CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY HOUSING COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA - PDF

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 22
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Automobiles

Published:

Views: 7 | Pages: 22

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY HOUSING COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Community Center, Room 4 Date: June 8, Healdsburg Ave, Healdsburg, CA Time: 6:00 P.M. Phone: Date Posted:
Transcript
CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY HOUSING COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Community Center, Room 4 Date: June 8, Healdsburg Ave, Healdsburg, CA Time: 6:00 P.M. Phone: Date Posted: June 6, Call Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of June 8, 2016 Agenda 4. Approval of June 2, 2016 Meeting Minutes 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Public comments may be made on the matters described in the Special Meeting Notice (Government Code Section ) 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Review and vote on Housing Action Plan (HAP) Supporting Recommendations b. Review and vote on HAP Targets c. Review and vote on HAP Section 2: Priority Recommendations 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS 9. ADJOURNMENT SB DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Community Housing Committee regarding any item on this agenda after the posting of this agenda and not otherwise exempt from disclosure, will be made available for public review in the City Clerk s Office located at City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, during normal business hours. If supplemental materials are made available to the members of the Community Housing Committee at the meeting, a copy will be available for public review at the City Hall Council Chamber, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, CA These writings will be made available in appropriate alternative formats upon request by a person with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. DISABLED ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Healdsburg will make reasonable accommodations for persons having special needs due to disabilities. Please contact Maria Curiel, City Clerk, at Healdsburg City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, California, , at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, to ensure the necessary accommodations are made. 1 Community Housing Committee Special Meeting Minutes June 2, :00 pm Present Committee Members: Absent Committee Members: Abramson, Vice Chair Burg, Civian, Lickey, Mansell, Whisney and Chairperson Worden Chambers, Madarus CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Worden called to order the special meeting of the Community Housing Committee of the City of Healdsburg at 6:07:06 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was revised to consider Item 6B, Discuss draft Housing Action Plan (HAP) and findings from White Papers on priority Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 and receive comments on each, before item 6A, receive a presentation from Walter Keiser, EPS and provide feedback on the proposed revisions to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Committee Member Civian made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Burg, to approve the June 2, 2016 special meeting agenda as revised. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. (Ayes 7, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Committee Member Lickey abstained from voting on the May 3, 2016 special meeting minutes. Committee Member Burg, seconded by Committee Member Whisney, made a motion to approve the May 3, 2016 special meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried on a voice vote. (Ayes 6, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus, Abstaining Lickey) PUBLIC COMMENT None. PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION FOUR SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT Director Massey updated the Committee on the presentation given to Council in May on the Housing Action Plan and direction received from Council related to the Priority Recommendations. Director Massey gave an overview of Priority Recommendation Four the recommendation to implement a fee deferral program for deed restricted Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs). She Community Housing Committee Special Meeting Minutes June 2, 2016 Page 2 summarized the three different fee options the Committee has been exploring (1) Expand existing Fee Deferral Program, (2) Create a fee waiver program and (3) Undertake a fee review. Director Massey introduced Public Works Director Salmi who discussed the fees surrounding secondary dwelling units, and asked the Committee for feedback. Discussion ensued among the Committee Members and staff about recovering the cost if the fees were reduced or deferred, what the basis for fee reduction is, how prevailing wage correlates with the use of the public dollar, scaling fees to size, and waiving fees for SDUs with a mandatory deed restriction. Discussion further ensued about managing SDUs. Chair Worden provided clarification for the Committee and the public about the three different options. Chair Worden opened up the discussion on Secondary Dwelling Units to the public. John Diniakos Opined on the fee waiver program, and asked if a portion of an existing unit is turned into a granny unit, are the impact fees reduced. Tim Unger Opined on the schedule of fees, proportionality and right sizing of the impact fees based on the size of a dwelling unit. Merrilyn Joyce Commented on incentivizing SDUs for homeowners, how developers are incentivized in the City and the approach we should have towards developers. Ken Munson Commented on right sizing the impact fees based on the size of a dwelling unit, and placing the deed restriction requirement on the developers who build in Healdsburg; not on the private homeowner. Adele Barnett Opined on her desire to build a SDU on her lot and the cost of the impact fees affecting her ability to do so. John Diniakos Opined that in his research he found other cities have made the requirement if you have the economic means to build an SDU no waiver should be applied, if you don t have the economic means, than a fee waiver should be applied. Chair Worden closed the public comment portion of the discussion. Following a brief discussion, Committee Member Civian, Seconded by Committee Member Burg, made a motion to support option one, Expand existing Fee Deferral Program. The motion carried on voice vote with Committee Member Lickey dissenting, and Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 6, Noes Lickey, Absent Chambers and Madarus) In response to Chair Worden s question on a formal vote for option two, create a fee waiver program, the Committee voted unanimously against option two. Community Housing Committee Special Meeting Minutes June 2, 2016 Page 3 In response to Chair Worden s request on a formal vote for option three, Undertake a fee review; as well as combining Priority Recommendation Four with Priority Recommendation Nine, Revise the City's current impact fee schedule to scale with unit size; the Committee voted unanimously to support this request. PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION ONE Director Massey introduced Priority Recommendation One to expand the definition of Affordable Housing in the Land Use Code to include Middle Income and Priority Recommendation Two to revise the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to require 30% Affordable Housing. Discussion ensued among Committee Members about the utility value of moderate income language in the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO), how family vs. individual income levels are determined, and how the percentages for each income level very low, low, moderate, and middle, will be broken down in the IHO. Chair Worden opened up the discussion to public comment. Jim Winston Opined that the suggested definition of Affordable Housing for the Land Use Code is inconsistent with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of Affordable Housing. Merrilyn Joyce Commented on the IHO percentage increase and how the increase affects the developers. John Diniakos Opined on low cost housing, a deed restriction in trade for a fee waiver, and wanted to know if the missing middle was going to be included in rental discussion. Discussion continued amongst the Committee about expanding beyond HUD s definition of affordable housing, how to amend the definition to make it more clear that is separate from HUD s definition of affordable housing, and how the difference between HUD s definition of affordable Housing vs the Committee s recommendation of affordable housing for the Land Use Code will come out in the details. Committee Member Abramson, Seconded by Committee Member Whisney, made a motion to support Priority Recommendation One to expand the definition of Affordable Housing in the Land Use Code to include Middle Income. The motion carried on voice vote with Committee Member Mansell dissenting, and Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 6, Noes Mansell, Absent Chambers and Madarus) Community Housing Committee Special Meeting Minutes June 2, 2016 Page 4 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION TWO Director Massey introduced Walter Kieser from Economic Planning Systems, (EPS) to discuss Priority Recommendation Two to revise the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to require 30% Affordable Housing. Mr. Kieser gave a thorough presentation on the recommended changes to the IHO, including the distribution of affordability, In Lieu Fee, small project IHO compliance, alternative compliance and development incentives. Mr. Kieser further discussed how the IHO will apply only to for sale housing, as rental housing is currently preempted from Inclusionary Housing. Discussion ensued amongst Committee Members about the distribution of affordability, In Lieu Fee, how the In Lieu fee is calculated, small project IHO compliance, alternative compliance and development incentives. Discussion further ensued amongst Committee Members about requiring developers to do the mid-point of the density range, nexus based impact fees, and allowing deed restricted SDUs to be built in order to meet the fractional requirement of IHO In Lieu fee payment. Committee Member Lickey, Seconded by Committee Member Civian, made a motion to adopt the proposal of 7.5% Low, 7.5% Moderate, and 15% Middle, as submitted by staff for the IHO 30% breakdown. The motion carried on voice vote with Committee Member Abramson dissenting, and Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 6, Noes Abramson, Absent Chambers and Madarus) Committee Member Burg, Seconded by Committee Member Civian, made a motion to accept the In Lieu Fee at full cost as proposed, and exceptions for small units, and ask staff to look at how the In Lieu Fee can be applied in a scalable fashion. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 7, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus) Ken Munson Opined on clarification about the possible In Lieu Fee with the new IHO and the impact fee cost. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee about impact fees, the possible In Lieu Fee with the new IHO, and what constitutes a re-model on a single family dwelling vs a brand new house. Committee Member Burg, Seconded by Committee Member Abramson, made a motion to support the proposal related to how small projects should comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 7, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus) After discussion on alternative compliance among Committee Members Committee Member Burg, Seconded by Committee Member Civian, made a motion to approve the alternative Community Housing Committee Special Meeting Minutes June 2, 2016 Page 5 compliance proposal. The motion carried on voice vote with Committee Member Mansell dissenting, and Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 6, Noes Mansell, Absent Chambers and Madarus) After discussion on development incentives, Committee Member Civian, Seconded by Committee Member Burg, made a motion to allow development incentives on a negotiation basis. The motion carried on voice vote with Committee Members Mansell and Lickey dissenting, and Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 5, Noes Lickey and Mansell, Absent Chambers and Madarus) Director Massey asked the Committee if they wanted to pursue a Nexus Study to require an impact fee on rental projects to contribute to the affordable housing demand, either in payment of a fee or alternative compliance to the fee through deed restricted units in the developers projects. After discussion among the Committee, Committee Member Burg, Seconded by Committee Member Abramson made a motion to look at applying impact fees to the rental market and authorize a Nexus based study. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 7, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus) HOUSING ACTION PLAN UPDATED PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS Director Massey summarized the Priority Recommendations to the Housing Action Plan to be voted on this evening. After discussion, Committee Member Burg, Seconded by Committee Member Whisney, made a motion to accept Priority Recommendations in the fast track grouping 1-6 and elevate Supporting Recommendations 7 and 8 to Priority Recommendations. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 7, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus) HOUSING ACTION PLAN ACTIONS/OBJECTIVES Director Massey summarized the Housing Action Plan Actions/Objectives. After Discussion among Committee Members, Committee Member Burg, Seconded by Committee Member Civian, made a motion to accept final Objectives 1-5 for the Housing Action Plan. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 7, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus) Committee Member Burg, Seconded by Committee Member Whisney, made a motion to drop Objective 6 from the Housing Action Plan. The motion failed on a technical denial with Abramson, Mansell and Worden Dissenting, Chambers and Mansell noted as absent and Lickey abstaining. (Ayes 3, Noes Mansell, Worden, and Abramson, Absent - Chambers and Madarus, Abstained Lickey) Community Housing Committee Special Meeting Minutes June 2, 2016 Page 6 Committee Member Civian, Seconded by Committee Member Abramson, moved to include Objective 6 with all the other Objectives in the Housing Action Plan. The motion carried on a voice vote with Burg and Whisney dissenting, Chambers and Madarus noted as absent and Lickey abstaining. (Ayes 4, Noes Burg and Whisney, Absent Chambers and Madarus, Abstained Lickey) HOUSING ACTION PLAN SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION & VISION Director Massey recapped Section 1 of the Housing Action Plan; discussion ensued amongst Committee Members about the images to be placed in the document. Chair Worden opened the discussion to Public Comment. John Diniakos Opined that SDUs should be included in the Nexus Study. After discussion, Committee Member Whisney, Seconded by Committee Member Mansell, made a motion to accept the draft Housing Action Plan Section 1: Introduction and Vision. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with Chambers and Madarus noted as absent. (Ayes 7, Noes 0, Absent Chambers and Madarus) NEW BUSINESS None. DISCUSSION REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no other Community Housing Committee business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Jon Worden, Chair Karen Massey, Community Housing & Development Director CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY HOUSING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Review and Vote on Housing Action Plan (HAP) Supporting Recommendations MEETING DATE: June 8, 2016 PREPARED BY: REQUESTED ACTION: Karen Massey, Community Housing and Development Director Review and vote on Housing Action Plan (HAP) Supporting Recommendations SUMMARY: One of the CHC s next tasks relative to the HAP is to review and vote on the SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS for each of the six approved Objectives. At the June 8 th meeting we will be discussing whether the proposed list of Supporting Recommendations is appropriate for the next six years and voting on the final list to be included in the HAP. BACKGROUND: The CHC recently received a draft list of recommendations and was asked to provide feedback on them. Based on the responses received from Committee Members (see summary of key themes below), some of the former Supporting Recommendations were elevated to Priority Recommendations, because they benefit multiple Objectives. These were reviewed and approved at our June 2 nd meeting, and now complete the full set of Priority Recommendations. Supporting Recommendations generally benefit only one Objective, and while important to achieving our desired outcome, are not as critical as the ideas and actions embedded in the Priority Recommendations. Based on homework responses, and further review by Staff and the Consultant team, the initial list of Supporting Recommendations have been combined to a manageable list of fifteen. Each has been given a timeframe, responsible party for completion (both lead and support) and a key performance indicator where appropriate. Also, where the recommendation correlates to other policies or programs contained in the City s Strategic Plan, General Plan or Housing Element these have been referenced demonstrating alignment of the HAP with existing City documents. All of this information is summarized in the attached Table 1: HOUSING ACTION PLAN SUMMARY for ease of reference, management and communication. This will serve as the focus of review and discussion at the June 8 th meeting where we will be discussing whether the proposed list of Supporting Recommendations is appropriate for the next six years. A successful outcome of our next meeting will be to approve Table 1 with or without changes- as the basis for Section 3 of the HAP. 1 DISCUSSION: Committee Member comments on the Draft Supporting Recommendations (in order of frequency) include: #1 Parking there was a lot of concern expressed in the comments to NOT reduce parking requirements particularly in those neighborhoods that may not have sufficient off street parking, where reducing standards will make it worse. There were some notes that indicated we should be careful not to create a blanket approach so reductions might work in some locations and some not. It is important to keep in mind the task of the CHC is to make the recommendation relative to studying parking regulations, not if or how to change the regulations. Walker Parking will be present at the June 27 th CHC meeting to provide an overview of the parking review they are presently conducting for the City. #2 Vacant Home Inventory related Recommendations some Committee Members thought creating an accurate baseline could be valuable while others thought it an unproductive use of limited resources. We will discuss whether or not the CHC wishes to include this recommendation in the HAP on June 8 th. #3 Miscellaneous The following miscellaneous questions were also raised: Will any project that uses City land or City funding trigger prevailing wage? Generally speaking, yes. Are we using the County Area Median Income (AMI) or Healdsburg s AMI?. This question was addressed at the beginning of the HAP process and it was agreed we should use County AMI because the State definitions, funding levels, etc. are tied to the County AMI. Local preference what does this look like and what does it mean? A local preference clause will be included in the revised Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; the exact language of which has yet to be determined. 2 HEALDSBURG HOUSING ACTION PLAN SUMMARY June 3rd, Discussion Draft THE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS THE PLAN OBJECTIVES THE PLAN METRICS THE PLAN IMPLEMENTERS Fast Track GMO Contingent Objective 1.0 Increase Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Stock Objective 2.0 Facilitate development of SDU's Objective 3.0 Build Middle Income Housing Objective 4.0 Increase Rental Housing Objective 5.0 Encourage Mixed Product Types and Creative Density Objective 6.0 Reduce Neighborhood Impacts of Vacant Homes Key Performance Indicator (How do we know we fulfilled the recommendation?) Related Policies, Programs and Initiatives Target Completion Date SP = Strategic Plan GP=General Plan HEU=Hsing Element Recommendation PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS Leads Supports PR-1 Expand the definition of Affordable Housing in the Land Use Code to include Middle Income PR-2 Revise the Incl
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks