HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/1/2022 Item 6b, Mavis
Delgado, Adriana
From:Damien Mavis <dmavis@covelop.net>
Sent:Monday, February
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Inclusionary Housing Ordinance study session
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Greetings Mayor and City Council,
I am unable to attend the study session at Tuesdays meeting regarding the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance but wanted
to give a brief comment. I’d like to voice my support of keeping table 2A but modifying it so that it creates more
affordable by design opportunities. I understand that EPS studied the table and as it stands now at 20 years old it no
longer creates housing that meets the various AMI thresholds to be called “Affordable”. That however doesn't
necessarily mean it should be eliminated. I suggest that it is modified and perhaps EPS could run a few scenarios with
modifications to enhance its effectiveness. Although it may be difficult to make a unit small enough to make it qualify
on its own as “Affordable” there is no doubt that a smaller attached unit will be more affordable than a larger detached
unit. So incentivizing developers who choose to take the risk of building more smaller units vs. fewer larger units is a
noble goal. Certainly not all developers will take advantage of this incentive but those who do are helping solve a piece
of the affordable housing puzzle.
Here are some ideas of how Table 2A could be modified or updated :
get rid of the “0” adjustment factor (this way no matter how small the unit sizes are you cant eliminate the
inclusionary requirement)
shift the average unit size down so that it is not “easy” to eliminate the inclusionary requirement
Perhaps just make this apply to attached housing types such as apartments, condos and townhomes as they are
already more affordable by design than detached single family homes
I took a try at the modification below. I’m sure more thought would have to be given to it but I think its on the right
track. There are so many types of needed affordable housing (deed restricted, affordable by design, modular, ADU,
transitional housing, co-housing, SRO, etc…) that there is no one size fits all solution. Right now the update of the IHO
really just concentrates on creating deed restricted affordable housing and generating fees which will subsidize more
deed restricted housing. I assume that is what the state HCD is focusing on. However that is only one piece of the
puzzle, why not “right size” table 2A and preserve and enhance another part of the solution which is affordable by
design, or incentivizing smaller attached homes.
Two years ago I was working in a municipality which was desperately trying to create affordable housing and bring their
Housing Element in compliance with the state. I extolled the virtues of Table 2A (with modifications) as a practical way
of incentivizing affordable by design market rate projects.
I would be happy to help dig in on this or any affordable housing related issue, just let me know how I can help.
1
Sincerely,
Damien Mavis
dmavis@covelop.net
Bus: 805.781.3133 x102
Cell: 805.748.5546
2