Infill development is a new strategy intended to reduce municipal costs as well as environmental damage caused by rampant, uncontrolled urban sprawl into rural and wilderness areas. In California, it is especially important because of our reputation for fires, floods and droughts! The escalating population is being felt keenly in Southern California in particular -- but also across the state as the global population escalates out of control, and as rural populations decrease and urban populations increase.
The following issues from an Infill Development strategy meeting illustrate the issues that are being researched, weighted and parsed ... and are the issues many cities around the country will be facing in the coming months or years.
A bi-partisan effort in California worked over 18 months to develop housing infill issues on the ballot among a host of infrastructure measures that include these key concepts:
Funding is always at the heart of community issues, and infill development is no different. Infill Development Set-Aside funds are being debated and distributed among public, nonprofit and private builders.
Applicant Eligibility
With respect to the possibility of private housing developers applying for this set-aside funding,
some participants worried that the infrastructure grants could be 'give-aways' to housing projects that may well be feasible without this subsidy. There was agreement that the funding should be awarded to those projects for whom the unusual infrastructure needs represent the primary impediment to development.
Parking Issues
As public transportation and transit corridor development is being encouraged by cities, there was considerable discussion for when costs associated with parking infrastructure should be included as an eligible use. Whereas one convenient rule of thumb that only replacement public parking be eligible, some developers expressed their concern that often times the amount of housing they are permitted to develop on a site is directly related to how much parking they can provide. Providing on-site parking presents substantial cost implications for which these developers see this infill set-aside funding as being appropriate.
Affordability
There is discussion about how best to encourage affordability beyond the minimum 15% threshold. For some non-profit developers, the mixed-income focus of the funding seems to deviate from the message of the PROP 1C campaign to assist low- and very-low income households; others supported the mixed-income approach saying that without this kind of public leverage market-rate developers are not tackling difficult sites that are otherwise located conveniently to jobs and transit.
One concept mentioned in meetings with legislators was to perhaps consider an 'affordability cap' whereby point for affordability under the ranking criteria would not accrue beyond, say, 40% of a project's total units. The thinking behind this was that developers interested in mixed-income housing scenarios may do tax-exempt bond deals electing to set aside 20% of the units at 50% AMI or 40% of the units up to 60% AMI. The 'cap' would not be intended to discourage 100% affordable infill projects from applying for the funding but such projects would not have a competitive advantage beyond a 40% set aside for tax credit affordability.
Prevailing Wage Requirements
While there was little doubt that the use of these infill set-aside funds would trigger prevailing wage requirements, of particular interest is that guidelines make clear that the funding is limited to the housing-related infrastructure component itself. As in the period following the implementation of the 2003 prevailing wage requirements, participants agreed that a challenge to the applicability of prevailing wage for an entire project will likely be forthcoming.
The following issues from an Infill Development strategy meeting illustrate the issues that are being researched, weighted and parsed ... and are the issues many cities around the country will be facing in the coming months or years.
A bi-partisan effort in California worked over 18 months to develop housing infill issues on the ballot among a host of infrastructure measures that include these key concepts:
- that site eligibility be determined according to density thresholds appropriate to urban/suburban/rural jurisdictions;
- that developers be allowed to apply for the funding (in addition to local government entities);
- that a list of delineated housing-related infrastructure uses beyond water, sewer, and utilities be incorporated into the legislation (including brownfield clean-up, demolition, public transit linkages attributable to new housing);
- that a minimum affordability threshold of 15% be established (as there had been no affordability provision in the ballot language);
- that funding be allocated proportionally across the diverse regions of the state, that ownership and rental housing be eligible for funding,
- that there be a distinction between 'infill areas' and 'infill projects';
- that there be a series of ranking criteria created to guide the application selection process (including density, affordability, proximity to transit, and local support/leverage)
Funding is always at the heart of community issues, and infill development is no different. Infill Development Set-Aside funds are being debated and distributed among public, nonprofit and private builders.
Applicant Eligibility
With respect to the possibility of private housing developers applying for this set-aside funding,
some participants worried that the infrastructure grants could be 'give-aways' to housing projects that may well be feasible without this subsidy. There was agreement that the funding should be awarded to those projects for whom the unusual infrastructure needs represent the primary impediment to development.
Parking Issues
As public transportation and transit corridor development is being encouraged by cities, there was considerable discussion for when costs associated with parking infrastructure should be included as an eligible use. Whereas one convenient rule of thumb that only replacement public parking be eligible, some developers expressed their concern that often times the amount of housing they are permitted to develop on a site is directly related to how much parking they can provide. Providing on-site parking presents substantial cost implications for which these developers see this infill set-aside funding as being appropriate.
Affordability
There is discussion about how best to encourage affordability beyond the minimum 15% threshold. For some non-profit developers, the mixed-income focus of the funding seems to deviate from the message of the PROP 1C campaign to assist low- and very-low income households; others supported the mixed-income approach saying that without this kind of public leverage market-rate developers are not tackling difficult sites that are otherwise located conveniently to jobs and transit.
One concept mentioned in meetings with legislators was to perhaps consider an 'affordability cap' whereby point for affordability under the ranking criteria would not accrue beyond, say, 40% of a project's total units. The thinking behind this was that developers interested in mixed-income housing scenarios may do tax-exempt bond deals electing to set aside 20% of the units at 50% AMI or 40% of the units up to 60% AMI. The 'cap' would not be intended to discourage 100% affordable infill projects from applying for the funding but such projects would not have a competitive advantage beyond a 40% set aside for tax credit affordability.
Prevailing Wage Requirements
While there was little doubt that the use of these infill set-aside funds would trigger prevailing wage requirements, of particular interest is that guidelines make clear that the funding is limited to the housing-related infrastructure component itself. As in the period following the implementation of the 2003 prevailing wage requirements, participants agreed that a challenge to the applicability of prevailing wage for an entire project will likely be forthcoming.
