Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peoria staff lays out 2026 housing-policy toolbox; council offers feedback in study session
Summary
City staff presented a broad 2026 housing policy and a toolbox of zoning and financing options to address an identified housing gap, especially for households at 0–80% of area median income; council provided feedback but made no decisions, with follow-up expected before any code changes or project-specific actions.
City of Peoria staff presented an update on a proposed 2026 housing policy at a June 2 study session, outlining a problem statement drawn from the city’s 2025 housing needs assessment (required by Senate Bill 1162) and a menu of policy tools officials could use to address shortages across income levels.
Chris Hawz, director of Planning and Community Development, told the council the assessment shows the largest deficit in units for households at 0–80% of area median income and that “the city of Peoria recognizes housing as a critical infrastructure and commits to expanding safe, attainable, and diverse housing options for residents across all income levels” through equitable land use, strategic investment, and public–private collaboration. He stressed staff were presenting a toolbox of potential responses rather than proposing immediate code changes or mandates.
The toolbox presented includes site‑specific infill zoning, recently adopted accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules, density bonuses, voluntary developer set‑asides (city staff noted that state law prohibits mandatory inclusionary zoning), expedited permitting for negotiated public benefits, fee reductions for qualifying projects, land-banking and community land trusts to preserve long‑term affordability, employer‑assisted housing programs, preservation and rehabilitation funds, adaptive reuse and modular housing options, and overlays such as transit‑oriented design.
Council members asked detailed questions about how each tool would work in different parts of the city. Council Member Edwards said he wanted more clarity on how density helps keep costs down, and staff explained that higher unit counts can spread land-development costs across more units and produce economies of scale for certain project types. Council Member Bullock asked how these tools would apply in Mosquite District — an area with mostly greenfield development rather than infill — and staff replied that solutions would differ by place (land banking and negotiated developer contributions, for example, can work on new‑growth sites while infill and missing‑middle strategies target older corridors).
The study-session format means no policy decisions were taken. City staff emphasized any future use of many of these tools would return to council as project‑ or code‑specific actions, and that further analysis and legal review would be needed to design enforceable mechanisms (for example, to ensure fee reductions are passed through to residents in negotiated agreements). Kelly Concincaid, neighborhood and human services director, asked council for direction on which tools to include in a final policy package and flagged the need for more data-sharing with local stakeholders.
What happens next: staff will incorporate council feedback and return with refined options and potentially draft code language or program proposals. Any item that requires a change to municipal code or an implementation program would come back to council for deliberation and formal action.
