed residential properties for
redevelopment redevelopment. More common use of land banking banking.
5
Land Banking (cont’d) cont d)
Land banking for affordable housing—How it works:
Potential parcels are identified by city planning organization. Offers are
made to owners. City might also engage a broker to identify potential
parcels.
Committee overseeing the program makes the decision to purchase and
at what cost.
Land might also be donated by public entities or private sector (tax
benefits. Idaho recently established trust to facilitate such transactions).
Land is held for a time period (Dallas < 3 years, Fort Collins, 5-7 years).
Usually, an RFP is issued for development of affordable housing on the
parcel Oversight committee helps select developer; Council approves
6
parcel. Oversight committee helps select developer; Council approves.
Land Banking (cont’d) cont d)
Land banking for community development—How it works:
Parcels are usually acquired through foreclosure. Might also be
purchased. Eminent domain uncommon.
Land might be held, but goal is to develop.
Usually, an RFP is issued for commercial and residential
dl development on the h parcel. l Oversight Oi h committee ih helps ll select
developer; Council approves. (Dallas sells at a fixed price with
first right of refusal to housing nonprofits).
7
Land Banking (cont’d) cont d)
Funding mechanisms:
General fund seed
Revenues from sales of properties pp
(usually higher than cost and
less than market)
CG CDBG
Recapture of tax revenues
8
Community development
financial institutions
Definition: Lending institutions with a specific purpose of serving
a particular community by increasing the amount of
loan capital in an underserved area.
CDFIs are usually either:
1) Similar to traditional banks, offering consumer and
commercial products and loans to target markets (best
example is South Shore Bank in Chicago)
2) Loan funds only, offering below-market rate loans to support
affordable housing, small business development and/or
community yp development
3) Non-governmental entity. May be private or nonprofit.
9
Community development
financial institutions (cont cont’d) d)
CDFIs typically have one or two areas of focus:
Microenterprise lending (common in New Mexico)—Small loans
to entrepreneurs for business purposes
Community development/community facilities—Below market
loans for development of child care centers, schools, community
centers for special needs groups, nonprofit office space
Housing development—Below market loans for land acquisition,
predevelopment financing, short term construction for
affordable housing developments
CDFIs are fairly new to the western U.S.
10
Community development
financial institutions (cont cont’d) d)
Funding:
Interest on loans, fees on products
Grants and donations
Equity equivalent (EQ2)
investments from banks
Opportunities for other real estate
sectors to become investors?
11
Inclusionary zoning
Definition: The integration (mandatory or voluntary) of affordable
housing g into an otherwise market rate residential
development plan.
Requirement: Usually residential developments of a certain size (e.g.,
25 units and more) are required qp to have a percentage g of
the units set aside as affordable housing. Percentages
generally range from 10 percent to 30 percent. Some
communities base the percentage on the overall square
feet of the development. development
Affordability: Determined by the municipality, and is usually tied to
the Area Median Income.
Alternatives: Some communities allow developers to pay “cash in
lieu” of the development of units. Formula is determined
by the municipality.
12
Some communities allow offsite development or
donation of land in lieu of development.
Inclusionary zoning (cont cont’d) d)
Specifications: Municipalities often dictate tenure (breakdown
of rental/for sale units); minimum unit size;
sometimes level of finish.
Preservation: Deed-restrictions, shared equity, qy community y
land trusts, first right of refusal upon sale and
residency requirements.
Developer l Fee waivers, id density i bonuses, b reduced d d
“Incentives”: parking/landscaping requirements, fast
track approval.
Legality varies from state to state.
13
Programs discussion
What do you like about the program?
What do you dislike?
Would this program work in
Las Cruces? Why? Why not?
Discuss your yp vision of the program g
if it were available in Las Cruces.
“Go” / “No Go” decision and
reasons for.
14
Next Steps
September meeting: Three more programs to consider
Outside of meetings, project team will be engaging community
leaders and industry to build support for potential solutions.
Interviews with Mayor yy and City Council, affordable housing g
developers. Meetings with private developers, lenders and title
companies.
Ob October meeting: i Land db use barriers i presentation. i Peer cities i i
presentation.
Recommendations and implementation plan. plan
15
LC Las Cruces A Affordable Housing H
Policy and Program Development—Program Review Meeting 2
Presented to:
Heidi Aggeler
BBC Research & Consulting
Presented by:
Don Elliott,
Clarion Associates
In conjunction with:
BBC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Dr., # 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3868
303-321-2547 X:256
haggeler@bbcresearch.com
Affordable Housing
Ad HOC Committee
and
Jim Williams
Williams Demographics
gg
August 12, 2008
Why are we here today?
Project Goal: Put the right tools in place to address
affordable housing needs in Las Cruces.
Thank you for your commitment
tthi to this vveerryy it important t issue!i !!
1
Where We Left Off
Conclusions and areas for more research:
¾ Community Loan Funds/CDFIs—Unsure if there is a market for
in Las Cruces. Explore interest with key funders (lenders, title)
¾ Inclusionary Zoning—Like the idea of a voluntary program or
IZ “light.” Explore feasibility with developers/builders.
¾ Land Banking—Worth keeping on the table despite concern
about tying up much needed funds with land purchases.
Since Las Cruces has land, ,land banking g is more viable than in
other high-cost communities.
2
Agenda for discussion today
Introduction of three programs pg y you will help p us assess:
¾ Community land trusts
¾ Housing trust funds
¾ Development issues
Group analysis of pros and cons of programs in Las Cruces
Full committee GO/NO GO decisions
3
Community Land Trust
Definition: Affordable housing gp development where land is owned
by a nonprofit and leased to the buyer of the housing
unit structure.
How a land trust works:
1) A land trust is formed as a nonprofit. May be a stand-alone
organization or part of a broader nonprofit.
2) Land is acquired through public and private donation and
purchase.
3) The land trust develops housing on the trust land. The housing
is marketed and sold to low- and moderate-income buyers.
4
Community Land Trust (cont’d) cont d)
How a land trust works (cont’d)) :
4) The buyers have a lease on the land (usually 99 years) for a
modest monthly y(fee ($20 p per month)) .
5) When an owner wants to sell their housing unit, they notify the
trust of their intent. The trust has the option to buy the unit.
The price of the unit is usually capped by a certain percentage
gain and the trust shares in the equity gain (usually the trust
gets gp 75 percent and the owner gets gp) 25 percent).
5
Community Land Trust (cont’d) cont d)
Sawmill Community yq Land Trust (Albuquerque) q
Land obtained in 1995 by the city. Land trust formed to oversee
the development.
Three phases of development; mostly residential with some
commercial and community amenities.
Parcels are deeded to the land trust when developed.
Homebuyers pay $19/month for the land lease and $31 to the
homeowners association.
Resale restrictions include a price cap. cap Owners get 30 percent of
the total equity gain.
6
Housing Trust Fund
Definition: Local or state fund created to fund a variety y of
affordable housing activities. Growing in popularity
with reductions in federal funding for housing.
RRevenue sources:
Cash-in-lieu payments required
as part of IZ ordinances
General obligation bonds
as part of IZ ordinances (Albuquerque)
Fees and taxes on new
development (residential and
il) i i
(Albuquerque)
Real estate transfer taxes
(Santa Fe, maybe)
commercial): permit, impact,
linkage, excise
Property taxes
Sales taxes
Property taxes User taxes
General fund contributions Document recording fees
7
Development Issues
Definition: Developer pg incentives to encourage
developers/builders to build affordable housing. Also
help offset inclusionary zoning requirements.
Ci Common incentives: ti
Fast track development approval
Planning advocate
Density bonuses
Building variances
Fee waivers
Mobile home redevelopment
Challenges in implementation: Incentives must be “meaningful.”
Neighborhood opposition can water down incentives.
8
Neighborhood opposition can water down incentives.
Next Steps
Outside of meetings, gpj project team will continue engaging g gg
community leaders and industry to build support for potential
solutions. Interviews with Mayor and City Council, affordable
housing developers. Meetings with private developers, Realtors,
lenders and title companies.
October meeting: State and local policy initiatives discussion. discussion
November meeting: Land use barriers presentation.
December meeting: Peer cities presentation and begin
recommendations discussion.
2009: Recommendations and implementation plan.
9
APPENDIX B.
Model Ordinances
DRAFT - Exhibit B 03/21/07
- 1 -
2.7.900 Manufactured Home Park Redevelopment Overlay
Sections:
2.7.910 Purpose and Applicability
2.7.920 Residential Density
2.7.930 Special Development Standards
2.7.910 Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. Manufactured homes located within Manufactured Home Parks provide a
significant amount of the City’s affordable housing. When a manufactured home
park redevelops, this type of affordable housing stock is lost, leaving the residents of
those parks with few options. The purpose of the Manufactured Home Park
Redevelopment Overlay is to implement the City ordinance No. NS-2036, by
providing incentives to the Park owners to continue the use of the land as a
Manufactured Home Park and when redevelopment does occur, by providing a
mechanism for capturing a portion of the redevelopment potential as replacement
affordable housing. The Manufactured Home Park Redevelopment Overlay creates
overlay development standards for increased residential housing and, where
appropriate commercial and mixed use development and designated open space
within existing Manufactured Home Park boundaries. The overlay development
standards will:
• Provide a variety of housing types for a variety of markets;
• Promote pedestrian and other multi-modal transportation options;
• Ensure compatibility of uses within the development and within the surrounding
area;
• Create an interconnected system of streets with design standards appropriate to
the intensity and type of proposed and adjacent uses.
If City ordinance No. NS-2036 is repealed, invalidated by a court of competent
jurisdiction or preempted by State or Federal law, and then this subsection of the
Bend Development Code shall automatically be repealed.
B. Applicability. The provisions of this overlay shall apply to all existing manufactured
home parks at the date of adoption of this overlay. The provisions herein shall
satisfy the Waiver of Relocation Requirements Option, (2) Increased Density
Alternative referred to in the City Ordinance No. NS-2036, when implemented in
conjunction with a Development Agreement with the City of Bend as required by City
Ordinance No. NS-2036.
2.7.920 Residential Density
A. Residential Density Provisions. The Oregon State Law allows manufactured
home parks to develop at a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre
DRAFT - Exhibit B 03/21/07
- 2 -
regardless of the underlying zone. This overlay will provide special increased
density incentives for existing parks that are redeveloped.
1. Manufactured Home Parks in existence at the date of adoption of this overlay
with an occupancy rate of at least 80%, that are developed in accordance with
the City ordinance No. NS-2036 and the provisions of the City of Bend
Development Code shall be allowed to develop at a residential density consistent
with the RM, Urban Medium Density Residential District. The property owner
shall mitigate all impacts of such development including but not limited to those
impacts related to sewer, water, transportation and compatibility issues.
a. Exception to density. Where an existing Manufactured Home Park already
has a General Plan Density of Urban Residential Medium Density, the density
bonus may be increased to RH, Urban High Density Residential District with
the same provisions for redevelopment as described above.
2.7.930 Special Development Standards
A. Permitted Land Uses. The uses and special standards permitted by the
implementation of the Manufactured Home Park Redevelopment Overlay shall
supersede the standards of the underlying intended rezone. Where no special
development standards are provided by the overlay, the applicable standards of the
intended RM or RH rezone or previously approved refinement plan shall apply.
B. Continued Use as a Manufactured Home Park. Manufactured homes have
reduced impacts on the land because the unit does not require a permanent
foundation. However many existing Manufactured Home Parks are not developed at
the maximum density. In order for the existing parks to develop at the allowable 10
units per acres park owners may take advantage of the following incentives:
1. The average area of a mobile home site may be 3000 square feet provided
all spacing requirements of the Building Code can be met.
2. Park owners that receive displaced residents from redeveloping parks will not
be obligated to relocate these displaced units when the park redevelops as
required by Ordinance No. NS-2036.
3. Up to 10% of the existing trees may be removed to accommodate new
manufactured home placement, provided the trees being removed are not
specimen trees. For the purpose of this code, a specimen tree would be a
tree of any species which is determined by a certified arborist to be of an
exemplary size or variety for the area;
C. Redeveloping Manufactured Home Parks. Redeveloping Manufactured Home
Park owners that choose to take advantage of the provisions of this overlay shall
initiate an “Intent to Rezone” with the City by filing an application for a plan
amendment and zone change in conformance with Chapter 4.6 of the Bend
Development Code. The application for “Intent to Rezone” shall be accompanied by
an application for development.
DRAFT - Exhibit B 03/21/07
- 3 -
In addition to the approval criteria for development found in Chapter 4.6 of the Bend
Development Code, the applicant shall address the following general standards.
1. General Development Standards.
a. Meet with the City of Bend Transportation Division to determine if a transit
stop is needed with ¼ mile of the subject property along an existing or
future transit route. If needed, design and construct the transit stop to
City standards. The transit stop shall be accessible from the
redevelopment site.
b. Passive and/or active open space areas shall be incorporated into the
redevelopment plan.
c. Where a redeveloping Manufactured Home park adjoins a residential
zone, the development along the perimeter of the site within 100 feet of
the property boundary shall be subject to the development standards of
the adjoining residential zone including but not limited to lot coverage,
building heights and setbacks.
2. Building Height. To encourage innovative housing designs, provide more
efficient use of land, encourage the preservation of open space and existing
trees and to achieve greater allowable densities, an increase in building height
not to exceed 10 feet above the height of the zone may be allowed provided the
applicant’s proposal meets all of the following criteria:
a. The added height will provide for additional affordable housing
units.
b. The additional building height is needed to preserve existing trees
and the added height and total building area proposed is
equivalent to the area of significant trees being saved.
c. The additional building height is buffered from view by existing
preserved trees.
d. The building requesting the added height has a required minimum
1:1 side and/or rear yard setback from an existing adjoining
residential use based on the finished building height.
Example: a 40 foot tall building would have a 40 foot minimum
side and/or rear yard setback from an existing adjoining residential
use.
e. The proposed building incorporates sustainable “Green”
construction methods.
3. Building Setbacks. To ensure a safe livable environment, the following
setbacks shall be observed:
a. Front yard: 6 foot minimum for all portions of the structure, except
garages shall be setback a minimum of 18 feet.
b. Side and rear yard: The setbacks of the proposed RM or RH rezone shall
apply.
Exception to side and rear yard setbacks:
DRAFT - Exhibit B 03/21/07
- 4 -
i. Attached single family townhome development shall have an interior
side yard setback of zero (0) feet. End units not fronting on a street
corner shall have the sum of the side yards equal to 12 feet. End
units fronting on a street corner shall have a minimum setback of 10
feet, except as necessary to comply with the clear vision standards in
Table 3.1.400(N) of the Development Code.
ii. Garages and on site parking shall take access from an alley or rear
driveway
4. Lot Coverage. As a means of balancing the building mass on the land, the
following lot coverage shall be applied based on housing type and / or use.
Standard
Residential Use
Mixed-use / Commercial
Lot Coverage 40% 50%
5. Standards for Non-residential Development. Portions of some Manufactured
Home Parks may be suitable for non-residential use development that will
support the increased overlay density.
a. Location Standards. The following location criteria shall be met to allow a
park owner to develop non-residential uses as a secondary use in
conjunction with the allowable residential development.
i. Non-residential uses shall be subject to the location and size
standards for Neighborhood Commercial Uses in Chapter 3.6.300(K).
ii. Access can be provided from an existing intersecting local street or a
new local street can be developed in conformance with Chapter 3.1.
iii. The property is within ¼ mile of an existing or future transit stop.
iv. The surrounding property is developed at RS density or greater.
6. Development Standards for Non-residential Uses. Non-residential uses shall
be subject to the development standards for Neighborhood Commercial Uses
in Chapter 3.6.300(K)(6-10).
7. Non-residential Uses. The Neighborhood Commercial Uses identified in
Table 2.1.200 shall be permitted or conditionally allowed as a component of a
Manufactured Home Park Redevelopment. Some of the uses may have
special development standards as identified in Chapter 3.6 of the
Development Code.
NEGLECTED BUILDING
ORDINANCE
Office of Central Inspection
www.wichita.gov
WICHITA’S NEGLECTED
BUILDING ORDINANCE
When must I register a neglected
building?
A neglected building must be registered with the
Office of Central Inspection when one or more
of the following triggering events occur:
The owner has failed to take action after
receiving two or more Notices of
Violation
The building has been boarded for more
than 90 days
The building in not secure and so is an
attractive nuisance
The building has sustained significant fire,
wind or water damage and is
uninhabitable
The building fits the criteria of a criminal
nuisance (as defined by State law)
There is substantial deterioration due to
lack of maintenance
The owner has failed to appear and a
warrant has been issued in municipal
court for violations of Chapters 18 or 20
if the Code of the City of Wichita
REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS
Registration is required upon
notification from the Superintendent of
Central Inspection. The owner is
responsible for registering the property.
Registration fee is $25
Registration is not transferable
If the building is unoccupied, a
Statement of Intent must be submitted
to and approved by Superintendent of
Central Inspection and must include:
Description of premises
Names and addresses of all owners, lien
holders, and others with ownership
interest
Name and address of designated resident
agent, if owner lives outside Sedgwick
County
If vacant, projected period of vacancy and
plan and timetable to bring the property
into compliance
How can a NEGLECTED BUILDING
be removed from registration
requirements?
An owner of an unoccupied building
will not be subject to penalties if the
following apply:
A statement of intent has been filed and
approved by the Superintendent of Central
Inspection, and one of the following applies:
9 The owner is proceeding diligently in good
faith to complete the repair or rehabilitation
of the building
9 The building is the subject of an active
building permit for repair or rehabilitation
9 The building is maintained in compliance
with Title 30 and is actively being offered for
sale, lease or rent
9 The property owner can demonstrate that
they made a diligent and good faith effort to
implement the actions and comply with the
timeline set forth in the statement of intent
How do I file a statement of
intent and where do I send the
registration information?
Registration forms are available in
the Office of Central Inspection at
City Hall
455 North Main – 7th floor
Wichita, KS 67202
Forms are also available on the City
Website: www.wichita.gov/City
Offices/OCI
For questions about these
requirements, please call the Office
of Central Inspection 268-4481
Being brought into compliance with all
health and safety standards
Being removed or demolished by the
owner
Being abated or demolished by the City
Appeals
Appeals may be made in writing, within 10
days of receipt of the decision or penalty.
The appeal must be filed with the
Superintendent of Central Inspection, and
will be heard by the Board of Code
Standards and Appeals, within 30 days of
the appeal.
What can happen if I fail to Comply?
If the owner fails to register a neglected
building as required when notified, or if,
once registered, the building does not meet
any of the exceptions set forth in the
Neglected Building Ordinance (Title 30) a
penalty of $250 may be assessed for every
90 days that the property continues to meet
the definitions of a vacant or neglected
building.
The penalty can be up to $1000 per
calendar year.
CITY OF WICHITA
CITY CODE
Title 30
NEGLECTED BUILDINGS
Sections:
Section 30.01.010 Purpose.
Section 30.01.020 Public Nuisance.
Section 30.01.030 Enforcement of chapter--Applicability of chapter.
Section 30.01.040 Violation not exclusive.
Section 30.01.050 Inspection of property.
Section 30.01.060 Definitions.
Section 30.01.070 Duty to Register Neglected Building.
Section 30.01.080 Registration Fee.
Section 30.01.090 Resident Agent.
Section 30.01.105 Registration Penalty.
Section 30.01.108 Procedures for Registration Penalty.
Section 30.01.110 Reinspection.
Section 30.01.120 Removal from Registration.
Section 30.01.130 Registration nontransferable.
Section 30.01.140 Duty to File Statement of Intent for Neglected Buildings.
Section 30.01.150 Neglected Unoccupied Building Penalty.
Section 30.01.160 Procedures for Neglected Unoccupied Building Penalty.
Section 30.01.170 Appeals to Board of Code Standards and Appeals.
Section 30.01.180 Failure to Pay Penalties.
Section 30.01.010 Purpose.
Neglected buildings are a major cause and source of blight in both residential and non-residential
neighborhoods, especially when the owner of the building fails to actively maintain and manage the
building to ensure that it does not become a liability to the neighborhood. Neglected buildings and/or
substandard or unkempt buildings discourage economic development and retard appreciation of property
values. It is the responsibility of property owners to prevent buildings from becoming a burden to the
neighborhood and community and a threat to the pubic health, safety, and welfare. A neglected building
that is not well maintained and managed can be the core and source of spreading blight.
Such buildings constitute a nuisance, and to adequately protect public health, safety and welfare,
the establishment and enforcement of a registration system to monitor such buildings and to develop a
means to decrease the number of neglected buildings within the city is necessary.
Section 30.01.020 Public Nuisance.
Neglected buildings shall constitute a public nuisance.
Section 30.01.030 Enforcement of chapter--Applicability of chapter.
The Superintendent of Central Inspection is designated to administer and enforce this chapter.
Section 30.01.040 Violation not exclusive.
Violations of this chapter are in addition to any other violations enumerated within the ordinances
of the Code of the City of Wichita. This chapter in no way limits the penalties, actions or abatement
procedures which may be taken by the City for a violation of this chapter which is also a violation of any
other ordinance of the City or statute of the State of Kansas.
Section 30.01.050 Inspection of property.
(1) All officers authorized to enforce this chapter are hereby authorized and directed to make
inspections to determine the condition of property located within the city, in order that he or she may
perform his/her duty of safeguarding the welfare and safety of the general public and in order that he/she
may ascertain that property as set forth in this title are properly maintained.
(2) Any officer or employee of the City charged with the enforcement of this title shall not, in
the discharge of his/her duties, thereby render himself/herself liable personally. Pursuant to Section
2.62.130 of the Code of the City of Wichita, any suit brought against an officer of employee of the city
because such act performed by him or her in the enforcement of any of the provisions of this title will be
defended by the Department of Law until the final termination of the proceedings therein.
Section 30.01.060 Definitions.
(1) ‘Boarded’ means that some or all of the building’s doors or windows have been covered
with plywood, wood or metal sheeting, paneling or other similar materials, for the purpose of preventing
entry into the building by persons, animals or the elements of weather.
(2) ‘Building’ means a building, accessory structure or other structure adapted to permanent
or continuous occupancy or use for residential, public, institutional, business, industrial or storage
purposes.
(3) ‘City’ means the City of Wichita, Kansas.
(4) ‘Deterioration’ means the condition or appearance of a building characterized by holes,
breaks, rot, crumbling, cracking, peeling, rusting or other evidence of physical decay or neglect, excessive
use or lack of maintenance.
(5) ‘Dwelling’ means any building, apartment building, mobile home or manufactured home
which is wholly or partly used or intended to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants.
(6) ‘Dwelling unit’ means any room or group of rooms located within a building and forming
a single habitable unit with facilities that are used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, and
eating.
(7) ‘Good state of repair’ means sound, stable, free of deterioration, and performing the
function for which intended.
(8) ‘Good working condition’ means the item is fully operable for the use for which it was
intended.
(9) ‘Neglected building’ means a ‘Neglected occupied building’ and a ‘Neglected
unoccupied building’.
(10) ‘Neglected occupied building’ means an occupied building in which one or more of the
following events have occurred within the preceding eighteen months:
a. The building is the subject of two or more notices of violation of the
provisions of Chapter 18, Chapter 20 or the provisions of this chapter of the Code of the
City of Wichita and the owner has failed to demonstrate that due diligence is being
exercised in abating the violation;
b. The building has been declared to be a criminal nuisance pursuant to
K.S.A. 22-3901, et seq;
c. The owner has failed to appear and a warrant has been issued in
municipal court for a violation of Chapter 18, Chapter 20, or the provisions of this
chapter of the Code of the City of Wichita; or
d. The owner has refused to accept service of notices of violations of
Chapter 18, Chapter 20, or the provisions of this chapter of the Code of the City of
Wichita.
e. The building has sustained substantial deterioration due to lack of
maintenance.
- 2 -
(11) ‘Neglected unoccupied building’ means an unoccupied building (whether or not boarded)
in which one or more of the following events have occurred:
a. Within the last eighteen months, the property is the subject of two or
more notices of violation of the provisions of Chapters 18, Chapter 20 or the provision of
this chapter of the Code of the City of Wichita and the owner has failed to demonstrate
that due diligence is being exercised in abating the violation;
b. The building is unsecured;
c. The building has sustained significant fire, wind or water damage and is
uninhabitable.
d. The building has been declared a criminal nuisance pursuant to K.S.A.
22-3901, et. seq.
e. The building has been boarded for a period of more than ninety days.
f. The building has sustained substantial deterioration due to lack of
maintenance.
g. The owner has failed to appear and a warrant has been issued in
municipal court for a violation of Chapter 18, or Chapter 20, of the Code of the City of
Wichita; or
h. The owner has refused to accept service of notices of violations of
Chapter 18, or Chapter 20, of the Code of the City of Wichita.
(12) ‘Occupancy’ the purpose for which a building or portion thereof is utilized or occupied.
(13) ‘Operator’ means any person who has charge, care or control of a building, or part
thereof, in which dwelling units or rooming units are let.
(14) ‘Owner’ means any person who is a holder of any legal or equitable interest in the
premises, and alone or jointly or severally with others,
a. Has record legal title to any dwelling or dwelling unit with or without
accompanying actual possession thereof; or
b. Has charge, care or control of any dwelling or dwelling unit which may
include all persons who have an interest in a structure and any who are in possession or
control thereof as owner or agent of the owner, contract purchaser, or as executor,
executrix, administrator, administratrix, trustee or guardian of the estate of the owner.
In the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, records of the Sedgwick
County Clerk’s Office, Registrar of Deeds, certified copies of court records or judgments
of any court, copies of lease agreements, contracts for deed, mortgages, tax records,
rental agreements and other financial documents related to the property shall be
conclusive evidence of the ownership of the property.
(15) ‘Person,’ as used in this chapter, means any individual, firm, association, company,
syndicate, partnership, or other legal entity, or a natural person for the purposes of the occupancy
standards hereof.
(16) ‘Premises’ shall mean a lot, plot or parcel of land including the buildings and structures
located thereon.
(17) ‘Resident Agent’ means a natural person residing within Sedgwick County, Kansas, or a
company or agency with a manager or agent who resides in Sedgwick County, Kansas, who is authorized
to make or order repairs, to order or oversee service to dwellings and dwelling units, and to receive
notices on behalf of the owner.
(18) ‘Safe and Sanitary’ for purposes of this chapter shall mean free from conditions that are
dangerous or could cause injury and free from elements such as filth or bacteria that endanger health.
(19) ‘Structurally Sound’ means free of imperfections and/or deterioration that affect the
intended use of a structure or the integrity of the footing, foundation, wall, roof, chimney, arch, window,
door or porch/deck support systems.
(20) ‘Superintendent of Central Inspection’ means the superintendent or person in charge of
the Office of Central Inspection of the City or his/her authorized representative.
- 3 -
(21) ‘Supplied’ means paid for, furnished or provided by or under the control of the owner or
operator.
(22) ‘Unoccupied building’ means a building that is unattended and is not actively used as a
place of residence or business, or is frequently open or unsecured so that unauthorized admittance may be
gained without damaging any portion of the property.
(23) ‘Unsecured’ means that access to the building may be obtained through open, unlocked,
broken or missing doors or windows of such building.
(24) ‘Workmanlike manner’ means installation or repair which meets the minimum
recommended installation and maintenance requirements of the product manufacturer and meets all
applicable code requirements.
Section 30.01.070 Duty to Register Neglected Building.
a. The owner or operator of a neglected building shall be required, after written notification
from the Superintendent of Central Inspection, to apply for registration of such building with the Office of
Central Inspection within thirty days of the date of notification from the Superintendent. Such
notification shall be served on the owner or resident agent by personal service or by certified mail, return
receipt requested. If the owner is a non-resident, such notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the last known address of the owner.
b. The registration shall include the following information:
1. A description of the premises;
2. The names and addresses of the owner or owners;
3. The names and addressed of all known lienholders and all other parties with
a legal or equitable ownership interest in the building;
4. The name of the resident agent designated to act on the behalf of the owner
to accept legal processes and notices and to authorize repairs as required; and
5. If such building is unoccupied, the period of time the building is expected to
remain unoccupied and/or a plan and timetable to comply with applicable city codes.
Section 30.01.080 Registration Fee.
A registration fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per building shall be collected, at the time of
application, by the City Treasurer.
Section 30.01.090 Resident Agent.
(a) The owner or operator of any neglected building, which is subject to the registration
requirements of Section 30.01.070, shall designate a resident agent for the building. Any owner who
lives within Sedgwick County may designate himself or herself as the resident agent.
(b) The owner of any neglected building who lives outside of Sedgwick County shall name a
resident agent who lives within or whose place of business is within Sedgwick County, Kansas.
(c) The designation of resident agent shall constitute an authorization by the owner to act on
behalf of the owner with regard to all requirements under this chapter and may accept all notices,
including all notices pursuant to the Code of the City of Wichita, all notices of proposed abatements and
all compliance orders and administrative orders.
(d) The owner’s designation of a resident agent shall not relieve the owner or operator of any
obligation to comply with the provisions of this chapter or any other provisions of the Code of the City of
Wichita or laws of the state of Kansas.
Section 30.01.105 Registration Penalty.
(a) Any owner or operator who fails to register a neglected building, as required by this
chapter, may be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed Two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
(b) If the building continues to meet the definition of a neglected building for a period of
ninety (90) calendar days, and the owner fails or refuses to register such building, the Superintendent may
continue to assess a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each ninety (90) calendar day
- 4 -
period the building continues to be unregistered. At no time may the amount of the assessment exceeds
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per building in a calendar year.
(c) All penalties assessed shall be payable directly to the City Treasurer.
The Superintendent of Central Inspection shall develop policies and procedures for the
implementation of this penalty.
Section 30.01.108 Procedures for Registration Penalty.
(a) Whenever the owner or operator of a neglected building does not register such building, a
Notice of Registration Penalty may be issued to the owner or operator.
(b) A separate Notice of Registration Penalty shall be issued for each subsequent penalty that
may be assessed pursuant to Section 30.01.105.
(c) The Notice of Registration Penalty shall be served upon the owner or operator by
certified mail or personal service.
Section 30.01.110 Reinspection.
The Superintendent may periodically reinspect neglected buildings to ensure compliance of this
chapter and all applicable court and administrative orders.
Section 30.01.120 Removal from Registration.
A neglected building shall be removed from the registration requirements of this chapter by the
Superintendent of Central Inspection upon such building:
1. Being brought into compliance with all health and safety standards set
forth in the codes of the City of Wichita;
2. Being removed or demolished by the owner;
3. Being abated or demolished by the City of Wichita, if such structure is
unsafe or unfit for habitation.
Section 30.01.130 Registration nontransferable.
If the neglected building is required to be registered pursuant to Section 30.01.070, a new
registration shall be required for each change of ownership of the building. The owner or operator of a
neglected building which is registered with the office of Central Inspection pursuant to this Chapter, shall
notify the office of Central Inspection within ten business days of the sale or transfer of any registered
property.
Section 30.01.140 Duty to File Statement of Intent for Neglected Buildings.
(a) The Superintendent shall create and make available a form entitled ‘Statement of Intent’
to be completed by the owner, operator or resident agent of any neglected unoccupied building required to
be registered pursuant to this chapter.
(b) The owner, operator or resident agent of a neglected unoccupied building shall complete
the information required on the standard Statement of Intent and submit the Statement to the Office of
Central Inspection within thirty (30) days of the date the Superintendent orders that the structure be
registered.
(c) The Superintendent shall determine whether a submitted Statement of Intent is complete
and may require an owner to provide more complete information.
(d) When a submitted Statement of Intent does not meet with the Superintendent’s approval,
the owner or registered agent shall, within ten business days, correct and resubmit the Statement of Intent.
(e) The Statement of Intent shall include information as to:
(1) expected period that the building will remain unoccupied;
(2) a plan for regular maintenance during the period that the building is
unoccupied; and
(3) a reasonable plan and time line for the lawful occupancy, rehabilitation
or demolition of the building; and
- 5 -
(4) any additional information required by the Superintendent.
(f) The provisions of Section 30.01.140 shall not be applicable to neglected occupied
buildings.
Section 30.01.150 Neglected Unoccupied Building Penalty.
(a) Any owner or operator who fails to submit a Statement of Intent or refuses to supplement or
modify a Statement of Intent which does not meet with the approval of the Superintendent or otherwise
comply with the requirements of Section 30.01.140, may be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed
$250.00.
(b) Any owner or operator of a neglected unoccupied building that remains as a neglected
unoccupied building for a period of ninety (90) consecutive calendar days may be liable for a civil penalty
in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per building, not to exceed one thousand ($1,000.00)
per calendar year unless:
(1) A Statement of Intent has been filed and approved by the Superintendent;
and
(2) One of the following applies:
(A) The owner is proceeding diligently in good faith to complete the
repair or rehabilitation; or,
(B) The building is the subject of an active building permit for repair
or rehabilitation; or
(C) The building is maintained in compliance with this chapter and is
actively being offered for sale, lease or rent; or,
(D) The property owner can demonstrate that he or she made a
diligent and good faith effort to implement the actions set forth in the approved
Statement of Intent within the timeline contained within the Statement of Intent.
(c) If the building continues to meet the definition of neglected unoccupied building as provided
in this chapter beyond the initial ninety (90) calendar days, and if the owner does not meet any of the
exceptions set forth in this section, the Superintendent may continue to assess a penalty of two hundred
fifty dollars ($250.00) for each ninety (90) calendar day period the building continues to constitute a
neglected unoccupied building. At no time may the amount of the assessment exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000.00) per building in a calendar year.
(d) All penalties assessed shall be payable directly to the City Treasurer.
(e) The Superintendent of Central Inspection shall develop policies and procedures for the
implementation of this penalty.
Section 30.01.160 Procedures for Neglected Unoccupied Building Penalty.
(a) Whenever the Superintendent determines that a building meets the definition of a
neglected unoccupied building as defined by this chapter for a period of more than ninety (90)
consecutive calendar days, and the owner does not meet any of the exceptions set forth in Section
30.01.150, a Notice of Neglected Unoccupied Building Penalty may be issued to the owner or operator.
(b ) A separate Notice of Neglected Unoccupied Building Penalty shall be issued for each
subsequent penalty that may be assessed pursuant to Section 30.01.150.
(c) The Notice of Neglected Unoccupied Building Penalty shall be served upon the owner or
operator or his or her registered agent by certified mail or personal service.
Section 30.01.170 Appeals to Board of Code Standards and Appeals.
a. Appeals from the decision of the Superintendent of Central Inspection or his designee, of
the registration requirements or the assessment of a registration or neglected building penalty, as provided
for by this chapter, may be made by requesting, in writing, to the Superintendent of Central Inspection,
within ten days after receiving such decision or penalty, a hearing before the Board of Code Standards
and Appeals.
- 6 -
- 7 -
b. The appeal must be heard by the Board within forty-five days of receipt of the written
request. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the penalty assessed.
c. Appeals from the decision of the board of code standards and appeals may be made to the
city council by requesting in writing to the city clerk, within ten days after receiving such decision, a
hearing before such city council. Such appeal shall be heard, with written notification as to time and place
given such appellant, within forty-five days after receipt of the written request.
Section 30.01.180 Failure to Pay Penalties.
The failure of any person to pay the Registration or Neglected Building penalty as set forth in this
chapter may result in the Superintendent using any legal means to recover the civil penalties assessed.
FACT SHEET
MAYOR SANDERS SIGNS AGGRESSIVE NEW LAW TO REDUCE
NUMBER OF NEGLECTED, ABANDONED PROPERTIES
New ordinance adds new teeth to City’s ability to
clean up dangerous and blighted properties
February 7, 2006
Background
• Hundreds of vacant or abandoned properties currently blight our City’s neighborhoods.
• Vacant boarded properties invite a host of unwelcome activity and blight in a neighborhood:
graffiti, dumping, overgrowth of weeds, and a location for drug transactions, prostitution and
transients. Severe deterioration of a single property often leads to the deterioration of many
properties and can promote economic decay in a neighborhood.
• Vacant Property Laws have been on the books in San Diego since 1993, and the
Neighborhood Code Compliance Department (NCCD) has been able to successfully work
with many property owners during that time to rehabilitate blighted property. Since its
inception 700 properties have been returned to productive use and 30 properties have been
demolished.
• Currently there are 165 vacant or abandoned properties identified by the City’s NCCD.
• Despite many successes, loopholes in the law allow some property owners to pay fines, but
not clean up their blighted property.
What the New Law Does:
• The new laws address some of the loopholes that currently exist. The new laws significantly
raise the fees and fine assessed on the owner of a vacant or abandoned property.
o Under the existing ordinance, owners of vacant structures can be fined $250
quarterly, not to exceed $1,000 per year.
Page 2
o Under the new ordinance, owners of vacant structures can be fined up to $5,000
annually.
o Under the existing ordinance, owners of neglected vacant property must file a one
time “Statement of Intent,” stating how they plan to clean up the property.
o Under the new ordinance, owners of neglected vacant property will be required to
file a “Statement of Intent” annually, until the property is cleaned up.
• The new law gives the Neighborhood Code Compliance Officers tools to more aggressively
address properties where owners continue to pay fines, yet do not clean up the property.
o Previously, various nuisance conditions had to be cited separately, under different
codes contained throughout the Municipal Code.
o Under the new law, all nuisance condition will be addressed from one Municipal
Code section.
Future related Municipal Code Amendments:
• Address “perennial remodels.” These are properties where building activity has been going
on for several years.
• Expand program to address vacant lots.
• Expand program to address commercial buildings.
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 1
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
Article 4: Public Hazards and Public Nuisances
Division 3: Abatement of Vacant Structures
(“Public Property Nuisance Abatement”
added 8–17–1981 by O–15573 N.S.)
(Retitled to “Public Property Nuisance Abatement”
on 8–10–1993 by O–17957 N.S.)
§54.0301 Declaration of Purpose
The Council of the City of San Diego finds and declares that:
(a) Structures that are vacant and unsecured or boarded attract vagrants, gang
members and other criminals as prime locations to conduct illegal criminal
activities.
(b) Structures that are vacant and not properly secured are extremely vulnerable
to being set on fire by unauthorized persons.
(c) Structures that are vacant and unsecured or boarded are a blight and cause
deterioration and instability in neighborhoods.
(d) Structures that are vacant and unsecured or boarded pose serious threats to the
public’s health and safety and therefore are declared to be public nuisances.
(e) Immediate abatement and rehabilitation of these structures is necessary and
can be accomplished by using the judicial or administrative procedures found
in this Code.
(Amended 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0302 Definitions
The words and phrases used in this Division have the meanings set forth in this section:
"Director" means the Director of the Neighborhood Code Compliance Department or any
other Director authorized by the City Manager and any of their designated agents or
representatives.
"Litter" has the same meaning as provided in Division 2, Article 4, Chapter 5 of this Code.
"Rubbish" has the same meaning as provided in Division 2, Article 4, Chapter 5 of this Code.
"Solid Waste" has the same meaning as provided in Division 2, Article 4, Chapter 5 of this
Code.
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 2
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
"Liquid Waste" has the same meaning as provided in Division 2, Article 4, Chapter 5 of this
Code.
"Statement of Intent" means a form filled out by the owner of a boarded structure which
contains specific information regarding the structure and the owner’s plan for its
rehabilitation and maintenance.
"Vacant Structure" means any structure or building that: 1) is unoccupied or occupied by
unauthorized persons; and 2) is unsecured or boarded.
(Amended 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.; corrected 1–23–1998.)
(Amended 2-7-2006 by O-19460 .S.; effective 3-7-2006.)
§54.0303 Enforcement Authority
The Director of the Neighborhood Code Compliance Department, or any other
Director authorized by the City Manager, is authorized to administer and enforce the
provisions of this Division. The Director or anyone designated by the Director to be
an Enforcement Official may exercise any enforcement powers as provided in
Division 1, Article 2 of Chapter 1 of this Code.
(“Enforcement Authority” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0304 Enforcement Remedies
Violations of this Division may be prosecuted as misdemeanors subject to the fines
and custody provided in Municipal Code Section 12.0201. The Director may also
seek injunctive relief and civil penalties in the Superior Court pursuant to Municipal
Code Section 12.0202 or pursue any administrative remedy provided in Chapter 1 of
this Code.
(“Enforcement Remedies” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0305 Strict Liability Offenses
Violations of this Division shall be treated strict liability offenses regardless of intent.
(“Strict Liability Offenses” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0306 Duty to Clean and Secure or Board
(a) It is unlawful for any Responsible Person in charge or control of any Vacant Structure
to fail to remove any waste, rubbish or debris from the interior of the structure.
(b) It is unlawful for any Responsible Person in charge or control of any Vacant Structure
to fail to remove any litter, waste, rubbish, solid waste, liquid waste, debris or excessive
vegetation from the yards surrounding the Vacant Structures.
(c) It is unlawful for any Responsible Person in charge or control of any Vacant Structure to
fail to lock, barricade or secure all doors, windows and other openings.
(“Duty to Clean and Secure or Board” renumbered, retitled and amended from Sec.
54.0303, 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
(Amended 2-7-2006 by O-19460 N.S.; effective 3-27-2006.)
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 3
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
§54.0307 Administrative Abatement Procedures for Vacant and Unsecured Structures
(a) Whenever the Director determines that a vacant and unsecured structure exists within
the City of San Diego, an Abatement Notice and Order may be sent to the Responsible
Person directing abatement by cleaning and securing or boarding. Boarding shall be done
pursuant to the standards established in Section 54.0308 of this Division.
(b) The Director may also require as part of the Abatement Notice and Order, that the
Responsible Person erect fences, barriers, berms or other suitable means to discourage access
to the Vacant Structure and to discourage illegal dumping or littering on the yards
surrounding the Vacant Structure. The Director may also require the Responsible Person to
post signs that prohibit trespassing, littering or illegal dumping.
(c) The Director may also require as part of the Abatement Notice and Order, that the
Responsible Person remove any litter, waste, rubbish, solid waste, liquid waste, debris or
excessive vegetation from the yards surrounding the Vacant Structures.
(d) The Director may also require as part of the Abatement Notice and Order, that the
Responsible Person remove any vehicles or items stored in the yards surrounding the Vacant
Structure in violation of the Land Development Code.
(e) The Director shall follow the Administrative Abatement procedures for Time Frame
One as provided in Division 6 of Article 2 of Chapter 1 of this Code.
(f) If the Responsible Person does not comply with the Abatement Notice and Order, and no
appeal is filed, the Director may: 1) clean and board the unsecured Vacant Structure; 2)
remove all litter, waste, rubbish, solid waste, liquid waste, debris or excessive vegetation
from the yards surrounding the Vacant Structures; 3) remove all vehicles and items stored in
violation of the Land Development Code; and 4) recover all costs pursuant to the procedures
found in Division 6, Article 2 of Chapter 1 of this Code.
(g) If the Director boards the structure, all barricade materials supplied by the City shall
become the property of the Responsible Person upon payment of all costs to the City.
(“Administrative Abatement Procedures for Vacant and Unsecured Structures”
renumbered and amended from Sec. 54.0305 on 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
(Amended 2-7-2006 by O-19460 N.S.; effective 3-7-2006.)
§54.0308 Standards for Boarding a Vacant Structure
(a) Except as provided in Section 54.0308(a)(9), the Responsible Person or
Director shall board a Vacant Structure according to the following
specifications and requirements:
(1) remove all waste, rubbish or debris from the interior of the structure;
and
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 4
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
(2) remove all waste, rubbish, debris or excessive vegetation from the
yards surrounding the Vacant Structure; and
(3) barricade all unsecured doorways, windows or exterior openings with
minimum 1/2 inch thickness exterior grade plywood which shall
extend to the molding stops or studs; and
(4) mount at least two wood stocks of minimum 2 x 4 inch thickness to
the reverse face of the plywood with minimum 3/ 8 inch carriage bolts
mated with nuts and two flat washers; and
(5) extend the stock a minimum of eight (8) inches on each side of the
interior wall; and
(6) cause all hardware to be galvanized or cadmium plated; and
(7) paint all exterior barricade material the predominant color of the
structure; and
(8) post the premises. One or more signs shall be posted at or near each
entrance to the structure and on fences or walls as appropriate. The
signs shall remain posted until the structure is either lawfully occupied
or demolished. Signs shall contain the following information: DO
NOT ENTER It is a misdemeanor to enter or occupy this building or
premises or to remove or deface this notice. (San Diego Municipal
Code) City of San Diego Trespassers will be prosecuted.
(9) In lieu of requiring the Responsible Person to board a structure as set
forth in Sections 54.0308(a)(1) through (7), the Director may allow the
Responsible Person to board the Vacant Structure in a manner in
which the Director determines adequately prevents unauthorized entry
or vandalism. In any event, a Responsible Person shall post the
premises as set forth in Section 54.0308(a)(8).
(“Standards for Boarding a Vacant Structure” renumbered, retitled and amended
from Sec. 54.0306 on 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0309 Entry or Interference with Notice Prohibited
(a) It is unlawful for any person to enter or occupy any structure or premises
which has been posted pursuant to Section 54.0308(a)(8) of this Division,
except to repair or demolish the structure under proper permit or for a purpose
authorized by the owner.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to remove or deface any notice posted pursuant
to Section 54.0308(a)(8) of this Code until the required repairs or demolition
have been completed or a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued in
accordance with appropriate provisions of the California Building Code as in
Chapter IX of the Municipal Code.
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 5
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
(Amended 7-19-1999 by O-18656 N.S.)
§54.0310 Continuous Abatement Authority
(a) If a Vacant Structure previously abated by the Responsible Person or the
Director pursuant to a Notice and Order again becomes unsecured and open to
unauthorized entry, the Director may, without further notice to the
Responsible Person, proceed to abate the nuisance and recover costs as
provided for in this Division.
(b) If the yards surrounding a Vacant Structure again contain debris, rubbish,
waste or excessive vegetation, the Director may, without further notice to the
Responsible Person, proceed to abate the nuisance and recover costs as
provided for in this Division.
(c) An Enforcement Hearing Officer may issue an Administrative Enforcement
Order that would give the Director continuous abatement authority to: 1)
abate a Vacant Structure which again becomes unsecured and open to
unauthorized entry; or 2) abate the yards surrounding a Vacant Structure if the
yards again contain debris, rubbish, waste or excessive vegetation. The
Hearing Officer may establish notice requirements as may be reasonable.
(“Continuous Abatement Authority” renumbered, retitled and amended from Sec.
54.0112 on 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0311 Abatement Cost
(a) Abatement costs shall include the cost to perform the actual work and the
City’s cost to administer any abatement.
(b) Once the abatement is complete, the Director shall recover all abatement costs
pursuant to the procedures found in Division 3, Article 3 of Chapter 1 of this
Code.
(“Abatement Cost” renumbered from Sec. 54.0310 on 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0312 Continuous Public Nuisances
Any Vacant Structure that was originally secured by the Responsible Person’s
voluntary actions or pursuant to judicial or administrative order may be declared a
permanent public nuisance by the Director if the structure continues to remain open
and unsecured on a periodic basis, thereby requiring additional reinspections and
resecuring of the structure. The Director may seek demolition of this continuous
public nuisance by seeking a court order or follow any of the administrative
abatement procedures found in this Code.
(“Continuous Public Nuisances” renumbered from Sec. 54.0313 on 5–28–1996 by
O–18301 N.S.)
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 6
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
§54.0313 Duty to File a Statement of Intent
(a) The Director shall create and make available a form entitled "Statement of Intent" to be
completed by the owner of a Vacant Structure.
(b) The owner of a Vacant Structure shall complete the information required on the
standard Statement of Intent and submit the statement to the City within thirty (30) calendar
days of the date the Director determines the structure became boarded. If a Vacant Structure
remains in a vacant state for more than three hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days from the
date the first Statement of Intent was submitted, then a new Statement of Intent must be
submitted, and annually thereafter until the structure is no longer a Vacant Structure.
(c) The Director shall determine whether a submitted Statement of Intent is complete and
may require an owner to provide more complete information.
(d) When a submitted Statement of Intent does not meet with the Director’s approval, the
owner shall immediately correct and resubmit the Statement of Intent.
(e) The Statement of Intent shall include information as to:
(1) expected period of vacancy;
(2) a plan for regular maintenance during the period of vacancy; and
(3) a plan and time line for the lawful occupancy, rehabilitation or demolition of
the boarded structure; and
(4) any additional information required by the Director.
(f) It is unlawful to:
(1) fail to submit a Statement of Intent within the time period specified by Section
54.0313(b); or
(2) fail to submit a Statement of Intent annually as required by Section
54.0313(b); or
(3) fail to submit a Statement of Intent which does not meet with the approval of
the Director or otherwise comply with the requirements of this Section.
(“Duty to File a Statement of Intent” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.; corrected
1–23–1998.)
(Amended 2-7-2006 by O-19460 N.S.; effective 3-7-2006.)
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 7
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
§54.0314 Reinspection Fee
The Director may periodically reinspect Vacant Structures to ensure compliance with
the provisions of this Division and all applicable court and administrative orders. The
Director may assess a reinspection fee against the Responsible Person for actual costs
of each reinspection and continuous monitoring of the structure and premises as is
reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the standards and procedures in
this Division. The Director shall follow the reinspection procedures found in Division
1, Article 3 of Chapter 1 of this Code.
(“Reinspection Fee” renumbered from Sec. 54.0311 on 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0315 Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty
(a) Any owner of a structure which meets the definition of Vacant Structure as provided in
this Division for ninety (90) consecutive calendar days may be liable for a civil penalty in the
amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per structure, not to exceed five thousand dollars
($5,000) per structure in a calendar year unless:
(1) a Statement of Intent has been filed and approved by the Director; and
(2) one of the following applies:
(A) the structure is the subject of an active building permit for repair or
rehabilitation and the owner is proceeding diligently in good faith to complete the repair
or rehabilitation; or,
(B) the structure is maintained in compliance with this Division and is
actively being offered for sale, lease or rent; or,
(C) the property owner can demonstrate that he or she made a diligent and
good faith effort to implement the actions set forth in the approved Statement of Intent
within the time line contained within the Statement of Intent.
(b) If the structure continues to meet the definition of Vacant Structure as provided in this
Division beyond the initial ninety (90) calendar days, and if the owner does not meet any of
the exceptions set forth in this Section, the Director may continue to assess penalties in the
following amounts: one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the next ninety (90) calendar day
period each structure continues to constitute a Vacant Structure; one thousand five hundred
dollars ($1,500) for the next ninety (90) calendar day period; and two thousand dollars
($2,000) for the next ninety (90) calendar day period that each structure continues to meet the
definition of a Vacant Structure. At no time may the amount of the civil penalty exceed five
thousand dollars ($5000) per structure in a calendar year.
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 8
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
(c) All penalties assessed shall be payable directly to the City Treasurer.
(d) The City Manager shall develop policies and procedures for the implementation of this
penalty.
(“Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
(Amended 2-7-2006 by O-19460 N.S.; effective 3-7-2006.)
§54.0316 Procedures for Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty
(a) Whenever a Director determines that a structure meets the definition of a
Vacant Structure as provided in this Division for more than ninety (90)
consecutive calendar days, and the owner does not meet any of the exceptions
set forth in Section 54.0515, a Notice of Boarded and Vacant Structure
Penalty may be issued to the owner of the structure.
(b) A separate Notice of Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty shall be issued for
each subsequent penalty that may be assessed pursuant to Section 54.0315.
(c) The Notice of Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty shall be served upon the
owner by any one of the methods of service listed in Section 11.0301 of
Chapter 1 of this Code.
(“Procedures for Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty” added 5–28–1996 by O–
18301 N.S.)
§54.0317 Appeal of Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty
An appeal of a vacant boarded structure penalty shall follow the procedures set forth
in Division 5 of Article 2 of Chapter 1 of this Code.
(“Appeal of Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301
N.S.)
§54.0318 Administrative Enforcement Hearing
(a) The appeal hearing shall follow the enforcement hearing procedures set forth
in Division 4, Article 2 of Chapter 1.
(b) The Enforcement Hearing Officer shall only consider evidence that is relevant
to the following issues:
(1) whether the structure meets the definition of Vacant Structure as
provided in this Division for ninety (90) consecutive calendar days;
(2) whether an approved Statement of Intent has been filed and approved
by the Director; and
(3) whether any of the exceptions set forth in section 54.0315(a)(2)(A)
through (C) have been met.
Ch. Art. Div.
5 4 3 9
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
(c) The Enforcement Hearing Officer may assess administrative costs.
(“Administrative Enforcement Hearing” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0319 Failure to Pay Penalties
The failure of any person to pay the penalty within the time specified in the “Notice
of Boarded and Vacant Structure Penalty” may result in the Director using any legal
means to recover the civil penalties, including referring the matter to the City
Treasurer to file a claim with the Small Claims Court.
(“Failure to Pay Penalties” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
§54.0320 Allocation of Vacant Structure Penalty
Administrative civil penalties collected pursuant to this Division shall be deposited in
the civil penalties fund established pursuant to Section 13.0402 of this Code.
(“Allocation of Vacant Building Penalty” added 5–28–1996 by O–18301 N.S.)
(Retitled to “Allocation of Vacant Structure Penalty” and amended 2-7-2006 by O-
19460 N.S.; effective 3-7-2006.)
§54.0321 Timely Rehabilitation of Vacant Structures
(a) As authorized by California Health and Safety Code section 17980.9 (b)(1), the
Director may require the demolition or expeditious rehabilitation of Vacant Structures which
are single-family dwellings and deemed to be substandard as determined by an inspection by
the Director.
(Added 2-7-2006 by O-19460 N.S.; effective 3-7-2006.)
1
LAND USE REGULATIONS AS BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1. Introduction
The ability of private real estate markets to meet affordable housing needs is strongly affected
by zoning, subdivision, and land development regulations adopted by local governments. In many cases,
local regulations that are intentionally or unintentionally exclusionary can offset the impact of
affordable housing subsidies or increase the amount of subsidies necessary for the market to meet
affordable housing needs.1 In Zoned Out, analyst Jonathan Levine recently documented the impact of
zoning regulations on the supply of affordable housing, and his findings confirm the conclusions of
several earlier studies.
For example, a 1998 study of regulatory barriers to affordable housing in Colorado identified
five separate types of barriers, including zoning and subdivision controls.2 The other areas were
development processing and permitting, infrastructure financing mechanisms, building codes, and
environmental and cultural resource protection tools. In the area of zoning and subdivision, the
Colorado study identified four specific types of barriers:
● Minimum house size, lot size, or yard size requirements;
● Prohibitions on accessory dwelling units;
● Restrictions on land zoned and available for multifamily and manufactured housing; and
● Excessive subdivision improvement standards.
Similarly, in 2007, a nationwide study prepared by the National Association of Home Builders for
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development documented which types of subdivision
regulations have the greatest impacts on housing costs.3 After establishing benchmark standards
representing their estimates of the minimums necessary to protect public health and safety, the study
compared the cost of building single family housing under those benchmark standards with actual costs
of home construction. The study concluded that:
65 percent of the added costs were caused by minimum lot size requirements; and
9 percent of the added costs were caused by lot width requirements.
A third contributor was minimum house size requirements. Although only eight percent of local
governments impose those controls, they were responsible for 17 percent of the added costs in those
cities and counties that use them. Using 2004 data, the study concluded that subdivision regulations
exceeding baselines for public health and safety added an average of $11,910 (4.8%) to the price of a
new home.
In addition, in U.S. ex. rel. Anti-discrimination Center v. Westchester County4, a U.S. District
Court confirmed that local government eligibility for federal Community Development Block Grant
Funds requires certification that the city or county is in compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act
Amendments of 1988. That, in turn, requires that the local government (a) conduct an analysis of
impediments to fair housing, (b) take actions to address the effects of those impediments, and (c)
1 Levine, Jonathan, Zoned Out (RFF Press, Washington, D.C., 2006).
2 Colorado Deportment of Local Affairs, Reducing Housing Costs through Regulatory Reform (Denver: Colorado Department of Local Affairs,
1998).
3 Study of Subdivision Requirements as a Regulatory Barrier. EcoNorthwest, for National Association of Homebuilders Research Center, 2007.
4 495 F.Supp.2nd 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
2
maintain records of the analysis and the steps taken. In addition to barriers based on income, the
analysis cannot ignore issues of racial segregation or the role of public resistance in perpetuating
economic or racial segregation.
For all of these reasons, it is important that local governments review their zoning, subdivision
and land development regulations to ensure that they do not create barriers to private production of
affordable housing, and that they include appropriate tools that could spur private production of
affordable housing to fill identified gaps in housing supply.
This following information is organized into three sections:
2. General Guidance on Avoiding Barriers to Affordable Housing
3. County-by-County Review of Land Use Regulations
4. Idaho Summary and Conclusions
2. General Guidance on Avoiding Barriers to Affordable Housing
Because the character, development patterns, and future plans of each county are different,
their zoning, subdivision, and development controls will also differ. No two county codes could or should
read alike. However, there are several land use practices that can help reduce barriers to housing
choice, and counties should review their regulations to ensure that they do not include unintentional
barriers in these areas. In some cases, the most appropriate areas for some of these tools to be
implemented may be in existing urbanized areas or near incorporated towns and cities.
County land use regulations that attempt promote housing choice should include as many of the
following tools as is consistent with the county’s future development plans. While it is not necessary
that each county code include all of these types of provisions, including more of them will further
reduce barriers to housing choice.
Purpose Statement. The code should reflect the county’s purpose to provide housing
choice for its residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law regarding
housing choice.
Small Lots. At least one zone district (or overlay district, or permit system) that allows
small lots for single family detached housing in some locations. While the appropriate
minimum lot size will vary with the character of the county, a zone allowing minimum
lot sizes in the 3,000-6,000 square foot range would be appropriate for more urbanized
areas of many counties. In addition, lot width requirements should be reasonable and
consistent with minimum lot sizes; while some codes require minimum lot widths of 70
feet or more, small homes can be constructed on lots as narrow as 40 feet (or even
less). Minimum lot size requirements are the type of regulation most responsible for
increasing housing costs.
Multi-family Parcels. At least one zone district (or overlay district, or permit system)
that allows the construction of multi-family housing, and mapping enough land into this
district to allow a reasonable chance that some multi-family housing will be developed.
In many rural counties, theses mapped areas may be close to incorporated or urbanized
areas. Maximum heights should be reasonable and consistent with the maximum
3
density permitted; avoid mapping areas for multi-family densities and then imposing
height restrictions that prohibit efficient development at those densities. Failure to
provide opportunities for multi-family development has been identified as one of the
four leading regulatory causes of increased housing costs.
Manufactured Homes. Manufactured housing meeting HUD safety standards should be
allowed somewhere (per the federal Manufactured Housing Act of 1974). While
restricting these homes to manufactured home parks is common, the better practice is
to allow them in at least one residential zone where the size and configuration matches
the scale and character of the area. Idaho Code Section 67-6509 requires that local
governments amend their land use regulations to allow the siting of individual
manufactured homes in residential areas, and that manufactured home communities be
treated equally with subdivisions. Failure to comply with these requirements impairs
housing choice.
Minimum House Sizes. The zoning and subdivision regulations should not establish
minimum house or dwelling unit sizes (beyond those in the building code). Minimum
house size requirements have also been identified as a significant cause of increased
housing price in those communities where they are in place.
Group Housing. The code should clarify that housing for groups protected by the Fair
Housing Act Amendments of 1988 are treated as residential uses, and should generally
allow those group housing uses in at least one residential district. While some
communities require a special permit for these uses, others find that they can be
allowed by right provided that they comply with standards limiting scale, character, and
parking. Failure to provide for these uses in the code could subject the county to a
developer’s request for “reasonable accommodation” under the Act, and failure to
provide “reasonable accommodation” could be a violation of federal law. In light of the
aging of the American population, the code should also provide areas where congregate
care, nursing home, and assisted living facilities may be constructed.
Accessory Dwelling Units. The code should allow accessory dwelling units in at least
one zone district – either as an additional unit within an existing home structure or in an
accessory building on the same lot. While some communities require a special permit
for these uses, others find that they can be allowed by right provided that they comply
with standards limiting scale, character, and parking.
Mixed Use. In order to promote affordability, housing should be allowed near
businesses that employ workers, particularly moderate and lower income employees.
To do that the code should permit residential units in at least one commercial zone
district or should map some lands for multi-family development in close proximity to
commercial districts.
Lower Parking Standards. Although the traditional standard of two parking spaces per
dwelling unit may be reasonable for many areas of a county, a lower standard can and
generally should be used for affordable housing, multi-family housing, group housing,
and special needs housing.
4
Flexibility on Nonconforming Structures. Although zoning codes generally require that
nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed through fire or natural causes can only
be rebuilt in compliance with the zoning code, an increasing number of codes are
exempting affordable housing from this requirement. Often the most affordable housing
in a community is located on lots that are too small or narrow for the district where they
are located, or in multi-family buildings that have too many units for the district where
they are located. If forced to replat with larger lots or to reduce density following a
disaster, those affordable units may be lost, and allowing rebuilding with the same
number of units as before may be the most efficient way to preserve this these units in
the housing stock.
Incentives. In order to encourage the development of affordable housing, the code
should recognize the difficult economics involved and should offer incentives. Common
incentives include smaller lots, increased density in multi-family areas, reduced parking
requirements, or waivers or reductions of application fees or development impact fees.
Some communities provide additional incentives for housing that is restricted for
occupancy at lower percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI). For example,
developments restricted for households earning less than 50% of AMI could receive
more generous incentives than those for households earning less than 80% of AMI.
While zoning and subdivision incentives alone are often not enough to make
development for lower levels of AMI economically feasible, they can be part of a
broader package of incentives (for example, including financial incentives or land
contributions) that make those project feasible. Any incentives offered should be
updated as new housing studies are completed and new information about specific
affordable housing needs is obtained.
Growth Management Exemptions. Most communities that operate a growth
management system exempt affordable housing or allow it to compete for a separate
pool of development rights in order to encourage this type of housing.
3. County-by-County Review of Land Use Regulations
This report intended to review all 44 Idaho county zoning codes, but during the course of the
review we discovered that Benewah County does not have a zoning code and that it’s subdivision
regulations did not address affordable housing issues, so a total of 43 codes were reviewed. In order to
complete our review of the remaining 43 county land use regulations within the available time and
budget, the county-by-county review focuses on nine key land use questions that can have significant
impacts on housing affordability and availability. Those questions are:
1. What is the smallest minimum lot size available in a residential district?
2. What is the narrowest lot width allowed in a single-family district?
3. What is the highest density available in a multi-family district?
4. What is the tallest building height permitted in a multi-family district?
5. What types of group housing are permitted in single-family and multi-family districts (if any)?
5
6. How does the code address manufactured housing or mobile homes?
7. How does the code address accessory dwelling units?
8. How much parking does the code require for single and multi-family units,
and does it have lower standards for affordable/special needs housing?
9. Are there any county incentives for affordable housing, and if so what are they?
We also surveyed a 10th issue – minimum house size requirements – but discovered that no Idaho
county requires minimum house sizes in their zoning and subdivision codes. The responses to the ten
questions are set forth in the pages that follow. In addition, at the end of each county summary there is
a comment section reflecting how the regulations compare to the General Guidance section above and
to regulations in other Idaho Counties.
6
Ada County
The following information was found through review of Title 8: Ada County Zoning.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Ada County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 2,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 60 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family district 20 DU per acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 40 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Permitted in high density residential districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes, Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Nursing facility by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? Boarding house and nursing facility by CUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts?
Yes, considered as single-family dwelling and
permitted in most residential districts
Does the county have MH standards?
Yes, for manufactured homes, parks,and
subdivisions
Does the county have a MH park district? Yes, two districts
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Yes, in all rural districts, MH parks by CUP in
most all residential districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? All low to medium residential districts
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 1 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units
1 BR = 1.5 per DU, 2-3 BR = 2 per DU, 4+ BR = 3
per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? Skilled nursing facility: 1 per 8 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o Small single-family minimum lot size among the lowest reviewed; minimum width could be lower
o Multi-family density and building height could be higher to promote affordability
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting are good; parks could be accommodated in residential zones
o Accessory dwelling unit provisions are good
o Single-family parking standard is good; multi-family standards could be lower
7
Adams County
The following information was found through review of the Adams County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Adams County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1 acre (high density overlay: 9,000 sq. ft.)
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district
No MF district, 1 DU per 1 acre, in overlay: 1 DU
per 9000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district
No MF district, 3 stories for subdivisions,
otherwise not mentioned
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? permitted by CUP in R-1 district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Nursing, retirement home, boarding house by
CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? No
Does the county have MH standards? No
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Yes, mobile home parks allowed in commercial
and by CUP in the rural residential district
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
Agricultural: permits additional dwellings for
immediate family members or employees of
the landowner
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? No
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o Basic and overlay single-family minimum lot size could be lower
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured homes could be accommodated outside of parks
o Accessory dwelling unit provisions do not promote the supply of affordable units
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
8
Bannock County
The following information was found through review of the Bannock County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Bannock County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 100 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? MF permitted by CUP in residential districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Boarding house is permitted, institutional
housing by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, where single-family DU are permitted
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Single units in agricultural, rural residential,
residential suburban, and recreation, and by
CUP in commercial general; mobile home paks
permitted as part of PUD in three districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Allow a guest house, no rentals
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 - 3 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? No
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1 acre minimum lot size and 100 ft. minimum width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling unit provisions could be stronger if rentals permitted
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
9
Bear Lake County
The following information was found through review of the Bear Lake County Land Use and Subdivision
Ordinances.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Bear Lake County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/2 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 75 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 1/2 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
MF permitted by CUP in all districts except
agricultural
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts?
Yes - manufactured homes, not single mobile
homes
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
MH parks by CUP in rural community,
community expansion, and commercial districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units?
Permits "Secondary Residential or Caretaker
housing"
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? All
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/2 acre minimum lot size and 75 ft. minimum width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group housing provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling unit provisions are good
10
Benewah County
No affordable housing information was found through review of the Benewah County Subdivision Ordinance.
There is no zoning ordinance for Benewah County.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Benewah County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) -
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family district -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? -
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) -
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? -
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? -
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? -
Does the county have MH standards? -
Does the county have a MH park district? -
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? -
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? -
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o No zoning code; only subdivision regulations that do not address affordability factors listed above.
11
Bingham County
The following information was found through review of the 14
th
Draft Code Revisions of Bingham County.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Bingham County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/4 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 80 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family district 1 DU per 1/4 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district In accordance with the building code
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted in residential district, and by SUP in
ag., ag. residential, and light commercial
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Nursing/convalescent homes, congregate care
and boarding houses by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? Nursing/convalescent homes by CUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, as a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, park standards
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Single units in ag., manufacturing, and
commercial; parks by SUP in residential and
commercial districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Not directly
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Permitted only for farm, ranch, or dairy ops.
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU + 1 visitor
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU + 1 visitor
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? Boarding house: 1 per room
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
SUP = special use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/4 acre minimum lot size and 80 ft. minimum width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family special use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling unit provisions could be stronger if not limited to farm and ranch uses
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
12
Blaine County
The following information was found through review of the Blaine County Title 9: Zoning Regulations and Title
10: Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Blaine County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/4 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 75 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 1/4 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted at 1 DU per 0.4 acre by CUP in
medium and high density residential districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Continuing care communities are public utilities
and are allowed in low-, medium-, and high-
density residential, and commercial districts
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
MH subdivision by CUP in low- and med-density
residential and commercial districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? All residential districts
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 1,400 sq. ft., boarding houses: 1 per room
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/4 acre minimum lot size and 75 ft. minimum width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family densities do not promote affordability
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling unit provisions are good
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
13
Boise County
The following information was found through review of the Boise County Zoning and Development Ordinance
and Subdivision Ordinance.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Boise County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 2 acres
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? MF permitted by CUP in the multiple use zone
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Group Homes, physically and mentally
handicapped, elderly for up to and including
eight (8) in multiple-use district
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? Only one multiple use zone - same as above
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, MH considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, within definition
Does the county have a MH park district? No, but there is a specific subdivision for MH
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Only one multiple use zone
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? None
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU + visitor
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? No
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 2 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Institutional living provisions are among the best reviewed
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code and should allow rental use
o Multi-family parking standards could be lower
14
Bonner County
The following information was found through review of the Bonner County Code Title 12: Land Use
Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Bonner County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services)
10,000 sq. ft. (may be reduced through use of a
Cottage Housing development)
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 10,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
MF (12,000 sq. ft. for first unit + 3,000 sq. ft.
for each additional unit) permitted by CUP in
commercial, recreation, rural service center,
and alpine village districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? No
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
MH park by CUP in commercial, and rural
service center districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? All, 1 permitted per lot
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1 per studio, 1.5 per one BR, 2 per 2 or more BR
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? No
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow greater density to promote affordability
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured homes should be allowed in residential zone; park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
15
Bonnerville County
The following information was found through review of the Bonnerville County Title 1: Zoning Ordinance.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Bonnerville County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services)
5,200 sq. ft. for each lot of a duplex, 6,000 sq.
ft. otherwise
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 65 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 4 DU per 9,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 20 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Not allowed at all
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Boarding house in medium-density residential
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, all residential districts
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and within the MH zone
Does the county have a MH park district? Yes
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Yes, single units in agricultural and recreation-
forestry, parks in recreation-forestry and
manufactured home districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing?
Boarding houses: the greater of 1 per BR or 1
per each auto owned by house members
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o Minimum lot size and width are relatively low, but could be lowered for affordability
o Multi-family provisions could allow higher density to promote affordability
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
16
Boundary County
The following information was found through review of the Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance 99-06.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Boundary County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/4 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Not allowed at all
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Yes, if they are considered a single-family
dwelling unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
Allowed as long as occupied by family, in all but
the industrial district
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/4 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family provisions should be added to the code
o Group living provision addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured homes and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions would better promote affordability if not limited to family members
17
Butte County
The following information was found through review of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance 3-99 and
Subdivision Ordinance 2-99.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Butte County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/2 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 100 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 1.2 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 2.5 stories/25 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
MF (not more than 4 DUs) permitted by CUP in
residential districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Boarding and rooming house by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, within definition of single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Yes, agricultural and transitional; parks in 2
residential districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Not directly
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Agricultural - for farm related purposes only
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? Yes
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/2 acre minimum lot size and 100 ft. minimum width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family provisions could allow higher density to promote affordability
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home and park availability are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions would better promote affordability if not limited to farm use
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
18
Camas County
The following information was found through review of the Camas County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Camas County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/4 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 1/4 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
MF permitted in the commercial district, and by
CUP in most agricultural and residential
districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Rooming-boarding house by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, MH park standards
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Single units where single-family dwelling are
permitted, MH parks by CUP in low- and high-
density residential
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
Agricultural and agricultural transition lots that
are 2.5 acres or greater
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/4 acre minimum lot size do not promote affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home and park availability are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions would better promote affordability if allowed in more zones and smaller
lots
19
Canyon County
The following information was found through review of the Canyon County Code of Ordinances 10-006,
Chapter 7, Zoning Regulations., Ordinance 08-026: 2010 Zoning Amendments.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Canyon County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 12,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 60 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 4 DU per 1/2 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
4 DU per lot permitted and 8 DU per lot
permitted by CUP in R-2 district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
8 or fewer unrelated mentally and/or physically
handicapped is included in definition of single-
family DU. Group home by CUP, assisted care
facility by administrative approval
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, included in definition of single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? No
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Allowed where single-family DU are permitted
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
"Secondary residence" permitted in single-
family and medium residential density zone
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 people, 1 per doctor, 3 per 2 employees
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 60 ft. minimum width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family provisions could allow higher density to promote affordability
o Group living provisions are among the best reviewed
o Manufactured home and park availability are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
20
Caribou County
The following information was found through review of the Caribou County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Caribou County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/2 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 75 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 1 two-family per 1/2 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted in high and low density residential
districts and by CUP in the agricultural district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts?
Institutional residential by CUP in high density
residential and commercial
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts?
Not specifically, allowed on county land when
certain standards are met
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? MH parks by CUP in high density residential
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? Yes, by CUP in residential districts
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/2 acre minimum lot size and 75 ft. minimum width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, but could be allowed in low density residential
o Manufactured homes should be allowed in residential zone; park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
21
Cassia County
The following information was found through review of the Cassia County Regulations and County Code, Title
9: Zoning Regulations and Title: 10, Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Cassia County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1 acre, may be reduced in approved subdivision
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted by CUP in multiple use, residential,
and agricultural districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Nursing home and rest homes by CUP in single-
family and permitted in multiple use district
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Parks by CUP in 2 agricultural residential and
multiple use districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing?
Boarding house: 1 per sleeping room, nursing
home and similar: 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability; minimum lot sizes in subdivision should be
stated
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
22
Clark County
The following information was found through review of the Clark County Development Code. The county is
currently updating the Development Code, so the 2010 Draft was reviewed.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Clark County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 5,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 50 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family district No MF district, -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? A conditional use in all districts but industrial
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Shelters with 8 or less clients by CUP in all but
industrial district
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, meeting performance standards
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single MH and MH parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Yes, parks by CUP in the residential and rural
districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes, "guest house"
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
Allowed in residential and rural districts, but
not for rental purposes
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? A conditional use in the commercial district
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 50 ft. minimum lot width are among the best reviewed
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, but could be expanded to include larger facilities for elderly
o Manufactured home and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions would better promote affordability if rental use allowed
23
Clearwater County
The following information was found through review of the Clearwater County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Clearwater County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 7,500 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 75 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district
1 two family DU per 7,500 sq. ft. + 2,500 for
each additional unit
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 45 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted in the medium-high residential dist.,
and by CUP in the suburban residential dist.
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts?
Nursing, retirement, and boarding houses by
CUP in medium-high density residential district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for MH ”courts” and within definition
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? MH court by CUP in commercial districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1 per DU + 1 per each 2 DU over 4 units
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing?
Nursing home: 1 per 2 beds and 1 per
employee
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 75 ft. minimum lot width could be lowered for affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
24
Custer County
The following information was found through review of the Custer County Zoning Ordinance 2007-09 and
Subdivision Ordinance 2007-10.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Custer County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 9,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 9,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted in the commercial district, and by
SUP in the transitional agricultural and
residential districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Boarding house by SUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Not allowed on any single-family lot
Does the county have MH standards? No
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
MH parks allowed in commercial, by CUP in
agricultural and agricultural transitional
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Agricultural, industrial, commercial
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? Yes, in residential
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? Boarding house: 1 for each story
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
SUP = special use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 9,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family conditional use permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured homes should be allowed in residential zone; park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
25
Elmore County
The following information was found through review of the Elmore County Title 6: Zoning and Development
Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Elmore County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 0 ft., has to meet setback and parking stds.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 50 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 45 DU per acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 80 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted in the recreation and res./mixed-use
district, and by CUP in the commercial districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Assisted living and nursing homes by CUP,
boarding house permitted
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts?
Assisted living, boarding house, and nursing
home by CUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, in the definition of single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, in definition and MH park standards
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Parks by CUP in general agriculture,
residentical, and recreation districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Single-family districts
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? Yes, by administrative approval
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing?
Boarding: 1 per 2 sleeping rooms, nursing: 1
per 8 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o No minimum lot size and 50 ft. minimum lot width are among the lowest reviewed
o Multi-family density and height standards are among the best reviewed
o Group living provisions are among the best reviewed
o Manufactured home and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
26
Franklin County
The following information was found through review of the Franklin County Development Code Ordinance
2007-8-13.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Franklin County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 7,260 sq. ft. (plats)
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 40 ft. (plats)
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 7,260 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
(only districts are wellhead/watershed,
floodplain, and airport overlay districts)
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? -
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? -
Does the county have MH standards? No
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? -
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 7,260 sq. ft. minimum lot size could be lowered for affordability; 40 ft. minimum lot width is the lowest
reviewed
o Multi-family housing provisions should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured homes should be allowed in residential districts; park availability provisions should be
added to the code
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
27
Fremont County
The following information was found through review of the Fremont County Development Code, Public
Hearing Draft, October 27, 2010.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Fremont County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/2 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 2 DU per acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 40 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? All MF requires a Class II permit
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other)
PUD and rural village districts set out to
maintain affordability through flexibility but still
have low density standards (PUD: 5 DU per
acre, RV: 75 DU per 100 acres)
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
All, group home is included in the definition of
single-family dwelling
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts?
Yes, included in the definition of single-family
dwelling
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Only where single-family dwellings are allowed
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Residential districts
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? No
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/2 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
28
Gem County
The following information was found through review of the Gem County Title 11: Zoning Regulations and Title
12: Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Gem County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 6,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 75 ft. max
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 1 DU per 6,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 30 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Permitted in the MF residential district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Halfway house by SUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? Group home by SUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, permitted where single-family is allowed
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? -
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
SUP = special use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size could be lowered for affordability; 75 ft. maximum lot width is good
o Multi-family maximum density and height could be raised for efficient development and affordability
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
29
Gooding County
The following information was found through review of the Gooding County Zoning Ordinance 78 and
Subdivision Ordinance.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Gooding County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 10,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 75 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 10,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 40 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted by SUP in all districts except
industrial
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Rooming house and institutional residential by
SUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family dwelling
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, within definition
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
MH “courts” by SUP in transitional, low-density
res., industrial and, recreation districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
SUP = special use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 75 ft. minimum lot width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
30
Idaho County
The following information was found through review of the Idaho County Ordinance No. 20: Subdivision
Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Idaho County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 8,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? -
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) -
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? -
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? -
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, minimal standards for parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? -
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? -
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing provisions should be added to the code
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
31
Jefferson County
The following information was found through review of the Jefferson County Ordinance, Title 3: Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Jefferson County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/5 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 5 DU per acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF District, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Not permitted at all
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Convalescent hospital, nursing home,
sanitarium, rest home, or home for the aged
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes in all residential districts
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single MH and MH parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Agricultural and recreation/commercial
districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Agricultural and R-5 (not R-1)
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? Yes, by CUP
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds/residents
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/5 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing provisions should be added to the code
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good but could be extended to R-1 district
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
32
Jerome County
The following information was found through review of the Jerome County Zoning Ordinance.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Jerome County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 100 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 1 DU per acre (less with services)
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted in the commercial (4 DUs per
building) and city impact area districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Nursing and rest homes by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? Nursing and rest homes by CUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for MH parks and subdivisions
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Commercial and industrial
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? -
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1 acre minimum lot size and 100 ft. minimum lot width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
33
Kootenai County
The following information was found through review of the Kootenai County Title (: Zoning Ordinance No. 401
and Title 10: Subdivision Ordinance No. 394.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Kootenai County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 3,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family district 1 DU per 3,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted in comm. and high density res. dists.;
by special notice in the ag. suburban dist.
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Retirement, nursing, and convalescent homes
by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? Retirement and convalescent homes by CUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes
Does the county have MH standards?
Yes, single standards within definition, have
park standards as well
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Everywhere single-family dwellings are
permitted; parks by CUP in high-density res.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
In all agricultural and residential districts, not
for rental purposed
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? An accessory land use permit is required
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 1 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 5 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 3,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size is among the lowest reviewed, and promotes affordability
o Multi-family housing approvals should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good but would better promote affordability if rental use permitted
34
Latah County
The following information was found through review of the Latah County Ordinance No. 269, Land Use
Ordinance.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Latah County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 9,600 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 70 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 9,600 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district
No MF district, 3 story apartment building by
CUP
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Permitted by CUP in the commercial district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family dwelling
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for MH parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Yes, wherever single-family dwellings are
allowed
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
All parcels that are not eligible for additional
building permits, not for rent
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 9,600 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 70 ft. minimum lot width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good but would better promote affordability if rental use permitted
35
Lemhi County
The following information was found through review of the Lemhi County Development Code, Ordinance
2009-3.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Lemhi County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/4 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 100 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 1/4 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
(only has overlay districts and districts specific
to areas of the county - no standard districts)
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Everywhere single-family DU are allowed
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Residential
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? Rest homes: 2 per bed
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/4 acre minimum lot size and 100 ft. minimum lot width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
36
Lewis County
The following information was found through review of the Lewis County Zoning and Development Ordinance
No. 97-2, Subdivision Ordinance No. 2002-06, and Amendment to the Lewis County Subdivision Ordinance No.
2002-06.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Lewis County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services)
1 acre (will consider less if services are
available)
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF District, 1 DU per acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Use table does not include MF
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Retirement and group homes by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, in definition of single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, within definition
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Only one multiple use district, allowed as a
single-family DU
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? Group homes: 1 per 250 sq. ft.
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability; minimum size with services should be stated
o Multi-family housing provisions should be added to the code
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured home siting provisions are good; park availability provisions should be added to the
code
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
37
Lincoln County
The following information was found through review of the Lincoln County Zoning Ordinance 1212-08-1 and
Subdivision Ordinance 1212-08-3.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Lincoln County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/2 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 1 DU per 1/2 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Not allowed at all
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, may be placed on any residential lot
Does the county have MH standards?
Yes, for single units within the definition and
elsewhere
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? No
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/2 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing provisions should be added to the code
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting provisions are good; park availability provisions should be added to the
code
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
38
Madison County
The following information was found through review of the Madison County Code Book, Title 10: Unified
Development Code as adopted in 2010.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Madison County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) No minimum
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 100 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district
2 DU per acre (may be greater in town site zone
but it is not in the UDO)
Tallest building height in a multi-family district
35 ft. (may be greater in town site zone but it is
not in the UDO)
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? MF permitted in the town site zone
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Minor assisted living allowed in all districts
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? See above
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, considered a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units in definition and for parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? In all districts where single-family is allowed
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Permitted in all but comm. and heavy ind. dist.
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units
3 per first 20 DU, 2.25 per next 50 DU, 1.75 for
each DU over 70
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing?
Sanitariums/nursing homes: 1 per 2 beds
Boarding homes: 1 per sleeping room
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o No minimum lot size promotes affordability; 100 ft. minimum lot width does not
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
39
Minidoka County
The following information was found through review of the Minidoka County Zoning Ordinance and General
Subdivision Provision.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Minidoka County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1,500 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 1 DU per 1,500 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 45 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
MF (4 DU per building max) permitted in med.
and high density residential, and by SUP in the
other residential and agricultural districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Retirement home and senior housing, not in
low density residential
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts?
Assisted living, retirement home, sr. housing,
congregate res., boarding house
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? All except industrial
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units?
In definitions as "guest house" but not allowed
in any districts
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
SUP = special use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size is the lowest reviewed, and promotes affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should specify the zones where they are allowed, including residential
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
40
Nez Perce County
The following information was found through review of the Nez Perce County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Nez Perce County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1/2 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 83 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 1/2 acre
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted by CUP in the agricultural and
agricultural/residential districts
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, all of them
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for MH parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Parks by CUP in ag. and ag. residential districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
All residential except for the highest density
residential district
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1/2 acre minimum lot size and 83 ft. minimum lot width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights in a residential zone
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability standards are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
41
Oneida County
The following information was found through review of the Oneida County Development Code.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Oneida County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) -
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? MF permitted with Class II permit
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? -
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? -
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, included in definition of single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? -
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o Code only contains airport overlay and flood plain districts
o No minimum lot size and no minimum lot width standards promote affordability
o Availability of multi-family housing should be clarified
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Availability of accessory dwelling units should be clarified
42
Owyhee County
The following information was found through review of the Owyhee County Code, Title 9: Zoning Regulations
and Title 10: Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Owyhee County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) Determined by Southwest District Health
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district -
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
MF permitted by CUP in the residential and
multi-use district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) -
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Boarding, nursing, and convalescent homes by
CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? MH parks by CUP
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, in definitions
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? -
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones?
Yes, residential - with a common wall for a
member of the family
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o Minimum lot size with services should be stated; if possible no larger than 5,000 sq. ft.
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o A broader range of FHAA group living facilities could be accommodated
o Manufactured homes should be allowed in residential districts; park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions would better promote affordability if not limited to family members
43
Payette County
The following information was found through review of the Payette County Code, Title 17: Zoning and Title 16:
Subdivisions.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Payette County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 3,500 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 75 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 1 DU per 3,500 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 2 stories
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
MF permitted in the higher density residential
district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts?
Assisted living, boarding house are permitted -
congregate, convalescent, nursing homes by
CUP in the higher density residential district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, permitted on single-family lots
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single MH and MH parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Agricultural and transitional
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units
2 per DU, 2 per 2-3 BR, 3 per 4-5 BR, + I per
each BR over 5
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units
2 per DU, 2 per 2 BR, 3 per 3-4 BR, + I per each
BR over 5
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 3,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size promotes affordability; 75 ft. minimum width does not
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
44
Power County
The following information was found through review of the Power County Code, Title 10: Development Code.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Power County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 1 acre
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 12 DU per acre (with SUP)
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Permitted by CUP in the residential district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? None
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, included in definition of single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and for parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Parks by CUP in rural residential district
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Agricultural and residential
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 2 per bed
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 1 acre minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions addressing FHAA listed groups should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
45
Shoshone County
The following information was found through review of the Shoshone County Title 9: Zoning Regulations and
Ordinance 139: Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Shoshone County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 7,700 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 70 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district
7,700 sq. ft. per unit + 2,000 sq. ft. per each
additional DU
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 45 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Permitted in the MF district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? Nursing homes and homes for the aged by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts?
Retirement, nursing, convalescent, and other
group homes by CUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts?
Yes, allowed on most land zoned for residential
uses
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single units and parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Parks by CUP in residential districts
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 7,700 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 70 ft. minimum lot width do not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home siting provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
46
Teton County
The following information was found through review of the Teton County Code, Title 8: Zoning Regulations
and Title 9: Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Teton County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 7,000 sq. ft.
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district 1 DU per 9,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district 30 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Permitted in the R-1 district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts?
Assisted living, retirement, nursing,
convalescent, and group homes by CUP
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts?
Assisted living, retirement, nursing,
convalescent, and group homes by CUP
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes
Does the county have MH standards?
Yes, for parks within the park district and single
units within definitions
Does the county have a MH park district? Yes
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
Single units in all but the manufacturing
district, parks allowed in MH park district
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? Residential and by CUP in agricultural
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? In agricultural districts
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 4 beds + 1 per employee
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions are good, provided definitions cover FHAA listed groups
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
47
Twin Falls County
The following information was found through review of the Twin Falls County Code, Title 8: Zoning and Title
10: Subdivisions.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Twin Falls County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) 9,000 sq. ft. by CUP
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district 80 ft.
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, 1 DU per 9,000 sq. ft.
Tallest building height in a multi-family district
No MF district, 35 ft. (this looks like the
standard height, setbacks increase when height
is greater than 35 ft.)
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? MF not allowed at all
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, where residential use is allowed
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for MH parks and single MH
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Agricultural and outdoor recreation
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes, it defines "guesthouse"
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? None
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 2 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? No
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o 9,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size does not promote affordability
o Multi-family housing provisions should be added to the code, and should permit efficient densities and
heights
o Group living provisions should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions need to specify districts where guesthouse are permitted, including
residential
o Single-family and multi-family parking standards could be lower
48
Valley County
The following information was found through review of the Valley County Land Use and Development
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Valley County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) -
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit?
Permitted by CUP in the one multiple use
district
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes, allowed as a single-family DU
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, standards are in a separate document
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts?
MH subdivision by CUP in the one multiple use
district
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? Yes
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? All districts subject to standards
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? No
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units -
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units -
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? -
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o No minimum lot size or width promotes affordability
o Multi-family housing permits should allow efficient densities and building heights
o Group living provisions should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions are good
49
Washington County
The following information was found through review of the Washington County Title 5: Zoning and Title 6:
Subdivisions.
Potential Affordable Housing Barriers Washington County Regulations
Lot Dimensions
Smallest minimum lot size in a residential district (with services) -
Narrowest lot width in a single-family district -
Minimum house size requirement (any district) -
Highest density available in a multi-family (MF) district No MF district, -
Tallest building height in a multi-family district No MF district, 35 ft.
Where is multi-family permitted? By special permit? Not allowed at all
Affordable Housing Provisions
Are there incentives for affordable housing?
(density, lot size, fee waivers, other) No
Group Housing (Assisted living, Congregate care, Nursing homes,
Boarding homes) Regulations
What types of group housing are permitted in single-family districts? None
What types of group housing are permitted in multi-family districts? No MF district
Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home (MH) Regulations
Are MHs allowed in residential districts? Yes
Does the county have MH standards? Yes, for single MH and MH parks
Does the county have a MH park district? No
Are MHs (parks/single units) allowed in other districts? Parks by CUP in the commercial district
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations
Does the code address accessory dwelling units? No
Are ADUs allowed in any districts, which ones? -
Are ADUs allowed by special permit only? -
Parking Requirements
Number of parking spaces required for single-family units 2 per DU
Number of parking spaces required for multi-family units 1.5 per DU
Are there lower standards for affordable/special needs housing? 1 per 2 beds
ABBREVIATIONS
"-" = no information was found or there are no regulations listed
BR = bedroom
CUP = conditional use permit
DU = dwelling unit
COMMENTS
o No minimum lot size or width promotes affordability
o Multi-family housing provisions should be added to the code
o Group living provisions should be added to the code
o Manufactured home siting and park availability provisions are good
o Accessory dwelling provisions should be added to the code
o Single-family parking standards could be lower
50
4. Idaho Summary and Conclusions
The data in the county-by-county review above confirm that Idaho county land use regulations
vary widely on most of these topics. In the paragraphs below we summarize the range of responses on
each of the 9 key questions and highlight those practices that tend to encourage or discourage the
affordability and availability of housing for those individuals and groups protected by the federal Fair
Housing Act Amendments of 1988.
Minimum Lot Size
Given that some of Idaho’s counties are very rural, while others are fairly urban, it is not
surprising that the smallest lots available vary widely among the counties. On the low end of the range,
are Elmore (No requirement, but has to meet setbacks and parking), Minidoka (1,500 sq. ft.), Ada (2,000
sq. ft.), Kootenai (3,000 sq. ft.), Payette (3,500 sq. ft.) and Clark (5,000 sq. ft.). Most counties fall into the
middle range from 6,000 sq. ft. to ½ acre as the smallest single-family lot available. At the high end of
the range are Bannock, Cassia, Jerome, Lewis, and Power (1 acre) and Boise (2 acres). As noted above,
large minimum lot sizes are the single largest regulatory contributor raising the costs of single family
homes.
While it may be appropriate for rural counties to use minimum lot sizes of 1 or 2 acres across
much of their land to preserve rural/agricultural character and open vistas, there are usually areas
where much smaller lots could be made available without compromising that character. Areas near
existing towns or non-agricultural areas can often be zoned for more affordable lots with little or no
impact on the general county character. In fact, traditional land use patterns in much of the west
included small settlements and old townsites sprinkled among much larger tracts of range and farm
land. Even rural counties should strive to zone some lands for smaller lot residential development in
appropriate locations. Very importantly, however, smaller lot sizes are only appropriate where
community and shared sewer services and treatment are available. Counties that do not have towns or
communities with sanitary sewer services will probably not be able to accommodate small single-family
detached housing development.
Minimum Lot Width
A second, smaller contributor to the price of single family homes is the minimum lot width for a
residential lot. When the west was settled, many urban areas were platted with 25 foot wide lots,
although builders often combined three lots into two 37.5 foot lot, or four lots into two 50 foot lots.
Platting patterns often produced lots that were much deeper (often 100-120 feet) than they were wide.
However, post-war platting and house styles were often based on ranch houses that were much wider
than they were deep, and so wider lots became the norm in many areas. Unfortunately, wide lots inflate
the costs of roads (and in urban areas also the water pipes, sewer pipes, and storm drainage) because it
takes a longer road to serve wide lots than to serve narrow lots. When lot widths increased from 25 feet
to 75 feet, three times as much road must be paved – and maintained – across the front of the lot.
Higher road costs are often recouped by raising lot prices.
Many rural counties avoid this issue by not setting a minimum lot width, but those that do
should avoid over-inflating that standard. Twenty-one Idaho counties impose minimum lot size for their
smallest residential lots. The low end of the range includes Franklin (40 ft.), Clark (50 ft.), and Elmore (50
ft.). Most counties fall into a middle range with minimum lot widths between 60 and 75 feet. The high
51
end of the range tends to include those counties with the largest minimum lot size. That group includes
Bingham and Twin Falls (80 ft.), Nez Perce (83 ft.), and Bannock, Butte, Jerome, Lemhi, and Madison
(100 ft.). In many cases, these minimum lot widths work well for the large lots to which they apply – a
large lot with narrow frontage would odd, would not preserve traditional landscapes, and would not
accommodate many larger houses. But as counties move toward smaller and more affordable single
family lots, reductions in size should be accompanied by a thoughtful reduction in minimum width (or by
dropping minimum width altogether). Usually, a 50 ft. minimum lot width is enough to accommodate a
modest house and fit in with traditional western townsite patterns.
Highest Multi-family Density
As noted earlier, throughout the country (including the Rocky Mountain west), the need for
attached and multi-family housing is rising. For many counties this is an uncomfortable fact, because
their residents may dislike attached and multi-family housing or see them as indicators of poverty or
urban lifestyles that they moved to the country to avoid. Nevertheless, as average wages continue to
lag behind housing prices rural counties may find that even the most affordable of their single family
housing stock is not affordable to many of their workers and citizens. The question becomes how to
accommodate attached and multi-family product in appropriate (usually more urbanized). The
economics – and therefore the price – of multi-family housing depends heavily on how many dwelling
units can be built on the lot and how tall the buildings can be.
Very few Idaho counties have adopted zoning districts that accommodate attached or multi-
family housing. In fact, only five of the 43 counties have zones that establish maximum densities that
accommodate multi-family. They include:
Ada - 20 dwelling units per acre;
Bonnerville -- 4 dwelling units per 9,000 sq. ft. – or about 19 units per acre;
Elmore -- 45 dwelling units per acre;
Power -- 12 dwelling units per acre); and
Shoshone -- one additional dwelling unit for each 2,000 sq. ft. added to the basic minimum
7,700 sq. ft. lot area – or about 19 units/acre.
A few more counties allow additional densities that might permit attached units, but that are
not high enough to support multi-family construction. Canyon County, for example, has a district
allowing 8 dwelling units per acre, Caribou allows duplexes on half-acre lots, and Teton County allows 1
dwelling unit per 9,000 sq. ft. (approximately 4.8 units per acre). However, single family homes are
often developed at these densities, so they may not allow land efficiencies that would encourage
builders to provide attached units.
In addition, several counties and have available overlay districts, conditional use permits, or
planned unit development tools that could be used to allow higher densities or new types of
development on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult to know whether these tools can be or have been
used to approve attached or multi-family development.
As Idaho’s counties prepare community plans or review development approvals, they should
review demographic data to determine whether some of their residents or workers have wages that will
only support rents or for attached or multi-family housing. If so, they should consider where in the
county those types of units would be appropriate, and at what scale, and should zone land to
accommodate those uses. The county should consider that the construction efficiencies of attached
housing only begin to appear at densities above 12 dwelling units per acre. While county residents may
52
fear the zoning of large areas for these types of development, they can be limited in scale (no more than
X dwelling units) and in locations where they have the least impact on traditional community character.
Pro-active planning for these uses is preferable for these uses and will send clearer signals to the market
about the types of housing that the county is prepared to approve.
Tallest Multi-family Building
As with lot size and width above, the issues of multi-family density and height are related. In
most non-urban counties tall buildings are not part of the historic development patterns and would only
be appropriate near towns or other settlements. Multi-family building height regulations only create
barriers to affordable housing if they prohibit the builder from achieving the maximum density allowed
in the district or the maximum density achievable without moving to a more complex and expensive
building code. The five counties that permit multi-family development in a designated zone district
impose the following maximum heights.
Ada – 40 feet
Bonnerville – 20 feet
Elmore – 80 feet
Power – 35 feet
Shoshone – 45 feet.
The “standard” maximum height permitted in most single family residential zone districts is 35
feet, which generally allows a two story building with a pitched roof or a three story building with a flat
roof. Zoning ordinances that limit heights in multifamily districts to 35 feet may be making it difficult to
achieve the higher densities necessary to make multi-family construction more affordable. Some
common building codes allow structures to achieve heights of up to 75 feet before requiring more
expensive and fire-resistant building construction techniques. Height limits in the 50 to 75 foot range
give multi-family builders more leeway to achieve efficiencies of scale with affordable building
techniques. While it may be difficult for counties with only one and two story structure to conceive of
areas where taller buildings would be appropriate, those sites can sometimes be found near existing
towns or urbanized areas. Importantly, however, the maximum height must be low enough that the
local fire department or district can provide effective fire protection with available equipment and
manpower.
Group Housing
The federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (the “FHAA”, 41 U.S.C.A. § 3601 et. seq.)
makes it unlawful:
“To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny, a
dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of (a) that buyer or renter, or
(b) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold,
rented, or made available, or (c) any person associated with that buyer or renter”.
A person with a “handicap” is a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more of his or her major life activities; or a person who has a record of such impairment, or a
person who is regarded as having that type of impairment. The definition covers the frail, the elderly,
persons with HIV, physically disabled, mentally retarded, mentally ill, and recovering alcoholics and drug
addicts. The definition does not cover persons currently using or addicted to alcohol or a controlled
substance and not “recovering” and does not cover facilities or halfway houses for those in the criminal
53
justice system. If a local government does not allow for residential uses for the types of individuals listed
above, it may be deemed to have made those types of residences “unavailable”. In order to avoid
claims under the FHAA, local zoning codes should allow group housing for the protected types of
individuals in at least one zone district, and hopefully more than one. Although it is good practice to
allow small group homes by right in at least one zone district, zoning codes that allow those uses by
conditional use permit have been upheld.
Our survey of Idaho counties showed that most county code treatments of group living fall into
one of three categories containing almost equal number of counties. The first category includes 16
counties whose group living provisions appear to have been drafted with the requirements of the FHAA
in mind. In general, these counties were identified because their codes provided for “group homes”,
“institutional housing”, “congregate care”, “assisted living”, “halfway houses”, “rehabilitation centers”,
or other uses that are traditionally used to provide housing for persons in one or more of the categories
listed in the FHAA (not just the elderly).
Bannock: Institutional housing and boarding houses are allowed by conditional use permit
Bingham: Nursing homes, convalescent homes, congregate care, and boarding houses
allowed by conditional use permit.
Boise: Group homes for physically and mentally disabled and elderly with up to 8 residents
are allowed in the multiple use district
Canyon: The definition of a single family dwelling unit includes occupancy by 8 or fewer
unrelated mentally and/or physically handicapped. Group homes are available by
conditional permit , and assisted care facility by administrative approval.
Caribou: Institutional residential uses are available by conditional use permit in the high
density.
Clark: Shelters with 8 or fewer clients are allowed in the multiple use district and are
available by conditional use permit in the single family districts.
Elmore: Assisted living, boarding houses, and nursing homes allowed by conditional use
permit.
Fremont: Group homes are included in the definition of single family residential.
Gem: Nursing and rest homes, halfway houses, and rehabilitation centers allowed by
special use permit.
Gooding: Institutional residential and boarding houses allowed by special use permit.
Lewis: Group homes and retirement homes allowed by conditional use permit.
Madison: Minor assisted living facilities allowed in all districts.
Minidoka: Assisted living facilities, retirement homes, senior housings, congregate
residences, and boarding houses are permitted in the medium and high density residential
districts.
Payette: Assisted living and boarding houses are permitted in the B (higher density)
residential zone. Congregate, convalescent, and nursing homes by conditional use permit.
Shoshone: Convalescent, nursing, retirement homes, homes for the aged, and other group
homes allowed by conditional use permit.
54
Teton: Assisted living, retirement, nursing, convalescent, and group homes are permitted
by conditional use permit.
In order to confirm that these provisions in fact comply with the FHAA, these counties should review
these provisions to ensure that they allow housing for all of the groups for which housing needs to be
made available under federal law.
A second category includes 13 counties whose zoning codes appear to address group living for
the general population and the elderly but not those other categories of individuals identified in the
FHAA. These codes typically permit “boarding houses”, “nursing homes”, “retirement homes”, or
“convalescent homes” typically identified with care for the elderly. Counties in this category include:
Ada: Nursing homes and boarding houses are allowed by conditional use permit).
Adams: Nursing homes, retirement homes, and boarding houses allowed by conditional
use permit.
Blaine: Continuing care retirement communities are considered “public utilities” and are
allowed as a conditional use in the low, medium, and high density residential, and general
commercial districts .
Bonnerville: Boarding houses allowed in the medium density residential district.
Butte: Boarding and rooming houses by conditional use permit.
Camas: Boarding and rooming houses by conditional use permit.
Cassia: Nursing homes and rest homes allowed by conditional use permit in single family
zones and permitted by right in the multiple use district.
Clearwater: Nursing and retirement homes and boarding houses allowed by conditional use
permit in the medium-high density residential district.
Custer: Boarding houses are allowed by special use permit.
Jefferson: Convalescent hospital, nursing home, sanitarium, rest home, or home for the
aged are permitted.
Jerome: Nursing and rest homes allowed by conditional use permit.
Kootenai: Nursing, retirement, and convalescent homes allowed by conditional use permit.
Owyhee: Boarding, convalescent, and nursing homes allowed by conditional use permit.
Some of these county zoning codes may in fact provide housing for groups other than the elderly,
depending on their definitions for the terms listed above.
The third group includes the remaining 14 counties, whose codes do not appear to mention
group housing facilities for those types of individuals protected by the FHAA. Once again, several
counties and have available overlay districts, conditional use permits, or planned unit development tools
that could be used to provide housing for groups protected by the FHAA on a case-by-case basis, but it
not clear whether they can or have been used for that purpose.
In addition, § 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B) of the FHAA provides that it is a violation of law for a
government to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such
55
accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling”. Because suits to enforce the provisions of the FHAA are not uncommon, counties can reduce
their liability if they can answer the question “How would we respond to an application for group
housing for the types of groups protected by the FHAA, either by pointing to a zone district or permit
system by which they can be approved, or to a “reasonable accommodation” process.
Manufactured Housing and Mobile Homes
Manufactured housing and mobile homes remain one of the more affordable forms of housing
available, and counties that do not accommodate them in some way may be limiting their citizens’
ability to find housing that they can afford. In general, more modern zoning codes use the terms “mobile
homes” to refer to homes (usually “single-wides”) constructed before 1976, when the federal National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (MHA) came into effect. That Act
set safety standards for the construction of manufactured homes and prohibited local governments
from adoption different construction and safety standards for those homes. Manufactured homes built
before those standards came into effect are considered less safe than those built later, and are subject
to lower levels of protection (generally by restricting them to mobile home parks) or are prohibited
altogether (subject to nonconforming use principles). Although the MHA addresses building safety --
not zoning, subdivision, or land use regulations – its intent was clearly to reduce local government
barriers to manufactured housing. It is therefore good practice to permit manufactured homes that
meet MHA in at least one residential zone, even if they are subject to design or development standards
to ensure that they fit in with the character of the surrounding communities.
A handful of the Idaho county codes specifically reference the State of Idaho code that requires
pre-1976 mobile homes to comply with rehabilitation standards for approval of relocation an instillation.
The intent of Idaho Code Title 44, Chapter 25, Mobile Home Rehabilitation, is to ensure safe and
affordable housing. The code requires instillation of smoke detectors, specific wall materials, proper
electrical, gas, and water systems among other regulations.
Twenty-four counties defined manufactured homes and mobile homes separately, while sixteen
of those counties actually treated them differently with separate standards. The remainder of the
counties did not differentiate manufactured homes from mobile homes and used the terms
interchangeably. Generally, local government codes address manufactured housing (or “mobile
homes”) in one of two ways, or combinations of those two ways. Forty-two of the 43 Idaho counties
adopt one of these two strategies, while the Franklin County code is silent about manufactured homes
and only referenced a separate county ordinance.
1. Definining single-family homes to include manufactured homes that meet applicable
development standards, or otherwise allowing them in some or all zones where single-
family homes are allowed. Counties in this category include:
Ada: Manufactured homes are considered a single-family dwelling unit and allowed
subject to standards in most residential districts as well as the two established
manufactured home districts.
Bannock: Individual manufactured homes are allowed where single-family
dwellings are permitted subject to standards.
56
Bear Lake: Individual manufactured homes are allowed in residential districts
(subject to standards that do not allow single-wides), and mobile home parks are
allowed by conditional use permits.
Bingham: Manufactured homes are considered a dwelling unit and allowed in all
residential districts, and manufactured home parks are permitted by special use
permit in the residential and commercial districts.
Blaine: Mobile homes are allowed in residential zones, subject to standards that do
not allow single-wides.
Boise: Manufactured homes are allowed in residential zones, subject to standards,
and manufactured home parks are permitted subject to special subdivision
standards.
Bonnerville: Manufactured homes are permitted in all residential districts, subject
to standards.
Boundary: Manufactured homes are allowed in residential districts subject to
standards, if they are considered a single-family dwelling unit.
Butte: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of single family homes,
and manufactured home parks are permitted in the agricultural and transitional
districts.
Camas: Mobile homes are allowed where single-family dwelling are permitted, and
mobile home parks are permitted by conditional use permit in the low- and high-
density residential districts.
Canyon: Manufactured homes are allowed where single-family uses are permitted.
Cassia: Manufactured homes are allowed in all residential districts and
manufactured home parks are permitted by conditional use permit in the residential
agricultural districts and the multiple use district subject to standards.
Clark: Manufactured homes are allowed in residential districts subject to standards
and mobile home parks (subject to standards) in the residential and rural districts.
Clearwater: Mobile homes are allowed in residential districts, and manufactured
home “courts” are permitted by conditional use permit in the commercial districts.
Elmore: Manufactured homes are allowed in single-family residential districts, and
manufactured home parks are permitted by conditional use permit in the
agricultural, residential, and recreation districts.
Fremont: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of single family
homes, and manufactured home parks are permitted in the rural conservation,
living and infill districts subject to standards.
Gem: Manufactured homes are allowed in residential districts subject to standards.
57
Gooding: Manufactured homes are defined as a single family dwelling unit, and
manufactured home “courts” are permitted in agriculture, recreation, and
commercial districts.
Idaho: Mobile homes are included in the definition of single family homes, and
mobile home parks are subject to minimal standards.
Jefferson: Manufactured homes are permitted in residential districts subject to
standards. Manufactured home parks are permitted in the agriculture and
recreation/commercial districts.
Jerome: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of a dwelling, and are
permitted in residential districts subject to standards. Manufactured home parks
are permitted in the commercial and industrial districts. [County website is not
longer available – unable to update]
Kootenai: Manufactured homes are permitted subject to standards and
manufactured home parks are permitted by conditional use permit in the high-
density residential district.
Latah: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of dwelling, and are
permitted wherever single-family dwelling units are permitted. Manufactured home
parks are permitted in the suburban residential district subject to standards.
Lemhi: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of single-family dwelling
and permitted where single-family dwellings are allowed.
Lewis: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of dwelling, and are
allowed in the multiple use district subject to standards.
Lincoln: Manufactured homes may be placed on any residential lot, subject to
standards.
Madison: Manufactured homes are considered single family dwellings, and
manufactured home parks are permitted in districts where single family homes are
permitted, subject to special subdivision standards.
Minidoka: Manufactured homes are allowed in all residential districts subject to
standards.
Nez Perce: Manufactured homes are allowed in all residential districts, and
manufactured home parks are allowed in the agricultural and agricultural-residential
districts.
Oneida: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of a single-family
dwelling, and manufactured home parks are permitted subject to standards.
Payette: Manufactured homes are allowed on single-family lots subject to
standards, and manufactured home parks are allowed subject to standards.
58
Power: Manufactured homes are included in the definition of a single-family
dwelling unit, and manufactured home parks are permitted in the rural residential
district subject to standards.
Shoshone: Manufactured homes are allowed, subject to conditions, in the natural
resource and multi-family districts and by conditional us e permit in the single-
family residential district. Mobile home parks are permitted by conditional use
permit in the residential district.
Teton: Manufactured homes are permitted in all districts except the manufacturing
district while manufactured home parks are allowed only in the residential, mobile
homes district.
Twin Falls: Manufactured homes are allowed where residential use is permitted,
subject to standards.
Valley: Mobile homes are treated as single family dwelling units, and mobile home
subdivisions are permitted by conditional use permit subject to compliance with the
“Minimum Standards and Criteria for Approval of Development and Operation of
Mobile Home Subdivisions and Parks, Travel Trailer Courts and Parks.”
Washington: Manufactured homes are allowed in residential districts, and
mobile/manufactured home parks are permitted by conditional use permit in the
commercial district subject to standards.
2. Restricting manufactured homes to manufactured home parks or districts, but not
allowing them in other residential zones.
Adams: Manufactured home parks are allowed in the commercial district, and by
conditional use permit in the rural residential district.
Bonner: Manufactured home parks are allowed in the commercial, rural service
center, and suburban districts by conditional use permit.
Caribou: Manufactured homes are permitted on lots within the county meeting
specific regulations, but the code does not specify which districts. Manufactured
home parks are allowed in the high density residential district by conditional use
permit.
Custer: Mobile home parks are allowed in the commercial district, and by
conditional use permit in the agriculture and agricultural transition district.
Owyhee: Manufactured home parks are allowed by conditional use permit.
In summary, approximately 37 counties treat manufactured homes as the same (or almost the
same) as stick-built manufactured homes and five counties limit manufactured homes to parks specially
designed for that purpose. The prevailing practice in Idaho is therefore to accept manufactured homes
on individual residential lots in at least some zone districts, and those counties that do not allow them
on individual lots should consider doing so.
Accessory Dwelling Units
59
Accessory dwelling units (a second, smaller residential lot on a parcel that already contains a
primary dwelling unit) have been identified as an important tool in promoting housing affordability.
Their limited size helps reduce building or conversion costs, and because they are located on already
existing lots there are no additional land costs. In some cases they are restricted to “internal” units (i.e.
a conversion of space within an existing building), or to “external” units (i.e. a carriage house or barn
conversion), but many local governments allow both types.
Over half (25) of Idaho county zoning codes address secondary dwelling units. However, many
of those codes limit them to “guest houses” or “farm and ranch” operations or to occupancy by family
members. As a practical matter, secondary dwelling units that are only to be occupied on an occasional
basis by guests of the owner of the primary structure are not meaningful additions to the stock of
affordable housing. They do not increase the amount of long-term housing available for those of limited
means to rent or buy. On the other hand, secondary units that can be rented or occupied for support of
farm or ranch operations do expand the supply of affordable housing, because they reduce pressures on
the remainder of the housing stock to meet the needs of those workers. For the same reason,
secondary units limited to family members also represent additions to the pool of affordable housing.
Idaho counties tend to address secondary dwelling units in one of three ways. As noted above,
18 counties do not address them at all. This includes two counties that define the term “guest house”
but do not indicate where they are allowed and one count that specifically doesn’t include residential
uses in the definition of an accessory structure. Of the remaining counties, 6 limit them to guest houses
that are probably not available for long-term occupancy in the housing market, or restrict them to use
by family members or non-rental purposes, 3 limit them to use in connection with farm and ranch
operations, and 17 address them in other ways. The counties in each category are listed below.
Limited to Guest House, Family Members, or Non-Rental: Counties that limit secondary
units to guest house or that restrict them to use by family members or prohibit rental use
include:
Bannock, Boundary (except in industrial district), Clark, Kootenai, Latah, and Owyhee.
Farm/Ranch Use: Counties that limit occupancy to farm and ranch use include:
Adams, Bingham, and Butte.
Other: Counties that do not limit the use of secondary dwelling units, or limit them in
different ways, include:
o Ada: Permitted in low and medium density residential districts.
o Bear Lake: Secondary residential or caretaker housing permitted in all districts.
o Blaine: Allowed in all residential districts.
o Bonner: One per lot permitted in all districts.
o Camas: Allowed in agricultural and agricultural transition districts on lots of 2.5 acres or
larger.
o Canyon: Permitted in single-family and medium density residential zones.
o Caribou: Allowed by special permit in residential districts.
o Custer: Allowed in agricultural, commercial, or industrial districts, and by special permit
in residential districts.
60
o Elmore: Allowed in residential districts.
o Fremont: Allowed in residential districts.
o Jefferson: Allowed by conditional use permit in agriculture and residential-5 district.
o Lemhi: Allowed in all residential districts.
o Madison: Allowed in all but commercial and heavy industrial districts.
o Nez Perce: Allowed in all residential districts except the highest density district.
o Power: Allowed in agricultural and residential districts.
o Teton: Allowed in residential districts, and by conditional use permit in agricultural
districts.
o Valley: Allowed in all districts.
In general, this shows a strong acceptance of secondary dwelling units in many Idaho counties.
Those counties that impose family use or non-rental requirements, or that limit these units to farm and
ranch operations, should consider removing those restrictions in order to increase the value of
secondary units as a form of affordable housing. In many cases, there would be no significant
differences in land use impacts (and potential savings in enforcement costs) if those restrictions were
removed.
Parking Requirements
Minimum parking requirements for residential uses affect housing affordability by requiring
more land per dwelling unit. While the norm for many years has been to require two off-street parking
spaces per dwelling unit, a growing number of communities are lowering that standard for certain types
of housing where experience has shown that occupants may own fewer cars. While most single family
lots (even small ones) can accommodate space for two cars in addition to the house, most zoning codes
prohibit “tandem” parking – i.e. the parking of one car behind another in a garage or driveway – which
means that two off-street spaces must be provided in a side-by-side configuration. That tends to lead
to wider houses and wider lots to accommodate them, which increases housing prices because of the
longer utilities needed to serve wider lots. In the case of multi-family housing, the two-spaces-per-
dwelling-unit requirement can significantly reduce the number of dwelling units that a given parcel of
land can accommodate. Since the lowest cost parking spaces are those at grade (i.e. not in garages
either above or below ground), minimum parking requirements tend to shrink the footprint available for
the apartments or condominiums, and that (along with low height limits) often restricts the final density
of development below the maximum density that is in theory available under the zoning code.
Unfortunately, minimum off-street parking requirements have a way of increasing over time. In
response to a particular parking problem, the council or commissioners may raise parking standards for
several types of uses. However, there is no corresponding pressure to reconsider and lower parking
standards even if parking spaces are going unused. Studies routinely find that a significant amount of
parking required by local governments is seldom if ever occupied, and we routinely find local
governments whose parking standards for the same use differ by 100% or more. For these reasons, it is
wise to revisit parking standards periodically and to consider which could be lowered in order to
promote more efficient and affordable housing development.
Of the 43 Idaho counties surveyed, 29 have minimum parking standards for single family homes;
the remaining 14 are silent on the issue. All but two of the counties with minimum parking standards
61
follow the “two-spaces-per-dwelling-unit” norm (or an even higher standard for units with many
bedrooms) for minimum off-street parking. The two exceptions are Ada and Kootenai Counties, which
use a one-space-per-dwelling-unit standard.
There is much more variation in how Idaho counties address parking for multi-family units. Of
the 43 counties surveyed, 27 have multi-family parking standards, while 16 do not.
2 per unit: 13 counties still use the two-per-unit standard (or a higher standard for guest
parking and units with many bedrooms): This group includes:
o Adams, Bingham, Boise, Bonnerville, Canyon, Freemont, Lemhi, Madison (although a
lower standard is applied to developments with more than 70 units), Minidoka, Payette,
Power, Teton, and Twin Falls Counties.
1.5 per unit: Another 11 counties require only one-and-a-half spaces per dwelling unit
(although they may require more for larger units). This group includes:
o Ada, Bannock, Blaine, Butte, Caribou, Cassia, Custer, Gem, Jerome, Shoshone, and
Washington Counties.
1 per unit: Finally, a few counties use a one-space-per-unit standard (although larger units
may require more). This group includes:
Bonner, Clearwater, and Elmore Counties.
With about one-third of Idaho counties not imposing a minimum off-street parking requirement for
multi-family housing, and another third using a standard of one or one-and-a-half spaces per unit, there
is ample precedent for Idaho counties to reduce minimum parking standards below the traditional two-
space standard.
Because lower income households may own fewer cars, and because many special needs
residents to not own cars, many local governments adopt lower parking standards for affordable or
group housing developments. Twenty-five of the 43 counties surveyed had special parking standards for
special types of housing uses. These standards vary greatly depending on the types of group living to
which they apply, but the following generalizations can be made.
Standard: The most common standard in use is a one-space-per-two-beds standard, which is
applied across a wide range of facilities including retirement homes, rest homes,
boarding houses, assisted living facilities, and various types of group homes. While
far less than 50% of the residents of these facilities may own cars, the “extra”
accommodates parking for administrative staff and visitors. Counties using this
standard include Butte, Caribou, Cassia (for nursing homes), Gem, Jefferson,
Jerome, and Madison (for nursing homes), Minidoka, Nez Perce, Payette, Shoshone,
and Washington.
Interestingly, other counties apply a one-space-per-bed standard (100% greater) to
some of the same uses. Counties using this standard include Bingham, Blaine,
Bonnerville, Cassia (for boarding houses), and Madison (for boarding houses). In
light of experience in other Idaho counties, these standards could probably be
lowered. As shown below, a few counties use standards lower than either the one-
space-per-two-beds or the one-space-per-bed standard, and counties seeking to
promote affordability should consider those lower standards.
62
High: Some of the group living parking standards appear higher than is normal for the use
involved, and might be lowered. These include:
Two spaces per rest home bed (Lemhi County).
One space per 250 sq. ft. of group living (Lewis County).
Two spaces per bed (Power County).
Low: On the other hand, some parking standards used by Idaho Counties are significantly
lower than those in common use. Counties seeking to promote more affordable
group housing may want to consult with these jurisdictions about the performance
of these standard and (if the lower standards are working well) consider lowering
their own standards.
One space per eight beds in nursing facilities (Ada and Elmore Counties).
One space per floor of boarding house (Custer County).
One space per five beds in nursing, retirement, or convalescent homes
(Kootenai County).
Housing Incentives
Generally, the profitability of residential development depends strongly on the price for which
the final units can be sold or rented. So dwelling units designed (or required) to be sold or rented at
more affordable rates produce smaller profits – and smaller profit margins increase development risk.
To maintain the same profit margin on affordable units (as compared with market rate units), the
builder has to either (1) obtain the land a lower price than the market rate developer, or (2) build more
units on the land than market rate developers, or (3) In most communities, however, land is sold to the
buyer able to pay the highest price, so it is not likely that an affordable builder will obtain land at a lower
price. In order to avoid paying subsidies, many local governments offer incentives that effectively allow
affordable builders to build more units on the site. Typically, that involves allowing a higher
development density, a taller height limit, smaller lot sizes, or lower parking requirements, or some
combination of those tools.
Unfortunately, none of the 43 counties survey had objective affordable housing incentives
included in their zoning or subdivision ordinances. Fremont county includes a reference to affordability
as an intended purpose behind both its PUD regulations and its Rural Village district, but it is not clear
what types of incentives or flexibility is offered or whether those tools have been applied to promote
affordable housing development. In addition, several counties and have available overlay districts,
conditional use permits, or planned unit development tools that could be used to provide affordable
housing incentives on a case-by-case basis, but it not clear whether they have been used for that
purpose.
TASK 2 REPORT ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DENVER:
BEST PRACTICES & IHO REVIEW
PREPARED BY
CLARION ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO, LLC
SEPTEMBER 2008
Clarion Associates 2
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
1. INTRODUCTION
This is the second of three reports by Clarion Associates addressing barriers to affordable housing and
potential incentives to encourage production of affordable housing through Denver’s zoning system. This
effort is funded by Enterprise Community Partners and directed by the Denver Community Planning
Department as part of the city’s current Zoning Ordinance Update.
Clarion Associates’ Task 1 report reviewed ten studies documenting Denver’s growing affordable housing gap.
While those studies show that the city faces shortfalls of affordable housing in many categories, the most
serious needs are for those households who can afford to pay no more than $1,000 per month for housing,
which corresponds to a feasible purchase price of $148,660. That category includes an anticipated shortfall of
47,803 multi-family units (apartments, duplexes, condos, and townhouses) and represents at least two-thirds of
Denver’s estimated affordable housing shortage. There are also shortfalls in the supply of affordable small-
and medium-sized single family detached homes for households that can pay more than $1,000 in rent or
mortgage payments. While Denver’s new form-based zoning code should strive to increase housing
affordability for both multi-family and single family structures, the city’s affordable housing gap cannot be
significantly narrowed unless it focuses on increasing the supply of affordable multi-family units in particular.
It is important to note that providing housing for households in this income group will require much more than
zoning changes – it will require significant financial incentives and may require financial subsidies. While
zoning cannot solve this problem, it can contribute to the solution; in fact, given the size of the unmet needs, it
is important that Denver address the challenge with a variety of tools. The focus on zoning in this report does
not imply that zoning is the most important part of the solution – it is simply the portion of the puzzle that
Clarion Associates has been asked to evaluate.
Denver’s Zoning Ordinance update project creates important opportunities to encourage the provision of
affordable housing. Traditional zoning’s focus on numerical limits on density, lot coverage, height, and
setbacks, as well as minimum requirements for lot size, dwelling unit size, and on-site parking can create
unintended barriers to affordable housing. Eight of those barriers were identified in our Task 1 report. By
carefully studying the form of different Denver neighborhoods and adopting regulations focused more on
appropriate forms than numerical limits, form-based zoning can avoid some of the barriers identified in the
Task 1 report. In addition, while the new Denver zones will still control land use, form-based zoning often
takes a lighter hand on use controls, which could open doors for a broader range housing uses (including but
not limited to accessory dwelling units). The city also anticipates that the move to form-based zoning will
create more opportunities for “by-right” development, without the need for special approvals and hearings, and
those time savings can contribute to reduced project costs and improved affordability.
Some of these advantages have already been achieved in Denver’s first foray into form-based districts – the
Main Street Districts – where a combination of new building forms and reduced parking requirements opens up
opportunities for significantly higher housing densities and corresponding improvements in affordability.
When compared to previous B-4 zoning with a maximum FAR of 2:1, the MS districts allow effective FARs of
between 2.7 and 7:1. If Denver’s other form-based districts produce similar effects, the impact on affordable
housing supply in the city could be very positive. This is not an inherent result of form-based zoning however,
it is a result of the approach to form-based controls taken in the Main Street districts. The challenge of this
collaborative effort is to encourage that outcome – to look carefully at specific barriers so that the new draft
form-based districts can be reviewed with those barriers in mind. While Denver’s Zoning Code Task Force,
and ultimately the City Council, will clearly need to balance many divergent goals in the final design of its
new zoning districts, these reports are not the proper forum for making those trade-offs. Instead, these studies
are designed to focus exclusively on issues of affordable housing and to suggest ways in which form-based
zoning can best respond to those challenges.
Clarion Associates 3
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
With this focus in mind, this Task 2 report is organized around the eight regulatory barriers to affordable
housing in the current Denver Zoning Ordinance identified in the Task 1 study, including:
1. The Development Review Process (specifically, opportunities for NIMBYism, the “culture of
negotiation”, and the frequent need for rezonings and variances);
2. Permitted Density Limits;
3. Minimum Dwelling Unit Sizes (in residential zone districts);
4. Minimum Parking Requirements;
5. Maximum Lot Coverage Limits;
6. Building Stepback Requirements;
7. Need for Accessory Dwelling Units; and
8. Minimum Lot Sizes (in residential zone districts)
This Task 2 report identifies new or revised incentives for affordable housing and possible revisions to the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (“IHO”), and includes a review of several zoning practices, programs, and
incentives used by other U.S. cities throughout the U.S. A third phase of work in early fall 2008 will ensure
that the city’s new form-based zoning districts address these barriers and incentives. Clarion Associates met
with the Affordable Housing Advisory Group on August 4, 2008 to discuss this second work task and to hear
its comments on Denver’s current IHO.
2. BEST PRACTICES: A REVIEW OF SELECTED CITIES
This section is divided into three separate but related parts. The first part is a review of regulatory incentives
for affordable housing used in several large North American cities. The second section includes a review of
mandatory IHO programs in other large cities to compare their requirements and incentives to those included
in Denver’s IHO. These reviews covered a total of 13 cities, including
Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; Vancouver, BC; Chicago, IL; Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; Milwaukee,
WI; Los Angeles, CA; San Diego, CA, San Francisco, CA; Santa Barbara, CA; Sacramento, CA; and Madison
WI. A large number of California cities made our list because the California’s severe affordable housing
problem and state-mandated housing goals have led many communities to implement some type of IHO
program.
Third, we reviewed the form-based codes (“FBC”) of six other North American cities to see how they merged
new form-based approaches with incentives for more affordable housing. Cities reviewed included Petaluma,
CA; Miami, FL; Lawrence, KS; and Ventura, CA.
2.1 Development Code Incentives for Affordable Housing
This section summarizes the general zoning incentives for affordable housing (not included in a mandatory
IHO program) for several large U.S. cities. In general, these include zoning provisions that allow additional
residential density, height increases, FAR increases, parking reductions, or other incentive to affordable
housing even if the resulting housing is not income- or price-restricted. These incentives are often included
based on a belief that creation of smaller residential units or more dense residential development reduces the
land price per unit and results in housing that is more affordable. Similarly, an incentive that directly reduces
developments costs, such as reduced parking, may save enough cost to make a project financially viable or
may allow the owner to build housing at lower unit prices.
Clarion Associates 4
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
Portland, OR
Portland does not have an IHO but offers a wide variety of development incentives for increased residential
and mixed use density, height increases, and other affordable housing incentives.
• Accessory dwelling units:
o Allowed in all residential districts (800 sq. ft. maximum). No parking required. ADU not counted
against maximum density calculation
• General density bonuses:
o Allows conversion of existing single family residences into duplexes in the R2.5 Zone
o Duplexes and roughhouses allowed on corners in single family zones
o Higher density allowed on transitional lots (i.e., adjacent to commercial zones)
o Zero lot line development permitted
• Mixed use:
o Mixed-use opportunities in several zones (especially the CM zone) with additional FAR for residential
components in commercial zones
• Floor area bonus (for targeted areas within central city). Builders receive FAR bonuses for providing:
o Large units (i.e., units with more than 2 bedrooms can earn add. floor area)
o Middle income units (i.e., 30% of housing must be affordable to those at 150% of AMI)
o Contribution to the Affordable Housing Replacement Fund
o Small development site option for sites less than 15,000 sq. ft.
• Height bonus (limited to certain areas):
o Additional height must be for housing only
o No more than 75 ft. increase allowed
• Parking
o No more than one parking space required for any housing unit, with liberal adjustment options for less
or no parking for units within the Central City and near public transit
• Transfer of development rights in the center city
o Limited to adjacent properties within one development site
o Transfer rights from sites with SROs (to encourage retention of SRO properties) to anywhere in
Central City District
o Transfer of excess residential development potential from existing residential properties to anywhere
in Central City District (effort to prevent conversion of existing housing)
• Urban Renewal
o 30% of all housing within designated urban renewal districts must be affordable (i.e., IHOs are illegal
in Oregon but the city can make such conditions when public money is used to finance the project)
Seattle, WA
Seattle does not have an IHO but it does have voluntary density and height bonuses for affordable housing,
mostly targeted to the downtown zone. The state recently passed legislation making it easier to do
inclusionary housing, so the city is poised to develop new requirements for affordable housing on a
community-wide scale.
• ADUs:
o Allowed on most single family lots, provided the lot is at least 4,000 sq. ft. in size and not located in
certain overlay zones (e.g., shoreline district)
• Clustered housing:
o Permits smaller lot sizes than base zoning in single family zones in return for more open space
Clarion Associates 5
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
• Planned residential development (PRD):
o Allows 20% density bonus if development provides affordable housing, public open space, child care
facilities, or public meeting or recreational facilities
• Bonus commercial floor area:
o In the Downtown Zone, to off-set additional impacts from commercial FAR bonuses, the applicant
must either build affordable housing or child care facilities (20% of which must be reserved for low
income families) or pay into a fund to allow city to build such facilities. Similar provision exist for
non-residential and industrial zones
• Bonus residential floor area
o In the Downtown Zone, to off-set additional impacts from the residential FAR bonuses, the applicant
must either build low-income and moderate-income housing or pay into a fund to allow city to build
such housing.
• Parking
o Allows tandem parking for multi-family units, but counts two-car tandems as 1.5 spaces
o Additional parking reductions available for affordable projects
Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis does not have an IHO but it has some modest incentives for affordable housing.
• Density bonuses for affordable housing (limited to R-3 through R-6 Districts). The maximum number of
dwelling units and the maximum floor area ratio of new cluster developments and new multiple-family
dwellings of five (5) units or more may be increased by twenty (20) percent if at least twenty (20) percent
of the dwelling units meet the definition of affordable housing. A similar bonus is available in some office
and commercial districts. NOTE: This bonus is rarely used. According to staff, it has been used perhaps
five times since its adoption in 2002. The city offers a density bonus for enclosed parking and for mixed
commercial-residential buildings that are used much more frequently – but the additional dwelling units
produced by those two bonuses are not limited by affordability standards.
• Parking
o Base requirement of 1 space per dwelling unit
o Some by right parking reductions allowed for market multi-family housing
• City-assisted Projects
o Twenty percent (20%) of the units of each city-assisted housing project of 10 or more units must be
affordable to households earning 50% or less of the AMI. Affordable units may include any mix of
rental and/or homeownership, and can be located on the project site or anywhere within the city.
Chicago, IL
Chicago has a mandatory IHO but it applies only in limited circumstances (see below for details). Its
primary non-mandatory incentive is an affordable housing bonus in the downtown area.
• Downtown affordable housing bonus (optional). Developers in the downtown zoning districts
(DC, DX, and DR with a FAR of 5.0 or higher) are eligible for additional square footage for
residential development projects in those districts in exchange for either providing on-site
affordable housing or contributing to the city’s Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund. Maximum
increases are (a) 20% increase if base FAR is 5.0, (b) 25% increase if base FAR is 7.0 or 10.0, and
(c) 30% increase if base FAR is 12.0 or 16.0. These bonuses have produced only 34 units since
2002.
Clarion Associates 6
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
2.2 Inclusionary Housing Ordinances:
A mandatory Inclusionary Housing Ordinance goes beyond voluntary incentives to require the construction of
affordable housing in connection with certain types of development projects. While some IHOs (including
Denver’s) have additional voluntary components, this portion of the report focuses on experience with the
mandatory IHO components. The building community often opposes mandatory IHOs because of the added cost
of cross-subsidizing affordable units, frustration with complying with the complex IHO provisions, or
philosophical disagreement over interference with the housing market, and tends to prefer voluntary incentives.
However, research tends to indicate that voluntary IHOs have rarely been successful at creating significant
amounts of affordable housing, and the number of cities considering mandatory IHOs is increasing.
Philadelphia, PA, IHO
• Applicability
o Any development project constructing or rehabilitating 20 or more dwelling units (including
condominium conversions)
o Applies to both rental and for sale projects
• Requirement
o 5% at below 80% of AMI, such that the median price of units is affordable to a household with
income at 40% of AMI; and
o 5% at below 125% of AMI, such that the median price of units is affordable to a household with
income at 100% of AMI;
o If applicant elects to build required units off-site, the requirement rises to 15% affordable units at
same 50/50 ratio described above; or
o Fee-in-lieu option is available.
o Required affordable housing can be either rental or ownership units.
• Duration
o For sale units must remain affordable for 10 years. Rental units must stay affordable for 15 years.
Santa Barbara, CA, IHO
• Applicability
o All residential ownership developments of 10 or more units
• Requirement
o 15% of the total units must be constructed for middle income (120% – 160% AMI) and upper-middle
income (160% - 200%) buyers
o Also applies to sales of lots in residential subdivisions
o Compliance can be achieved by building units on-site, building off-site, paying a fee-in-lieu (required
for subdivisions), or dedicating land
• Incentives
o Density bonus: For each affordable units built on site, the developer gets one bonus market unit
o Zoning ordinance modifications: Modifications to parking, setback, yard area, lot area, open space and
solar access requirements may be made to facilitate development of affordable housing
o Reduction of fee-in-lieu for smaller market units: If average is 1,400 to 1,699 sq. ft., fee is reduced by
15%; if average is 1,100 to 1,399 sq. ft., fee is reduced by 20%; if average is 800 to 1,099 sq. ft., fee is
reduced by 25%; if average is below 800 sq. ft., fee is reduced by 30%.
• State density bonus
o The state requires that density bonuses be given for projects that provide 50% of units for seniors,
20% for low income households, or 10% for very-low income households. Santa Barbara provides
other density bonuses for projects that do not meet the state requirements.
Clarion Associates 7
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
Madison, WI, IHO1
• Applicability
o All developments (both single-family and multi-family) with 10 or more ownership units. Prior to a
recent state court case ruled that applying IHOs to rental projects constituted illegal rent control, the
city also applied these provisions to rental projects
• Requirement
o Must provide 15% affordable units priced for 80% AMI
o However, development with 49 or fewer detached dwelling units or 4 or more stories and at least 75%
underground parking can provide all required units priced at 100% AMI
• Incentives
o Revenue offsets: Applicant can request offsets equal to the project value lost due to the inclusionary
units. The offsets can include any one or more of the following:
• Density bonus of up to 10%
• Reduction of park development fees and/or park dedication requirements
• 25% Reduction in parking requirements
• Cash subsidy up to $5,000 per affordable unit at or below 50% AMI; or $2,500 per unit for all
other affordable units
• An additional story in Downtown Design Zone
• Up to 75% of required units may be provided in multi-family units
• Eligibility for residential parking permits equal to number of affordable units
• Expedited review
• Reduced street widths
o If offsets do not cover 95% of the revenue differential of the project, the applicant may request:
• Permission to provide affordable units off-site or assign obligation to another person as long as (a)
off-site units are located with one mile of project or within the same school district, if feasible,
and assigned units include all remaining required units, and/or make a payment into the
Inclusionary Zoning Special Fund
• An additional density bonus
• A reduction in the required number of units
San Diego, CA, IHO
• Applicability
o All new residential development (i.e., for sale, rental, condo conversion) of two units or more, except
those where units are affordable to households at less than 150% AMI
• Requirement
o Must provide 10% affordable units – rental units at 65% AMI or ownership units at 100% AMI.
o Compliance can be achieved by building on-site, building off-site, or paying a fee-in-lieu (fees-in-lieu
are higher for projects over 10 units)
o Variance/ waiver: Applicant can apply for a variance or full waiver based on proof of special
circumstance, financial hardship, or that no alternative means of compliance is possible
1 NOTE: Madison is currently considering changes to its IHO so some of the below information may be modified in the
future.
Clarion Associates 8
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
San Francisco, CA, IHO
• Applicability
o All housing projects of five or more units
• Requirement
o Must provide 15% affordable units; but for certain types of projects over 120 ft. in height the
requirement is reduced to 12%
o Compliance may be achieved by building on-site, building off-site, or paying a fee-in-lieu. In the case
of on-site construction, the applicant can get a refund of conditional use review fees, environmental
review fees, or building permit fees for affordable units
o Waiver/reduction: Applicant can request reduction or waiver of requirement if applicant can
demonstrate that proposed project will not create need for affordable housing
Sacramento, CA, IHO
• Applicability
o All new rental and ownership housing projects located in a defined New Growth Area, which includes
specifically mapped areas, major redevelopment areas, and newly annexed areas
• Requirement
o 10% affordable to very low income households at 50% AMI
o 5% affordable to low income households at 80% AMI
o Compliance can be achieved by building on-site or off-site or by dedication of land; no cash-in-lieu
fee option is offered
• Incentives: City may approve a mix of the following incentives:
o Fee waivers or deferrals
o Modification of planning and public works development standards (e.g., road widths, curb, gutter,
parking, minimum lot size, lot coverage, etc.)
o Streamlining and priority processing
o State-mandated density bonuses
o Public funding (provided external funding sources were sought first)
2.3 Form-Based Zoning
Because form-based zoning controls are relatively new, their interaction with affordable housing goals and
programs has not been studied over time. Because most form-based controls are based on definitions of allowable
building forms in certain areas, they could in theory make it easier or more difficult to build affordable housing. If
the menu of allowed building forms in a neighborhood includes some that allow for more efficient layouts of
dwelling units or allow sites to set aside smaller areas for parking, they could facilitate affordable housing
construction. On the other hand, if the menu of allowable forms restricts building density, height, or lot coverage
more than “standard” density or height controls, the form-based approach could complicate the construction of
affordable units. Similarly, the approval procedures for form-based codes could help or hinder affordable housing
construction depending on whether it is faster or slower than “standard” approvals (including frequent variances).
Our analysis focuses on cities that have adopted form-based controls for at least part of their community and that
have a population of at least 100,000 people. While we would have preferred to study cities that have applied
form-based zoning over large land areas, that is not yet possible; larger cities have tended to adopt these types of
controls in only limited areas or as a voluntary alternative to standard zoning. It is therefore not possible to draw
clear conclusions of the effect of applying form controls broadly across a larger city. It is possible, however, to
Clarion Associates 9
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
evaluate how form-based zoning has incorporated (or not incorporated) affordable housing incentives or
approaches, and that review is summarized below.
Petaluma, CA, Form Controls
• General: Petaluma adopted a SmartCode in 2003 and applied it to a 400 acre infill area adjacent
to its downtown. The city modified the SmartCode by replacing many of its prescriptive design
requirements with more flexible standards better suited to local circumstances. The code is
implemented by the Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
• Affordable Housing: Petaluma’s SmartCode does not have any special provisions for affordable
housing, but no significant conflicts with affordable housing were reported either. Staff does not
believe that form-based controls have created barriers to affordable housing in projects submitted
to date.
Lawrence, KS, Form Controls
• General: Lawrence recently adopted a form-based mixed use district and is in the process of adopting a
city-wide version of the SmartCode.
• Mixed-Use District:
o Operates as a floating district that can be applied wherever a property meets the locational criteria
(close to transit, downtown, the university, major intersections, or public parks).
o Uses a point system to allocate points for each public benefit included in the project, which can then
be used to claim specific bonuses.
o Public benefits that can earn points include:
• Moderately priced dwelling units (100 points for first 10%);
• Targeted mix of desired housing types (variable points);
• Near transit stop (100), fire station (10), police station (10), park (25), school (25), or cultural
center (25);
• Redevelopment of existing commercial or residential center with adequate infrastructure in place
(75);
• Adjacent to major intersection (15);
• Green roof or roof top garden (75);
• Stormwater BMPs (25-50);
• LEED certified structures (100);
• Protection of sensitive land features (25 points per feature).
o Bonuses that can be earned
• Increased residential density (1 additional unit per acre per 10 points);
• Increased building coverage maximum (up to 100% for 75 points);
• Increased building height (12 ft for every 100 points);
• Reduced parking requirement (1 space for every 5 points);
• Increased impervious surface maximum (up to 100% for 75 points).
• City-wide SmartCode: The city-wide SmartCode under consideration for adoption is structured very
similarly to the above Mixed-Use District.
• Affordable Housing: The city’s point-based incentive system includes the same kinds of development
bonuses – density increases, height increases, parking reductions – used by many cities with “standard”
zoning systems. As long as the code’s other design standards allow developers to take full advantage of
these bonuses, (i.e., the code does not limit them to building forms where the bonuses cannot be used),
Lawrence’s form-based controls may not create any significant barriers to affordable housing.
Clarion Associates 10
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
Ventura, CA, Form Controls
• General: Ventura first adopted form-based controls for its downtown area through a stand-alone
code that replaced all of the city’s previous zoning and design standards. Based on an interview
with staff, it has been a success and they are currently considering adopting additional form-based
plans for infill areas and major corridors. In contrast to Petaluma, Ventura, adopted their
downtown form-based controls on a trial basis and aggressively educated the development
community and city officials on its purpose and implementation. It has taken some time and
modification, but the program is creating the kind of built environment the city intended.
• Affordable Housing: The city has not had any major conflicts between its form controls and its
need to meet state goals for affordable housing. One staff member did acknowledge that the city
was initially very concerned initially that affordable projects, especially dense ones, would not be
consistent with the design elements of the new zoning or that the form-based procedures and
requirements would make affordable housing prohibitively expensive. The lack of conflict to date
may be explained partially by the fact that California law mandates that each city provide its fair
share of housing, so the city had already made difficult decisions about how much and where new
affordable housing was to be located before the form-based controls were adopted. In other words,
the permitted forms were chosen in part with affordable housing mandates in mind.
Miami, FL, Form Controls
• General: Miami is in the process of adopting a city-wide form-based code called Miami 21 that
will replace the current zoning code. If adopted, it would be the most comprehensive form-based
code in the country to date. The goal is to create a streamlined review process that will be more
efficient and predictable than the current one. A summary of the entire code is beyond the scope of
this report but it does have some features applicable to affordable housing.
• Affordable Housing: Much like Lawrence, KS, Miami’s proposed controls have a “public
benefits program” that provides density increases in exchange for targeted public benefits, one of
which is affordable/workforce housing. The incentives for affordable housing apply only to
properties in the T6 Zone (i.e., the most dense Transect Zone) and operate as follows:
o On-site affordable/ workforce housing: The development shall be allowed two square feet of
additional floor area for each square foot of on-site affordable/workforce housing provided, up to the
bonus capacity allowed (see below);
o Off- site affordable/workforce housing: The development shall be allowed one square foot of
additional floor area for each square foot of off-site affordable/workforce housing provided in a
location approved by the City Manager, up to the bonus capacity allowed (see below);
o Contribution to affordable housing trust fund: For a cash contribution to the Miami 21 Public Benefit
Trust Fund, the development shall be allowed additional floor area up to the bonus height allowed.
The methodology for calculating the value of land per sq. ft. shall be maintained in the Miami
Planning Department.
o Bonus floor/story capacity regulations:
• T6-8: Bonus from eight (8) stories to twelve (12)
• T6-12 Bonus from twelve (12) stories to twenty (20)
• T6-24 Bonus from twenty-four (24) stories to forty-eight (48)
• T6-36 Bonus from thirty-six (36) stories to sixty (60)
• T6-48 Bonus from forty-eight (48) stories to unlimited stories (Downtown CBD only)
Of the four form-based zoning programs reviewed, two did not have special provisions for affordable housing, but
did not see the form-based approach as creating additional obstacles. The remaining two programs included
provisions very much like those used by non-form based zoning systems. In one of those two cases, the form-
Clarion Associates 11
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
based approach allowed the building forms themselves to vary (i.e. to become significantly taller) in order to
accommodate affordable units. However, that flexibility in building form was limited to the T6 transect area – the
downtown area – where compatibility with surrounding heights and forms may be less politically sensitive than in
outlying residential neighborhoods (for example, the T4 or T5 transect areas).
Summary Table
The table below summarizes those incentives offered by each of these cities that relate to the eight
identified affordable housing barriers in Denver.
Clarion Associates 12
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
SUMMARY
TABLE
Barriers Identified In Task 1 Report
Cities
Studied
Review
Process
Density
Limits
Min DU
Size
Parking
Reqts.
Lot Cover
Limits
Bldg.
Stepback
Reqts.
ADUs Min Lot
Sizes
General Incentives
Portland, OR
Several 1 space/du All
residential
districts
Seattle, WA
20% bonus
for AH;
Reduced for
AH projects
Most SFD
districts
Cluster lots
Minneapolis, MN
20% bonus
available
1 space/du
& reduced
for AH
Chicago, IL
20-30%
bonus for
AH on
sliding
scale
IHO Incentives
Philadelphia, PA No incentives offered
Santa Barbara, CA
1 more
unit per
AH unit
Reduced for
AH
Reduced
for AH
Reduced
for AH
Madison, WI
Clarion Associates 13
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
3. IHO REVIEW
Denver adopted its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) in August of 2002 following extensive debate and
controversy. The ordinance is codified as Part IV of Title 27 of the Denver Municipal Code, and some of its
provisions were noted in the Task 1 study. Although originally anticipated to apply to both rental and ownership
projects with 30 units or more, the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Lot 34 Ventures v. Telluride clarified
Colorado’s constitutional ban on rent controls and the ordinance was amended so that its mandatory requirements
apply only to ownership units. Multi-family rental projects can still participate voluntarily. At this time, the city
believes that the extension of the IHO to rental units would not be legal, but Clarion was asked to review issues
related to IHOs and rental units in the event this opinion or the underlying legislation is changed.
Throughout this discussion it is important to remember that the IHO was designed to increase the supply of
“workforce housing” – i.e. ownership housing units between 80 and 95% of AMI. This income range was chosen
because (with the exception of single-family revenue bonds) Denver did not have the ability to assist homebuyers
in this range, and shortages of housing in this range could affect the ability of Denver employers to attract the
employees they need. To emphasize that fact it uses the term “Moderately Priced Dwelling Units” (“MPDUs”) and
not “affordable housing” to describe the required housing. This study uses the same term throughout this section 3,
but the difference is more than semantic. In the Task 1 study we identified the largest need as being for affordable
multi-family or attached units for households that can pay up to $1,000 per month for housing. Most of that need
will have to be met through rental units, but the IHO addresses only ownership units. The question of expanding
the IHO to address rental housing is discussed below, but in the meantime it is important to recall that the IHO was
not designed to address the area of greatest unmet housing need in Denver (generally under 60% AMI).
3.1 IHO Summary
Denver’s IHO is based on the following set of requirements and incentives:
Standard Provisions: Non-elevator multi-family condo projects with 30-200 units:
• Must provide at least 10% of units as MPDUs priced for those earning 80% of AMI
• Resale restricted for 15 years to buyer earning 80% of AMI, with the owner to enforce and city to
monitor resales
• City provides $5,500 cash payment for each unit restricted at 80% AMI and $10,000 for each unit
restricted to 60% AMI, for up to 50% of the units
• City provides 10% density bonus and 20% parking requirement reduction
• Cash-in-lieu accepted at 50% of sale price for each affordable unit required but not built
• City offers expedited 180 day site plan review for projects that fully comply with all requirements.
Special Provisions for Elevator Projects: Projects with 30-200 units, elevators, more than 3 stories, and
at least 60% structured parking:
• Must provide at least 10% of units as MPDUs priced for those earning 95% AMI
• Resale restricted for 15 years to buyer earning 95% of AMI, Owner to enforce, and city to monitor
resales
• City provides cash payment of $5,500 for each unit restricted at 80% AMI for up to 50% of the units
• City provides 10% density bonus and 20% parking requirement reduction
• If unit is rented out, renter must earn no more than 80% of AMI
Special Provisions for Larger Projects: Large projects (over 200 units) are still subject to the 10%
MPDU requirement, but can choose to average affordability over a range. Non elevator projects must have
an average MPDU price of 80% of AMI, but some units can be priced at up to 100% AMI if others are
Clarion Associates 14
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
priced lower than 80%. Elevator projects must have an average MPDU price of 95% AMI, but can price
some units at up to 110% if others are priced below 95%.
Voluntary Provisions: Small (4-29) unit multi-family ownership projects and multi-family rental projects
may “opt in” to the program in order to gain the cash payments and expedited processing, but must agree to
same provisions as mandatory programs. For rental projects to qualify, at least 10% of units must be rented
at prices affordable to households at 65% of AMI and $10,000 cash payments are only available for units
rented at prices affordable at 50% of AMI.
Denver’s adoption of the IHO added the city to a relatively short list of major American cities with mandatory
IHOs. While the list of larger cities with mandatory programs remains short, there appears to be a trend from
voluntary to mandatory programs over time.2
3.2 IHO Performance
During the late 1990s, Denver negotiated for the inclusion of hundreds of affordable housing units as
conditions of rezoning throughout the city. The time-consuming nature and varying outcomes of these
negotiations became part of the impetus for the IHO. But the adoption of the IHO in August 2002
coincided with the “mini-recession” of 2001-2, and the first few years of IHO operation produced only a
few MPDUs. Indeed, most of the affordable units produced during those years represented the buildout of
units committed to in pre-IHO rezonings. Between 2002 and 2004, the IHO produced only 98 new
MPDUs, and some members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Group stated that the ordinance appeared
to have driven away multi-family developers who would be subject to its terms. However, the 2005 Denver
report on workforce housing (the latest available) showed that an additional 623 MPDUs had been
produced in that year.3 Discussions were underway that would produce another 112 MPDUs, though the
economic downturn of 2006-2008 may have slowed construction of those projects. The same report
concluded that through 2005 the average sale price of an IHO-required MPDUs was 31% lower than an
average market condominium and 45% lower than an average market-rate single family home. IHO results
are summarized in the following table from Denver’s 2005 workforce housing report.
Number of Units in IHO Projects: 2005
Bedrooms
Project Name
One Two Three Four
Total Percent
Syracuse Village 1 15 6 --- 22 3.1%
Roslyn Court 15 36 6 --- 57 7.9%
Morgan Park --- 39 236 20 295 40.9%
Cedar Point -- 24 241 33 298 41.3%
Maple Park -- 18 9 --- 27 3.7%
1st Avenue TH --- 21 --- 21 2.9%
Jack Kerouack Lofts 1 --- --- --- 1 0.1%
Total 17 153 498 53 721 100.0%
Percent of Total 2.4% 21.2% 69.1% 7.4% 100.0%
2 Brunick, Nicholas, Lauren Goldberg, and Susannah Levine, “Voluntary or Mandatory Inclusionary Housing: Production,
Predictability, and Enforcement”. (Business and Professional People in the Public Interest, August 2004).
3 Denver Office of Economic Development, “Providing Workforce Housing in Denver: 2005.”
Clarion Associates 15
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
3.3 Continuing Debate
Although the IHO has now largely replaced negotiations of individual rezoning conditions as Denver’s
primary vehicle for promoting MPDUs, the program remains somewhat controversial among both builders
and neighborhood residents. Continued debate about the IHO involves the following topics:
1. Policy: Whether IHOs in general are an appropriate intervention into the private housing market,
and their impact on the price of non-IHO units in each project.
2. Geographic Imbalance: Whether the distribution of IHO MPDUs across the city is an
appropriate outcome of the program.
3. Downtown: Because the profits to be made from sale of market rate units in the downtown area
are so large, builders routinely choose to pay the cash-in-lieu fee, and few MPDUs are
constructed.
4. Outside Downtown: IHO MPDUs are sometimes difficult to sell outside the downtown area since
the gap between market unit prices and IHO MPDU prices is not very large and most buyers would
prefer to invest in market units and realize their full appreciated value on resale.
5. Small Projects: By exempting projects with less than 30 units, the program encourages builders
to construct projects of 29 units or less, and developers are in fact avoid building MPDUs by
building smaller projects.
6. Rental Market: The IHO program does not reach lower income populations or require the
inclusion of affordable units in rental housing developments that might serve those populations.
7. Incentives: The incentives offered to builders are inadequate to significantly offset the builders’
additional costs (and lost sales revenues) of complying with the IHO requirements.
3.4 Potential Opportunities for Improvement
This study will not address the first and most basic complaint listed above – whether the IHO approach
itself is an appropriate intervention in private housing markets – because that is beyond the scope of our
inquiry. Denver’s adoption of the IHO followed three years of debate, the affordability gap continues to
increase, the IHO has produced significant numbers of affordable units, and evidence continues to suggest
that large city mandatory IHO programs are effective in producing both workforce housing and housing in
the 50%-80% AMI4 range. For all of those reasons, we assume that some form of IHO will remain in use in
Denver.
This study instead focuses on how Denver might address complaints 2 through 7 above in the context of the
zoning update process. That could include (a) revisions to the IHO that would be effective in light of the
form-based zoning approach, and (b) zoning provisions that would encourage more affordable housing and
reduce reliance on the IHO as an affordable housing tool.
• Geographic Imbalance. The issue of unequal distribution of affordable housing units is not new – it
has plagued all efforts to provide subsidized housing in the U.S. in the post-war era. The evolution of
4 Brunick (above) and Brunick, Nicholas, “Inclusionary Housing: Proven Success in Large Cities” (APA Zoning Practice
10:04, October 2004).
Clarion Associates 16
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
federal housing policy from large public housing projects to non-location-specific Section 8 housing
vouchers and on to Hope IV projects reflects a general consensus that dispersal of affordable units
throughout the private housing market is in the public interest. The present IHO program has the
advantage of mixing affordable units in with market-rate units on a project-by-project basis, but does
not have a mechanism for targeting IHO incentives or requirements to areas of the city that have a
relative under-supply of affordable units.
Denver has developed maps showing areas of the city where the average price of ownership housing
units is already lower than those required by the IHO requirements (and where, arguably, additional
affordable units either should not or need not be encouraged). Since one of the goals of the IHO is to
“Provide workforce housing throughout the community”, the distribution of IHO affordable housing
units is an area that the city could choose to address. However, the city does not currently interpret the
scope of the IHO to favor a particular geographic distribution of IHO units. Instead, the city maintains
that the IHO was designed to require MPDUs to be constructed where the private market is
constructing specific types of ownership housing, but not to steer that activity to specific areas. If the
city chose to address the geographic imbalance issues, that could be achieved by targeting IHO
requirements and/or incentives to areas with a relative shortage of affordable housing or by tailoring
new form-based zoning provisions so that they allow or encourage needed housing forms and densities
in those areas on a preferential basis.
• Downtown: Discussions in the Affordable Housing Advisory Group suggested that downtown
builders routinely “cash out” of the IHO affordable housing construction requirements by paying the
cash-in-lieu fee instead. Since one of the goals of the IHO program is to “reverse outmigration of the
workforce and provide housing closer to jobs within Denver”, and downtown Denver is a very large
job base, the failure of the IHO to increase the supply of MPDUs in or near the downtown would be an
area for concern. If the perception of the AHAG is supported by data, then this could be addressed by
either (a) increasing the required cash-in-lieu fee to discourage “cashing out” of construction, or (b)
removing the cash-out option for the downtown area. In theory, this issue could also be addressed by
finding new incentives for MPDU construction in the downtown area, but since the base downtown
zoning density is 10 FAR and no off-street parking is required, it is unlikely that sufficient non-cash
incentives can be found to offset the economics of the downtown market rate housing market.
• Outside Downtown: AHAG builders also reported that outside the downtown area sales prices for
market rate ownership units may not be significantly higher that for IHO MPDUs. While they can sell
the market rate units, the sales of slightly lower-priced MPDUs is difficult because buyers must be
persuaded to forego some of the future appreciation in unit value in return for a relatively small
decrease in sales price. Many choose not to make the tradeoff, leaving the builder with unsold units.
While suggesting that city staff could provide more assistance in marketing and finding buyers for
those units (perhaps from a pre-qualified list), both builders and affordable housing advocates have
also suggested that there may be neighborhoods in which the gap between market prices and IHO
prices is small enough that the IHO should not apply. Denver’s relative housing price maps (discussed
above) could be used to estimate where the relative price gap between IHO and market units by
neighborhood, and that pattern could be correlated with areas where builders have had trouble selling
IHO MPDUs to establish how large a price gap is needed for IHO units to sell well.
On the other hand, some affordable housing advocates on the Affordable Housing Advisory Group
argue that the city should be building up its stock of MPDUs (also a goal of the IHO) even when price
gaps are not large, because it is predictable that market prices will continue to increase and that
neighborhoods with small price gaps today may have moderate or large price gaps in future years. In
addition, any narrowing of the scope of the IHO would reduce the number of MPDUs being built. On
balance, it may be preferable to provide improved city assistance in marketing and finding buyers for
Clarion Associates 17
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
the IHO MPDUs in “small price gap” neighborhoods than to restrict the geographic scope of the
regulation. If the city decides to narrow the scope of the IHO by removing the MPDU requirement (or
providing stronger incentives) in “small price gap” neighborhoods, it should consider limiting the
changes to those neighborhoods that already have a disproportionate share of affordable housing. That
would leave the program unchanged for neighborhoods with a relative under-supply of affordable units
and help reduce the geographic imbalances discussed above.
• Small Projects: Discussions with city staff suggest that some builders are indeed opting to build
smaller multi-family ownership projects, because the number of 29-unit projects submitted for approval
has increased significantly in recent years. This is not a new issue, however; all zoning involves line
drawing and the market often responds by designing projects that will avoid new regulations. If the
ordinance threshold were 20 or 40 units, it is likely that the market would have responded to those
thresholds in a similar way. Denver’s 30-unit threshold is, however, at the top end of the range applied
by other mandatory IHO programs reviewed in section 2 above. Philadelphia’s threshold is 20 units,
Santa Barbara and Madison use a 10-unit cutoff, San Francisco uses five units, and San Diego applies
its inclusive housing regulations to all projects of two units or more. As a practical matter, however, a
10% MPDU requirement only makes sense for projects of 10 units or more (10% of fewer units results
in the required construction of less than one unit), so the range of experience is really with thresholds
of between 10 and 30 units. In light of the growing affordability gap, Denver may want to consider
reducing the IHO threshold to lower than 30 units. As an alternative, the city may want to ensure that
the new form-based zoning districts include strong incentives for the construction of affordable units in
smaller projects. Because some of the builders represented on the AHAG oppose the IHO on principle,
it is likely they would not agree with this approach – i.e., they raised the issue of market avoidance not
to suggest that the 30-unit threshold be lowered, but to emphasize the that IHO was distorting market
responses to housing shortages in ways that were inefficient and may reduce the overall supply of
housing.
• Incentives: One serious criticism of the current Denver IHO is that the incentives offered are not
adequate to offset the additional costs of building the required MPDUs. The table below (from the
2005 Providing Workforce Housing in Denver report) shows that the cash rebate is by far the most
common incentive being used. While the cash rebates have been criticized as too low to offset added
costs to the developer, the city has consistently maintained that the intent of the rebates has been to
offset some of the city fees charged to all developers in return for the construction of affordable
housing, and not to offset all added costs of building that housing. As of 2005, each of the other three
incentives – the 10% density bonus, 20% parking reduction, and expedited project review had been
used only once or twice.
Clarion Associates 18
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
Use of Incentives by Current and Planned IHO Projects
Incentives Requested
Project Name Developer
Rebate Density Parking Expedited
Syracuse Village Forest City Stapleton
Roslyn Court Forest City Stapleton
Morgan Park Oakwood Homes
Cedar Point Oakwood Homes
Maple Park
Townhomes
Lowry Land Trust
1st Avenue
Townhomes
Lowry Land Trust
Jack Kerouac Lofts Urban Neighborhoods
Pinnacle at City Park Opus NWR Devt, LLC
Grant Park CDS Grant, LLC
University Park
Station
South Haven at City
Park
Wonderland Homes
Prospect Place Urban Neighborhoods
Zocalo at Jefferson
Park
Zocalo Development Ltd
City Park Lofts LCS Developers, LLC
The limited use of density, parking, and processing incentives suggests that those incentives are not
effective or particularly valuable to IHO builders, and discussion within the AHAG seems to support
that conclusion. AHAG members point out that the density bonus is not needed for housing
construction in the downtown area (where the base density of 10 FAR is not an effective limit on
density). In addition, the IHO makes the density bonus unavailable in (a) the R-0, R-1, R-2, R-2A, and
R-2B zone districts, (b) PUDs, (c) districts with no maximum FAR (which includes the R-MU-20, R-
MU-30, MS-1, MS-2, and MS-3 districts), and (d) districts where no residential use is permitted, which
limits its applicability in much of the city. The exclusion of the low density residential districts is not
very significant, since those districts do not allow a 30-unit ownership (or rental) project, and the
exclusion of PUDs is rational, since any added density to offset the costs of more affordable housing
can be included in the overall PUD negotiation.
While the fourth exclusion -- excluding the 10% density bonus in districts without a maximum FAR --
makes sense on its face (how would the density be calculated? 10% of what?), that exclusion should
also be reviewed. In essence, this exclusion says that the form-based controls in the R-MU-20, R-MU-
30, MS-1, MS-2, and MS-3 districts will (indirectly) govern development density and that no density
incentives will be available to encourage MPDUs. This is important, since these are zones designed for
mixed use development in relatively dense transit nodes and along transportation corridors – exactly
the places where MPDUs should be encouraged. The real question is what variations on those form-
based controls the city could or should offer as a non-percentage-based incentive to allow more
development on sites where MPDUs are required. This is in fact the question that Clarion Associates
will be addressing in Task 3 of this effort – not for these districts, but for the new form-based zoning
districts currently being developed.
In addition, the IHO density bonus is limited by height and bulk controls included in base zoning,
overlay zoning, and design standards applicable to the property. This is a serious shortcoming, and
there are several examples where cities have allowed standard density and design controls to be
exceeded by limited amounts (for example, 10%) in order to encourage development that achieves a
Clarion Associates 19
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
socially desirable goal). As with the exclusion of non-FAR districts, the effect of this limit is to say
that concern for the building envelope is more important than the goal of producing affordable housing
– so important that the form and envelope controls cannot be adjusted even a little to promote key
housing goals.
The second incentive offered by the IHO is the 20% parking reduction codified in section 27-108(c),
which also requires that builder construct one additional MPDU for each 10 parking spaces not
constructed. Only two of the 14 projects reviewed in the table above took advantage of this incentive.
Members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Group commented that the parking incentive is often not
requested because the builder or lender believes that more parking will be required to sell both market-
rate and MPDUs. In other words, the city’s minimum parking standards are at or below market
requirements and further reductions cannot be used.
As originally drafted, both the IHO density and parking incentive came at a price – the builder was
required to build one additional affordable (beyond the required 10%) for each 10 parking spaces not
built, and the bonus residential units needed to include the same percentage of MPDUs as the project as
a whole. Since those additional requirements tend to undercut the value of those benefits to the builder,
the city is currently processing an ordinance to remove the requirement for construction of additional
MPDUs when these incentives are used.
Finally, only one of the projects listed in the table above took advantage of the 180-day expedited
processing incentive included in Title 27. Discussion at the AHAG suggested that this might be due to
the limited nature of the incentive – particularly the provision that it only apply to applications that
fully comply with all items on the development review checklist and only need site plan review. If the
property requires rezoning, conditional use approvals, or other discretionary reviews, then expediting
site plan review does not shorten some of the more time consuming aspects of development approval.
In addition, expedited review of site plan applications does not reduce opportunities for NIMBYism,
which were the most important barrier identified by the AHAG (and other studies) related to affordable
housing review and approval. It is important to note, however, that examples of NIMBYism cited by
members of the AHAG did not appear to be targeted at IHO projects; it appears that neighborhood
opposition is usually aimed at proposed density increases or other issues related to the scale and impact
of the proposed building rather than the inclusion of MPDUs in the project.
The claimed ineffectiveness of the IHO density, parking, and processing incentives is important
because these incentives correspond to some of the key barriers identified in the Task 1 study. A
comparison of general barriers to affordable housing and incentives in the IHO is set forth below.
Barriers to Affordable Housing Current IHO Incentives
The Development Review Process
(specifically, opportunities for NIMBYism, the
“culture of negotiation”, and the frequent need
for rezonings and variances)
Expedited Processing (seldom used and
limited to site plan reviews that wholly comply
with regulations)
Permitted Density Limits 10% Density Bonus (seldom used and not
available in low-density residential, non-
residential, and form-based mixed use districts)
Minimum Dwelling Unit Sizes (in residential
zone districts)
Minimum Parking Requirements 20% Parking (seldom used)
Maximum Lot Coverage Limits
Building Stepback Requirements
Need for Accessory Dwelling Units
Clarion Associates 20
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
Barriers to Affordable Housing Current IHO Incentives
Minimum Lot Sizes (in residential zone
districts)
$5,500/$10,000 cash rebate (always used)
This table shows that Denver’s IHO contains incentives designed to address three of the top eight
barriers to affordable housing identified in Task 1. However, none of those three incentives are
currently well used – apparently because they do not help create financially viable projects (parking
and density bonus) or they are too limited in effect (expedited processing). Interestingly, while they
identified density limits and parking requirements as two of the key zoning barriers to affordable
housing, the AHAG did not state that the IHO density and parking incentives were too small. Instead
the AHAG discussion focused on how the current incentives were not well matched to the case-by-case
needs of individual projects. AHAG members also discussed how none of the incentives addressed the
key problem of defusing NIMBYism. While the one incentive that is universally used and valued – the
cash rebates – was not specifically included in the list of eight barriers to affordable housing, it clearly
addresses the additional costs of complying with IHO regulations. In other words, while everyone
agrees that the economics of affordable or MPDU housing are difficult, and that builders struggle to
find ways to make them economically viable, only the direct cash rebate is apparently helping builders
close that gap today.
• Rental Market: At the time the IHO was drafted, it was intended to apply to both ownership and
rental multi-family projects. After the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Lot 34 Ventures v.
Telluride, however, the ordinance was redrafted to make the participation of rental projects voluntary.
The debate on an IHO-type requirement for rental projects has continued, however, primarily because
of the large need for units affordable for households earning less than 60% of AMI and the difficulty of
qualifying those households for private mortgage loans.
It is important to emphasize that most builders attending the AHAG meeting on August 4 were strongly
opposed to the expansion of the IHO to cover rental projects on several grounds, including the
following.
• It would broaden the entanglement of the city government in private housing markets
• The cross-subsidies possible in ownership projects are much more difficult in rental projects; it
will be more difficult to rent some units at higher market rates in order to subsidize the lower
rates on adjacent units
• It is more time and labor-intensive to ensure that rental occupants remain income-eligible over
time; income-eligibility for owner units only needs to be verified at the time of purchase and
sale, but incomes of rental occupants might need to be verified annually (or more often)
• The IHO should not be expanded until the shortcomings of the current IHO have been
addressed
On the other hand, numerous mixed income rental projects have already been constructed using Low
Income Housing Tax Credits, and those projects already require annual income certifications, which
suggest that cross-subsidized rental projects are in fact feasible. In addition, it is important to note that
of the six IHO programs reviewed, three (Philadelphia, San Diego, and Sacramento) covered rental
projects, and a fourth (Madison) did so until a lawsuit decision concluded that was illegal in
Wisconsin. In addition, it is clear that an IHO limited to ownership units will have a limited ability to
address the most pressing needs for affordable housing in Denver, because those needs exist in income
ranges that generally cannot afford to buy housing units. In light of the increasing affordability gap
documented in the Task 1 study, it is clear that Denver will need to develop aggressive tools to
encourage more housing in the under-$1,000-per-month range. Those tools can include:
Clarion Associates 21
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
1. Zoning changes to allow or encourage specific types of housing (the primary topic of this
project),
2. Cash subsidies for specific types of housing (which are beyond the scope of this project), and
3. Cross-subsidy approaches that require construction of specific types of housing as a condition
of approval for other types of development.
Although it is tempting to hope that a single type of tool can solve this problem, that seems unlikely.
Instead, it is likely that Denver will need to use all three types of tools. While it would be nice to avoid
extending the IHO tool into the rental market, that will require the creation of strong zoning changes or
cash-subsidy tools. Otherwise it seems likely that extending IHO approaches into the rental housing
market may be a question of “when” rather than “if”.
3.5 Suggestions for Possible Improvements in the IHO
As Denver moves forward with its form-based zoning rewrite, there appear to be many opportunities to
revise the city’s current IHO to address issues raised above. Perhaps more importantly, the move to form-
based zoning creates an opportunity to remove barriers that are addressed by the IHO and simplify its
operation. Denver’s current zoning ordinance embodies an assumption that something must be “given up”
to make affordable housing feasible. If new building forms can address these barriers in the basic
allowable development rules, then the need to “give up” something else (through IHO or otherwise) can be
reduced. However, as a baseline for review of the forthcoming form-based districts, it is important to
identify specific incentives that might make the IHO approach more effective.
For a start, the city should consider revising the existing IHO incentives to be more effective as follows:
• Consider allowing more density in IHO projects in those zone districts where there is no maximum
FAR (or at least ensure that the form-based controls in those districts are not imposing de facto
density limits that act as barriers to IHO projects).
• Consider allowing base zoning, overlay zoning, and design standard controls on building height,
setback, and mass to be exceeded by some amount (for example, 10%, or 1 floor in height) if
necessary to allow the developer to use the density bonus.
• While the 20% parking reduction incentive should remain in place, it is not clear that a larger
reduction would increase its effectiveness, since the amount of parking required appears to be
controlled by market and financing requirements. Instead of increasing the number, the city might
consider expanding the list of reductions to include those included in the B-8-A zone district – i.e.
an additional 25% reduction for uses located within ¼ mile of a rail transit station or a regional or
urban ten-minute bus corridor. In addition, the city is currently moving to remove the requirement
that applicants provide additional MPDUs if they use the parking reduction, which should make
this incentive much more attractive.
• Consider revising the expedited review incentive so that it results in faster or priority processing of
IHO projects that involve more than just site plan review. This could include priority treatment in
rezoning, conditional use, or variances, consolidated hearings, or removal of public hearing
requirements in some cases.
Clarion Associates 22
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
If the IHO is expanded to cover rental housing in the future, this same basic list of incentives would apply,
but would need to be strengthened in order to provide the deeper levels of cross-subsidies necessary to
make some of the rental units available at the under-$1,000-per-month level. More specifically:
• The city should consider increasing the cash rebate amounts beyond the current $10,000/unit level
applicable to units at the 60% AMI level (80% for high cost buildings). While the rebate was
apparently not intended to be a full offset to the costs of including 10% MPDU units, Denver has
already set the precedent of offering a larger rebate for units restricted to lower AMI levels. Since
the inclusion of rental units would be primarily to address this lower AMI market, larger rebates
would be appropriate.
• Consider increasing the density incentive beyond 10%, with correspondingly greater relief from
the height, setback, and bulk limits in applicable zoning and design standards.
• Perhaps most importantly, the city should consider significantly strengthening the expedited
review incentive. As reviewed in the Task 1 report, Denver (like most major cities) experiences
significant NIMBYism when it comes to some housing projects (although the opposition is
sometimes to the scale or size of the building rather than the inclusion of affordable units). In
general, neighborhood opposition tends to be greater as the height, bulk, or density of the building
gets larger. It is likely that IHO rental projects would face even more community opposition than
IHO owner projects, particularly if zoning and design controls are allowed to be exceeded by some
amount. If the city intends for a rental IHO approach to succeed, it will need to minimize the
number of steps in the approval process, and the scope of those reviews, and to make as much of
the approval process administrative as possible. While it is appropriate to consider the design
impacts of added density and height, as well as parking reductions, Denver may want to make
some of these considerations administrative matters and to limit the scope of any required hearings
to avoid debates over the merits of affordable housing or MPDUs in residential or mixed use
zones, or to adopt a rebuttable presumption that the impacts of limited zoning adjustments (such as
one additional floor of height) are offset by the value of additional affordable housing to the
community and the city.
3.6 Integration of IHO into Zoning
The IHO is currently administered by Office of Economic Development (OED), while the zoning ordinance
is administered by the Department of Community Planning and Development (CPD). In theory, the IHO
could be incorporated into Denver’s forthcoming form-based zoning ordinance. The requirements for
certain types of development to incorporate MPDUs could be described as a “use-specific standard”
applicable to certain types of housing. For example, the new code could include a specific use such as
“multi-family ownership buildings with more than 30 units”. The revised menu of incentives could then be
attached to that use – modifying the parking, density, lot coverage, stepback, and setback controls
otherwise applicable to multi-family structures. This integration would have the advantage of putting the
IHO building-related controls and incentives in the place that readers expect to find those topics covered.
It would also avoid some of the confusion that currently arises as to whether the incentives and reductions
in Titles 27 (Affordable Housing) and 59 (Zoning) can be added together or not. When Denver finalizes its
maps of areas with over- or under-concentrations of affordable housing, or areas where the market price of
housing is near or below IHO levels, the city could consider using those maps to create “Affordable
Housing Overlay” districts and to target some or all of the IHO provisions to apply only in those areas.
However, the approach described above is not consistent with Denver’s thrust towards form –based zoning.
Form-based zoning generally focuses on building forms more than on the specific uses within them, while
Clarion Associates 23
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
the approach above focuses on a very specific use (multi-family with more than 30 units). Some form-
based codes would simply specify the use as “residential” and then permit a specific menu of building
forms to be built on site. The number of dwelling units in that building form is often left flexible to be
governed by market forces. Instead of defining a separate use, then, a form-based ordinance might include
provisions stating that if the building was in fact used to accommodate more than 30 dwelling units then the
following requirements and incentives would apply. However, that is very much like the current approach
– with the IHO controls in a separate section of law from the other use and form controls – and there would
be little to choose between having that separate section of law inside or outside chapter 59. We suggest
that the city review the draft form-based districts and evaluate whether they lend themselves to integration
of IHO provisions before making a decision on this issue. If the building-related IHO controls are not
included in the city’s new zoning controls, there should at least be improved cross-references between the
two.
4. POTENTIAL INCENTIVES
Based on the information presented in the Task 1 Report and the evaluation of existing affordable housing
incentives in section 3 above, Clarion Associates suggests the following revisions to Denver’s incentives for
affordable housing for consideration.
In many cases, the discussion of these incentives parallels the discussion of the IHO above, and that is
intentional. The IHO incentives were designed to respond to perceived challenges in constructing MPDUs, so
it should come as no surprise that those factors also affect construction of other forms of affordable housing –
particularly those addressing populations whose incomes reflect an even lower percentage of AMI. Our review
of the IHO identified shortcomings in the existing incentives, and in some cases, making those incentives more
broadly available would encourage construction of more affordable housing even outside the IHO program.
Similarly, our review of the IHO ordinance identified at least five barriers identified in Task 1 for which the
IHO offers no incentive. In some cases, new incentives to address those barriers could promote construction of
more affordable units even for projects that are not covered by IHO (for example, projects with less than 30
units).
Our approach has been to identify incentives that would be effective to encourage more
affordable housing in general – with the expectation that a broader pool of market-driven
affordable housing will reduce the “burden” on the IHO to help fill that gap.
Since the IHO already covers cases where Denver mandates affordable housing, the incentives below are
suggested to apply to projects that are not covered by the IHO. In general, these incentives could be
designed to apply in two different ways:
Physical/Operational Triggers: The incentives could be made to apply whenever the applicant is building
housing that meets certain physical or operational characteristics. For example, incentives could apply
whenever at least 50% of the units in the building are under 600 sq. ft. in size, because smaller units are
usually more affordable than large units within a given market area. As another example, the incentives
could apply whenever the applicant agrees to keep the units as rental units, because rental units tend to be
more affordable than ownership units within a given market area. There are several other
physical/operational triggers that could be adopted in lieu of, or in addition to, these two; these are simply
examples of physical/operational triggers that could be adopted. While these are admittedly imperfect
tools, they are relatively easy to administer and encourage the housing market to build and operate units
that help fill gaps in Denver’s housing stock without involving the owner or the city in screening unit
residents or owners for income eligibility.
Clarion Associates 24
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
For simplicity, the incentives below are drafted assuming that Denver will follow this
approach – for example, that the incentives would apply if more than 50% of the units in
the project are smaller than 600 sq. ft. or more than 50% of the units in the project will
remain rental units.
Income-Eligibility: A second option is to have the incentives apply whenever the builder agrees to subject
the project to income-eligibility standards. This would in effect make the incentives an expanded form of
the IHO voluntary incentives that would apply to non-IHO projects. This approach would be more certain
to result in units that were in fact affordable (rather than just small units or rental units), but would be more
complex to administer. In addition, the public might be confused to have two lists of incentives – one
within the IHO and one outside it. If Denver decides to use the income-eligibility approach, we suggest
that the city consider merging the incentive into expansions of the voluntary IHO standards (or the IHO
voluntary incentives moved to Chapter 59) rather than having lists of voluntary incentives in two places.
In each case, we will discuss how this incentive might apply to Denver’s new form-based codes. A detailed
discussion of how these incentives could be made to work (or the same result achieved) in the context of
form-based zoning will have to await the delivery of the draft districts. We hope this section can serve as a
checklist of topics to be discussed and outcomes to be encouraged in that discussion.
The incentives below are organized to respond to specific barriers identified in the Task 1 study.
In each case, the suggested incentives would apply only if the proposed residential
construction met specific physical/operational restrictions (for example, limits on unit
size) and might be further limited to apply only in neighborhoods that do not have a
concentration of affordable housing.
4.1 Expedited Development Review
General: The AHAG felt that the most serious barriers to affordable housing in Denver were procedural
rather than substantive. The city should therefore consider:
• Revising its development review procedures to reduce the number of public meetings and hearings
required for approval of affordable housing projects and reduce opportunities for negotiation and the
scope of negotiations for affordable housing projects.
• For example, the city could complete its effort to map areas where additional affordable housing is not
needed (because there is already a heavy concentration of affordable units). Once it had identified
areas where affordable housing is not concentrated, the need for affordable housing could be removed
from the approval criteria of individual housing projects (i.e. testimony on that point would not be
considered in the decision to approve or deny the project). Similarly, the appropriateness of zoning
density, height, or parking incentives could be removed from the approval criteria for affordable
housing projects, and testimony on density, height, or parking that complies with the revised code
would not be considered in the decision to approve or deny the project.
• In addition, the city may want to consider pro-active rezoning of land within one-half mile of existing
and new transit stops and transfer centers in order to relieve individual builders of the burden of
pursuing those rezonings on a case-by-case basis.
Form-Based Controls: It is not clear whether the forthcoming form-based residential districts will include
revised procedures, but if they do then the comments above would apply. More importantly, the procedural
Clarion Associates 25
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
barriers identified by the AHAG occurred primarily when the applicant requires a rezoning, conditional use, or
variance. If the proposed building forms for each district include forms that would accommodate a wider
variety of multi-family uses, then the need for discretionary approvals would be reduced. If the menu of
building forms available in a zone district is too narrow to allow building types used to meet affordable
housing needs, then the inclusion of additional building forms may be needed.
4.2 More Effective Density Bonuses
General: Land use density is perhaps third in importance (behind procedural simplicity and land price) in
determining the economic viability of affordability housing projects. Ensuring the density bonuses are not
only available but effective and usable (or that approved building forms allow for appropriate housing
densities) should be high on the city’s priority list.
• The city should consider allowing a 10% density bonus for affordable multi-family projects not
covered by the IHO
• The city should consider allowing density bonuses to be used even if additional density or height
would exceed base or overlay zoning controls or design standard controls, provided that they do not
exceed those numerical standards by more than 10% or one floor in height.
• Where an applicant owns two or more contiguous lots in different zone districts, the city should
consider allowing the combined density of the two lots to be used anywhere on those two lots – i.e.
treat the site as a single zone lot within which density can be allocated without regard to the lot line,
and without the need to rezone the lower-intensity lot. If necessary, this incentive could be limited to
no more than two or three lots in order to protect adjacent (lower density) neighborhoods from large
assemblages and projects. It could also be limited to avoid situations that have proven controversial in
the past such as assemblages containing both B-4 and R-1 or R-2 lands.
Form-Based Controls: The translation of density bonus concepts into form-based districts is one of the most
challenging aspects of this project. Currently Denver has a few zone districts (the Main Street, R-MU-20, and
R-MU-30 zones) where density is controlled indirectly by building forms rather than by limits on FAR or the
number of dwelling units. If the building forms available for multi-family affordable housing are the same as
for other uses, this effectively “takes away” the opportunity for density bonuses. As the form-based zones are
presented, the city should consider whether density incentives are needed or if the basic forms allow for
efficient affordable housing types so that additional density incentives are not needed (as is the case in the
Main Street districts).
• As noted above, one solution is to ensure that building forms that can accommodate reasonable
densities of affordable housing (especially attached and multi-family housing) are available in the
higher density residential zones and mixed use zones. If they are not forms that will accommodate the
types of housing structures needed to fill Denver’s housing gaps, then the city may want to consider
allowing additional forms.
• For lower density residential zones, this may mean ensuring that the available forms accommodate
known modular housing products and cottage-type projects for smaller units (see minimum lot sizes
below).
Clarion Associates 26
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
4.3. Delete Minimum Dwelling Unit Size Limits
General:
• The city should consider removing the 600 sq. ft. minimum dwelling unit size requirement in
residential zones.
Form-Based Controls:
• The city should consider removing the 600 sq. ft. minimum dwelling unit size requirement in
residential zones.
• The city should consider including building forms that do not foreclose multiple units per building
(i.e., if the builder uses an allowed building form, do not foreclose creative efforts to get more units
into that form).
• The city should consider including building forms that do not foreclose single room occupancy (SRO)
hotels in mixed use zones.
4.4 Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
General:
• The city should consider reducing minimum parking requirement to 1 car per multi-family unit.
• The city should consider making the B-8-A parking reductions for uses located within ¼ mile of a
transit station or regional or urban ten minute bus corridor available throughout the higher density
residential zones and mixed use zones.
• For mixed use projects and TODs, the city might consider not requiring off-street parking for ground
floor non-residential uses.
• The city might allow tandem parking in single family detached or attached units.
Form-Based Controls: It is not clear whether the forthcoming form-based districts will contain either direct
controls on parking (i.e., revisions to current minimum parking requirements) or indirect controls (i.e.,
required building forms and site plans that limit areas available for parking). If the zoning provisions of
Chapter 59 remain in effect, the list of incentives above should be used. If indirect controls apply, a more
detailed review of the new form-based districts will be required. Form-based controls generally involve both
spatial and area limits on parking, which might reduce parking surfacing and landscaping costs and contribute
to affordability. However, if required forms force market-demanded parking into parking structures, that could
seriously compromise the affordability of resulting housing units.
4.5 Maximum Lot Coverage Limits
General: Maximum lot coverages ranked relatively low in the AHAG discussion of barriers to affordable
housing and appear to be less important than procedural hurdles and density and parking requirements. In
practice, lot coverage limits act as a barrier only if (a) they prevent available density from being used on
the site, or (b) they require additional construction of an additional floor(s) in the building to use available.
Since the density suggestions above include the ability to exceed zoning and design standard density and
Clarion Associates 27
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
height limits by up to 10%, barriers to the “usability” of density should be reduced. If it appears that some
available density will remain unusable in spite of that flexibility, then Denver may want to consider
additional reductions in minimum setbacks.
Form-Based Controls: We anticipate that Denver’s new form-based districts will not include numerical lot
coverage limits, so this barrier should go away. Instead, the city should consider whether each district
permits building forms adequate to allow affordable housing in the district (as discussed above).
4.6 Remove Building Stepback Requirements
General:
• The city should consider removing street-facing building stepback requirements from higher density
residential zones and mixed use districts, or for affordable housing projects.
Form-Based Controls:
• The city should ensure that some building forms available in higher density and mixed use districts do
not require street-facing building stepbacks.5
4.7 Permit Accessory Dwelling Units
General: Unlike most of the previous discussion, this incentive addresses affordability in current low-density
residential areas with single-family detached housing stock. The key issues in a strong ADU policy are strict
size limits (which correlate into reduced occupancy) and wide availability – since the impact of this tool
depends largely on the number of zones in which it is permitted.
• Allow ADUs by right in R-1, R-2, and R-2-A zones subject only to a maximum size limit of 800 sq. ft.
Do not include a minimum parking requirement or spacing requirement unless experience shows
ADUs have become over-concentrated and/or created parking congestion problems.
Form-Based Controls:
• Ensure that building forms available in R-1, R-2, and R-2-A zones do not foreclose opportunities for
ADUs in those neighborhoods where they are consistent with the overall development context.
4.8 Reduce Minimum Lot Sizes in Residential Zones
General: Like the discussion on ADUs, this one affects low-density residential zones, and would promote the
affordability of single-family detached homes. While these units will tend to have higher prices than multi-
family units, there is significant potential to improve land use efficiency by allowing new forms of small,
cottage-style housing that consume far less land per unit.
• Develop models of small-lot housing that are acceptable on smaller lots – as narrow as 25 feet (the
standard platting width in some older parts of Denver) and with lot sizes in the 3,500 to 6,000 sq. ft.
range, and then revise minimum lot sizes to allow these types of units in some low density residential
5 The city maintains that the stepback provisions are sometimes an important part of form-based controls, and
that in those districts where they are required, any added costs of stepbacks are offset by reduced parking and
other incentives to affordable housing, so that the net effect on affordability may be negligible.
Clarion Associates 28
Affordable Housing Task 2 Report September 2008
districts. Several good models are available. Include limits on the number of contiguous small lots to
avoid the creation of large, contiguous “affordable” areas and encourage smaller housing to blend into
the general housing stock.
Form-Based Controls:
• Ensure that available building forms in lower-density residential zones include some that will fit on
smaller and narrower lots, and are consistent with some forms developed by the modular home
industry.
5. CONCLUSION
Clarion Associates’ review of incentive used in other major cities – including a growing pool of cities using
form-based tools – indicates that there are many additional incentives that Denver could offer to encourage
affordable housing. This is true of both general development incentives and those included in the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The incentives currently offered by the city address less than half of the
key barriers to affordable housing development. More seriously, the current incentives are subject to
conditions that limit their usability or increase their costs. Denver should strive to remove these barriers to
the usability and value of its incentives and to develop new incentives to address other key barriers. In
light of the large and growing gap in affordable housing, these efforts will need to be bold in order to make
a difference. They will also need to focus primarily on those types of housing where the greatest need
exists – attached units affordable to households that can spend no more than $1,000 per month for housing.
The city’s transition to form-based zoning provides a good opportunity to address these barriers through the
use of building forms that avoid the barriers altogether. For example, if approved building forms allow
adequate housing density, lot coverage, or lot size, then it may not be necessary to offer explicit
“incentives” for affordable housing projects. This is Denver’s goal – and one that it has achieved in the
Main Street districts. While it is unclear exactly how Denver’s new form-based zoning districts will be
structured, however, some of the suggested new incentives may still be applicable. Both Miami and
Lawrence have used very traditional incentives in their form-based approaches. Reduced and flexible
parking requirements, the elimination of the 600 sq. ft. minimum size for multi-family units, and a flexible
approach to Accessory Dwelling Units will probably be needed. More important, however, will be a
careful review of the available building forms in each of the proposed new residential zoning districts to
see whether they include lot sizes and building types needed to accommodate efficient affordable housing.
We emphasize that the results of this Task 2 report are not intended to question or discourage the use of
form-based zoning in Denver. In fact, by highlighting the eight barriers to affordable housing in the current
zoning ordinance we have emphasized some of the difficulties of promoting affordable housing under
current Chapter 59. We hope that section 4 of this report can serve as a checklist for reviewing the new
form-based districts during Task 3 of this project and for ensuring that the new districts are in fact
addressing these barriers through appropriate building forms.
Expedited
processing
for AH
10% bonus
(or more)
for AH
25%
reduction
for AH
San Diego, CA No incentives offered
San Francisco, CA No incentives offered
Sacramento, CA
Expedited &
priority
processing
for AH
As
required
by state
law
Form-Based Controls
Petaluma, CA No incentives offered
Lawrence, KS
Based on
pointes
earned
Based on
points
earned
Based on
points
earned
Ventura, CA No incentives offered
Miami, FL
2 sf for
each 1 sf
AH on-site;
1 sf for each
1 sf AH off-
site
through GRT
Bond Cycle
Activities
Land trust
General fund support
X
Through
GO Bond
X
XX
Through a
nonprofit
X Impact fee
payments for
water and
wastewater
18
for affordable
housing
projects
are rehabilitated.
These data do not account for the administrative time spent on the projects, nor do they incorporate
the related benefits for each program. For example, the per household cost of the Valley View Mobile
Home relocation and the home rehab program are relatively high. But these programs offer other
benefits for the City as they improve the condition of the neighborhood overall and help to reverse
slum and blight.