Issuu

Arlington Shared Prosperity Initiative

Status Report on Affordable Housing Ordinance Review November 2020 Shared Prosperity Background, Strategies and Progress On April 8, 2019, the Arlington Community Foundation (ACF) convened a Shared Prosperity Roundtable as part of a set of local initiatives initiated by the national Shared Prosperity Partnership. Supported by partners the Kresge Foundation, the Urban Institute, and the Brookings Institution, the Roundtable brought together 36 invited representatives from Arlington’s business, nonprofit and government sectors. Participants discussed and unpacked the involuntary displacement of households living at or below 30% of the area median income (AMI) in Arlington to focus on goals and strategies that could affect the availability of affordable housing, affordable and quality child care, and access to workforce training ladders and job skills development. Using the Roundtable ideas as a base, an overarching housing goal and four strategies emerged: Figure 1

Status Fall 2020

A. Bricks and Mortar Buy-Down in New Construction Create 200 additional affordable housing units dedicated to those making 30% of AMI with philanthropic investment of $21 million beyond Arlington’s AHIF investments.

Piloted affordability buy-down program partnering with our affordable housing community using an initial investment of $2.7 million in private funding adding 28 units with long-term affordability at 30% AMI. This represented a 27% increase in the number of these units available to working households in the County.

B. Create a New Rental Subsidy Fund Beginning in FY 2020, build 5 years of rental subsidies for 555 households with a $20 million investment in a new nongovernmental subsidy fund.

Implemented a rental subsidy pilot for $550,000 that is currently being deployed through two different affordable housing nonprofits. The pilot will allow the nonprofits to reduce rents for a two-year period for approximately 28 households at 30% AMI.

C. Create a More Robust “Emergency Housing Stabilization Fund” Beginning in FY 2020, strengthen Arlington’s housing safety net, prevent homelessness and create a longer runway to stabilization for 250-500 of our lowest income households by providing $500,000 per year in additional funding.

Successfully advocated, in fall 2019 prior to the onset of COVID-19, for the inclusion of an additional $500,000 in emergency housing stabilization funding through Arlington County’s year-end closeout process for allocating budget surplus. As COVID has progressed, the County has continued to direct both local and federal CARES Act funding to support low-income tenant needs.

1 of 13

HOUSING GOAL: Over the next 5 years, an additional 1,500 households with incomes at or below 30% AMI have found housing in Arlington that is affordable to them. County funding and private sector investments will be combined to achieve this goal. D. Update the Affordable Housing Ordinance Build a cross-sector advocacy plan that targets 2020 General Assembly action to update the 2006 state statute governing developer participation in affordable housing production in Arlington.

This report provides more detail on progress on this strategy. In 2019, after much discussion, the decision was made to look beyond the 2020 session, conduct additional research and aim for the 2021 General Assembly session. As of November 2020, given pandemic impacts on the economy and public policy priorities, we do not plan to seek action in the 2021 session. This report explains why.

Strategy D: Review of Arlington’s Affordable Housing Ordinance About the Ordinance Arlington’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) was created in 2005 in response to a lawsuit and was the result of a study and intense negotiation that involved landowners, developers, land use attorneys, affordable housing advocates and county government. In addition to being an element of the County’s Zoning Ordinance, it is ensconced in Virginia State Code § 15.2-735.1 and amending it requires a 2/3 vote of the members of each chamber. The Ordinance language can be found in Appendix A. The AHO governs how private sector development contributes to Arlington’s affordable housing efforts through mitigating contributions of either money or housing units. Because it applies only to projects that are approved through the Special Exception Site Plan process 1 it is not considered a true “inclusionary zoning” ordinance, although many aspects of it are similar. Arlington’s ordinance is the only local ordinance that has 1) a predictable option for a financial contribution in-lieu of providing basedensity on-site affordable units, 2) an option to provide off-site construction of base-density required units, and 3) requires an affordable housing contribution from commercial building site plans. The Ordinance has been a tool in Arlington’s affordable housing efforts for many years, resulting in $47 million in developer contribution payments to the Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) over the past 10 years alone.

This is also known as the 4.1 process because the details are outlined in Administrative Regulation 4.1. 2 of 13

Figure 2

Summary of Affordable Housing Ordinance Provisions On-Site and Off-Site Developer Options

Cash Contribution Developer Option

The developer can choose to provide affordable units using a percent of the increased gross floor area (GFA) above 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

In-lieu of providing on-site or off-site affordable units, developers may choose to provide a cash contribution.

Three options are available: 1. For on-site units, the requirement is 5% of the GFA above 1.0 FAR;

Cash contribution rates in 2020 are: - $2.05/sq. ft. of GFA for first 1.0 FAR;

2. for off-site units located nearby, 7.5%; and 3. for off-site units elsewhere in the county, 10%.

$5.48/sq. ft. from 1.0 to 3.0 FAR for residential;

$10.98/sq. ft. of GFA above 3.0 for residential; and

$5.48/sq. ft. above 1.0 FAR for commercial.

Cash contribution amounts are indexed to the Consumer Price Index for Housing in the WashingtonArlington-Alexandria MSA.

Following the April 2019 Roundtable, the Foundation, assisted by the Urban Institute and a local nonprofit housing provider, the Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing (APAH), conducted an initial review and analysis of the underlying financial calculations embedded in the Ordinance. We quickly learned that Arlington’s formula is much more complex than in lieu fees elsewhere in the country. For that reason, we knew we could not recommend changes to the embedded fees and calculations without extensive analysis of the potential impact on the cost of entitling a project prior to creating any General Assembly proposal. Research Question focused on the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) Can more units of affordable housing be achieved through changes to Arlington’s Affordable Housing Ordinance? The Arlington Community Foundation Shared Prosperity team (Team) agreed to lead exploration of the research question with assistance by the Urban Institute and the County’s Housing Division. In all, the Team conducted 25 interviews with about 30 participants over approximately two months in early 2020 beginning before the COVID-19 shutdown and continuing into the first month(s) of the crisis. The interviewees were 10 for-profit developers, two nonprofit developers, three long-time landowners, four land-use attorneys, two associations, and four housing experts. (See Appendix B) The research covered interviewees’ experience with the AHO in general: their understanding of its purpose, comparisons to other similar ordinances, what is working well and what is not working. Interviewees were asked for feedback on potential changes to the ordinance such as adjusting calculations, rebalancing in-lieu payments to more closely align to the cost of on-site units, and changing qualifying AMI levels.

3 of 13

Overall, the stakeholders interviewed agreed that the provision of affordable housing in Arlington is important to the local economy. All believe the private sector has a role to play but there are limits to how much can be asked before projects become infeasible. Developers benefit from the predictability that comes from the ordinance’s set formulaic approach that can be incorporated into financial projections at the outset of a project. Stakeholders believe that the option of an in-lieu payment for base-density requirements should be continued. However, there was also general agreement that the amount of the in-lieu payment was significantly lower than the cost of putting units on-site, and as a result the payment of the in-lieu fee for base density was the preferred choice of all developers. To date, only 12 on-site units and zero off-site units have been created using the AHO. It is important to note that the vast majority of today’s on-site affordable units have been created through the County’s Bonus Density Program. Projects going through the Special Exception Site Plan approval process must comply with one of the standard AHO contributions for any part of the project that is considered “base density,” i.e. the amount of density that is consistent with current planning and zoning limits for the site. Additional affordable housing units beyond the AHO are required for any portion of the project considered “bonus density.” The County Board’s policy preference over the years has been to require on-site affordable units when the Board grants this type of bonus density. Key Findings Related to the Ordinance 1. Calculation adjustments to the in-lieu AHO payments are currently unlikely to receive the broad support needed to pass the General Assembly Because it has been the least expensive and therefore default option, any change to the calculation of in-lieu fees in in the ordinance will result in an increase to the cost of entitling a project. As much of the economy shuttered due to the COVID-19 crisis, the development community began experiencing significant concerns and uncertainty about the strength of the commercial real estate market in the near to mid-term. It became increasingly clear that, without significant offsets somewhere else in the development process, any proposal that increased development costs at such an uncertain time would be very unlikely to receive the broad support needed to succeed with a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly. 2. Through the research process, a number of strategies emerged to 1) offset increased Ordinance inlieu payments through reduced entitlement or development costs, or 2) bring more funding to the Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF). These ideas are summarized in Figure 3. With the exception of updating the Ordinance in-lieu fee (B4) all of these strategies are within the County Board’s control.

4 of 13

Figure 3

Strategies to Increase AHIF Funding

A. Cost Shifters 1. Shifting within Community Benefits Bucket

2. Redirect Fees to AH e.g. Land Vacations/Easements

3. Designate increased tax revenue from pending development projects

B. New Funding Sources

C. Cost Savers

(needed to account for higher costs of in-lieu fee)

4. Ordinance In-Lieu Fee Update (original task)

7. More Efficient Site Plan Review Process – Time is Money

5. Cigarette Tax

8. Streamline Standard Site Plan Conditions

6. Bonus Density Buy Out Option at Market Rate

9. Update Specific Costly Site Plan Requirements: parking and utilities

Suggested Non-Ordinance Strategies to increase AHIF or provide developer offsets to an updated Ordinance that increases developer costs Cost Shifters that elevate Affordable Housing as a County Board priority A1 Shifting within the Community Benefit Bucket All projects going through the Special Exception Site Plan review process must provide a package of community benefits, including affordable housing, to receive approval. Reexamination of the distribution of community benefit dollars among housing, transportation, green building and other goals has not been undertaken in many years. Our interviewees believed that redistributing the existing community benefit funding in order to increase funding for Affordable Housing was a County Board decision that they would support. Several pointed out that affordable housing is a high priority for the County and shifting more of the community benefit allocations in that direction could represent this priority more definitively. Status: Available to County Board. Proposed next steps: Initiate a conversation with the County Attorney to ensure any adjustments under consideration are structured to continue to mitigate the impacts of 4.1 site plan projects. In addition, a number of County Advisory Commissions should be consulted to consider any potential shifts among funding priorities.

5 of 13

A2 Redirecting Certain Development Fees to Affordable Housing The County routinely charges developers an amount up to the full fair market value of a parcel for land vacation and/or easement approvals needed as part of the entitlement process. These funds, which vary in each circumstance but can range from several thousand to several million dollars, could be directed to AHIF rather than placed in the County’s General Fund. Status: Available to County Board. Proposed Next Steps: County staff should report on all such fees charged over the past three to five years to get a sense of the frequency and magnitude of these one-time payments. A3 Designating incremental tax increases, from project entitlement through completion, to AHIF A property’s tax assessment starts to increase upon approval of a site plan application because the approved changes impact the property’s value. The increases continue incrementally each year until the property is completed and fully occupied, at which point the assessment and tax payments stabilize. Because this is new tax revenue that had not previously been received by the County and allocated for other uses, these incremental funds could provide a dedicated source of funds for AHIF without a negative impact on the County budget. During years with many active site plan or form-based code approvals, this strategy could generate at least $500,000 in additional tax revenue. Finding a way to capture this incremental increase across a number of approved sites would require additional comprehensive review. At a minimum, we believe it would support increasing AHIF annually by at least the cost of living. Methodology: Using the County’s Real Estate data base and a list of projects that got Certificates of Occupancy between 2017 and 2020, the Team examined how tax assessments changed over time. The County’s general process is to bump the initial assessment up, based either on approved square footage or increased apartment count, and then over the ensuing years increase the assessment as the building moves toward completion. This results in a gradual increase in tax revenue over a period of years. When the building is considered substantially complete and begins to generate revenue a proportionally larger step up in assessment is likely. Status: Available to County Board. Proposed Next Steps: County Real Estate staff should develop a tool to track these projects as they move from entitlement to completion in order to have a more refined financial impact assessment. New Funding Sources that could be targeted to AHIF or Housing Grants B4 Update the Ordinance Any update of the Arlington-specific ordinance 2 would have as one focus closing the financial gap between the cost of providing an on-site unit and the in-lieu payment. Additional elements of the Ordinance could be considered and updated, if desired. For example, the Urban Institute’s research showed that the roughly 5% affordable housing required by the ordinance is low when compared to many other jurisdictions. Fairfax County’s Inclusionary Zoning program requires between 6.25% and 12.5% of units to be affordable. Currently the Arlington Ordinance

While Virginia has a generally permissive inclusionary zoning statute that technically applies to Arlington, the 2005 Affordable Housing Ordinance statute (see Appendix A) overrides this provision and governs affordable housing requirements for both commercial and residential projects. 6 of 13

only applies to site plan approvals over 1.0 FAR, whereas other jurisdictions’ inclusionary zoning policies apply to all or most residential developments over a certain number of units. Status: Requires coordinated General Assembly (2/3 vote) and County Board action. Proposed next steps: County staff is in the process of engaging a consultant to compare the value of on-site units to the in-lieu fees. Answers will likely come in the context of the review of the Affordable Housing Master Plan during 2021, during which time both the development and policy/legislative environments should stabilize assuming the COVID crisis has subsided. B5 Cigarette Tax In 2020, the General Assembly took action to equalize the cigarette tax limits between cities and counties, resulting in the possibility of an increase to the existing cigarette tax in Arlington. The County Manager proposed such an increase, dedicated to AHIF, in his original plan for the FY2021 budget. This was not implemented in the adopted budget and the advent of COVID may have put any discussion of increasing taxes on hold for FY2021. Status: Available to County Board. Proposed next steps: Adopt the tax increase as soon as possible and dedicate the increased revenue to AHIF. B6 Allow buy-out of required on-site units embedded in Bonus Density The Ordinance calculation for units only applies to base density (density anticipated within the current General Land Use Plan) in residential buildings approved through the special exception site plan process. (Commercial building approvals use a different calculation to arrive at their affordable housing contribution.) It has been the County’s practice to require/negotiate on-site units when it approves bonus density (above what is planned for in the GLUP) for residential projects. This practice is used frequently and has resulted in 335 committed affordable units over the past 10 years, about 11% of the total CAFs produced during that time, compared with a total of only 12 on-site units created directly through the AHO. Moving forward, the County could allow new and/or existing affordable units to buy out of those commitments at market prices and direct the funding to AHIF. The policy trade-off would involve reducing the number of mixed-income buildings in exchange for a larger number of affordable units created through leveraged AHIF investments, which tend to be located in projects where all or a majority of the units are affordable. This shift could be mitigated by ensuring that the AHIF investments are used to encourage CAF development and/or preservation in or near the same neighborhoods as the original projects. Urban Institute found that, nationally, in-lieu payments are much more aligned with the cost of providing the unit on site. Anecdotally, Falls Church may be, for the first time, proposing an inlieu payment option that could be as high as $200,000 per unit. Status: available to County Board. Proposed next steps: The County Board could instruct staff, as part of the Affordable Housing Master Plan review, to develop an in-lieu payment at market rate as an option for some/all site plans that include bonus density requests. This change in policy would require a financial analysis and likely engender much community interest and significant discussion.

7 of 13

Cost Savers that could offset a developer cost increase associated with the Ordinance Update C7 Streamline the Site Plan Review Process In our many conversations, it became clear that developers saw their total cost of development approval as a combination of the community benefit dollars for mitigating offsets PLUS the costs of achieving entitlement in the Arlington site development process. The latter includes the cost of staff and consultants needed to conduct the iterative analysis and adjustments resulting from the community feedback during the site plan review process, as well as the financial and opportunity costs associated with an extended pre-development period. The developer rule of thumb for entitling a project in one of Arlington’s metro corridors was $2M. The County, on the other hand, focused solely on the community benefit dollars. This difference of perspective initially was very intriguing, as potential streamlining of the process, if thoughtfully monetized, could free up funding for mitigating contributions for affordable housing. The approval timeline/process for site plan projects has already been revamped during COVID because of the inability to hold public community input sessions. A new online, streamlined process is being piloted by CPHD as this is being written, shortening the development timeline significantly. This pilot is likely to impact the development approval process going forward. As this was done without explicitly monetizing the savings that accrued to the developer, there may be little opportunity to see this reduction as a tradeoff for additional affordable housing contributions. Status: Available to the County Board. Proposed next steps: Prior to adopting any permanent changes to the site plan review process, the County Board should instruct staff to monitor the total time involved in the review process and how the current pilot process compares with previous review times. The results could be incorporated into a future discussion with developer representatives regarding possible tradeoffs for additional community benefits. C8 Streamline standard site plan conditions Arlington’s current standard site plan conditions exceed 80 in number and often are very prescriptive about what must occur before the County grants approvals to move ahead in the actual construction process. The desire to streamline these conditions is often brought up by the development community, although recently only narrow updates to specific conditions have been pursued and achieved. Everyone involved in the process agrees that a more thorough and impactful redo of the conditions would be a significant undertaking that would require lengthy study, fiscal impact analyses, negotiations and technical discussions with numerous staff, interest groups and specialists. Such an extensive review may be worthwhile but it is something that would require budgeting and planning for staff and other resources to pursue. Methodology: The Team compared the standard site plan conditions to the requirements in the Columbia Pike Form Based Code to test whether the FBC had fewer conditions. Our analysis of 4 projects — two FBC and 2 Site Plan - did not demonstrate any significant differences in requirements or building construction time. Status: Available to County Board. Proposed next steps: Add this body of work to the Planning Department’s work plan. It would likely stretch over a number of years.

8 of 13

C9 Update specific costly site plan conditions (e.g. parking and off-site undergrounding) This strategy would focus-in on a few areas that are particularly expensive and examine whether there are other ways to accomplish these goals. As an example: other cities have moved to parking maximums rather than minimums as a way to encourage more shared parking—especially in areas that are already overparked. The County adopted new policy guidance in late 2017 that reduced residential parking requirements in the Metro corridors, which could potentially be incorporated more formally into the development plans for projects across the County. Status: Available to the County Board. Proposed next steps: Initiate discussion with Commissions and the community leading to formal adoption of a policy that will be consistently implemented as part of the 4.1 site plan process.

Conclusion Given the pandemic’s impact on the economy and the lack of an easy set of trade-offs for any increase in developer costs associated with obtaining a site-plan or form-based code approval, we do not recommend continued work on developing an ordinance update legislative proposal for the 2021 General Assembly session. In the meantime, we believe that our study has identified policy or practice suggestions that could regularly be applied to development projects that would add to the amount of AHIF funding. Moving on these suggestions would send a strong signal to private donors that the County Board is willing to partner in new ways to achieve additional affordable housing units. As an organization that cares deeply about providing housing to those who are living on 30% of AMI, the Arlington Community Foundation believes that bringing additional public funding to affordable housing will allow the County to consider earmarking some of the new funds for this neediest of neighbors. We urge the County Board to seriously consider the pathways identified by this report.

9 of 13

Appendix A Arlington’s Affordable Housing Ordinance is codified in the Code of Virginia at § 15.2-735.1 and in the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance at Section 15.5.8. Code of Virginia Table of Contents » Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns » Subtitle I. General Provisions; Charters; Other Forms and Organization of Counties » Chapter 7. County Manager Plan of Government » Article 2. General Powers; County Manager Plan » § 15.2-735.1. Affordable dwelling unit ordinance; permitting certain densities in the comprehensive plan § 15.2-735.1. Affordable dwelling unit ordinance; permitting certain densities in the comprehensive plan. A. In a county that provides in its comprehensive plan for the physical development within the county, adopted pursuant to § 15.2-2223, for densities of development ranging between a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 FAR and 10.0 FAR, or greater, the governing body may adopt as part of its zoning ordinance requirements for the provision of (i) on-site or off-site "Affordable Dwelling Units," as defined herein, or (ii) a cash contribution to the county's affordable housing fund, in lieu of such units, in such amounts as set out herein, as a condition of the governing body's approval of a special exception application for residential, commercial, or mixed-use projects with a density equal to or greater than 1.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre. Residential, commercial, or mixed-use projects with a density less than 1.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre, shall be exempt from the requirements of this section and the county's zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. The county's zoning ordinance requirements shall provide as follows: 1. Upon approval of a special exception application approving a residential, commercial, or mixeduse project with a density equal to or greater than 1.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre, the applicant shall provide on-site Affordable Dwelling Units as part of the project the total gross square footage of which units shall be 5% of the amount of the gross floor area of the project that exceeds 1.0 FAR or an equivalent density based on units per acre. For purposes of this section, "applicant" shall mean the person or entity submitting a special exception application for approval of a residential, commercial or mixed-use project in the county and shall include the successors or assigns of the applicant. 2. As an alternative, upon approval of a special exception application approving a residential, commercial, or mixed-use project with a density equal to or greater than 1.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre, the applicant may elect to provide any one of the following: a. Affordable Dwelling Units shall be provided off-site at a location within one-half mile of any Metrorail Station for projects within a Metro Station Area as defined in the county's comprehensive plan, or within one-half mile of the residential, commercial, or mixed-use project for projects not within a Metro Station Area, as provided in the county's zoning ordinance, the total gross square footage of which units shall be 7.5% of the amount of the gross floor area of the project that is over 1.0 FAR or an equivalent density based on units per acre, or b. Affordable Dwelling Units shall be provided off-site at any other locations in the county other than those provided in the county's zoning ordinance in accordance with subdivision a, the total gross square footage of which units shall be 10% of the amount of the gross floor area of the project that is over 1.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre, or 10 of 13

c. A cash contribution to the county's affordable housing fund, which contribution shall be calculated as follows for each of the below-described density tiers: (1) One and one-half dollars per square foot of gross floor area for the first tier of density between zero and 1.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre. (2) Four dollars per square foot of gross floor area for the tier of density in residential projects between 1.0 FAR and 3.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre, and $4 per square foot of gross floor area for the tier of density in commercial projects above 1.0 FAR. (3) Eight dollars per square foot of gross floor area for the tier of density in residential projects above 3.0 FAR, or an equivalent density based on units per acre. (4) For mixed-use projects, cash contributions shall be calculated by applying the proportionate amount of commercial and residential gross floor area to each tier. The cash contribution shall be indexed to the Consumer Price Index for Housing in the Washington-Baltimore MSA as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and shall be adjusted annually based upon the January changes to such index for that year. 3. The applicant shall provide the county manager or his designee, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the residential, commercial, or mixed-use project, a written plan of how the applicant proposes to address the provision of Affordable Dwelling Units or cash contribution as provided in this section and the provisions of the zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. The county manager or his designee shall approve or disapprove the applicant's plan in writing within 30 days of receipt of the written proposal from the applicant. If the county manager or his designee disapproves of the applicant's plan, specific reasons for such disapproval shall be provided. 4. An applicant may submit a written plan to be considered by the governing body or its designee to address the provision of Affordable Dwelling Units or cash contribution as provided in this section and the provisions of the zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that deviate from the requirements of this section and the ordinance. Any such deviations may be approved in accordance with the procedures established in the county's zoning ordinance, which procedures shall include a provision for an appeal to the governing body of any administrative decision relative to the written plan submitted by the applicant. 5. The ordinance adopted by the county pursuant to this section may provide that, in the discretion of the governing body and with the agreement of the applicant, at the time of consideration of the special exception application, the above requirements may be totally or partially substituted for other compelling public priorities established in plans, studies, policies, or other documents of the county. 6. Applications for a special exception approval of a residential, commercial, or mixed-use project that results in the demolition and rebuilding of an existing project shall be subject to the requirements of this section and the zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this section at the time of redevelopment; however, only density that is replaced or rebuilt and any increased density shall be subject to the requirements. This section and the county's zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not apply to rehabilitation or renovation of existing residential, commercial, or mixed-use projects. 7. For purposes of this section "Affordable Dwelling Unit" means units committed for a 30-year term as affordable to households with incomes at 60% of the area median income.

11 of 13

B. This section shall apply to an application for a special exception approval for a residential, commercial, or mixed-use project with a density provided for by the County's comprehensive plan designation for the property that is the subject matter of the application. This section shall further apply to such an application that requires rezoning of the property that is the subject matter of the application to permit a use provided for by the county's comprehensive plan designation for the subject property. C. The ordinance adopted by the county pursuant to this section may provide that an application for approval of a special exception for a residential, commercial, or mixed-use project that requests an increase in density that exceeds the density provided for by the county's comprehensive plan designation for the property that is the subject matter of the application shall be subject to an affordable housing requirement in addition to the requirements of this section and the zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. D. The ordinance adopted by the county pursuant to this section or other provisions of law may provide that an application that requests to amend the county's comprehensive plan designation for the subject property to a higher density designation may be subject to an affordable housing requirement in addition to the requirements of this section and the zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. E. The ordinance adopted by the county pursuant to this section may provide that applications for a special exception approval for residential, commercial, or mixed-use projects that result in the elimination of existing units affordable to households with incomes equal to or below 80% of the area median income address replacement of the eliminated units as a condition of the governing body's approval of the special exception application. F. With the exception of the authority under § 15.2-2304, this section establishes the legislative authority for the county to obtain Affordable Dwelling Units in exchange for the approval of a special exception application for a residential, commercial, or mixed-use project in the county, and a special exception may not be used in combination with any other provision of law in Chapter 22 (§ 15.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 15.2 to obtain Affordable Dwelling Units from an applicant. Nothing in this section shall be construed to repeal the county's authority under any other provision of law. 2006, c. 481.

12 of 13

Appendix B Interview Participants The Community Foundation would like to thank those who participated in interviews and discussions on the Ordinance as a part of this project. These included private developers, affordable housing providers, property owners, land use attorneys, industry groups, housing consultants and several former County officials. Companies represented include the following: AHC, Inc. Apartment and Office Building Association (AOBA) Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing (APAH) Avalon Bay Bean Kinney & Korman PC BF Saul Company BF Smith & Associates Dittmar Company JBG SMITH Johnson Associates Inc. Kettler Properties McGuireWoods LLP National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) Paradigm Companies Penzance Properties E. G. Reinsch Companies Shooshan Company Silverwood Companies Venable LLP Weissberg Investment Corporation

13 of 13