In 2014 Julian Castro created the Mayor’s Task Force on Preserving Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods. This group developed a set of recommendations that included, among other things, the creation of a Housing Commission, displacement mitigation measures, a comprehensive review of city policies, and a housing bond.

In 2015 the Housing Commission to Preserve and Prevent Displacement was formed and for three years worked to carry out the somewhat limited Task Force recommendations. The most notable achievements of this commission were the successful creation of the 20 million dollar Neighborhood Improvements Bond and, in my opinion, serving as a platform to keep issues around affordable housing and displacement in the public eye.

When Mayor Ron Nirenberg took office in 2017, he realized that while these efforts were a good first step, a more energetic and holistic response was required. Shortly after taking office, he formed the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force on which I had the honor to serve. This five-member group was charged with a sweeping, whole-system review of San Antonio’s housing ecosystem and, over 12 months, led as hundreds of citizens participated by sharing stories and concerns, and serving on technical working groups. The task force worked with four different consultant groups as well as City staff to do a deep dive into data and facilitate the process.

This process revealed the following:

Housing costs are outpacing incomes in San Antonio and there is a wide and rapidly growing affordability gap. In 2000, you could find a starter home for a new $110k. Today the floor is about $170k. Incomes have remained relatively flat over that period.
50% of renters in San Antonio are spending more than 30% of their income on housing or 45% on housing plus transportation.
Housing supply is not keeping pace with growth: most new construction is outside San Antonio city limits
Neighborhood instability and displacement are real things and they are happening here.

It wasn’t easy but under the leadership of Lourdes Castro Ramirez. We treated one another with respect and, in the end; we developed not just consensus, but friendship. Ultimately, the five of us, from different backgrounds and points of view, boiled the oceans of information down into San Antonio’s Housing Policy Framework

Charge for Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

The actions that the housing policy framework calls for are bold and sweeping and include:

Development of a coordinated Housing System
Increased investment in housing
Increase affordable housing production, rehabilitation, and preservation
Protection and preservation of neighborhoods
And the insurance of accountability to the public.

Page 12 of the Housing Policy Framework provides an initial timeline for implementation. Many but not all of these initial tasks are underway including:

Council adoption of Housing Policy Framework (August 2018)
Increased funding to implement framework recommendations (October 2018)
Reconstitution of the Housing Commission (February 2019)
- The Housing Commission is tasked to ensure the Housing Policy Framework will of the people be implemented over the next decade and is currently chaired by Lourdes Castro Ramirez. It is to that body this commission that we will report our findings. Jessica Guerrero, who has joined on the phone, is our Housing Commission representative.
Preliminary steps on addressing and mitigating displacement (April 2019)
Review of the San Antonio Housing Trust (July 2019)
Establish a Technical Working Group on removing barriers to the production and preservation of affordable housing within the Unified Development Code
- Strategy 1: Undertake an inclusive public process to determine standards and criteria to allow by-right zoning for housing developments in which at least 50% of the units are affordable. (We are not tackling this. The implementation plan calls for a separate working group to do so.)
- Strategy 2: Exempt affordable housing units from SAWS impact fees. (Our group might wish to look at SAWS and CPS related issues)
- Strategy 3: Revise the UDC to remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing. (This will be the primary goal for our group and details are on page 40 of the Housing Policy Framework)

Work of Previous Housing Commission

The previous Housing Commission noted several ways to improve Sections 35-360 (Bonus Density) and 35-372 (Affordable Dwelling Units) in the Unified Development Code. The concern was that these parts of the code were not highly utilized as the bonuses were small. Below is an overview of the general ideas of changes put forth by Housing Commission.

Current Policy
Issue	Proposed Changed
Applicability	Current policy only applies to multi-unit projects subject to application for rezoning, MDP, or planning. Policy should include single-unit projects and should allow for uses not permitted in a zoning district. (e.g. duplex in R-4)
Affordability	Currently the policy defines low income as not exceeding 80% AMI and very low income as not exceeding 50% AMI. Policy should have more comprehensive range of AMI categories especially for homeowners.
Density Bonus and Set-Aside	Currently developers can increase permitted units by 20% if 10% of the units are low income housing and a 10% increase if 5% of the units are very low income housing. Policy should have a minimum of 5% restricted income units and an increasing bonus density for every 1% increase of restricted units.
Affordability Period	The current policy states units must be affordable for 50 years. Policy should reduce the length of affordability to 20 years for a homebuyer and 30 years for rental units.
Additional Development Specifications(Proposed to be applicable for projects with 75% or more affordable units)
Issue	Proposed Changed
Minimum Lot Size	Allow minim lot size to be reduced to 1,250 square feet.
Building Setbacks	Should not require front or side setbacks and reduce rear setback to 5 feet.
Street Construction Standards	Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to upgrade or improve existing streets or sidewalks.
Utilities	Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing utility infrastructure.
Storm water Management	Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing off-site storm water. There should be increased options for off-site drainage alternatives in lieu of on-site retention/ detention pond.
Parks & Open Space	Parks and open space dedication and fee in lieu of land dedication standards shall not apply.
Tree Preservation	Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to mitigate the removal of tress located in development areas.

Overview of Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

The Mayor’s Office brought together 20 people from across San Antonio to address the development issues facing affordable housing in San Antonio. Over three meetings, this group determined the priorities and formed subcommittees around these priorities including:

Regulatory Cost Burden: this subcommittee provided recommendations for ways to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers
Accessory Dwelling Units: this subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods
Public Outreach & Engagement: this subcommittee focused on how engage neighborhoods and share knowledge so residents are an integral part of this process

Technical Working Group Members

Committee Member Information	Meeting Dates & Attendance
First Name	Last name	Affiliation	June 21st	July 15th	Aug. 12th
Jim	Bailey	Alamo Architects	x	x	x
Cynthia	Spielman	Beacon Hill NA	x	x	x
Steve	Poppoon	Homespring Realty Partners		x
Martha	Banda	Equitable Development Specialist	x	x	x
Jeff	Buell	Sitterle Homes/Greater San Antonio Builders Assc.	x	x
Rebecca	Flores	Neighborhood Leader	x	x	x
Peter	French	Rising Barn
Dahlia	Garcia	Crockett National Bank	x	x	x
David	Garza	LDZG, Inc.
Jordan	Ghawi	Neighborhood Leader	x	x	x
Jose	Gonzalez, II	Financial Consultant	x	x	x
Summer	Greathouse	Bracewell, LLP	x	x	x
Jessica	Guerrero	San Antonio Housing Commission			x
Suren	Kamath	Briggs Medical	x	x
Alan	Neff	Equitable Development Specialist
Frank	Pakuszewski	SOJO Urban Development	x
Amanda	Saldivar	Big Red Dog, Civil Engineer		x
Anisa	Schell	Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Member	x	x
Sandra	Tamez	Fair Housing Council	x		x
Colleen	Waguespack	Northside Neighborhood for Organized Development	x	x	x

Regulatory Cost Burden

RCB: Background

The Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers committee had conversations about how to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers. This committee engaged experts from many departments to learn about current standards and then worked to provide solutions. To date there have been six meetings as well as an engineer round table discussion meeting which took place in early January. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here. The following Removing Barriers committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee.

Committee Member	Meeting Dates & Attendance
First Name	Last name	Sept. 4th	Sept. 25th	Oct. 16th	Nov. 6th	Nov. 26th	Jan. 22nd
Jim	Bailey	x	x	x	x	x	x
Cynthia	Spielman		x	x	x	x	x
Steve	Poppoon	x	x
Jeff	Buell		x
Rebecca	Flores		x		x		x
Dahlia	Garcia	x			x
David	Garza	x		x	x
Jordan	Ghawi
Jose	Gonzalez, II
Summer	Greathouse	x				x
Jessica	Guerrero	x	x
Suren	Kamath	x		x	x
Frank	Pakuszewski	x	x
Amanda	Saldivar	x

RCB: Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues

After six subcommittee meetings, it was determined that most of the standards in place are necessary for the health and safety of the residents. However, there were several ideas on how to shift the cost burden away from developers in order to incentivize more affordable housing development:

	Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues	Impact Area
*Tree Preservation & Open Space*
	Trees planted in the Right-of-Way should count toward tree mitigation in an effort to provide more shade and reduce the heat.	UDC
A funding source should be established so affordable housing development is exempt from Tree Mitigation fees.	Fiscal
*Parking*
	Modifications to parking regulations should be centered on the idea that there are not one-size-fits all solutions. Some areas around transit may not need as much parking, but other areas, further from transit and amenities, may benefit from more than the minimum requirement	Policy
NHSD staff is working with the Planning Department to think about ways to fold in parking ideas/updates with the Regional Center Plans	Policy
NHSD staff is working with VIA about proposed amendments around transit stops	UDC (indirectly)
*Storm Water*
Regional Storm Water	A from ‘Fee In-Lieu-of development’ policy should be created for affordable housing	Fiscal & Policy
A funding source should be established to eliminate the cost of mandatory onsite detention for affordable housing	Fiscal
Immediate Neighbors	Currently, developments are not permitted to increase water run-off to neighboring properties. However, this is a consistent concern this committee has heard during this process.	Policy
The City should establish citywide regulations to address run off onto neighboring properties with the backing ofTexas Water Code 11.086. (Full Texas Water Code)	Policy
*Street Construction Standards*
	A funding source should be created to exempt affordable housing from impact fees	Fiscal
SAWS and CPS Capital Improvements plans should be aligned with future bond projects as well as the VIA 2040 Long Range Plan and SA Tomorrow	Policy

Accessory Dwelling Units

ADU Background

The Accessory Dwelling Unit subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers Committee had several conversations around the important role Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) play in increasing affordable housing. ADUs are generally smaller and usually result in more naturally occurring affordable housing as well as options for aging in place and creating additional rental income. This subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods. The following committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. Nine meetings were held to craft the proposed recommendations. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here.

Committee Members	Meeting Dates & Attendance
First Name	Last name	Aug. 30th	Sept. 20th	Oct. 11th	Nov. 1st	Nov. 22nd	Dec. 13th	Jan. 17th	Feb. 7th	Feb. 12th
Jim	Bailey	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Cynthia	Spielman	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Martha	Banda	x
Peter	French		x				x
Jose	Gonzalez, II	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x
Summer	Greathouse		x	x	x			x		x
Alan	Neff			x	x	x
Anisa	Schell		x	x		x	x		x	x
Sandra	Tamez
Colleen	Waguespack	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x
Jordan	Ghawi							x

ADU: Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues

Proposed Language	Impact Area
Remove language for minimum sq. ft. requirement.	UDC
Updated language for maximum size:The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.	UDC
Remove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADU	UDC
Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residence	UDC
Impervious cover should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirements	Policy
Remove language with occupancy limitations	UDC
Updated language for parking: Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirements • For an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be included	UDC
Update language for setbacks to:Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhang	UDC
Update language for height limit to:Maximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half story	UDC
Discuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern book	Policy
Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updates	UDC
Update language for attached ADUs to: Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is largerAttached accessory dwelling units shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higherAttached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district	UDC
Update language for owner occupied to:Create a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADU	UDC
Update language for design to:
Remove design requirements	UDC
Create design guidelines and a pattern book	Policy
Identify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern book	Fiscal
Communicate the benefits of ADUs for all residents in San Antonio	Policy
Develop a financing mechanism with lenders so residents could more easily get a loan to build an ADU	Policy

Details for Proposed Changes to UDC, to date

Topic	Current Language	Proposed Language	Explanation
Minimum Size	Total floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.	Remove language for minimum sq. ft. requirement.	The residential building code requirements provide a minimum size for each room depending on the room type (kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, etc.) so establishing an additional minimum standard for sq. ft. was believed to be redundant so it was removed.
Maximum Size	The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling. The building footprint for the ADDU shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the building footprint of the principal residence. The “building footprint” shall include porches, but shall not include patios. Total floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.	The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.	The subcommittee wanted to allow smaller homes to have the ability to build a larger ADU without being limited by the total square footage of the primary residence. In addition, the subcommittee spoke to the importance of being able to have an ADU larger than 800 sq. ft. if a resident had a larger home.
# of Bedrooms	An ADU shall not contain more than one (1) bedroom	Remove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADU	Since the subcommittee increased the allowable sq. ft. it made sense to remove the one bedroom regulation
Utilities	The accessory dwelling shall be connected to the central electrical, water and sewer system of the principal structure. This provision does not apply to the electrical service if the distance between the primary structure and the accessory dwelling is greater than one hundred (100) lineal feet.	Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residence	The subcommittee believed this requirement was not needed as SAWS and CPS have their own requirements and regulations to ensure the health and safety of residents so this language was removed.
Impervious Cover	Impervious cover is addressed within the accessory structuresection of the UDC: The maximum lot coverage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total area of the side and rear yards, provided that in residential districts the total floor area does not exceed a maximum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet.	Should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirements	This discussion originated from the concern of increased water runoff that might result from additional construction on a residential site. After much discussion, it was determined this is part of a larger, city-wide conversation about how storm water runoff is addressed after construction is complete
Occupancy	The total number of occupants in the accessory dwelling unit combined shall not exceed three (3) persons.	Remove language with occupancy limitations	With the increased allowable square footage the subcommittee reasoned that a family could easily live in an ADU and did not want to limit housing options due to an occupant restriction so the language was removed.
Setbacks	Accessory detached dwelling units shall require a minimum setback from the rear and side property lines of five (5) feet.	Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhang	Since most other accessory structures are permitted to be built 3 ft. from the property line without an overhang the subcommittee felt this provision was appropriate for ADUs as well.
Parking	Parking areas shall be located behind the front yard.	Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirementsFor an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be included	The subcommittee could not determine a reason to require the location of parking to remain behind the main structure so this provision was removed. Building a parking spot is only required for ADUs more than 800 sq. ft. While there were many other options and exceptions discussed including elimination of parking requirements if residents is near a transit stop or has a street wide enough to accommodate on-street parking. However, primary residential homes are currently only required to build one parking spot, but usually have at 2-4. Knowing this, it was determined that most homes would not have to build any additional parking. A parking requirement was included for ADUs over 800 sq. ft. as ADUs that large would more likely have multiple people driving cars.
Height Limits	ADUs currently fall with height limits for the zone in which they are located. Most residential zones are limited to 35 ft. and 2.5 stories	Maximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half story	The subcommittee wanted to ensure there was a respect for the neighborhood as well as the primary residential structure on the lot so they choose to reduce the maximum height in an effort to better conform to design and nature of San Antonio neighborhoods.
Scale	There are currently no regulations around scale	Discuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern book	The subcommittee believes that, at the present moment, regulations around height will address the immediate concerns. The design guidelines and pattern book will allow for more details, as needed.
Define Included Sq. Ft.	The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.	Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updates	The subcommittee discussion around how square footage is calculated stemmed from a concern about the size and scale of an ADU if it was constructed on top of an existing garage. However, after more discussion, it was revealed that in order to build on top of a garage you would likely have to tear down the garage and rebuild unless it was constructed to accommodate an ADU on top. In addition, the ADU would still have to meet the proposed max height requirement of 25 ft.
Attached ADUs	The gross floor area of the accessory apartment shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the total living area of the principal dwelling unit.Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall not exceed one (1) person per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.Attached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district.	Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger;Shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higher; and Shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district	The subcommittee aligned the requirements for attached ADUs with those of the regulations for detached ADUs except where the regulations pertain to setbacks. The subcommittee believes that additions to the primary structure should respect the setback of the underlying zoning district.
Owner Occupied	Currently the owner of the ADU must live on the property. If the homeowner wants to take advantage of a homestead exemption they must live in the primary residence/main house	Create a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADU	Please see page 9 for extended details on subcommittee discussion around this topic
Design Requirements	In order to maintain the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the main building as a single-family residence, the ADDU shall have a roof pitch, siding and window proportions identical to that of the principal residence.	Remove design requirementsCreate design guidelines and a pattern bookIdentify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern book	The subcommittee would like to produce design guidelines and a pattern book to help guide the development of ADUs in the City. In addition, they would like to find a way to reward those who use these approved plans by providing waivers for development fees.

ADU: Owner Occupied Details

Options Discussed	Pros	Cons
Owner *must live* in the home to build an ADU	Allows homeowners the opportunity to provide housing for relatives or the community Provides opportunities for home owners to earn additional income which may allow them to stay in their home in neighborhoods that are rapidly changingLimits market rate investment in neighborhoods which are rapidly changing	Would not be able to use as a large scale affordable housing investment strategy
Owner *does not have to live in* the home to build an ADU(No STR permitted)	No Short Term Rental permitted so would increase in long-term leases and rentersAllows investors to building affordable housing optionsWill likely increase the number of affordable units	ADUs could become an investment property and could begin to cause more neighborhood change in un-stabilized neighborhoodsMay limit the number of homes available owner occupancy It is still largely, still more lucrative for property owner to flip and sell a home
*Create a provisionto allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special exception*that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family(No STR permitted)	Provides a pathway to allow ADUs on non-owner occupied propertyNo short term rental permitted so an increase in long-term leases/rentersIs not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as it might be desirable in many areas.	Is not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Additional development expenses Additional length added to the process

Public Engagement & Outreach

PEO: Background

The Public Engagement & Outreach subcommittee was formed as a result of conversations that took place during the first few meetings of the Removing Barriers Committee. The committee placed a high priority on public engagement and wanted to create a subcommittee to focus on this topic so neighborhood engagement and knowledge sharing would be an integral part of this process. The following subcommittee members volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. There have been seven meetings. All meeting notes, presentations, and documents presented during meetings can also be found on the here.

Committee Members	Meeting Dates & Attendance
First Name	Last name	Aug. 28th	Sept. 18th	Oct. 9th	Oct. 20th	Nov. 20th	Dec. 11th	Jan. 15th
Cynthia	Spielman	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Steve	Poppoon	x	x			x		x
Martha	Banda	x	x
Dahlia	Garcia	x	x
Jessica	Guerrero	x		x	x
Alan	Neff			x	x		x	x
Sandra	Tamez	x	x					x
Colleen	Waguespack	x		x				x
Jordan	Ghawi					x		x

Public Outreach & Engagement Plan

This subcommittee has taken the time to discuss the City of San Antonio’s public participation principles, specifically what works well and what is missing. These conversations led to several big outcomes below:

The creation of a public outreach framework for Removing Barriers that created a structure for the public outreach and engagement subcommittee
Best practices for public meetings
The creation of a neighborhood focus group that will provide feedback about outreach and proposed UDC amendments

1. Public Engagement Framework

2. Public Meeting Best Practices

Utilize current communication networks such as neighborhood associations, community organizations, schools, churches, and City Council offices
Utilize meetings already happening
Provide accommodations for those who wish to attend a meeting:
- Physical access at meeting location
- Literacy Levels
- Communication (language, on-line availability)
Be intentional about guest lists:
- Include neighborhood associations and other active or informed participants
- Look for community leaders and engaged members of different communities
Allow for flexibility for public comment during meetings
Take care not to over generalize
Plan meetings at a variety of times and locations to better accommodate all residents

3. Neighborhood Focus Group

After discussion on how best to reach everyone in San Antonio, this subcommittee has envisioned a city-wide meeting of neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood interest groups who would come together and serve as the focus group as well as a group that would be one of the first to hear and provide feedback about proposed recommendations from the ADU and Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittees
This group would consist of approximately 8-12 seats to be filled by neighborhood interest groups who would be encouraged to have interchangeable representatives depending on the topic/timing of meetings with the goal to always have a representative from each neighborhood interest group at each meeting
Representatives would be required to disseminate information to their organization networks
The subcommittee and staff have agreed to being this group with the understanding that adjustments and additions will be needed as the process continues throughout 2020

Month: February 2020

RBAH Subcommittee Recommendations Draft

Background of Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing

Overview of Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force Report