Attachment A - Draft Housing Phoenix Plan- 6.4.20.pdf

CREATING A STRONGER AND MORE VIBRANT PHOENIX 
THROUGH INCREASED HOUSING OPTIONS FOR ALL
Phoenix
Attachment A

T A 
N T A 
 
 
3 
 
 
4 
 
 
5 
 
 
13 
 
 
21

P a g e | 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dear Neighbors: 
 
Phoenix’s culture, booming economy, and quality of life has attracted hundreds 
of thousands of new residents over the past decade. This is further confirmation 
of what Phoenicians already know—our city is an exceptional place to call 
home. This population boom has also brought with it rising housing costs, 
creating challenges for residents both new and old.  
  
Across the nation housing affordability is among the most difficult challenges 
facing cities. Phoenix is no exception. Ensuring that Phoenix has affordable 
housing options for all who desire to call our city home is a priority for the 
Phoenix City Council.  
  
That is why we have committed to achieving the most ambitious housing goal 
ever set by our city: creating or preserving 50,000 housing units by 2030. 
 
Together, we will welcome new residents, and honor our existing ones, by 
providing a vast array of housing options for every income level. 
 
Best, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mayor Kate Gallego

P a g e | 4 
 
Our vision is to create a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for residents at 
all income levels and family sizes. This vison will be achieved through one goal that has nine policy initiatives: 
Goal 
Create or preserve 50,000 homes by 2030, and increase overall supply of market, workforce, and 
affordable housing through the implementation of the following policy initiatives: 
1.  Prioritize New Housing in Areas of Opportunity    
2.  Amend Current Zoning Ordinances to Facilitate More Housing Options 
3.  Redevelop City-Owned Land with Mixed-Income Housing 
4.  Enhance Public-Private Partnerships and Increase Public, Private and Philanthropic Financing  
5.  Building Innovations and Cost Saving Practices 
6.  Increase Affordable Housing Developer Representation 
7.  Expand Efforts to Preserve Existing Housing Stock   
8.  Support Affordable Housing Legislation 
9.  Education Campaign  
As we implement this Plan, our aim is to substantially increase the number of housing options available and 
affordable to all Phoenix residents at all income levels. Federal guidelines suggest that households should spend no 
more than 30% of their income on housing and utilities. Today many residents spend a higher proportion of their 
income on rent and homeownership costs. As a result, many people do not have enough to adequately pay for food, 
healthcare and other basic needs after paying for housing costs. Others have been moving farther away from job 
centers in an attempt to find more affordable housing options. This may reduce their housing costs but increase their 
transportation costs and the length of their commute. The primary goal of this Plan is to create or preserve 50,000 
units of housing through implementation of the aforementioned housing policy initiatives. 
For too many Phoenicians, their ZIP code is a determinant of their access to opportunities. The promise of Housing 
Phoenix is a city where all residents have equitable access to quality public services and amenities, including public 
spaces, schools, transit, retail, job opportunities, affordable housing, and healthy and safe environments. This Plan is 
focused on helping to deliver on this promise. 
While housing is a stabilizing factor for affordable, equitable, and resilient communities, this Plan is intended to 
complement not supplant other City efforts, such as those focused on public safety, education, or public health. All 
these issues must be addressed to increase economic mobility and security for our residents and to ensure an 
equitable city.

P a g e | 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As Phoenix continues to become a destination city for business and development, the need 
for increased housing options continues to rise.

P a g e | 6 
Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country and 
continues to grow. New residents are drawn to 
Phoenix by our strong economy, relatively low 
cost of living, high quality of life, economic 
opportunity and cultural attractions. Since 2000, 
Phoenix’s population has grown by 20% to 
approximately 555,013 households and 1.6 
million people. 
 
In 2019, Phoenix was the fastest growing city in 
the U.S. For four years in a row, more people 
have moved to Phoenix than any other city in the 
country. As our population grows, many of our 
residents experience challenges locating 
housing within an affordable price range. 
 
Although Phoenix has experienced consistent 
population growth, the housing market has not 
grown at the same rate. An Up for Growth, study 
found that between 2000 and 2015 Arizona 
underproduced 505,134 housing units. This 
underproduction has caused a housing shortage 
in Phoenix. For example, in the last 30 years 
Phoenix produced approximately 220,000 new 
housing units, however, population has grown by 
820,000 people. Phoenix’s housing production 
has not kept pace with population growth. This 
underproduction began as construction shut 
down during the recession of 2008. Since that 
time, construction has slowly increased but has 
not reached the level of production achieved 
prior to the recession. 
 
The current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. A 
significant increase in housing supply is needed to keep pace with current and projected housing demand.  
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
1980
1990
2000
2010
2018
POPULATION 
1980 - 2018
American Community Survey 5 - Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau (2018) 
American Community Survey 5 - Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau (2018) 
Number of Units
Population Growth
0
200,000
400,000
1990 to
1999
2000 to
2009
2010 to
2018
HOUSING PRODUCTION AND 
POPULATION GROWTH
Number of Units
Population Growth

P a g e | 7 
 
 
 
 
While our economy has grown, not all Phoenicians 
have equally benefited. For too many residents, 
wages have not kept up with rising rents and home 
prices. Between 2010 and 2018, Phoenix’s median 
income increased by 10%. While, median rent 
increased by over 28% and median home price has 
increased by over 57% during this time. 
 
Currently, 46% of Phoenix residents are considered 
extremely low income, very low income or low income; 
19% are considered low to moderate income; and 35% 
are considered moderate to high income. In our current 
housing market, households that fall within the extremely 
low income through moderate income ranges would 
require some amount of subsidy to achieve housing that 
is considered affordable at their income level.   
As housing costs have grown and new construction has focused on 
luxury and market-rate housing, more Phoenicians have been forced 
to spend a greater percentage of their income on housing costs. The 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines 
affordable housing as spending no more than 30% of their monthly 
income on housing and utility costs. Households paying more than 
30% of their monthly income toward housing costs are considered 
cost burdened.  
 
In 2018, half of Phoenix renters were considered housing-cost burdened, 25% 
of homeowners were housing-cost burdened and altogether 36% of the 
entire population is housing-cost burdened. The lack of market rate housing 
has created a trickledown effect in which moderate to high income 
households are absorbing housing units that would be affordable to 
workforce households. As a result, workforce households are forced into 
unaffordable housing units or pushed into housing that would be affordable 
to low and very low-income households. 
 
10%
57%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
% CHANGE IN MEDIAN VALUE
(2010 - 2018)
Change in Income
Change in Home Price
Change in Rent Price
American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau (2018)

P a g e | 8 
This downward presure further reduces the housing 
resources available to low and very low-income households. 
This trend is demonstrated in the Income Ranges Percent of 
Cost Burdened bar chart. This chart shows that the number 
of cost burdened households decreases as the household’s 
income increases.  
 
Through performing a gap analysis of the current housing 
need and the available housing stock, it was found that 
Phoenix currently has a need for 163,067 additional housing 
units. Of the 163,067 units needed 63,486 are market rate 
and 99,581 would be subsidized and made 
affordable to households with lower income levels. 
Included in the need for subsidized housing:  9,000 
units are needed for seniors; 5,000 units are needed 
for veterans; 9,000 units are needed for persons 
with disabilities; and 1,451 units are needed for 
persons experiencing homelessness. 
 
Developing 163,067 units of housing using a 
traditional single-family design model would require 
31,613 acres of land. The total acreage of vacant 
land within the City of Phoenix is 24,298 acres 
(including all use types, except for parks and 
preserves). This is well below the 31,613 acres 
needed to develop 163,067 housing units using a 
traditional single-family design model. To develop 
the number of housing units needed within our 
current available resources, a variety of building 
design types must be considered.  
 
For example, single family construction that 
includes a variety of housing types such as 
townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and condominiums will allow development to address our supply shortage at a 
more rapid pace while also using vacant land in a more sustainable fashion. Additionally, the construction of multi-
family rental housing is an essential tool needed to address the current supply shortage through the construction of 
multi-family housing. A Commercial Café study on available vacant land found that urban sprawl creates strain our 
residents, infrastructure, the environment and local budget. Design that follows walkability standards leads to more 
sustainable infrastructure system, sustainable resident lifestyles and sustainable transportation methods. Leading to 
a decrease in the level of finite resources needed to sustain our city.   
 
 
 
 
American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau (2018) 
Source: U.S. Census 2018 ACS and Apartment Insights Data 2019, Third Quarter 
94%
81%
46%
16%
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Extremely 
Low
Very Low
Low 
Income
Moderate
High 
Income
INCOME RANGES
% OF COST BURDEN

P a g e | 9 
 
 
 
C.J. Eisenbarth Hager, Vitalyst Health 
 
Housing Quality  
Shelter is one of the most basic of human needs, providing safety, security and stability. The physical condition of 
the home influences the extent to which basic human needs are met. For example, those experiencing 
homelessness are exposed to a host of threats to health and well-being, from increased exposure to violence to 
lack of a safe place to store medicine or recover from a medical procedure. Another example includes how toxic 
environmental materials, such as lead paint and asbestos, poor maintenance, and aging housing stock can result 
in a dangerous living environment. Unintentional injury, communicable and chronic disease, mental illness and 
poor childhood development can result from, and be compounded by, poor housing conditions.  
 
Housing Affordability  
Financial burden associated with housing can result in tough trade-offs, such as foregoing or delaying healthy 
food, preventative healthcare or essential medications to manage chronic conditions. This trade-off is felt most 
frequently by lower income renters and those experiencing homelessness. Extreme financial burden can strain 
social and mental health as well.  
 
Non-payment of rent is the most common cause of eviction; non-payment of rent is also closely tied to a family’s 
income. Not surprisingly, prevailing rents that are out of proportion with prevailing wages create a complex mix 
that can lead to evictions and ultimately homelessness. Evictions and homelessness can be devasting to health 
with both immediate and lasting impacts. 
 
Additionally, affordability impacts the other housing dimensions of quality and neighborhood context. A family 
may sacrifice housing quality for the sake of its affordability or pay higher rent in order to live in a neighborhood 
with good schools. 
 
Neighborhood Context 
Where we live, or the neighborhood or community context, also impacts health. Residing in a home in close 
proximity to community assets, such as schools, open or green spaces and healthy food retailers, encourages 
interaction with these health-promoting resources. Likewise, the social environment of a neighborhood impacts 
health and well-being. Do you trust your neighbors to keep an eye on your house while you are out of town? Do 
you let your kids play in the front yard? Neighborhood context and social dynamics can either reinforce health or 
undermine it.  
 
Historically, certain populations face distinct challenges in finding, securing and maintaining housing that 
supports health. Governments at all levels and housing-related institutions created policies and programs that 
intentionally limited housing opportunities for people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ communities and 
different age groups. While many of these policies and programs may no longer be legal, some are still practiced. 
The impact of these discriminatory practices can be seen today in wealth and income disparities, which ultimately 
influence health and access to opportunity.

P a g e | 10 
 
 
 
 
Income, rents, homeownership rates, evictions, 
race/ethnicity, and other demographic and housing 
characteristics vary greatly across Phoenix, with 
significant differences between neighborhoods in 
the north and south. For example, the South of the 
City has a larger population of people of color and 
a higher percentage of people paying more than 
30% of their income on housing costs than other 
areas in Phoenix. 
 
In 2015, the most recent year for which data is 
readily available, many neighborhoods in Phoenix’s 
south and west sides experienced high rates of 
rent-burdened residents. This is in large part a 
reflection of the fact that residents in these areas 
had lower than average incomes. In some 
neighborhoods in the south and west sides of 
Phoenix, more than 50% of households were 
paying 30% or more of their income on housing 
costs, while in a vast majority of neighborhoods in 
the north, less than 29% of renting households 
were housing cost burdened.  
 
Discriminatory practices in home mortgage lending 
has a long history in the United States. In the 
1930’s, the federal government founded the 
modern mortgage loan market through a suite of 
bills that established the Federal Housing 
Administration and the Federal National Mortgage 
Association (Fannie Mae). Together, these entities 
insured and purchased mortgages to allow more 
Americans to access credit and receive favorable 
and affordable home loan terms.  
 
An unfortunate part of this history is the method by 
which the government assessed borrower risk. Through 
the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), the 
federal government created maps indicating where 
lending federally insured mortgages would be too risky. 
These areas, colored in red, marked predominately 
minority neighborhoods, especially areas with a large  
 
 Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development       
 
African American population. The effects of 
government-sanctioned redlining are still impacting 
the community. Many of the areas that were deemed 
“hazardous” in the 1930’s are still impoverished 
today, more than eight decades later. A recent study 
found 74 percent of the neighborhoods redlined by 
HOLC are considered Low and Moderate Income (LMI) 
and 64 percent are majority minority areas.   
 
The map shown on the next page demonstrates 
Phoenix’s HOLC designation in the 1930’s. Phoenix 
was a much smaller city then, boasting a population 
of just 65,000 in 1940. Compared to the geographic 
reach of the city today the area HOLC rated is 
extremely small. However, it is clear that the redlining 
designation nearly eight

P a g e | 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
decades ago both reflected the City’s 
demographic patterns and exacerbated it. 
Minorities are still concentrated in the 
southern portion of the City, while Whites are 
more prevalent in the northern region.  
 
The HUD map below represents the 
distribution of the City’s white population. The 
census tracts highlighted in white represent 
those that are more than 83 percent non-white 
residents. This map shows a clear pattern – the 
southern part of the City is largely non-white, 
while the northern part is predominately 
white. 
 
The federal government did stop its redlining 
practices and eventually outlawed such actions 
through landmark legislation like the Civil 
Rights and Fair Housing Acts, but 
discriminatory lending practices continue to 
affect LMI communities. For example, the 
subprime mortgages that contributed to the 
2007-2008 financial crisis disproportionately 
affected Phoenix in general and racial and ethnic 
minorities and LMI homeowners specifically. 
 
LMI and minority communities continue to have 
less-than-equal access to the best loan prices and 
terms than their credit history, income, and other 
individual financial considerations may merit. 
 
The Research has shown that neighborhoods can 
be a good predictor of health, due to extreme 
differences in our environments that externally 
influence health and wellbeing – such as air 
quality and access to affordable nutritious food, 
quality schools, active greenspaces, or jobs. 
Therefore, it is important to also place housing in 
high opportunity areas, where households have 
access to transportation, quality schools, 
employment corridors, grocery stores, and 
community spaces. 
 
 
 
      Concentration of White Population by Census Tract  
 
 
 Phoenix HOLC Redlining Map, 1930’s 
                                                                                           
 
 
 
           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development                        
 
 
 
 
Source: Mapping Inequality, University of Richmond’s Digital Scholarship Lab

P a g e | 12 
 
 
 
 
Phoenix’s residents have made our city what it is 
today! As we work to ensure that prosperity is 
enjoyed by all Phoenicians, we need to make sure 
there are affordable housing opportunities for 
residents at all income levels, at all stages of life, in all 
our communities. 
 
This means providing affordable housing 
opportunities for our firefighters, police officers, 
teachers, sanitation workers, construction workers, 
young professionals, small business owners and other 
working families - those who rescue us in times of 
need, keep our streets clean and safe, educate our 
children, and stock our grocery stores, among other 
critical functions. It means providing housing 
opportunities for our service industry and healthcare 
workers who fuel our economy and care for us and 
our loved ones. It means providing housing 
opportunities for our veterans who have served our 
country. 
It means providing housing opportunities for young 
adults and young families who are our future as well 
as existing residents who have fueled our growth. And 
it means enabling our seniors and legacy residents to 
stay in the city that they helped build. 
 
Affordable housing is about providing meaningful 
access to opportunities for our residents who are vital 
to our city. But affordability means different things to 
different people. Our goal is to provide a variety of 
housing options for a full spectrum of residents so 
that all who desire to call Phoenix home can afford to 
live here.   The image below provides a visual of 
households that fall within extremely low, very low, 
low income, median income and moderate-income 
categories. This visual presents household situations 
within these income categories and the maximum 
affordable rent and maximum affordable mortgage 
for each household.

P a g e | 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Patricia relocated to Phoenix in 2018 as an AmeriCorps VISTA 
volunteer. Through AmeriCorps VISTA Patricia received a 
stipend of approximately $960 per month, an affordable 
housing cost correlated to $288 per month (including utilities). 
In searching for housing, Patricia found that all the available 
units far exceeded her affordable range and, in many cases, 
exceeded her entire monthly stipend amount.  
 
Thankfully, the Housing Department had a vacancy at one of 
their housing sites and Patricia was able to obtain affordable 
housing! Patricia’s AmeriCorps VISTA assignment aligned with 
the Housing Departments mission as she would be assisting 
with their $30 million Edison-Eastlake Community Choice 
Neighborhoods Implementation Grant as well as the 
ConnectHome USA project which helps reduce the digital 
divide for HUD-assisted housing residents. Patricia continues 
to give back to the Edison-Eastlake community and can really 
connect with our residents because she personally 
experienced the struggle of finding affordable housing in our 
community.

P a g e | 14 
 
 
 
Medium Term – 12 months or less 
The city will develop an objective place-based 
scoring matrix for multifamily housing projects to 
allow Council and decision makers to analyze the 
value of new multifamily housing projects 
throughout the city. The matrix will provide clear 
goals through defined scoring criteria related to the 
creation of housing and give priority to projects that 
align with the City’s objectives. Scoring criteria will 
be established to ensure that housing is placed near 
vital community amenities and resources. This 
scoring matrix will help communicate to decision 
makers the importance of the proposed project and 
help developers reduce the cost of zoning through a 
more streamlined process. 
 
Development in Phoenix is shaped by our zoning 
ordinance, which governs land use, building sizes 
and forms, parking, and more. To ensure that our 
city can continue to house a diverse population at 
every income level we need to update our zoning 
regulations. Updating zoning regulations will make it 
easier and cheaper to build or preserve different 
types of housing – such as single-family, multifamily, 
single room occupancy, accessory dwelling units, 
senior, and assisted living – to meet the needs of our 
existing and growing population while preserving the 
character of our neighborhoods.  
 
 
Long Term – 18 months or more 
Staff will pursue the development and ultimate 
adoption of a Text Amendment to the Zoning 
Ordinance that will establish additional incentives 
for residentially zoned property to provide 
affordable housing or allow the developer to pay 
into an affordable housing fund. Incentives may 
include allowances for additional height and 
density or relief from development standards such 
as lot coverage and building setbacks.  
 
 
 
Long Term – 18 months or more 
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are smaller, 
secondary residences located on single-family lots. 
They can include the conversion of portions of 
existing homes, detached additions, or external 
new homes. ADUs help increase the overall supply 
of housing and provide a wider range of housing 
options within a neighborhood. ADUs increase 
density – therefore lowering energy costs and 
greenhouse gas emissions – and have the 
potential to improve housing affordability for both 
homeowners and renters.

P a g e | 15 
 
ADUs not only provide additional, often lower-cost 
housing options for residents to rent, but they also 
help homeowners generate extra income. 
 
Staff will propose an update to the Zoning Ordinance 
that will permit ADUs in targeted neighborhoods 
with the idea that after further study, an expansion 
to other areas of Phoenix could take place as interest 
in the program grows.  
 
 
 
Short Term – 6 months or less 
The Walkable Urban Code is a form-based code 
that allows for increased flexibility for all 
development types. This will create a great 
opportunity for more flexible infill and adaptive 
reuse. Expanding the Walkable Urban Code 
throughout the City of Phoenix will expand 
development flexibility for all Phoenix 
businesses and property owners. The expansion 
of the Walkable Urban Code will require 
property owners complete the rezoning process 
prior to utilizing the benefits of the Walkable 
Urban Code.  
 
The rezoning process does create a barrier for 
property owners. As a very long-term goal, it 
would be beneficial to pilot a by-right Walkable 
Urban Code overlay near major transportation 
corridors where the zoning entitlements of the 
code can be utilized without requiring the 
property owner to complete the rezoning 
process.  
 
Short Term and Long Term – Ongoing  
In response to the severe shortage of affordable 
housing in our community, the city of Phoenix 
Housing Department has increased housing efforts 
through new funding sources, acquiring land, and 
redeveloping existing city-owned land. These 
efforts have resulted in the city of Phoenix 
Housing Department having more affordable 
housing units underway than ever before.  
 
 
The city was awarded a 30-million-dollar Choice 
Neighborhoods Implementation Grant. One 
element of this plan will include housing 
redevelopment, 577 obsolete public housing units 
will be demolished to build 1,011 new housing 
units. Outside the Choice Neighborhood area, the 
city has also demolished 38 obsolete public 
housing units and will redevelop this site to 
accommodate 78 new housing units.  
 
 
 
 
Monroe Gardens, Gorman and City of Phoenix

P a g e | 16 
 
 
Additionally, the Housing Department has partnered 
with Habitat for Humanity to complete an infill 
project for the development of 30 new 
homeownership units. The aforementioned projects 
will result in 1,119 new housing units, which is a 
55% increase from the number of units previously 
available on these parcels.   
 
Land acquisition is often one of the most expensive 
components of housing development. The city of 
Phoenix Housing Department owns three (3) 
currently underutilized parcels in desirable areas of 
Downtown. The redevelopment of these three (3) 
parcels could create between 400-600 units of 
mixed income housing. By rezoning and providing 
land through a Request for Proposal process the City 
will substantially reduce the upfront cost of 
affordable housing development.  
 
This method of redevelopment can also be 
expanded to other City-owned parcels to further 
expand affordable/workforce housing 
redevelopment opportunities. This Plan would 
identify all City-owned parcels ideal for 
affordable/workforce housing re/development. In 
the assessment of available land, the city will also 
identify parcels in which its existing use could be 
modified to incorporate a component of housing. 
The co-location of housing with amenities such as 
parks, community centers, senior center, etc., can 
help increase usership at underutilized resources 
while also increasing the number of housing units.  
 
 
  
  
 Short Term – 6 months or less 
Now more than ever our community is aware of 
the effects an affordable housing deficit can have 
on our community. There is a growing interest 
among private and public partners to assist and 
help solve the affordable housing crisis in our 
community. Through the creation of a taskforce, this 
interest can be harnessed to develop new funding 
and low-interest financing mechanisms for our 
community. The taskforce would include 
experienced developers, lenders, community 
leaders, architects and other community 
stakeholders.  
 
Several efforts in recent years have blossomed from 
private-public partnerships. For example, the 
Arizona Housing Fund was established by nonprofit 
housing developers, the Home Builders Association 
of Central Arizona, financial institutions, the 
Arizona Association of Realtors, the Arizona 
Community Foundation, and many more. These 
organizations are coming together to create 
nonprofit grant opportunities to support and 
expand affordable housing and reduce 
homelessness. The Arizona Housing Fund is financed 
through voluntary donations and a voluntary $25 
real-estate transaction fee. The Arizona Housing 
Fund has raised $270,000 since its inception. 
Another public-private partnership includes the 
Home Matters Arizona Fund. This fund was 
spearheaded by United Healthcare and provides an 
opportunity to combine community funds from six 
AHCCS Healthcare Organizations. The fund has an 
anticipated value of approximately $6,000,000.  
 
 
Affordable housing development requires a 
significant amount of subsidy to ensure long term 
affordability and sustainability. This subsidy can be 
provided through direct subsidies such as grants, 
loans and tax credit programs. Another way to 
reduce the amount of subsidy needed is through 
Habitat for Humanity, Matthew Henson Infill Project

P a g e | 17 
 
reduction of other costs associated with 
development or operating affordable housing. A 
development project is at its most vulnerable stage 
during the predevelopment phase. Predevelopment 
costs such as design costs and permitting costs can 
be greatly reduced through the following cost saving 
practices.  
 
 
 
Medium Term – 12 months or less 
A development assistance team assigned to 
affordable housing projects will create familiarity 
with the complex requirements, restrictive 
timelines and limited resources involved in the 
affordable housing development process. As the 
development team becomes familiar with the 
unique requirements and restrictions of affordable 
housing development the process will become 
more streamlined.  
Ongoing 
An Affordable Housing Advocate can advocate on 
behalf of developers to educate the community on 
our housing need and how the developer’s project 
will address housing need and benefit the 
community. The Advocate will provide assistance to 
developers as they navigate the development process 
and intercede if projects are delayed or stalled. 
 
 
 
 
Long Term – 18 months or more 
Expedited plan review for affordable housing 
projects at no extra cost will also help streamline 
the predevelopment process and thus result in a 
reduced total development budget. The city may 
also provide reduction in plan review costs, 
impact fee and permit fees for affordable 
housing projects. Implementation of this policy 
action should be made on a case by case basis as 
the fees would have to be paid from an 
alternative funding source to maintain the 
Planning & Development Department’s 
operations.   
 
Long Term – 18 months or more 
The creation of a gap financing program directed to 
infrastructure costs will assist affordable housing 
developers with cost prohibitive infrastructure 
requirements. Federally funded entitlement dollars 
can be earmarked to assist with off-site 
infrastructure costs. This program can be targeted 
to areas subject to displacement to help incentivize 
developers to create new affordable housing or 
preserve existing affordable housing in these areas.  
 
 
 
Ongoing 
Continue researching ways to decrease 
development cost through innovative building 
techniques, streamlined processes, and city codes

P a g e | 18 
revisions. For example, some jurisdictions have 
revised their city’s building code to increase stick-
built height allowances. This revision will lead to the 
increase in the number of units produced at each 
applicable site and help get more units on the 
market at a faster rate. 
 
 
Short Term – 6 months or less 
Continue to increase affordable housing developer 
representation on Boards, Commissions and 
Committees. Affordable housing development has 
unique barriers and strict timelines. Through 
increased representation, the intricacies of 
affordable housing development can be 
communicated and contemplated as key 
development decisions are made. Potential boards, 
commissions and committees may include: Planning 
Commission and Village Planning Committee, 
Development Advisory Board, and Bond Committee.  
 
 
The city has a variety of programs offered through 
the Neighborhood Services Department and Housing 
Department that preserve affordable housing for 
low-moderate income residents or census tracts. We 
recommend that these vital programs continue to 
benefit our community. We recommend that these 
vital programs continue and are expanded to create 
more preservation opportunities. The below are 
preservation programs and incentives that can be 
implemented to increase the number of affordable 
housing units preserved. These preservation 
programs and incentives are as follows. 
Long Term – 18 months or more 
City will identify target areas that require housing 
preservation and procure vacant land or land 
with at-risk naturally occurring affordable 
housing. Land can then be used to preserve 
existing housing stock through rehabilitation and 
banked for future redevelopment. This tool is an 
effective way for Cities to combat or preempt 
the effects of displacement by preserving 
affordable housing in areas where housing has 
been historically affordable. The Neighborhood 
Services Department currently owns many 
parcels acquired through their land acquisition 
program. The City should continue to look for 
additional stock in areas of opportunity or as a 
preservation tool in areas subject to 
displacement.  
 
Short Term – 6 months or less 
Establish a Community Land Trust within the 
City of Phoenix to increase homeownership 
opportunities through partnership with an 
existing Community Land Trust. This 
homeownership model helps low-income 
buyers reduce their purchase price by keeping 
the land in a trust and only requiring the buyer 
to mortgage the cost of the home. Homes 
remain in the trust into perpetuity and are re-
sold to low-income homeowners.  
 
The Housing Department is currently looking to 
initiate a pilot Community Land Trust program. 
This program would convert five single family 
homes that were previously part of the public 
housing scattered site portfolio into community 
land trust units. The city may also look to convert 
single family properties owned by the 
Neighborhood Services Department into a 
Community Land Trust.  
Medium Term – 6 months or less 
Create a landlord incentive program that would 
provide benefits to landlords interested in 
participating in the Housing Choice Voucher 
Program. Potential landlord incentives could 
include a damage fund for units that are 
excessively damaged or a vacancy payment fund 
that would provide partial payments to landlords 
with units on hold during the Housing Choice 
Voucher lease-up process.   
 
Create a Housing Navigator that can actively

P a g e | 19 
 
recruit landlords and act as the direct point of 
contact for landlords. Establish a one-stop shop for 
landlord resources where landlords can easily access 
information about the program, how to participate, 
and potential incentives.  
 
Landlords who have participated in other city 
programs (i.e. code compliance rental repair or 
rental rehabilitation program) would be encouraged 
to participate in the City’s Housing Choice Voucher 
program. 
Medium Term – 12 months or less 
Expand efforts and increase funding available on an 
annual basis (through an eligible federally funded 
entitlement program) to increase the number of 
landlords and property owners who utilize the 
existing rental rehabilitation program. This is a key 
tool used to preserve naturally occurring affordable 
rental housing. Landlords are provided low-interest 
or zero interest loans/grants to rehabilitate their 
property if they agree to restrict the rents at their 
property during the required affordability period.   
 
 
 Short Term and Long Term – Ongoing  
Support federal and state legislation that will 
increase the amount of funding available for the 
preservation and construction of affordable housing 
and result in an increase in the amount of affordable 
housing units developed on an annual basis. For 
example, two potential statewide legislative 
changes the city recently supported are the 
allocation of funding for the State Housing Trust 
fund and the creation of a State Low Income 
Housing Tax Credit Program. 
 
 
 Short Term – 6 months or less 
Develop marketing and educational materials 
that can be shared community-wide to tell our 
housing story and communicate housing need. 
These materials can be used to provide annual 
training and presentations to Committees, 
Commissions and other community stakeholders 
that are involved in decisions related to 
affordable housing development.   
Marketing materials can help communicate 
need, establish a common language, debunk 
current myths about affordable housing and 
explain the benefits of utilizing a form-based 
code to create gentle density and a variety of 
development forms.  
 
A key component in our education campaign will 
be the creation of a common language when 
discussing housing issues. The Glossary Project, 
completed by Kiterocket and the Phoenix 
Community Alliance, establishes a list of common 
housing and social service terms along with their 
associated definitions. We will draw from existing 
efforts and community-based resources, such as 
The Glossary Project when establishing our 
campaign and marketing materials. Please view 
Attachment A, for a full list of glossary terms.

P a g e | 20 
Policy Initiatives 
Short Term  
6 Months or 
Less 
Medium Term  
12 months 
Long Term  
18 months or 
more 
Ongoing 
1. Prioritize New Housing in Areas of Opportunity
✓ 
2.
Amend Current Zoning Ordinances to Facilitate
More Housing Options
a. Amend Current Zoning Ordinance to Include
Affordable Housing Incentives 
✓ 
b. Amend Current Zoning Ordinance in Target Areas
to Allow for Accessory Dwelling Units 
✓ 
c. Expand the Walkable Urban Code
✓ 
3.
Redevelop City-Owned Land with Mixed-Income
Housing
✓ 
✓ 
✓ 
4.
Enhance Public-Private Partnerships
✓ 
5.
Building Innovations and Cost Saving Practices
a. Development Assistance Team Assigned to
Affordable Housing Projects
✓ 
b. Affordable Housing Advocate
✓ 
c. Reduced Planning and Permitting Fees
✓ 
d. Create Infrastructure Fund for Affordable Housing
Developers 
✓ 
e. Ongoing Research – Cost Saving Practices
✓ 
6.
Increase Affordable Housing Developer
Representation
✓ 
7.
Expand Efforts to Preserve Existing Housing
Stock
a. Land Banking
✓ 
b. Implement Community Land Trust Program
✓ 
c. Implement Landlord Incentives and Resources
✓ 
d. Expand the Rental Rehabilitation Program
✓
8.
Support Affordable Housing Legislation
✓ 
✓
✓
9.
Education Campaign
✓

Attachment A 
Phoenix Community Alliance 
Social & Housing Advancement Committee Communication Subcommittee 
Glossary Project, May 27, 2020 
Overview:  
Glossaries are especially important when multiple organizations are involved in efforts as 
challenging as people experiencing homelessness. We are aware that, in various stages and 
settings, different vernacular may be used. By using this glossary, we attempt to align and 
ensure that our understanding of key terms is consistent, and content is translated to the 
highest quality and aligned.  
HOUSING 
These terms reference types of housing that are central to the dialogue surrounding the 
shelter to vulnerable populations (see definition of "vulnerable populations" on page 3). 
Affordable Dwelling/Housing: "Affordable dwelling" is housing for which the occupant(s) 
is/are paying no more than 30% of his/her income for gross housing costs, including 
utilities. (Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) 
Permanent Supportive Housing: An intervention that combines affordable housing 
assistance with voluntary support services to address the needs of the chronically 
homeless. The services are designed to build independent living and tenancy skills, and 
connect people with community-based health care, treatment and employment services. 
(Source: National Alliance to End Homelessness) 
Subsidies: Housing subsidies come in many forms, but the main objective is to supplement 
or offset monthly housing costs for individuals or families to remain in housing. Forms of 
subsidies include direct housing subsidies, public housing, rent supplements and some 
types of cooperative housing. 
Workforce Housing: Housing that’s affordable (30% or less of gross income) to households 
earning between 60% and 120% of area median income. Workforce housing targets middle

2 
income workers including police officers, firefighters, teachers, health care workers, retail 
clerks, etc. (Source: Urban Land Institute) 
PEOPLE 
These terms reference the people and populations central and most relevant to the 
challenge of homelessness.  
Chronically Homeless: An unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has 
either been continuously homeless for one year or more OR has had at least four episodes 
of homelessness in the past three years, where the combined occasions total a length of 
time of at least 12 months. (Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) 
Experiencing Homelessness: An individual or family that lacks a fixed, regular and adequate 
nighttime residence, such as those living in emergency shelters, transitional housing or 
places not meant for human habitation.  
First-Time Homelessness: People experiencing homelessness for the first time. Possible 
causes include job loss, increased rent or domestic/family issues.  
Previously Homeless: An individual or family that has advanced into housing or a 
sustainable living situation. Although no longer experiencing homelessness, they are 
vulnerable to becoming homeless again. 
Severe Mental Illness (SMI): Approximately 6% of Americans are severely mentally ill, 
compared to the 20-25% of the homeless population that suffer from mental illness. 
Furthermore, 45% of the homeless population show history of mental illness. Due to the 
increase in factors such as substance abuse, individuals experiencing both mental illness 
and homelessness are more likely to be incarcerated. (Source: National Institute of Mental 
Health) 
Vulnerable Population: Vulnerable populations include the economically disadvantaged, 
the uninsured, low-income children, the elderly, individuals experiencing homelessness and

3 
those with chronic health conditions, including severe mental illness. Their health and 
health care problems intersect with social factors, including housing, poverty and 
inadequate education. 
SERVICES 
These terms reference the services common to organizations and agencies working on 
solutions for individuals and families seeking and/or maintaining shelter or affordable 
housing.  
Coordinated Entry: Coordinated entry processes, deployed across an entire community, 
make it possible for people experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness to have 
their strengths and needs quickly assessed (triage), and to be swiftly connected to 
appropriate, tailored housing and services within the community. People with the greatest 
needs receive priority for any type of housing and homeless assistance available, including 
permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing and other interventions.  
Domestic Violence Priority: The population of individuals with limited economic resources 
is at increased vulnerability to homelessness. Priority for services is given due to the direct 
correlation between intimate partner violence and housing instability.  
Eviction Prevention: Efforts to prevent the dispossession of a tenant of leased property 
by force or especially by legal process. 
Family Reunification: One-way, one-time transportation assistance to individuals 
experiencing homelessness (or at imminent risk) who wish to return to their family or other 
support system in another part of the U.S. Individuals must have family or support systems 
in place when the relocation occurs. 
Triage: As an entry point to resources, a program or caseworker must assess the specific 
needs of an individual or family in crisis and direct those in need to the appropriate 
resources.

4 
TERMS TO AVOID 
PCA’s SHA Committee recognizes there are terms in the common diction of our social 
environment, but also recognizes these very terms (below) provide little clarity, or that 
there are subtle connotations that remove the human element from a very human 
challenge. The SHA Committee prefers to avoid the following terms:  
•
“the homeless”
•
homeless person
•
vagrancy
•
transient
•
underserved
•
attainable housing
If you have questions or a new term you would like clarified, contact Leah Tan at 602-682-
6612 (extension 109) or ltan@dtphx.org.

P a g e | 21
Sources: 
Apartment Insights Data (2019) - Retrieved from https://www.apartmentinsights.com/ 
Eisenbarth Hager, C.J. (2020). The Connection Between Health and Affordable Housing, Vitalyst Health 
Ginsac, I. (2019). Study: What to Do with All the Vacant Land in Major US CBDs? Retrieved from 
https://www.commercialcafe.com/blog/study-development-vacant-land-major-us-cbd/ 
Holland Government Affairs, Up for Growth, and ECONorthwest; Housing Underproduction in the U.S., - Retrieved from 
https://www.upforgrowth.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/housing_underproduction.pdf 
Lucich, A., Kiterocket, and Phoenix Community Alliance (2020). Glossary Project, Social & Housing Advancement Committee 
Communication Subcommittee 
Mitchell, Valerie. Graphic Designer, Housing Phoenix Plan 
University of Richmond’s Digital Scholars, Mapping Inequality - Retrieved from http://dsl.richmond.edu/ 
US Census Bureau - Retrieved from https://www.census.go  v/data.html