Inclusionary Zoning

Nancy MacWood

In oversight testimony on the Inclusionary Zoning program, C100 described the deficiencies the DC Auditor found in the Department of Housing and Community Development’s administration of the IZ Program. C100 attributed the problems to gross mismanagement and recommended that the Council insist on more than merely asking DHCD to do better.

C100 Zoning Subcommittee

A group of interested organizations -- called the Coalition for Inclusionary Zoning that includes the Coalition for Smarter Growth, AFL-CIO Metro Washington Council, Fiscal Policy Institute, Jews United for Justice, and some others -- submitted these changes on January 7, 2015. Since that time, the Office of Planning has organized lots of meetings and the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development asked the ZC to postpone consideration of the proposed changes.

Who was invited to these meetings?

The ZC asked the same question. The answer is developers and building industry reps and the Coalition for Inclusionary Zoning, but no ANCs.

Nancy MacWood & Caroline Petti

Comments on a range of issues pertaining to the inclusionary zoning regulations including: the targeted family income, size of units, applicability in DC's Downtown area, arbitrarily limited "Set-Aside" requirements, bonus density, height and lot occupancy requirements, bonus density and small residential projects (i.e., fewer than ten units), city's right-to-purchase inclusionary units, and off-site compliance.

Stephen A. Hansen, Kirby Vining, & Caroline Petti

In general, the Committee of 100 believes DHCD's proposal does a good job of addressing recent Zoning Commission changes to the IZ program as well as incorporating additional streamlining and flexibility into the program' s implementation without compromising its integrity or effectiveness.  We do, however, have concerns about changes DHCD is proposing to the housing cost limitations currently found in Section 2213.5 (f) and (g) of the existing lnclusionary Zoning Implementation regulations. In pa11icular the Committee of 100 is concerned about DHCD's proposed changes to allow IZ households to spend as high as 50% of annual income on housing costs.

Caroline Petti

At a time when building affordable housing is of the highest priority for our city, we're hard-pressed to understand why the Office of Planning IZ regulations arbitrarily limit the 10% Inclusionary Unit "Set-Aside".  The 10% "Set-Aside" applies to stick-built construction (not the more expensive concrete and steel construction), but only in zones with a by- right height limit of 50 feet or less.  The height limit of the underlying zone is irrelevant. All stick-built construction projects --regardless of the height limit of the zone they're located in -- should be subject to OP's 10% Inclusionary Unit "Set-Aside".

Kirby Vining

C100 testified at the Office of Planning’s July 15, 2020 Roundtable on Case 20-02: Enhanced IZ, arguing both that existing IZ has some problems not dealt with at all by Enhanced IZ, and the proposed Enhanced IZ also would allow map amendments for certain properties, thereby eliminating a contested case where benefits and harms could be entertained.

Kirby Vining

C100 testified on proposed amendments to Zoning Regulations to create Expanded IZ, asserting the immense density increases would result in exchange for a relative handful of affordable units.  C100 also noted the thinness of the public record and the outsize influence of the development community in dr.  C100 urged further consideration before draft rules were issued for  public comment.  The Zoning Commission proceeded with the rulemaking.

Kirby Vining

C100 wrote to urge the Zoning Commission not to hold a scheduled vote on final text amendments, citing a grave procedural flaw: the final rule text was based on a formula different from that advertised in the proposed rules issued for comment.  The revised formula was one requested by a building industry trade association in comments filed on the last day for public comment.  The Commission declined to accept C100's filing but nevertheless reissued the rule.

Kirby Vining

C100 submitted comments to the revised Expanded IZ formula, demonstrating through a painstaking analysis that Expanded IZ in some instances could produce fewer affordable units than would be produced under existing IZ provisions.  C100 also questioned whether Expanded IZ would discourage the use of Planned Unit Developments (in favor of matter of right construction), thus limiting the public voice in planning.

Nancy MacWood

Comments on the potential conversion of existing office buildings, especially in the downtown area, for residential purposes, noting that currently the Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) program does not apply to the downtown area.