Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

You all know there's a woeful shortage of that in our county. The irony is is that the city of Placerville, as you probably know, has met their regional housing allocations. I don't know if you knew that because, again, they've made plans, but they followed through on the plans. They executed on them. The jurisdiction up in South Lake Tahoe, in my view, is actually delivering on their plans.

But the jurisdiction of the county gets mired. We have a lot of good plans. But the ultimate thing and the and the board of supervisees has discussed this publicly. I've been at meetings where they've discussed the need for political will to execute and deliver on the plans. And so you can have and I hope I I pray and hope that in this instance, we're gonna have enough momentum and that whatever your recommendations ultimately are will be read and accepted and embraced by the board of supervisor and then lived up to and followed through on.

Otherwise, we're all just wasting a lot of time here. And I sadly I think that would be a tragedy because I think the advice and counsel you all offer, by the way, in all your hearings. You're very smart, capable people. You're very familiar with the development community. I will tell you that I have a harder time attracting affordable housing developers up to our county because of their frustrations with getting things through the county planning process.

And I know that applies to the market rate stuff too, but it applies even more to the affordable housing stuff. Because we have two projects right now, very viable ones, that were one was gonna start construction this year, the Armory project, Clementine, and it got waylaid. And I can give you all the details about why the waylaid, in my opinion, was red herrings and phony you know, it was a scuttled effort to scuttle this project, a very viable, solid affordable housing project. Bass Lake Family Apartments has suffered a 129 units, 124 units, suffered the same fate. Again, examples of lack of political will when it comes down to it.

So I guess I'm maybe preaching to the choir somewhat because I think you've probably heard this before. But I think if I punctuate your efforts today, and I wish you much success, and I hope you come up with a a good set of recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you. No other public comment in the room. Anything on anybody online?

Alright. Now taking public comment from members on Zoom. If you are joining the meeting by phone, please press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. If you are joining by Zoom, please press press the raise hand button to notify us that you would like to speak. Alright. No public comment on Zoom.

Okay. Then we'll move forward to agenda item two, and that's number twenty five dash zero three six zero. Staff recommending the task force to do the following. One, receive a presentation from staff on options for items to be included in a resolution of intent ROI for the board of supervisors to consider. Two, select which options are recommended to go to the board of supervisors with justification for those recommendations. And three, make a motion to approve the selected recommendations with justifications and direct staff to begin drafting the ROI.

Alright. Thank you, mister chair. Chris Perry, economic development, playing in billing department. Kyle Zimmerman, Jennifer Morris. You have all of us here. We, as promised, have something here for you to look at in in production, so to speak. I will mention that when we met last month, we were talking about having a draft ordinance before you. We had subsequent conversations with our county council and internal discussions and realized the directives from the board probably didn't check the box for what we call a resolution of intent. We call it an ROI for short. So what you're looking at now are kind of the conceptual ideas.

And there's obviously there's meats on these bones, but it's not a full ordinance as you can see. The intent with this would be to bring this set of recommendations as a resolution of intent to the board and ensure that, again, really, we're on the right path, and this is exactly what they want us to do. Assuming that all goes well, we click that into an ordinance and bring that back to this body as well. We actually have two opportunities to do this. We have time reserved on April 8 at the board of supervisors for the resolution of intent.

So we have this session, and we can go back and make revisions to this. And then we'll have one more opportunity to meet here as a body before this goes to the board in in April. So we have a March meeting. I think it's the same date, March 19, and then we go to the board on April 8. So it'll be a quick turnaround for us, and we gotta get whatever happens in March, we gotta kick it back to CAO for approval up to

the board within one week. So that's kind

of process wise where we're at.

Sorry. I don't know. One other thing is it's a necessary step of this process anyway, so we're trying to kill two birds with one stone by getting that ROI to the board. It would be a necessary step that we'd have to take anyway, so we might as well.

Yeah. In writing in writing ordinances, we the first step is a resolution of intent. And, again, we were looking at the directors the board gave us from April 22 or in 2022 and in April and didn't quite meet that. It was some broad concepts of what this task force is going to look at, but we've kind of obviously built this out so we can have an actual ROI to move into an ordinance. So but, again, you'll see that there's actually a lot of substance in this anyways. And to be completely frank, I have an ordinance, a draft ordinance prep that I pulled most of this from anyways. So it's kind of a plug and play thing depending on where this all goes. So that yeah. Go ahead.

Just clarification. So you basically take this concept, put that into your ROI, which is also in your draft ordinance, and both of those documents then go Yep.

So the only thing that'll go on April is a resolution. So it's gonna be literally a resolution of intent that will have Okay. Yeah. These concepts in there that the board will bless yay or nay or maybe they mended or whatever they're going to do with it, and that will give us the final direction we need to draft formally draft the ordinance. Okay. And then we bring that back at a separate board meeting.

Okay. Yeah. Alright. Just wanted to clarify which way. Absolutely.

So any other questions on process?

Go ahead. Yeah.

So

question. Does are the recommendations meant to create a high level sort of policy direction, or is it to create strategies and tools?

So, yes, to both of that. I mean, we in general, usually, when a resolution of intent comes before, it's more kind of conceptual ideas of what we wanna do. But if if there are particulars that we already kinda have a bull's eye on, we have our eye on, we've identified, there's absolutely nothing wrong with putting those in resolution of intent. So in this case, since we've talked pretty deeply about a lot of these concepts, there is nothing that would preclude us from talking specifically about if we want to identify, you know, maybe maybe moderate is not a 120% of AMI. Maybe it's 200 in overall care.

Whatever it may be, that's the level of detail you can put in there. It's not necessarily required of an ROI. ROIs usually start a little bit broader, and then we hone down into the ordinance. In this case, we've done a lot of prework, so there's a lot of extra it'll be a long resolution. I mean, that's what you're looking at, the pretty deep resolution.

K. Understand when you're ready for comments.

So, yeah, so the first part of the agenda item is receive a presentation. I mean, really, my presentation is going to be as we walk through this. Right? So one and two on here are kinda blended anyways because you're going to opine on each of these and change verbiage and say yay or nay or whatever it may be. And just so just so we're clear, obviously, we want what what this will look like when it goes to the board because staff might have some other ideas.

You noticed in here that you see inclusionary in there. I know we've talked about this extensively, but when we get there, we can go more through why that's in there. But what you're going to see is, you know, resolution of intent for the board to discuss, but there's gonna be justifications for this. Right? Because we we as staff may not agree a 100% with what the task force is recommending, and that's okay. Because, ultimately, it's up to the board to give us direction and say, yeah. We like the idea. Don't like the idea. We have to have this and there. We don't want this and there.

You know, we gotta give them all the options. So this is this is meant to spur some debate, not necessarily today debate. Really, what we wanna hear from you guys today is yes, no, why not? And, actually, what we envision would be what would be incredibly helpful for us, particularly for the board item, would be potentially, you know, justifications for these, a written justification from the task force, a letter, whatever it may be. We can talk about that more next month. We don't necessarily need that right now. But that's kind of the way we're gonna go through this. So, again, don't be alarmed if you see things in here. You go, woah. You know?

This is meant to have the discussion and delineate. Again, we put kinda I feel like we put most things on the table here, and we can say yes, no, yes, no, and here's why. And that's really what we're looking for so we can start to put together the board item. So okay. I mean, we can jump right in. If there's no questions, can get into substance of this. Alright. Alright. So, goal, to promote affordable housing development, streamline permitting, and shorten project timelines for very low, low, and moderate income households.

I have a comment.

Please.

Promote sounds like you're selling something, like it's a product that you're gonna sell the latest, you know, laundry detergent. And and my feeling is that in order for the county to really step out of sort of the past is they have to drive. That means you have to literally find funding, and you need to identify partners, and you need to kinda think a little bit outside the box. And to me, I would just hope that maybe I don't know what the word is. I wrote drive or lead.

But, like, really, like, to me, that it's a very powerful statement because it also means support. I don't see financing in here or funding, and I think we've all kind of made the point that in order for Eldorado County projects to compete at the state level, you have to put funding in them, you know, or they will not make the cut. So it really is identify maybe new financing sources to support affordable housing. I mean, it's really being very thoughtful and really upfront about the fact that it's critical. Right, Chris?

Right. Well, maybe it's like it's like encourage affordable housing development through streamline permitting. I'm just throwing out some word of some type of funding mechanism there and shortened project timelines, adding that to those three areas, I don't know what

I'd like to say identify partnerships too because that to me is utility companies, all of your, you know, infrastructure partners. Because I what what hopefully, Eldorado becomes the leader. You know? You guys set the course and working with partners. I don't know. That to me, it feels stronger then.

Thank you.

So you're saying partnership with with what? How how do you wanna put that in partnership with

To me, it's it's developers.

Other entities or Yeah. It's other entities within the county or something? Because, like, we have EID, and we have other community development districts and stuff that you gotta deal with.

Well, I'd like to suggest behavioral health, for example. Who who does who understands behavioral health in this room? You know that a lot of money is coming to behavioral health under prop one? Right? A lot. That's a funnel that could be directed in this arena of state money that automatically comes to Eldorado County. So to me, you harmonize that with your funding. Right? Because that then tees up really nicely with your tax credit deals and with your permanent supportive housing. And that what you're also doing, in my mind too, is that you're really kind of, meeting people where they're at from the low income perspective.

Right? Because that's gonna be your we all know it. That's your your hardest to house greatest need population. And so then you're elevating that as a priority because then because these are money sources that are coming into the county, period. Right? And then you have then opportunities to place them in your housing element sites or or whatnot. And then I think also the private sector who wants to be involved in solutions. And and maybe even that means pilots. You know? Maybe that means sometimes you step out of the box and you say, you know what? For a year, we're gonna, you know, do these things with different so I guess I just wanna be able to say that it's a it's a partnership that you're actively then kind of attracting people to help you in this.

So if I may because I think, you know, for the purpose of the goal statement, we don't need to get into the specifics of who we partner with. Right?

True.

True. So I think adding this language along the line of through the use of public and private partnerships that offer financial and logistical support.

Yeah?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah.

And we're just, know, reacting.

It's a great beginning, by the way.

Okay. Thank you. Ready to move on.

We got the first step that's been Hey.

Hey. We're progress. You know? Yeah. We must have take a break. Alright. Definitions, key terms. This is obviously extremely broad. We didn't throw the definitions in there yet. It's just conceptual again. We wanna define out affordable housing, what that actually means. Very low, low, mod, inclusionary housing. Add, subtract, thoughts. It's weird

you put inclusionary housing in there like that. Like, it's a it's class.

Guess, what was the reason why?

Well, because most people don't know what inclusionary housing is. So you might wanna define it up front what that actually means just as a term.

Unless we take it out of the ordinance altogether, and

we don't need it at all, which

I'm here for.

Because it tends to be that moderate income. Right? Isn't inclusionary typically one twenty?

Well, no. Inclusionary can depends be on each ordinance. Depending on how you how you term it. I mean, it can be I've seen it done in inclusionary where it's 80% and lower.

Well, in a weird sort of way, it's already captured, though, right, with affordable housing very low, low, and moderate. Right? Because if that's really the income class, that's that's all it is defined.

Well, and we there very well might be more definitions we need in there. This is just a very basic list to start so, yeah, inclusionary shows up a little bit odd compared to those other ones, but there may be other things we wanna define in there that don't

need So to that's like your glossaries.

Yeah. Options.

Right. Yeah. Okay.

I might just, in the definitions, include specifications that this includes both for rent and for sale units. Because a lot of people think affordable housing is only for rent, but we would like to sell affordable housing as well.

Indeed. Thank you. Any other thoughts on this one?

I'm ready to Okay. Let's let's

go on. Alright.

Here we

go. Section three, incentives for affordable housing development. And, again, we're talking we're basic concepts here. And and, again, numbers are plugged in. Fully expect there to be reactions, disagree, agree you know? So don't don't be bashful. Density bonus. And, again, just numbers out. And by the way, these are populated from Placer County, San Diego. It's kind of a hybrid mashup from what we've seen from others if you're wondering where this came from. So, yeah, let me just read it in. So developers can receive up to 35% density bonus above maximum allowable density. And second phrase, additional incentives for projects with 30% or more affordable units.

Alright. Comment here. Please. There's already state law that even blows us up to 80% and a 100% of density bonus. So my hope is that, basically, El Dorado says, state, whatever housing legislation's on the books, we will take it all.

Sure.

We're not gonna question it. Like and then you don't really have to go into it because you can already go up to a 100%. I forget the bill number. Do you remember what it is? It's like I'm trying to remember. We were

looking at

this. Something 2023. Anyway, there's if you just look at it, and I'll find it when I go home. I have it written on a sticky note at my computer. So, I mean, literally, and they come up with new bills every year. So there's already a ton of so all the parking reductions, I worked on that bill, A b 14 A b 14O one. Anyway, we we already reduce it for seniors.

State laws.

So those are the things I would just like to say. Then you don't have to articulate everyone because it's always gonna change, but just that it's more you know, we'll we'll use what's on the law. Mhmm.

The lines of, like, follow state regulations, which are

Yeah. And

then In in place of enumerating the incentive, you mean? Yeah. Or just okay.

Because they're already at the state level. Yeah. And they come in any developer could say, El Dorado County, you can't say no

to this.

But but are you saying, like, the next bullet under the density bonus, another 30% above that?

Well, I mean, to to me,

it's to

to Mia's point. I mean It's already covered. That's gonna be covered. Yeah. So I don't think

you need the second bullet then. Yep. Yep. You don't need

the second bullet. Parking requirements, you don't need that. That's already waived under all the different statutes.

Do the fee waivers first.

Fee waivers. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. You're right. You're

right. I know. Just

wanna say good. We wanted this engagement. This is helpful. Okay. So, yeah, fee waivers reductions, waivers reductions, and building infrastructure and utility fees. Again, not, you know, further to be defined, but just conceptually there. Go ahead, Vince.

I'd like to add to this section fee waivers and reductions and deferrals because a very useful tool that we see in other jurisdictions is essentially paying a small percentage of the fees that are due upfront and then deferring the rest to occupancy, which is already consistent with some state law. But you have the option of doing it yourself for all of the fees across the board, so I would suggest adding that as well.

And the other thing I would suggest adding is for a tax credit developer, just waiving the fees sometimes is a challenge because it becomes a grant. So what you end up really needing to do is turning it into a long term loan. So so maybe there's just some harmony around working with developers to to to structure these in ways that are, you know, most beneficial to the project. So in some cases, it they will be loans.

Okay.

Sorry. Go ahead. I'm just say with that, should there be language in there that says, like, we should pursue those those mean, I guess we'll get to that that piece when it if the board approves doing that. But, like, there's no guarantee that we can get these outside agencies to do these things, but pursue conversations to to engage with entities for their fee reductions or referrals. It's kind of Sure. Tinted it. Right? But Right. And I I don't there to be a misconception that we're just seeing counties. The counties. The counties. Okay.

But I know we've talked about also the county encouraging Yeah. EID and some of the community districts and stuff to look at reducing or reduce fees or something for affordable projects Right. To make Yes. Especially the EID. Yeah.

There's also in in the general plan, the county is the collecting body for a lot of these fees. And when it comes to things like a fee deferral, I I believe it's at the county's discretion as to when you collect them. So you can do things like that without even getting permission from the utility districts.

Yeah. I was gonna say there is a board policy for building fee deferrals already, so we have that set up. So it is for low income housing projects and also just low income

homeowners as well. Is is that where the 20% comes from?

That, I don't know where Chris put that in from. But it's not I mean, it it ours is just a building fee waiver or I'm sorry, a building fee deferral program.

Oh, that's the deferral part of it.

Yeah. So so we do have the deferral, and then we also do have a fee waiver program in the county as well. And sometimes we have used those for building permits. So and then most of them are paid back when somebody refinances or sells the property at a later date. And then some are done at occupancy like Vance was saying. And

Well, that'll almost be kinda like we're talking about type of thing where

Mhmm. Mhmm. Yeah. Mhmm.

Right. Which is

Oh, yeah. So are you are you oh, there. Second bullet that you'd have a full fee waiver for if you have 20% or more affordable units in the project?

This is food for thought.

Oh, no.

Yeah. That's a great thought. Yeah. I know. It seems so it seems like a lot to give, actually. And I wasn't gonna

If you currently understand the the challenges in the county's budget right now,

you Right.

You know? But we're we're thinking here.

I would equate it to just the affordable units Yeah. Not everything else.

Well, I think it you know, because incentives for affordable housing is it's number three, so it's only these incentives.

True. Okay. Anyway, you you may wanna find you know, I don't know if 20% is the right number, so just just You can almost leave

just percentage to Dot

dot dot. Like, leave that Yeah.

As a

To be worked on

or Yeah.

Refined. 100%.

I think it's a 100%.

Right.

That that's more likely. It's like in Sacramento just passed one that is For a

100%. Because you're gonna

see a lot of you're not gonna see many eighty twenty deals.

Not out here.

No. Yeah. Because the rents are not there for the market side. Now you can talk about your parking.

Yeah. And then parking. So on to parking.

Yeah. It only take a decade to get it passed, legislatures. So there are a number of tools that are already there, plus all your density bonuses also in their incentives can reduce parking as one waiver. So I would just say that

Well, it's not just proximity to transit. It's you know? If you if you got affordable project, you can ask for that as one of your exceptions.

Yes. So it's it's there there is a transit in in the state. I think it's a b 14 o one. Transit does matter. Mhmm. But there's also a bill that as long as you're senior housing or affordable housing, you're by a bus stop. That's fine too. Sometimes it'd be, like, the best transit. And then, again, in density bonus, could waive it. So in reality, by right, it's already there at state law if you're doing affordable housing. So it's nice to have here, but in reality, they can waive it anyway.

Yeah. In that's great. And there's nothing I mean, in ordinances, we have the ability, obviously, to say just follow state law. Right. But sometimes it's easier to enumerate it for someone who doesn't understand state law, which is why some of this might end up showing up in an ordinance because if someone from the public who's not necessarily as familiar with the affordable housing, they're gonna have to cross river in state law. Makes it cleaner when we state it in there for sure.

Well, what would be nice then is you'd I mean, is I think it'd be very interesting for the supervisors to know all these different pieces of legislation that already exist. And here's the beauty of it too. It gives elected political cover.

Yeah. Sorry to hear Mhmm.

You're like, don't blame me. Blame the governor.

Right. You're not adding something extra.

Right.

And then add adding to that property tax incentive, same thing. So that is a state law that as long as you have a nonprofit and then you have deed restrictions that are tied to the property, you automatically get a welfare exemption, property tax exemption. So maybe just enumerate that in your Right. Sort of list of tools that are already out there. And I'd like to say that your affordable housing fund, frankly, I hope could be elevated as one of your as maybe your number one thing. Maybe instead of the last is

the first.

Indeed.

That is where you're gonna have the most impact.

Well, I think the affordable housing fund almost deserves its entirely own section in here. Yes. We're talking about new strategies. Yes. How to manage it, to collect new revenue sources. It's this right here. Like, it's a nice little nod to it, but it's it's gotta get way more attention.

And I was mentioning to Chris before we started sort of some of the concepts we were talking about last week about, you know, the Melaruses and maybe finding ways within the existing big builders' current plans to do, you know, in fees that they pay the county that go right into this fund as well as ongoing fees for every you know, as you know, when you add the Melarus to every house, maybe there's a point 25% monitoring fee that goes to Eldorado County into this account every year.

And, also, you know, we talked about fund development, which I am assuming is new development. We don't have rehabilitation there. Preservation. And I assume this part

That's correct. Yeah. Which is why you're not seeing a whole lot about funding in this particular first kinda cut at the action, so to speak. Because we yeah. The way the board had directed us was to look at the ordinance and then come back and talk about trust fund, other types of incentives, so on and so forth.

We're we're kind of adding some incentives in here trying to, you know, just pave the way forward for a good ordinance. Right. And, you know, we worked through that. You know, a couple months ago, we had that discussion. But I I think so long as we're making our references to that there's additional kinda more to come on the funding piece, we've achieved our goal at least for now. And the board understands that, you know, here's the policy, and then we're gonna have another, you know, another cut at the action for specifically for funding to make sure we can implement and carry out. Right. Which

is but I understood what's our second goal for the task force. Correct. After we get this organized, we get a step figuring out how to fund or Okay. Motivate the affordable housing trust fund or power Yes. Before That

is correct.

Maybe it's been it's just an overarching, like, harmonize all that.

Sure.

Because because part of the challenge, and I'll say this, when I work in different counties, it's like you're dealing with one entity, but it's got 12 heads. And every head thinks differently even though you're all part of the same body and even though you have the same priorities. So unless it's, like, clearly laid out that these things should be pledged to this, you know, it's not it's it's hard to make that happen. So I guess I would just really hope that you could have, you know, very clear direction from the board that this is what they want. Like, for example, federal money that comes in, infrastructure money that comes in, you know, county money that comes in that could be used for this.

Like, these are the priorities that the counties determined is very important, so then this is how we can layer that, you know, to kind of put the funding in that direction. Otherwise, it's, like, hurting cats.

I have a two part question. Is there currently a fee structure in place?

Jen, you wanna talk about sort of

for

We we have a very, very modest And in

And there's about, what, a 100,000 in that account?

No. It are you referring to the the affordable housing trust fund. Right?

Right.

The trust fund used to my What I had sent you guys. Yeah. There's $283,000 in it, I

believe. It's it's saying in in this bullet, fees collected from opting out. What are those fees? What does that fee structure look like?

We don't have that. One? No. So, like, as we in the very, very beginning meetings, we discussed the development agreements. That is the only fee right now coming into that. Okay. And that account, like I said, did start with a random 150,000 from a older developer that funded the fund. And then now we've built it with, I think, two developers have opted in to pay that fee, and that was the fee that started at 500 and increased with the CPI yearly. So it is that's why it's growing so small. Not it's not a great word, but growing.

Is there any thought on the county's part to increase, though, that fee?

Well, right now, because they're they're optional in the development agreements. It's negotiated between the developer and the county to pay into that. We currently cannot change the fee that's in place in their development agreements. We can only hope that new development agreements agree to pay into it, or, like, we're trying to do is put something in this instead.

The answer to that question would be yes. Right. That is a conversation we're gonna have here or starting to have here. Because to Jen's point, right now, it's just through development agreements. We could negotiate something different with upcoming development agreements. But what we really want is just in place to have a fund. Right? It's not borne out by individual development agreements because that's those are one offs. Would the point of setting policy and setting funding mechanisms is that there's a clear picture of what Eldorado County would like to see from their developers. Right?

I mean, that's kind of the point of going through this exercise is predictability from both on development side and on the county side of what everyone expects. So the answer is yes. That is a discussion. It's kinda starting now, but it's not necessarily in place. It's been born through DA's.

And isn't it kind of what we're doing in our two step process when we talk about the affordable fund is also figuring out that fee because we, as you say, we had the initial discussion that we saw where they were collecting the small fees, but we need to still dig deeper into that for new projects going forward. Yep.

Yes. And I would the the second part is I would just make a suggestion to the county that they look at where those those fees are deposited because it could be that a partnership with a nonprofit is going to benefit the process more than just having it set in the county.

Sounds good. So

I think for the wording of this particular bullet point, I I think just specifying fees collected from opting out, it's it's far too specific. We're never gonna get a sustainable affordable housing fund that's just built off of fees. So just saying revenue collected for the affordable housing fund because we're gonna need grants. We're gonna need donations. We need to cast a wider net. So I would make that wording Right. Much less specific.

Is Okay. Is anybody aware of the fees that were collected by Placer County on the opt out?

They are Like, how much they have or what their fee structure is?

No. Not the fee structure. How much they have. How much they have been able to garner from the developers and the development that's going on in Placer County. My understanding is it's pretty substantial.

Yeah. And they have a a

completely

different model move through the use of housing trust plasters. So they have their individual nonprofit that's not managed by the county. It's a it's a stand alone, and they can raise revenue through a completely different source that is accessible to a trust fund that's managed by a public entity. So it's it's hard to talk about how they manage theirs and collect their fees when our structure here is so different,

I think. But their fees, I don't believe, go to the housing trust fund because that's a separate nonprofit entity than the government.

So to the trust fund.

Oh, they go to the

Yeah. They they run their housing unit outside of the county. So I think Sac

County reason why that model can't be adopted in El Dorado County?

I brought it up here before in one of our early meetings. There was some resistance, I think, to the general thought. I would still be in favor of it. Housing trust plaster is something that the BIA helped create, and I think it's a it's a very successful model. But I believe there was the concerns that were voiced is that when we start going through outside nonprofits, the affordable builders who are already here may face new challenges. So I think that was I can't remember exactly. But

So so Placer County, this is the way they structured. They have the they have inclusionary. You can go inclusionary and do 10%. But this says, if if you go to the affordable housing fee route and, again, I'm just reading this on the spot here to you guys. Developments with eight to a 100 units have the option to instead pay an in loop fee of $2.69 per habitable square foot of each market rate unit.

So that's

the way

do it by square footage.

Yeah. So they that's the way they structured it. I I didn't immediately find how much they have in there.

So

It's more than $500.

More than $500.

Yeah. Yes.

Okay. Very well. All duly noted. Thank you. Shall we move on?

And, again, just some of these numbers are just arbitrary and starting points to get thought, truly. Streamline permitting expedite review process, expedite permanent processing, fast track programs to reduce processing time of up to 50%. Let me caveat this and just say that and Kyle may be able to speak to this better anyway than I am. But early last year, the board put together an entire process improvement resolution. Kyle's overseeing process improvements in the county.

We I mean, our turnaround times continue to get better and better. And, again, 50% is kind of an arbitrary number, but it's just food for thought because you guys requested this kind of like, well you know, if if the turnaround is quicker, it might be more of an incentive. So it's just a starting point and sort of a What

would be a fast track?

Well, I mean, it just depends on the project. So Yeah. I

And the parts

We'd have to go back through and see historically, you know, how long some of these projects have taken and kind of work backwards, work our way into a number. But Of

course, that's gonna thirty five and somebody's

For those projects. Yep.

You know, we're demanding ninety days.

Ninety days. Right. Yep.

That's already

Yes.

Alright.

One one thing so, again, the there's expedited permit review Mhmm. State law that's on the books. Several of those do trigger prevailing wage. By right zoning prevailing wage, SB 35 is one of them. If yours is the same thing that doesn't trigger prevailing wage, There's some benefit there. So, you know, as as something to put on the table, that has a demonstrable effect. Right. That is a tool that is better than what the states operate. Chris, would you agree?

But that would only be if we could get tax credits only.

Right. But unless

any other funding from

We'll likely trigger it.

Yes. Prevailing wage, unfortunately.

However, at least to have one less one less thing. Hurdle. Yes.

The cost increase.

And maybe in the future, we find ways that we don't have to build with tax credits.

Right.

What's the current staffing level at permit department?

Mean raw numbers? Or I mean, we're

I mean, in the planning department for the processing of projects. Gosh. I believe we have

Has it increased or decreased?

Has not decreased. No.

It's been steady for the last

Yeah. I wouldn't the whole planning department I know long range planning, current planning, they all work together, but at least it's 42. I wanna say planners somewhere around

Does it have the

capacity I can look it up.

To live up to this pledge.

Yeah. I mean I mean, it would I think that's a question that supervises the moment in time. Right? I mean so Sorry.

Reprioritization of, you know, the projects that we handle first.

Okay.

When the

house Right?

We we'd just be a repriorit with the board knowing that it could maybe adversely affect other projects that aren't affordable housing, but it would be moving them up in the priority

Right.

Yeah. If the board determined that this was of that type of priority, that's exactly correct. We just move up and So drilling around and drilling

down on that a little bit. The the next bullet is priority review for compliant affordable housing projects. Is there a some sort of a list of of how you can be in compliant? What what compliant means?

Not that I'm aware of.

Sure. Yeah.

I think everything that's de restricted affordable. You have all this

time. Right?

You have all these timelines anyway. So priority review for

I mean, if you take out the compliance side of it.

How about deed restricted?

Why if you're gonna say they're compliant, it's what means

I agree. Right. Right. Compliant with what? Yeah. Yeah. About just deed restricted affordable housing?

Guideline for staff to know, okay. Does this green light, or is this yellow, or is this red?

Right. I guess it's it's a little redundant to have a review of something that's compliant. It's Right.

So Yep.

And then just to clarify, we have 13 planners. We have six that are discretionary and a few vacancies, but and then six that are currently on staff for front counter. So and we do pull some of our long range planning planners. There's three of them sometimes to assist on projects.

Can you say the word exempt from CEQA?

Before we jump to CEQA, I just had one comment on the fast track. K. Sorry.

I just see it as a whole grouping.

No worries. And I feel like CEQA's gonna take up a lot of time because that's CEQA. Fast track programs to reduce processing times by up to 50%. I don't know why we would set a ceiling for how much time we're gonna reduce. I think we would change the wording, make it, you know, ambitious to reach 50%. But, you know, if normal time is a hundred days and you're about to finish processing at, you know, forty nine days, don't go, oh, I gotta sit on this for one more day because I can only go up to 50%.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

You could just say by to reduce processing times. Just I don't know if we wanna set a goal for

50%. Say,

you know, striving for 50% reduction in review time or something like that. But, yeah, I just wouldn't say up to because you're you're setting an artificial cap for yourself.

Mhmm. Good suggestion. K.

Alright. Streamline environmental review.

I mean, again, we've and we've got all

you can't.

The state I think you gotta mention all the state laws then. You know? Because the state's gonna give you secret cover. Right? Yeah. So I think that has to be maybe upfront, to be quite honest.

It's not just building standards.

Correct. It's not. And then that's just streamlined. To me, there should be exempt. Because, I mean, you literally have to exempt CEQA. I mean, by right means it's by right, and it's Sure. It is true. Mhmm. So, you know, I would even use by right as the first bullet, and then, you know, really embrace what whatever the state is doing. Because that also cuts down your review time and processing time too. Just inherently. Yeah. Inherently. Three months. Boom.

And then and then maybe also from your overall thinking about planning, especially when you're thinking about your housing element or doing overlay zones, if you guys expedite the process by doing your housing overlay zones, right, so then you can, you know, quickly streamline. So, like, you guys set yourself up. So you have all these areas that maybe you've already priority zone, you know, that that that are sort of set up for an easier process. And then it's gonna make your life easier, and then, you know, maybe it's in compliant with whatever you've done with the housing element. And then it's just a matter of then the applicant comes in, and it's just boom, boom, boom, because it all follows. You know, they're doing the density that's being outlined. They're doing this. They're doing that.

Right. Did that, the housing overlay on several properties because I've I've used that on those sites that we developed there. So

And that housing overlay makes them ministerial? That how yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Then make that connection back to the housing element then. You guys have a compliant housing element. Right? Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry. Sometimes that's not a good question to ask.

You don't you don't ask that in Central Valley. Fair question. I already checked. Long time ago.

Okay.

I'd like to add one suggestion. Let's see. Maybe it's on I apologize. Maybe it's somewhere else, but in this section. So one of the things I've been involved in lately, are a lot of talks around Los Angeles and the rebuild and kinda how people are, you know, trying to move through that and what kind of red tape can weed that out. And so a piece of, legislation that I've been, working with some folks with the council member Nithya Raman in Los Angeles is this idea of expediting self what is it called? Self certification.

Mhmm.

So, like, for if you're an engineer who designed blah blah blah system, and they're the ones that can go out there because, you know, your inspectors are running around the county and, you know, you know, it takes so long to do that. You can you know, it there are jurisdictions, and LA is gonna be one of them that will then add an option to allow for self certification so that architects could sign off on the plans, engineers can sign off on the plans if they choose. Granted, I don't you know, not everyone's worked out how everything exactly works.

Right.

But, conceptually, the idea is you're you're reducing the bureaucracy. You're you're putting the people who actually know the design really, really well, the one evaluating it, not just mister, you know, inspector who's looked at the fiftieth project today. You know what I mean? So, anyway, just putting that out there, maybe some I'll just sort of say keep an ear and eye out to what Los Angeles is doing because we're gonna have some practical tips.

Yeah. That was I was thinking exactly the same thing what they're doing in Palisades. And there's an executive order in 2025 that Newsom has signed to expedite the whole process. So it might be good to take a look at that. K.

Selfishly stuff we wish we would have thought of. But yeah.

So Yeah. So Natural.

Sure. Good company. So I guess on that page two. So, yeah, one stop permitting process. Yeah.

But that's not

It's it's here. It's in our lobby. I think we had conversations. I don't know if I see it. Maybe it's on another one. But about doing, like, those pre submittal meetings where we organize and get all the entities in. I'd like

to maybe enumerate that. That's

not I mean

It's it is be done.

On, like, a random permit that comes in, we don't get BID and how but, like, on commercial projects, but on these affordable housing ones, just to make it actually a point on here that we will do commit to

I I have now met several Sacramento County now as a designated. Yep. So they shepherd you through period of, you know Mhmm. So it's almost like that shepherd, though, you really need.

And we actually have that liaison in the house, and I I see this as being a piece of what he could take on.

Perfect. But

I'd like to see it in writing on

here. Sherpa.

Yeah. And, again, some of this Some exact word. Just the Sherpa. And, again, just to reiterate, you know, a lot of this, we wanna put in there just to bring awareness. It's kinda like bringing all these ideas even if they exist into one document so that

So making it aware way of

Exactly. So folks can understand, like, here are all the elements in play related to this topic. Because I don't know about you guys, but it drives me nuts. I worked on legislation for years, and it always drove me crazy where there's 10 different references, but there's no substance in there. So you have to go pull the law and pull this law. It's, you know, kind of, I guess, a best practice thing we're trying to pull here. So, yeah, it seems a little redundant, some of this, but and I figured no one would disagree with one stop permitting, but it's worth putting it's really. You know?

You know?

Go for You know, mean, I think you published the preapproved designs. Yeah. That's great. I think that's what Santa Rosa did. That's how you got a lot of houses built after the fire. Yeah. And

So we so we just did that with ADUs. Right. So we got the pre new preview, preapproved ADU plans here. So we certainly can expand that out.

Are thinking those more like the single family? Because it'd be tough for a multifamily developer to use preapproved site plans. Yeah. Because every site's a little bit different. I mean, the single family, you can kinda move it around on how the lot structure is and stuff. But multifamily, they're very unique. Sure. Each It's true. One kind of

But those are more standards. Right? That's like your design. Mhmm. That's how they do it in an.

Planning. Then essentially. So maybe it's it's

for multi Do

you have do you have you already have that, Connie. Right? Client standards and stuff.

Interim. Yeah. The the interim the interim's been adopted now. They're gonna go in area to area specific sites.

On the subject of one stop permitting process too, I think this is a a good place to acknowledge the importance of also asking these outside agencies to consider what they can let go of and give over to the county. For example, I know El Dorado Hills fire is starting to give fire sprinklers back. Right? Fire sprinkler inspections to the county, and that's gonna save a lot of time for every project involved. So anything like that where we can get people to partner and say, you know what? We trust the county with this. Let's go with it.

Yeah. That is

Yeah.

Okay.

Alright. We wanna move on to five, or you wanna Okay. And and maybe after five, I know there's not a lot of folks in the room here per se, but maybe we take public comment just because there's a lot to digest on. So if you want if you wanna get through five or you wanna go now? Okay. Five. K. Alright. So, yeah, I mean, that kind of harping again on this theme and kind of a little bit of redundancy on this document, but shortened project delivery time. And we go into performance based timelines.

I mean, again, very generic. Developers must meet project milestones, whatever, you know, whatever those may be. But, again, laying out this concept of expectations in in a forthcoming ordinance of we we have expectations. Developers are gonna have expectations, and what does that look like? So So I I have

a big question mark on this one because I'm not very familiar. Are there other jurisdictions where we see project milestones as requirements? Because I'm I'm just thinking, you know, when it comes to building, you you run into rain. You run into Sure. Shipping issues. Yeah.

Yes.

Mhmm. Because I can see the the concept of of incentives for early completion. I I like that. Obviously, incentives are great. And no matter what, whatever your milestones are, you have to get all of them done between the start and the finish line of the early incentive. So, I mean, I like that. The the hitting early. Say that again?

Well,

so how you get it?

That's a good question.

Yeah. To get the dents.

Yeah. That that's

Yeah. Had

a question for her.

That makes sense, though. Right? Yeah. I think it's Especially if you've done a feat of fraud.

And my feeling too, by the way, I'm more familiar with everything in number five to be in, like, a development.

Mhmm. That's really what colored some of this. Yeah.

Is that more, you know, contextual feeling and that you know, because then there's the you're if you do this, you get that.

Mhmm. And,

you know, since we don't yet know what the formula against the dots, I think you really just wanna say You know, you really just wanna encourage this kind of partnership to to it's really developers

have to meet their.

Right? So it's really, like, half. So it's almost like So I'm just wondering if you just sort of it's it's really like a my opinion, like, when you it's interesting for fast track signings because There's nothing fast about getting affordable housing financing. So and then it a lot a lot of times, it has to do with getting low income housing tax credits, which you don't have as much control over. So I just I found the the three of them a little bit incongruous, and then I'm just wondering if it's just about

It does apply to the timelines because the finance you gotta have all the financing in place before you even start construction.

Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. Before you pull building permits.

Right. Otherwise, you're not gonna

You can't afford the building permits.

Sure.

And I apologize for interrupting again because I'm getting a lot of messages from people that they can't hear you guys. So just I don't know if we can all have mics on, if that's too much echoey or just, like

It should be fine.

I I can turn mine off, but I would just leave it on maybe just so that yeah. Sorry. Thank you.

So what would you like to do with that?

Yeah. Redo five? Because it's I don't know how we get a shortened project delivery time line because

I mean, to be quite honest, I I would say number one is, you know, the county shall assess in helping developers get financing. Like, that's kinda your number one job on the financing side is to help developers, you know, and to be their partner and come up with creative ideas, whether it's fee waivers or reduce the setback or, you know, all the various things it takes to kind of make it fit, then that's really that that right there is where the magic happens, that kind of partnership.

Okay. Should that change to purpose and intent move up?

I wouldn't mind that.

Nick, can I go along with, like, the trust fund section even though it's not in the trust fund, but it's just, like, finance like, it has to do with mechanisms for

The incentives?

Funding. Yeah. Because

you already had number three as incentives. I guess, maybe Or Parts of these five should be part of the incentives, I guess.

Regroup it as

Would it? Yeah.

Because I don't I don't know how you'd have a shortened project delivery line. I think that

Is is for five just maybe not even

It doesn't seem to fit.

Yeah. I think

But taking But

I think

we can take more

of it,

though. Financing out? Yes.

It in

the number three incentive side of it.

I agree. It is an incentive, and it goes back with that money.

Well, if you're because we're gonna remove affordable housing fund to its own section out of three. Should it be more of, like, a project funding section, and then we mention the affordable housing? And

I think so. I I think you need a real section that's

just financing and, like, options. Like, so

it's Don't think. It's

the financing funding section's one whole big section.

Because it's a big it's a big important section. Yeah.

It seems to all kinda It does. Go together itself.

Yeah.

So we're leaving section five in? No. Five's out. Fast tracking

of We could change that section. That over to the whole finance.

Launch performance based timelines. That first bullet, could it be rewarded to developers are encouraged to meet project milestones?

I mean, they already are encouraged.

It's Does it even

need to be set?

I don't That's what I'm saying. I I think we're talking about talking taking five out. Okay. Because I don't know how we're Yeah. And move the fast track financing to the affordable housing Yeah. Up in, I guess, bullet two or or number two or three, whatever you want, number of that.

I was gonna say you could replace number five, Chris, as that section. And so leave the fast tracking there and rename number five.

Is the incentives for early completion not that important?

It's just not. It's not a practical reality. Like, there's

We're not gonna get it done

in this

density issue because we're already done, so we're not we can't build another 10 units or 20 units. Yeah. Yeah. Too much rain. Yeah.

K. K.

Anything else on five? Or alright. Do wanna cut some public comments real quick on this?

Since we've been talking here for about an hour, is there any public comments on the sections we've been talking through one through five in the room? Anybody online? Oh, sorry. In the room. Sounds like an invitation to a lot.

A couple of comments. I I think it's the public private partnerships that you're talking about in your proposal, and also Bill mentioned nonprofits. So we are we're working on a project right now that in in the funding stack, it's gonna include a component with private donors and foundations locally and then regional and state national foundations that are gonna support this BridgeMetto's project that we're working on in partnership with the community development found community the Rock Community Foundation. So it is a public private thing. So we are we are the stack also includes LITEC.

It includes other grants that'll include probably infrastructure grant. And as you all know, there's usually about five or six or seven. Who knows how many components in a funding stack for a affordable project? But I think it is important to acknowledge there is a place for private donor foundation dollar money to sort of kick start things and create a capital matching seed fund. That's my only comment. I I love I like what you're considering. I think you've got a quite a menu of of good good strategies, and I'm really impressed. So I hope it comes out. I can't stay much longer. I've gotta get off to another appointment, but thank you for your good work.

Alright. Thank you. Any comments online?

Alright. Now taking public comment from Kathy Adams. Right. Kathy, can you please unmute yourself?

Okay. I think I got my audio working.

Yes.

Okay. This is Kathy Adams from Grizzly Flats. Since you brought up the LA fire rebuilding that Newsom is waiving some of the stricter requirements is it would be very helpful if he would waive them retroactively so that we can get our rebuilding in Grizzly Flats going was restored up here. But, actually, on your proposal here that you've been talking about is you were looking at expanding funding for affordable housing, which is great. You're looking from the top down.

I'm at the bottom. Is I've worked in various county offices as extra help. I do not recommend partnering with behavioral health. They're not staffed. They can't handle it.

I would go with public guardian's office because it gives you an attorney and they're staffed and he, the head of that department worked on housing issues with Grizzly Flats. Also, I would partner with veteran services as they're very active in rehousing or housing of homeless veterans. David Zelensky, he's just excellent. And also the veteran services is, they're very goal orientated. When they take on a project, they get it done. Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Alright. Anybody else on Zoom wishing to speak? Okay. There's no further public comment.

Great. We'll continue. Number six.

Alright. Let's see here. Six. Affordable housing preservation. It's actually not a complete sentence. My apologies. Financial status for developers preserving or rehabilitating affordable housing. Again, just it's more of just a statement. We already I mean, obviously, that's a goal and a statement goal. But and conversion or demolition restrictions restrictions on demolition or conversion of affordable units without equivalent replacement.

I you know, that seems very self evident, but I don't think particularly controversial. But, again, an obvious statement that has showed up in here. But go ahead. And I think Mia wants to. Yeah.

So I keep thinking about it. So what what I think the goal of six is let's preserve the existing housing stock right now that's existing and affordable.

Correct.

The way I've seen that work is that housing stock often is owned by, let's say, older adults. Maybe they're disabled. Maybe they're living in their little home, and they're trapped because they're they have stairs, and they're now in a wheelchair. So I've seen many loans like CDBG or different home loans that could be used to give low interest loans to, like, disabled, low income seniors or something to kinda retrofit their homes to kinda make it more functional. Something like that is an innovative program that's been done with different kinds of public money.

The other one that I think is really interesting and very practical and maybe picks up a note on what the gentleman just said about philanthropy. Through through the work that I've been doing both at the state level, I was a commissioner on the California Commission on Aging for over eight years, what we saw around the entire state is the need for seniors to maintain their housing that's existing. In many cases, they're on fixed income, and they're and it fluctuates. And they may only need, like, $200 to make rent that month. They don't need the whole amount, but they just need $200 or they get evicted.

So is there a program at the county level that is sort of that those small loans or grants that could go to help that vulnerable level. It's a very innovative program. It's not a section eight, but it it guarantee stabilizes some of those folks, whether they're low income families or low income seniors to maintain the housing they're in right now because they're they're on the brink of losing it. It's different putting it on the table.

So I was gonna say we do have CDBG and home loans that we can offer people low income and, I mean, seniors, anybody. And we do have some loans on our books still with

For, like, the fixing of homes or the the rents?

Owner occupied rehab, we've done before in

the past. Maybe not many people apply

to those, but they might be more now.

Don't allow for rental assistance. No.

But not rental assistance. Those those are owned.

The county could play for under the home note that's out right now due in May Mhmm. For TBRA, which is tenant based rental assistance.

Yeah.

And they could help they could designate those for seniors or other

Yes.

60% lower AMIs on a temporary basis. They're just they're not a long term program, but it it could help on a temporary

basis.

You just raised, Chris, is the notion that Eldorado County on its own goes to HCD and starts applying for funding.

And we have. Programs. We do. Okay. Yeah.

We we just Yeah. Okay. So then that would be a great idea then at least for a program that you guys can either do matching funds

or apply for. Almost that you would get funded because they don't get enough programs under the home program Yeah. For the jurisdictions.

Yeah. So and right now, we're working on updating a lot of the guidelines so we can get back out there and funding some of these. But

yeah. Imperial County and help Imperial County get TBRA and other programs to help for the rental assistance for residents. So

Yeah.

It's a good program. It's like a half 1,000,000.

But that goes a long way.

And do it. Maybe if the county does it sub sub subsequent years, they have a quite a fund to keep moving forward so they could provide a longer service out there.

There are a number of existing funds that are available through the nonprofit community that are supporting older adults, single mothers Mhmm. In meeting their financial obligation. They're not specifically targeted for rental assistance. The foundation tried that, and it was overwhelmed. So we decided to pivot and take on other financial needs of the family, which would be putting four new tires on or paying a medical bill, which will free up money for them For the rent.

To then pay the rent. There are two separate funds that are in operation. They each fund about, I would say, around a $100,000 a year, so it's pretty substantial. There's a couple of nonprofits that work in refitting older adult homes. And I'm not sure about rentals, but I know ownership they do for ramping, access, grab bars, different needs of older adults. That is in place.

That's good. El Dorado County? Yes. Great. Great. So, again, that partnership, identifying those resources because it's a fix. The the other thing I was just gonna throw out here is we haven't seen any reference to it. Maybe it's something that goes into the glossary as permanent supportive housing. You're gonna see more of that

at a funding level? Maybe that in the definitions then. Mhmm. We talked to her in the beginning there. Yes. Since we're talking about inclusionary.

Yeah. Because you're gonna see that kind of funding coming out of the state. Yeah. And then I would also say that that could also as RCFEs, residential care home for the elderly, is another sort of it doesn't quite fit everyone's mold, but it is something that you guys could do because it's existing. They're existing homes that can be converted into RCFEs. That will go a long way for bringing down the cost for seniors.

Well, that might be part of when we start talking about phase two too on the funding sources and stuff and how they structure some of that to go forward to fund some of this Absolutely. Basically, the high level here and then going to the concept to fund those.

Mhmm. But I also think about that being low hanging fruit because these are gonna be existing entrepreneurs who have a home that they wanna create this business. And so you as the county just has to give them the license to do the business. Yeah.

Single story homes by the floor.

So so state law six and under is exempt. You go to the seventh bed. Sometimes you have to do a conditional use permit. But what happens is you have a lot of, like, four bedroom houses that have the capacity for eight beds. By But state law, you can only do six beds exempt. So maybe there's a way to get those other beds in. Just, again, those are almost like free beds, so to speak. So just, again, these are just what people are doing around the country, around

the state that are working. So There are people in El Dorado County that are leaving their home to be utilized as housing through the foundation. So they're leaving the asset for a specific use. So that could be something that's incorporated, especially when because now it is limited to six.

Mhmm. Mhmm.

So we'd have to make a modification to that. So incorporating something like Saint Joseph's Land Trust, which is well established in South Lake Tahoe on the Western Slope. Because you're gonna need somebody to manage it.

Okay. Very well. On to everyone's favorite, seven. So let me just explain to you why after all of our discussions, this is still in there. And it's actually pretty simple.

You'll you'll understand. The as you well know, the board gave us pretty clear direction on inclusionary housing point. Right? And in subsequent conversations, Kyle and I both have had with the board, they still ask about the inclusionary housing piece. So we at least need to have the option in a document for them to think about and talk about.

But, obviously, the task force is gonna give its recommendation to not, obviously, include an inclusionary housing component to it. But we just need to be able to explain and say, hey. It is an option, but task force feels against it for these reasons. And, really, it's again, like everything else, it's gonna be up to them whether or not it's still something they wanna pursue. But, again, in individual conversations, even up just recently as the last month or so, they're still asking what what's going on on the inclusionary housing front.

So this is something that has to be addressed at the board. We can't just walk away from it, you know, because, you know, the task force has said, no go. We have to explain why no go. Right? Well, I mean, kinda

also goes back it goes back to how you get to in lieu fees or your off-site or on-site units. Mhmm. So I guess open up for discussion. I I I think, one, we talk about I don't know if

we should just have a

if it should be a flat percentage or you're why you're going between the different unit counts, or is that just numbers you're drawing out?

It was just looking at various ordinances throughout the state. Right. It was San Diego's. It was Placer County. Let's see what county I was looking at. Anyways, it it was just a blended model of

Because, mean, right now, we're not saying that the inclusionary fee is or the in lieu of fee is 5,000 a year. We're not we're not setting any numbers right now because that's in the second part if the board decides to keep that in going forward into the ordinance. Mhmm.

I guess I could kick the question back to you guys a different way. And I and I think I know where whoever hands and Sean might land on this. But but if the board is opting to do inclusionary and they really wanted to have an inclusionary housing component, what's the most palpable, acceptable form that you would see moving forward? And I know that's a tough question because I know I know what you're gonna say.

Well, okay.

So be before I I say, you know, what what would be a palatable option or whatever, you know, I just wanna reemphasize the the main objection to an inclusionary component of of any ordinance is that you're taking the the burden of supporting affordable housing and putting it on the backs of builders and developers who are already struggling to build market rate housing in this county. Know, in a scenario where your traffic impact fee goes up $30,000 for a single unit home, so now it's a $50,000 fee just for less than a thousand square foot home. Adding anything on top of that, you're making market rate housing infeasible, which ultimately is gonna trickle down to making affordable housing infeasible as well. So it's it's hard to say what's the palatable option when making housing period is already so difficult. And saying that there's any amount of, well, let's just put another straw on the camel's back and see if it breaks, it's it's just hard to say that there's there's a certain amount.

Understood. No. Alright. Now you guys say stuff.

There you go. I'll go. I'll go. Go ahead. Well, I I I come at this similarly from Vance that it's it's a great idea for government to say, ah, you just do it. If you want if you want our approval, you just do it. And we've seen how well that's worked. So I would just like to show you know, I think you just have to illustrate the policy's been on the books for quite some time. Here's kind of the results, and and maybe that's just a real kind of, you know, accounting that you guys do. You know, we know that your number's low.

Your per unit inclusionary number in lieu is crazy low. You can't build anything for that. You can't build a unit for that. So if you're really gonna do it, we'll really put some skin in the game and either, you know, let them put a whole bunch of money in or, really, they have to deliver it on-site. Mhmm. You know? Or you finance it. You know? Like we talked about last week. Right?

This idea where I know a lot of these large sprawled Lennars of the world will do some kind of CFD, and they need a public bond and you have Melarus bond. And that Melarus bond then is a property extra supplemental property tax on every new home. Why can't there be, like, a monitoring fee or a feed for every new home then that pays the county for the next thirty years x that goes into that affordable housing trust fund. That then you are setting up a mechanism that the developer can afford. Because part of this is all this also means that those new market rate homes are that much more expensive because it has to come from someplace.

It's not like thin air. So, really, what's happening is by forcing the the market rate to developer to build 15 to 20 of these units on-site, you've now increased the cost of all the other housing by at least 20%, if not more, period. So people have to understand that there's a trade off for that. Right? It doesn't come at a zero cost.

So that if they understand that, then they have to say, well, do we want that? We wanna make it harder for every builder to come to town to build. And then whatever they whatever product is just gonna set the new ceiling for the most expensive home, it's going in the wrong direction. Right? So if everyone kind of agrees to that, then they're like, well, then let's find a different way where everybody can kind of so that the market rate builder can build at a cost that he can afford, make a profit, but still keep it at a level that isn't, you know, setting the new record for the highest cost. So then is there a way to finance that? Is there a way for this developer? Maybe it's on, you know, the new property owners, then they add a supplemental. You know, it's all part of whatever has to go into the infrastructure of these subdivisions. You don't do a lot of urban infill.

Right? From what I could tell, what you're dealing with is you've got a lot of kind of developers with large development agreements that are coming to you now that have large large plots of land that they're trying to build subdivisions on of roughly. What's your average subdivision size here?

I was using 500, 600. I mean, obviously, some bigger ones. Morrow Valley is 3,200 and whatnot. So but, generally

So to me, that's where you have a tremendous amount of flexibility because you need to be a partner to them in terms of helping them with their infrastructure and all of that. And it is very customary as an as a developer that we pay a lot of fees to get things financed because they are a requirement of the financing because everyone has they wanna monitor it. They wanna make sure that their investments are doing what they said that they were gonna do. Right? So you have a right to make sure that, you know, you're monitoring these things. Mhmm. And then you have then the ability to raise funding creatively. So it's not back the backs it's not on the backs of the developer's upfront cost day one. That's the other challenge. Right?

Like impact fees. You're paying for impact fees on day one for fifty years of impacts. Right? That adds a lot of burden to the developer. So if there are ways to you know, as we talked about whether it's, you know, there's a Melarus, there's a fee that goes there's maybe one upfront capitalized fee and then an ongoing fee. I guarantee you play the numbers. It'll be very interesting to you you to see what that stream would look like for the county. And then and then you have a partner with your developer, and then you wanna say yes to all 3,200 units because you see what that could do for the county. Right? Like and then and then you use that funding for other ways, and then you support with the nonprofit community, and then you partner with you know, you bring in the Edens of the world or the Saint Joseph's of the world, and you partner on this housing.

Because then you control it because you guys are controlling the money in terms of where it goes and how it fits your principles and goals, in my opinion, other than waiting for mister developer for the next thirty years to get his project off the ground because now he has to deal with, you know, a 100,000 more in cost per unit. Could stimulate things.

I think that's exactly what the board needs to hear.

Yeah. This is

your advance.

Mean, that's

You want me to make

an update on this then?

Well, I mean, that that that's what we're that's what they are gonna need to hear. So this brings up sorry. No. No. That's all I'm saying.

This brings up an interesting point. So if you guys are available on April 8, I would strongly encourage you to be there because, obviously, we'll make the presentation. Board's gonna have back and forth, but they're gonna wanna speak directly with the task force to get your opinion on these things. And it would be incredibly helpful because we can make the same statement. It's easy for me to say, well, look. Listen. You know, the concept is fairly simple. If you're trying to make more affordable housing, then by making market rate housing more affordable, you're, in effect, creating less affordable housing. I mean, it's people can wrap their heads around that. Right?

But then there's, like, the, yeah, we understand that, but we're still gonna get some affordable units out of you. And you know? So I've seen this. I've seen this happen in Los Angeles County because I used to work down there. So I you know, sometimes elected say, that's great. Appreciate the sentiment, but we don't care. 18% affordable housing. You know? And but you at least need to make the argument. And, frankly, the argument will be more powerful coming from you folks in industry than staff. Because we'll make it. We'll we'll say, we included inclusionary because your board asked for but here are the reasons why there's

concern about the terminology inclusionary, and we just changed how we how we call it. I mean, we've talked about that before.

Yeah. Because,

you know, everybody gets hung up on the word inclusionary, and they have these visions like we're talking about where the developers are gonna have this impact. We're also figuring out in our second phase of this whole thing how we're gonna fund the affordable housing Yeah. And this fee. Is it some type of fee, which we don't wanna say it's an inclusionary fee, but it's like an in lieu type of fee in the is it a fee like Mio was talking about where it's a part of the CFD or some type of a where they roll it into the those costs so that it's not this huge impact fee that they're paying. Like, he was talking about the transportation fee at $30,000 a unit no matter what the size is.

Maybe it's based on a percentage of the total development. And then then it's more palatable for everybody for both the residents and as well as the builder side of it because now the residents, maybe they don't have to pay as much upfront for that house, but then they do have a monthly payment that may be a little bit higher. But then that's money that's coming into the county that goes into the affordable fund.

Mhmm.

But but I don't know how we word that in this section here.

I think you keep it vague keep it vague. Just like you know, it's like it's like you're really working with the developer to find, you know, creative financing. Sources. Yeah. That's that's a

The mechanism that's gonna go to fund that Yeah.

Rather than upfront fees, it's a financing. You're financing these. That's really kind of what you need. You need the time of money. The other thing that Sean's not here, but when I chatted with Sean about this last week, one of the things he told me is a lot of times these MeloRue MeloRue's bonds tend to be, like, twenty five years, something like that. If it was thirty five years, you get ten more years of amortization. Mhmm. It starts to make a difference. So once you start playing with the parameters of the vehicle, you can kinda size it in ways that, hopefully, you can get more passengers in it.

Just for clarification, we talked about fees. Who is paying this fee? Is it the new homeowner? Is it the developer?

The way I understand it Mhmm. Is that imagine a vacant piece of land. Say it's a thousand acres. The developer who owns who's gonna build 3,200 units has to put down before they even sell the first house, the roads, water, the electrical. That stuff's really expensive. And so the only way they can do that is with state law. They have access to what's called a Mello Roos or CFD community fill it facilities district. It's a bond

Right.

Basically. And you have to work with your locality because it's a tax. So you need the public agency to then say, okay. I agree. We'll be your, essentially, bond agent. Bond insurer. And so then you so it's cheaper you know, so it's tax exempt. Right? So then you finance it based on 3,200 new homes. Like, what are you gonna sell? And what happens is that each that each new each one of those $3,200 homes excuse me. 3,200 homes will pay what's called a supplemental property tax. So you have your base tax of whatever the California rate is, 1.32.

1.2.

1.2. So it's some some little piece on top of it. And then that pays for their share of the roads, the sewer, the sometimes builders build schools, clubhouse, you name it, right, as well as a little fee in there that's for monitoring fee or the affordable housing fee or whatever you call it fee. Because quite honestly, you can relate that to impacts. Right? You have an impact. There's you can directly rate you know, you have you're creating more need for affordable housing because you're now having more people that you have to serve, etcetera. So, yeah, I think you can draw kind of a connection to it. But in all cases, like, when we get loans from the state, we pay also what are called monitoring fees so that every year, the state just make sure, are they doing everything they say that they're gonna do? So that's what Eldorado would have to do.

So then for that, they get an ongoing monitoring fee for thirty five years. And that fee then is still paid by

the public. But so in a sense, the the resident, the homebuyer would be paying that on a monthly or annual basis with the property taxes.

But it's built into their stack.

So my question is, is it a fee or is it a tax?

I think that depends on how you wanna put it in there. So if there's a I mean, something recorded against the property, it's written into that usually. And so we could, you know, charge it and then say we're gonna come out and monitor the property, which is monitoring fee, just to make sure that they're still following those restrictions or the guidelines that we put in. But it does get a recorded financing fee.

I would call it a financing fee. Like, it's a transaction fee. They gotta they gotta you know, they're

gonna amortized over, like, twenty years, thirty five years. Yeah.

And maybe there's an upfront fee through some small amount upfront, but it's not gonna be the the full Monty upfront.

Yeah. I know our bigger developers pay, like, a single fee per unit, and they'll pay that for all that monitoring. And so

then, ultimately, the hope then is you bring down the final cost of the house because you're not having to add 20% inclusion or you're not having to add all these other upfront costs. So the burden of the developer is lower, and maybe, hopefully, that would translate.

And the opportunity for new homebuyers is better.

Yes. Right? Because they got a lower

Lower rate. Does that currently exist in Eldorado County anywhere?

I don't know if that exists anywhere.

No. I came up with the idea last week, but I was driving up here. And,

honestly, that's what I like about it. It's it's a creative thing that no one else has done before when we know the alternative is something that everyone else has done and hasn't worked. So I think it's the kind of

thing that we like. Some people like different aspects of it. Yeah. So this is a way that it kinda helps both both avenues on it.

So work. Looking down the road, can this be challenged as a tax legally? It's

Well, here's the thing. As a as a homeowner, if you choose to buy the three bedroom, two bath house, you're buying it for the street lights, for the safety, for this, for all the amenities that it brings, and you accept that you're gonna pay an extra $300 a year in property tax because it they they tell you upfront.

It's right in there.

Yeah. So it's just part of that. It's just inside that as

portion of it.

Yeah. It's it's the cost of doing business.

I just was wondering about the litigation component of something

that's going on. Accurate to state that.

I think it's all wrapped into the whole Mello Rooser of the CFD, so it's all lumped in with all the other active infrastructure activities you're doing there.

Right. On my property tax, it lists different things I'm being taxed for.

But, like, in a CFD, it'll just say CFD one. That might be for that subdivision. That'll be on their property tax, and it it will not break it out for roads and and Right. And power. Right. It'll be there at the very beginning. CFD one.

If if anything my understanding is anything is added to my property tax, it has to go before the community for about whether or not to approve that increase.

In other words, it's a totally different instrument.

It's already set before there's people there.

So it it doesn't have

to go

through that same process.

Right. It's

I think it does be included within that

Yes.

Property tax statement.

And you voluntarily, by buying the house, choose