Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

Here.

Here. Alright. So, do we have an adoption of the agenda and approval of the consent calendar?

I'll make a motion that we adopt the agenda and approve the consent calendar. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. So open forum. Open forum is opportunity for the members of the public to address the task force on subject matter that is not on their meeting agenda and within their jurisdiction. Public comments during open forum are limited to three minutes per person. The task force chair may limit public comment during open forum. Any open forum for anybody in the room? Anybody online?

Alright. Now taking public comment from members online. If you wish to speak, please use the raise hand button. We have no public comment.

Okay. So then we'll move into agenda item two twenty five dash ten ten. Staff recommending the task force review chapter one three zero point three one, affordable housing density bonus of the county zoning ordinance.

Good morning, Karen Garner. So, really, there's a relationship between, you know, all three items. What we're trying to achieve is is some specific recommendations that we can propose to the board for an ordinance, but thought it would be helpful to go back and look and see what we currently have that's related and what's the report that was done back in 2022, what their recommendations were. So we can start with the existing affordable housing density bonus chapter one thirty thirty one in our zoning code. And that really is they kinda at the time, in my opinion, when with this written kinda through everything that we had into this one.

So even though it's density bonus, there's a little bit about incentives in there and some other things. Obviously, I'm kinda jumping in here while Chris is out and may not have all the history, but I think if I understand correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, but what we're trying to do is really focus on the ordinance itself, the requirements of, you know, new housing that's gonna come in, what are they gonna be required to provide in terms of affordable housing, and then perhaps come back and relook at some of the incentives and density bonus and things like that to support those initial recommendations. But also don't wanna necessarily look at just what's gonna be required in a vacuum, but I don't expect you necessarily need to make decisions on on you know, or provide input on incentives and changes to density bonus. Also too, I will say that housing density bonus, when that was written, was largely reflective of what the state had in place at the time to make sure what we were compliant with state requirements. Obviously, like with everything else with the state, things change over time.

What we now have is is likely outdated in several areas, but we do actually comply with state code. So if someone comes in and were to ask for a density bonus, we would just look to the state and make sure we're we're on par with what the state requires. So with that, she's got the chapter up on the screen. I don't know if you've had a chance to read through it prior, but if there's any comments or questions or anything out of that that you think might be helpful as you craft, the requirements for, providing affordable housing, let me know.

Is there any thought about whether the exist existing density bonus and potentially as modified will get incorporated into the affordable housing ordinance that's gonna be presented before the board?

I think it can be perhaps a separate section. And and, frankly, I know I've kind of been going over this in my head because it does change so often from the state. You know, every year, there's some kind of updates. Do you you know, do we just simply reference what the state density bonus is? Obviously, if there's something we wanna provide above and beyond what the state does, we would need to codify that. But if not, if we look at what the state has, and so that's that's fine, we'll we'll do that. Then, you know, might just simply be a reference in our code to the state.

Okay. I think one of the things

the task force has talked about is removing, you know, barriers to construction of affordable housing. And so to the extent that there's a desire to do that, it seems like that could fit in well to a density bonus, you know, category of the code. And if there was an opportunity to identify existing incentives that go above and beyond what's allowed under state law, It seems like it, you know, could make sense to wrap that all into the affordable ordinance so that you then don't have pieces that live in different places, you know, with density bonus ordinance that reflects older state law acknowledge that the county would allow for, you know, state law to be utilized to the extent it's different. But if there's an opportunity to also incorporate additional incentives into that section, then maybe it is worth considering kinda lumping it all together. The other thing is I think that the incentive piece is an important component of actually delivering affordable housing, particularly, you know, as the BAE report identified that inclusionary is so challenging in

the county. And so if you weren't able to pull that all together under an affordable housing ordinance, I think that might just give a broader picture on the total suite of solutions, including existing state law, what that allows for, and maybe additional incentives that the task force wants to talk about on top of that.

That makes sense. If if that is something the board or the committee is interested in, I'm happy to run with that.

So, Karen, what's your idea then with this with basic kinda changing around this this ordinance here and making it the affordable housing ordinance and kind of cutting and adding to this existing document so you have a framework to work to go forward to the board with them. And I think we're still targeting, like, towards the July. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. And and, certainly, you know, if you do want to spend some more time looking at incentives to go along with it and expand the scope a little bit, we can push out that time frame.

Okay.

You know, there's there's no hard and fast reason why we have to have it to the board. You know, I'm happy to let them know that it's gonna be extended. But yes. So going back so chapter one thirty thirty one, I expect we'll use that to dump everything that we're recommending in there. There's gonna be, I anticipate, a lot of red line strikeout, but it's a good placeholder. You know, we can change it and edit it however is necessary.

Okay.

I think unless I'm missing it, one component that I know the task force had spent some time talking about was the idea of streamlined processing. And I see the language in section one thirty about incentives or concessions, but I think that more ties back to the incentive or concession that's discussed under state law. I think, you know, adding streamline processes as one of the incentives to constructing affordable housing could make some sense here in this section. I don't believe the county currently has any streamlined processing for affordable projects. Is that correct?

No. You know, other than, of course, you know, complying with s b 35 if it's processed and if that so you're talking about maybe it's not s b 35, but it's still an affordable project. Right. Could we have timelines or things like that similar? Okay.

Mhmm.

So, Karen, do you do you want us to walk should we walk through this today kinda through each step? What would maybe strike out, and what would be kind of an add on section? Or how do you wanna what would it flow better for you, I guess?

Well, I I think the end product I would like to get is at least a conceptual outline of maybe everything we want to put into this affordable housing ordinance.

So

even if that includes incentives and these things, we don't obviously have to figure out the details right now. But if if you're willing to kinda walk through and say, yeah. Let's let's let's dig into this at the next meeting or get more information on this, that would be helpful. So, you know, what you just what Sean just mentioned as far as streamline processing, that's that kind of information is really helpful. I can go and now do some research whether jurisdictions are doing, if they're, you know, adopting similar timelines to, state streamline or if they're doing something different and bring that back to you to consider.

Karen, quick question. On the second page here under c incentive or concession, you know, item two, other incentives of a regulatory nature identified by the county's incentive based affordable housing policy. No policies in development, not yet adopted by the board. Is that what we're working on, or is that referencing something else?

Yep. That is what we're working. It Okay. Never developed. So Okay. Where is

that where

is that again? On the second second page. On c.

Qualifying on

C two. Incentive.

Yeah. Incentive or concession.

And this was adopted when? That would

be '22. It says 2018 on the bottom. Yeah. '20.

That could have actually been updated January year. To other general plan or or other zoning ordinance amendments. I think I think this is 2015.

Amended twenty one ten.

But that but that's every time we amend the zoning ordinance, it it that reference is just to the whole entire zoning ordinance. So this is just a section of it. So I think I've

seen the majority of this language Yeah. Original from about 2018.

2018. Yeah. Adopted to Vance's point 08/1438. Okay. So at the time this was adopted and this predates the task force discussion. So at the time this was adopted, there was a thought that there would be a county incentive based affordable housing policy developed. And was anything done in that regard? And the reason I ask is if there were some draft documents or information that was pulled together, that might be useful for the task force to be able to look at. But if it never materialized, then, you know, effectively, maybe that's what we're doing now.

I think the pattern from that was then the housing element update. Correct? And then BAE doing all the research for us about to possibly develop this section? Correct. Yes. So task force.

There was never a draft that the BAE report was in anticipation of that. So that's kind of as far as we got.

Why is it so complicated? Seriously, I I don't understand why it's so complicated.

Why there's

I'm not in the business of building homes, but just looking at this from a public perspective, it's just complicated. I get through two paragraphs of this, and I'm like, I'm lost. Yeah.

And the way we I mean, even the what you're referencing, see, that's just the definitions. We can rewrite the definitions, of course. You know? I mean, and then get into the details of each of these.

And so that also led to another question I had, which is, are are we really just restructuring, what was this, 01/2031, or are we going to have to create a policy that is in development that this now already complicated document will then further reference?

I think it's restructuring this,

and

then we can rewrite that section.

Okay. So

Is this required by the state of California that you have this matrix as a policy for the county, or are you free to create any policy you want?

You can create any policy so long as it at least equals what the state requires or is you know, goes above and beyond. We we can't undo anything that the state requires, in other words.

Okay. And do we have a list of what the state requires?

I I don't have that necessarily. I mean, it's just the the state, streamline. Certainly, maybe that's a good starting place.

But I don't think the state has an affordable housing policy. That's what we're developing here is an affordable housing policy for the county.

So the the state's not giving any kind of guideline for what that needs to look like. And and we're looking at other jurisdictions of what their guidelines are. Are any of those successful? Have they been able to develop affordable housing?

I don't know that anybody would say this is perfect. It works exactly how we want. It's challenging everywhere. So and part of it has to do with the particular jurisdiction. And being a rural county with harder to develop areas, we probably need a different set of policies than you need even in, you know, city of Sacramento. Right.

So I'm just concerned about creating something that's not gonna work.

Yeah. I I I share your same concern. I think everybody does. So, you know, I I wanna think give good thought to that, and and that's really why this group was was put together is you are the ones that can tell us, hey. This is gonna work or this is not gonna work.

Because we could sit here or even, you know, people that aren't involved with actually constructing and say, you know, we want 20% required affordable housing for every project, and that's not gonna happen. That's not gonna be successful. So we really have to look at what our needs are, what our reality is, and try and and craft some incentives or requirements to try and get that affordable housing.

There was a conversation we had around CFP.

CFDs. C

CFDs. MP. D.

D. Only CF

Community facilities districts.

What happened to that?

Well, so I think if so this is just about what we have right now in in this item. Number two, we're gonna kind of look at what BAE recommended. Or sorry. Number three. Number four is going to get to that discussion in a little bit. So if we can just stay on the zoning ordinance for now and just like what Karen said, striking through what we like and dislike without going off task, then we can like, we have

Well, yeah, I've coming.

My perspective. I'm known for being pretty blunt. I don't like this at all. It's just complicated. And if other jurisdictions are doing something similar or not successful, I'm not sure why we're spending our time on it.

They so they I mean, in our research that we'll kinda get to we have a nice chart in item number four. It does show what other jurisdiction their jurisdictions, sorry, are doing, and and they do have terms. They do have complicated jargon. They do have density bonus still in there

and

stuff

like Does it have a a matrix of what they've been able to achieve?

So we didn't pull that for today, but that's not what we're doing right now. So I'm trying to like, we're trying to get through sorry. And I'm not I'm just trying to stay focused on what you do and don't like in the zoning ordinance right now. I mean, you wanna say scratch the whole thing, that's fine. That's your vote. But then we would wanna hear from each one of you to

Okay.

And then we can get to the parts. Yeah.

That you wanna experience. City of Roseville probably has one of the more successful programs. They've had it for a very long time. Developers know what to expect when they choose to develop in in that jurisdiction. They're obviously a little more urbanized, but, you know, there are probably programs we can pick and choose, from theirs that might, help us out as well.

We've talked a lot about, you know, if if we're gonna require a certain percentage of homes be built, you we've gotten good feedback from this group of why that's so challenging. You know, if Or raises cost. Correct. So particularly if we're requiring, for example, a, you know, single family subdivision, if they're gonna make even five or 10% of their units affordable, the subsidy for a single family detached home is so large, it doesn't really make financial sense. So that's when you have to look at things like, well, does an in lieu fee make more sense?

And then if we do in lieu fee, then, you know, I also wanna know, well, what are we gonna use that for? I don't wanna just collect money to be collecting money. We have to be very thoughtful about how we're going to use that in lieu fee. So I think there are things out there that are more successful than others, and and we just need to, you know, review those and see what we think is going to work best for Eldorado County. Now to your earlier point, if we just chose to do nothing, that we just went with what the state allows, I think that would probably make it tougher to get the number of units that we need.

I mean, that's almost what we've been doing for the past ten years is really not having much of a program at all. And we've relied heavily on ADUs to meet some of our RENA numbers. Just recently, have we had actual affordable projects being built. You know? And and we're not really offering any incentives, so it's it's very slow. It's that if if we don't do anything, then we're gonna get more of the same.

Right. It's it it seems reasonable for me that the burden in the state of California has been left to the home developers with expectations that they need to provide the affordable housing, where it's really community's responsibility, in my opinion, to integrate affordable housing within the community, and that takes capital, and that's raising the funds to make that happen. So Yep.

Yep. And those are some of the ideas that I know you brought up, a housing trust fund Yeah. Things like that. Yep. Yeah.

And I Rather than going through pages and pages of requirements, it's taking a little bit of a simpler approach that maybe nobody else is doing.

I think the comments that I would offer also on chapter one thirty is if essentially most of this is just was an attempt to codify what's allowed under state law. Maybe we just refer back to state law, and it would be good, I think, for this task force to maybe have a sheet that outlines what that looks like just so we can all have a common understanding of it. But to avoid the need to have to change, you know, the county ordinance as state law changes, it seems like maybe that provides some simplicity because if I I get the point. If you're looking at this and saying, well, all of these things require are allowed for a density bonus and these are the requirements to achieve to get a density bonus, you're really looking at one piece. And what really is the case is to the extent that state law allows for something different than this wouldn't even apply.

It would be state law that applies. And so maybe there's an opportunity to, where appropriate for density bonus, refer directly to state law. And then where the county wants to have additional incentives, you know, as discussed with this task force, list those separately so that it would be clear to a reader. It's like, okay. In El Dorado County, they, of course, follow state law just like every other jurisdiction. Here's, you know, a paragraph on that. And then but they also offer these additional incentives. And I think that from a, you know, reader standpoint could make it clear. Yeah. You you can do density bonus per state law, but here are other incentives available in El Dorado County that might, you know, drive affordable housing development.

So I think in terms of structuring that way, it could help bring simplicity to what is effectively allowed under state law, but then codify what El Dorado County also allows to incentivize a fourth construction of affordable housing.

Right. Because I think the incentives we're talking about here are not for density bonuses. It's it's for the production of affordable housing. So I think we keep going back and forth between that the title of this with the density bonus and just as Sean was saying, just have it very simple. We follow the state law on it. Because I don't think the county is gonna do anything that's gonna exceed the density bonus. Correct?

Not that I'm aware of. We we really haven't had anybody, you know, take advantage of

even exceed what the state allows. I mean, the state allows so much on the density bonus. So, I rarely see, especially in a rural county, why they would want to exceed even farther from the state's require or limits that they have on it. So I think a lot of this stuff where you said, you know, you get lost in the first couple of pages and stuff, I think a lot of this is gonna be basically removed, strike out, because it references just the density bonus side of it. And so the affordable housing, as we've been talking about, is what's those incentives?

And like Sean was talking about the streamlining. We talked about the, like, the land donation. We've talked about, is there a separate fee structure, like, on the county fees that we we understand the county can't make EID or any the other community districts have a separate fee, but means there's a fee structure difference between affordable and a market rate development. And those and those are kinda goes into the incentive side of it. Because I think what was it? About two or three meetings ago, we did break down a a of that kind of list of what we saw on the incentives that we kind of pulled out.

Mhmm.

And maybe kinda use that as the the framework, the for that side of it, for this ordinance.

It's in number four in the agenda. So we're getting there. So we do have a list of everything you guys have spoke of, and then Okay. It's coming. Okay. So this is like like I was saying, it's mostly just, like, your opinion. Oops. I'm sorry. Mostly your opinion on what you think works for the county, and every single one of you obviously gonna have a different opinion on this. And that's totally fine. And then we'll work out the kinks, you know, when we get back to our desk and figure out, here's what we found on you know? Yeah. Bill's right or, you know, advance is right or

Well, and also the areas that you need to basically strike out at this whole thing. Because I think a lot of this big majority of this is gonna be just strike out, and then what we add for the Yeah. For the affordable housing component of it.

Generally, it sounds like the consensus on on this portion anyway is anything density bonus, just refer to the state. Don't have to repeat it. Keep it clean and simple.

Unless the county is gonna offer something that's gonna exceed that, I don't think why you'd wanna Yeah. Keep additional language in there. And as Sean was saying is if you have a a general enough language as the state keeps evolving year after year with new bills and legislation coming through that you don't have to go back and amend your guys'

Mhmm.

Ordinance to reflect what's currently allowed at the state level.

Yep. Yep. Okay. I think that's good direction on that. And then, yeah, as we come up with the incentives and other things, then we'll just add that. And and, like I said, it'd be a lot of red line strikeout, but that's that's good. That's good.

That's what we want. Okay. So so Sorry. Can I make one

more comment? And maybe that could be a helpful takeaway for the next meeting is if we took this, basically redlined out anything that is intended to just be consistent with with state density bonus law, red line that out, and then add the new paragraph that describes the density bonus being consistent with affordable with with state law. And so we could start to see how that simplifies this, and then that gives us a framework to plug in these other pieces that we'd be talking about later in the agenda.

So, Karen, do you wanna have more discussion on this ordinance, or are we good on that side of it? Because I think a lot of it's gonna be your staff level kinda going through it now and condensing it.

Yep. No. I think I have good direction, so maybe just take public comments on that particular agenda item, and then

we can move on.

Alright. I'll open up the public comments. Anybody in the room wanna talk about this agenda item? Anybody online?

Now taking public comment from members on Zoom. Please use the raise hand button if you would like to speak. We have no public comment.

Okay.

So do we need to take a vote on this to move this forward? Or okay. Then we'll move to agenda item three twenty five dash ten eleven. Staff recommending the task force review key recommendations from the affordable housing policy update background analysis developed by b a BAE Urban Economics in 2022.

Okay. So there's a couple of handouts on that, that was just excerpts from the entire report, really just getting it down to the recommendations that came out of that report, not so much all the background. And included in that are the slides that they were shown at the time this was presented to the board. Sounds like you're familiar with it. You've you've talked about it already that, you know, they they weren't necessarily recommending an inclusionary policy, but, you know, did have some other recommendations as well.

So if there is anything out of these recommendations that you think maybe, you know, it's been a few years, so that are different or have changed something they did recommend that maybe you feel isn't applicable or wouldn't be successful or something they didn't recommend that you would like to see. We can take feedback on that.

So I think that the one thing that is not included in here, and I think there are references back to it, but to me, it was pretty compelling is when they ran just a basic pro form a for a project trying to achieve a 10% inclusionary requirement even at the moderate level, and they effectively determined that wasn't feasible. And I think the slides have some components that speak to that, but I just think that's a really that was an important analysis that they did, and the conclusion was that, you know, effectively would make a a market rate project infeasible with a 10% requirement. So I just wanted to reiterate that. Under options that the VAU report does identify, there's, like, a voluntary 10% requirement tied to incentives. And so I think that's along the lines of some of the things that have been discussed as the as the committee.

And so in my mind, beyond what state density bonus law allows, having additional incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing, including things like process streamlining and, you know, other incentives. So I do think that that's one of the components of the report that would be good for us to continue to explore as a task force.

One of the things in the report too, and it's something that I think we touched on a little bit today and we've touched on in the past is just, you know, the importance of the fees, the fee waivers, and anything that comes along with building an affordable housing development. Fees are one of the biggest costs that are easily calculated upfront and can be addressed very early on. But on the other side of that too is they talk about the potential of fee deferrals, and I think that's something that we should be looking at not only for affordable units, but market rate as well because the upfront cost being what they are often is a big obstacle for housing across the board. So if we can look into the fee deferral process, not only for affordable units, but for market rate as well, it's gonna help us lower the overall cost across the board.

And when you talk about fee deferral, are you talking about deferring that to, like, cert certificate of occupancy?

Or I think occupancy is kind of the standard practice in in most jurisdictions that have a fee deferral. Right now,

there's already legislation allows for affordable that the fees can be deferred until occupancy.

Yes. For most of the fees. Yeah. I think school district fees, for example, didn't get

They didn't get into lock

and one.

Yeah. And understandably so.

It's mostly impact fees.

Impact fees. Yeah.

Just impact fees that can be deferred at certificate of occupancy.

And that's that is mostly what I'm referring to. Impact fees. The big one. Fees. Sacramento County has it structured that for their water and sewer, you pay, I think it's at most, 125,000 or something upfront of those fees, and then you pay the rest out at occupancy. So it's like a little small down payment, and we pay the rest out.

And that's for affordable or market rate?

That's market rate. Oh, market the board. Yeah.

Yeah. It's for every developer.

Right.

And it's yeah. Like you were saying, I think believe is it state law?

It's it's not state law for all of them. Okay. So that's it's a gray area. The the bill that was passed honestly was confusing.

Mhmm.

And as soon as it got passed, I got a lot of phone calls asking me to explain it, and I couldn't. But suffice it to say, there's wiggle room for local jurisdictions to look at their impact fees and their capacity fees and where the state hasn't required it, adopt a deferral structure.

Going back to the discussion about pro form a, I recall working with a developer in the past and looking at affordable. They had done some performance for different housing types, you know, from pretty standard single family detached to, you know, condos or small lock product down to multifamily. And, obviously, you know, they they all had had some gap, but the multifamily attached had the smallest gap. Would something like that be helpful to to look at? Because I know you know, what I've heard, one of the sentiments is, yeah, I get that attached apartments are going to be the best option for providing affordable housing, but, you know, certainly, that's not the only need.

Not everybody that wants to live in an apartment complex. Is there a way to have a small lot some kind of starter home that's either zero lot line attached, but still single family, small lot, something like that. Do you think that there the the gap for affordability there is something that could be incentivized to to make it work, or is it

Well, I think so. I mean, the the state mostly designs their programs for multifamily because they they see that as the quickest way to get an impact done with a greater number. There is programs, though, that for single family homeownership, like CalHome, the home program, which can kinda be combined to provide that silent second loan so that you can kinda buy down those mortgages to get them into that. And, usually, you can go up to, like, 80% AMI on those. So it does help on that side of it.

I think you still want that option to be able to do that because you're right. There's a lot of people that don't wanna live in an apartment or in or in a higher AMI, but still too low to be able to afford a market rate house. The problem is finding developers that will actually go out and develop those. That's the biggest thing. And especially, I think, a rural area, you see a lot of, like, Habitat and Humanity does a lot of those types of programs for homeownership, but they're, like, in the LA region, the Bay Area.

There's a few in the Sacramento region, but I don't see a lot of them really doing the rural county areas, which is unfortunate because it just they don't have the profit profit margins that that a market rate I mean, that that a multifamily project would have. Right. Right. And so it it makes it a little bit more difficult.

I think that gets to Bill's point, which is the other side of this is if we're gonna get the the demanded, only number, but types of affordable housing, it it starts to shift to the community that and the jurisdiction would have to get creative and find ways of getting it here because it doesn't really pencil out for the builders to build that type of housing.

Right.

But the county needs it, so we have to craft this ordinance in a way that also supports that mindset.

Yeah. If we can get those those contractors or developers to come in and do them, I think it's great. It just think I we yeah. A lot of that resource to be able to be used if we can find the right people.

Mhmm. Just spitballing that cost, what would be the cost of for a developer to build that that multifamily or a

single family home? I mean, if we're talking single family, small lot, greenfield development, a lot. Right? Because I I I couldn't even ballpark it for you.

400, 500?

Per per unit? Yeah. Yeah. Probably 400, 500. I mean, we see out of other communities, a single multifamily unit is costing 750 to a million dollars to build for an affordable unit. So it's it's extravagant to build these things.

Is just to get a little bit outside of the box, that is it possible that the developer pays into a housing land trust a doll a certain dollar amount that's gonna be less than it would cost them to develop that piece of property, and the land trust goes out and purchases a home in El Dorado County in the rural area. That's gonna be around 360 to $4.25, and it's deed restricted for affordable housing. And it operates as a land trust. And so cutting some of the cost out for the developer where they're making a contribution, which might even be a charitable contribution because it's going to a nonprofit land trust, and then they're purchasing the home and managing the process.

So that is a option that has been used in other jurisdictions. It's an an lieu fee type of an approach. The challenge with that is what is the in lieu fee and what is the impact of that cost on the feasibility of delivering market rate housing because the fee burden in El Dorado County is already the highest in the region. And so that additional cost does affect the feasibility as well. To your point, though, that may be more cost effective and likely is that, you know, depending on what that fee is than actually having to deliver affordable housing.

But there's still a cost there, and it still affects feasibility. And, unfortunately, what it does is it takes your market rate housing and raises the cost of your market rate housing at the same time as it discourages you from building a market rate projects because it's more cost more expensive, and then it can actually then make it less likely that you actually get what you wanted in the beginning, which is affordable housing. And so you may unintentionally increase the price of market rate housing and still not achieve affordable housing. And I think that's the that's the tension there. And to get back to what Karen was saying, what I saw in the BAE report is that multifamily is much closer a market rate level before you do any deed restrictions than single family residential housing, which would make sense.

And so that's to me where it seems to be that there's some level of a sweet spot, which is what is that gap between market rate multifamily and at least moderate rate affordable? And how do you help close that gap? Because that's a much smaller gap than between single family residential and affordable housing. And so if you could do that with things like incentives, streamlined processing, which allows developers of multifamily sites to know their costs better, you know, even things like, you know, fee incentives and the other tools that are available under state affordable housing law. It just feels like there might be a suite of those type of things that could allow you to effectively deliver more multifamily homes that are at an affordable level by closing what is a relatively smaller gap.

And so I do think that warrants exploration. And if the answer was a $500 fee, you know, then maybe that is something that makes sense. If the answer is it's a $5,000 fee, then that starts to affect your affordability of all your market rate and makes it less likely that you're gonna get projects that then, you know, provide money into a in lieu fee program. And so I think that's where that the rubber hits the road for that is you wanna I think you wanna find ways that help encourage affordable housing, multifamily affordable housing in a way that is unique or different or just provides somebody who would otherwise build multifamily housing to be able to do so and to deliver it to a, you know, lower level of affordability as it relates to AMI. And so in my mind, that's the sweet spot to try to find.

It's easier said than done, but if you can do that, and maybe it's a suite of options. Maybe it's that and, you know, some additional revenue program to develop some funds to help close that gap, but it can't be it can't be a one a one can't be a single solution because the the magnitude of the gap and the challenges associated with delivering affordable housing in El Dorado County, you can't put that burden in any one place. Otherwise, you don't get market rate, and you don't get affordable. So I like the idea of looking at that in terms of identifying that list of incentives that could help accomplish that and encourage multifamily and encourage in it it in a way that it could potentially deliver affordable housing, I think, is just an important area to look at.

Having worked in the county for the county and the community for seventeen years, everybody's gonna have to sacrifice something. The contractors, the developers are gonna have to put something into this game, or the community is not going to be in favor of it. And if I think the community is not gonna be in favor of I doubt supervisors will either. So it has to be there's gonna come a cost to everybody. And it's how do we mitigate that cost as much as possible.

And all developers have foundations. So a contribution from a foundation to purchase existing homes that are already in El Dorado County and then build a land trust. It's gonna take some time to build it, but it does work. It's working in South Lake Tahoe. It's working on the North Shore. It's working in Vail. So it it's just looking at what is possible and, and realizing that everybody's gonna have to put something into this for it to work.

And the only thing I'd add just to clarify is and then LUFI would not, and as I understand it, create an opportunity for contributions in a way that, you know, would be similar to a charitable housing contribution. Those are different things. Right. You can't take a charitable contribution deduction or, you know, whatever the mechanism is when you pay an MLU fee. Something to keep in mind.

So to educate me, is it a MLU fee basically, a waiver? So tell me what an lieu fee is.

Well, instead of instead of doing the inclusionary requirement of 10% or 15, whatever percentage, develop now, initially, we've we were talking last well, I don't know, October, November, and they came in, they said a few projects are right now currently paying roughly $500 per unit for an in lieu fee.

Right.

Because it's a it's a one it's a one on deal. Every deal's different, negotiated right now. And that's why the county wants one standard thing both for the county as well as for the market rate developers so they know going in it's x instead of getting into negotiations and then having everything changed. Right. And so what we were trying to do is find out what is that sweet spot we've been talking about to make it most attractive for both the market rate as well as what would it actually produce some money.

Because right now, the $500 is producing very little money to provide an incentive for developments. It'd take thousands of units to be able to ride that in into a project. Right. What we've also talked about is besides the Inlu fee, is there is there other incentives that the county can provide? Because every project's different that comes in for an affordable. They may not need money. They may need it in the fee reduction. They may need it for land donation. Can use different components. They may use it all.

It just depends on each project as it's being developed and what are the resources they are at the state level and the federal level for funds coming in. So I think there are fourth agenda items may be getting into the incentives and talking about the in lieu, and we've talked about, you know, what is, like, Placer County is doing, what is some of the other communities doing to figure out what is that what is that amount. And then, you know, seeing how that also, as Sean's saying, is if it's too high of an in lieu fee, then that's a disincentive for the market rate developers to actually produce more units here in the county, which then impacts housing production and and raises the cost of the housing.

In in talking with the director of the Placer Community Foundation in LUFI's have have not worked for them. They have not seen an advantage to building more affordable housing

Mhmm.

Through in loop fees. And the conversations I had with Veronica were that almost that all the developers were choosing to do the in lieu fees rather than build affordable housing.

So and I don't know who spoke at the board meeting that was from the plaster housing trust or whatever. They were saying that they that they would that the in lieu fee was better than having an inclusionary requirement.

Right. That's why I think we need to come up with a different solution.

Right. So let me just clarify what you said that what you're hearing is that the InLufis do or don't work in Placerdon't. Okay.

But they're admittedly and it

I always talk from a community perspective, not as a developer. It's just it's it's not delivering affordable housing that they're looking for.

It's have they identified why? Like, are you know, are they not collecting collecting enough? Or

Not collecting enough Okay. To make an impact. Gotcha. Okay. There's rising cost of development to build an affordable complex.

Because I think what we gotta look at is this inclusionary fee or whatever in lieu fee that we're talking about, it's not gonna fund the whole project. Mhmm. Because these affordable projects are made up of eight to ten, twelve different funding sources in the when they're between tax credits as well. That which which is the majority of the funding into these deals is the tax credits, and the rest of it is basically the soft money as developers call it from the county or the city or the or the federal government comes in to kind of finance the rest of the structure of those deals. Yeah. So one component would be the in lieu fee as in there. So it'll never be a big chunk of the total development cost of a project. Right.

And just keep in mind too, the in lieu fee doesn't have to be to build more affordable housing either. It could also go to a single family homeowner who wants to finally purchase their first home and stay in the county where we would be a second lender on the home and reduce the cost of the home. So even though we may not be continuing to build, you know, more multifamily maybe with an unluffy or grant funding that the county goes after, we can actually put people in homes as well. So there's other things we can do with the money

besides just development. We talked about it originally too, leveraging those funds to go for for housing trust money kind of a match with that program so that the additional funds to fund, as Jen was talking about, for single family or even multifamily at the moment.

There's a lot of homes in this county too, you know, that are affordable, but people just need that gap financing too, and that's what the program's gonna allow for, which is some of the programs we currently have existing.

I I think to to Bill's point, you know, if we if we decide, yeah, we wanna collect or have at least the option of an in lieu fee, you know, to be thoughtful about it. And and, okay, you know, figure out how much that in lieu fee would be. And, Chris, what you said, that's it's not gonna pay a 100%. It's not gonna ever be enough to go buy a piece of land, construct, and, you know, do everything and manage a project. So what are those other pieces, and how do we get those other pieces?

How do we incentivize those other pieces? So so it's, you know, one more you know, one chunk of money that we can put towards that just makes it easier to get that. You know, I wanna be realistic about it. And I and I think there probably are some jurisdictions out there. I mean, I'm sure they put some thought behind it, but I don't wanna just throw out a number and say, okay. We're gonna collect $5,000 and, you know, hope that we figure out what to do with the money later and hope that it gets us some units. That's that's not good enough. We need to be pretty thorough in how much and exactly how it can be used.

The two jurisdictions I know of that have been very successful in building affordable housing are the Mountain Housing Council and Saint Joseph Land Trust. And it'd be interesting to find out if there was any in lieu fees that were utilized in the development of those units that they developed in North Shore and South Shore.

Do you know how many units that was?

The Sugar Pine is really large. It don't

really Sugar Pine is funded by Yeah.

It's, like, 36 funders.

Yeah. It's it's got a lot of state funds in it, multiple phase projects, state access site.

Land donations.

It's got a lot of different functions in from, yeah,

the Tahoe Conservancy. But But Kings Beach.

But very few of that, I mean, was from the conservative I mean, the majority of that funding, the the highest percentage is all from the state from either the accelerator program, CPLHA, other funding sources, tax credits on different phases of it. So I think what they're using in in some of those other programs is, basically, it's a gap financing, and that's what we're talking about here for this. And would be a gap financing that the county would be offering in for an affordable project. Because typically, what as a developer, you try to get all your money put together and usually, today's market with tariffs and everything else, we're having and the cost of preventing wage going up, we're having gaps into the deals. And so we're always going back trying to figure out how to fill those gaps, and the gap filler I'd see here would be like the same loofie.

Obviously, the county has to generate enough market rate housing to have a fund to be able to offer to develop affordable developers. But that's what I would see the county would be looking at is providing these, basically, residual receipt type loans to be able to make the project go forward and kinda get over the hump because, you know, there may be a gap of a million dollars or $2,000,000 in a project of a $40,000,000 project because they got all the rest of it put together because of rising costs. They need that to get through there, and that's kinda what what you're talking about up there at Sugar Pine. Those are multiphase projects that have high high percentage of state funds into them.

There are 248 units in Sugar Pine. The Mountain House And Castle is developed much smaller multifamily on in Kings Beach. I believe there are, like, six to eight units, and I'm not sure exactly where they're funding. Know some of it came from the Parasol Foundation, Passer Community Foundation, and then there's other funding. Sure. They develop those. But I'm not sure if there's any development fees in there.

I mean, what's interesting about that is if you're talking about a million dollar gap on a $40,000,000 project, the percentage there is pretty low. And so I hear the county saying a $500 and move fee doesn't do anything. But if you have a, you know, a 500 if you have a thousand units that, you know, pay $500, that's $500,000, and you're halfway to potentially covering the gap on a $40,000,000 affordable project. And so, you know, it it and and the sweet spot, as you said, Chris, is, like, what you want is you you want a funding mechanism that is not so large that it discourages market rate or it increases the cost of market rate, but it provides funding that you can then leverage. Because leverage is is really what you're accomplishing there.

You got state funding sources that you're taking advantage of. And so if that money is used to even pursue grants or, you know, to provide gap funding in a circumstance where there it's 98 funded, I mean, those are really meaningful dollars, and you can leverage those to get the advantage of much bigger pots of money like, you know, state funding. So I I I think that's part of where a lot of and Luffy's, in my mind, go off track. It's like the jurisdiction says, we got this big affordable issue. We're gonna put it all on the backs of developers with a, you know, 5 to $10,000 a unit in LUFI, and then they find it doesn't even accomplish they want what they want it to, but it's also discouraged the construction of market rate.

And so the gap may not be, you know, in certain circumstances as large as you might think. And so if you could focus, you know, the combination of availability of gap funds, incentives to construct, I I mean, I feel like you could really start to do something meaningful without needing a multi, you know, thousand dollar a market rate unit in LUFI.

So, like, Placer County, I know there there's a lot of new projects going in there. Well, thousands of units. And their fee is, I think, was, like, $2.50 a square foot or something. They they do it by square foot instead of

$20.69 per square foot?

Yeah. So it doesn't seem to be stopping the development at that level.

You also have to think of it too as though Placer County is a major growth area.

Right.

So it's a lot easier to do the math, crunch the numbers, and make it pencil out. Right? El Dorado County, not a major growth area where the fee burden is already higher than it is in Placer County. So, yeah, not really stopping it in Placer County, but if you try to mimic the same thing here in El Dorado, I think you'll see a much more significant slowing.

Right. And even though we keep throwing out numbers and stuff for in LUFI, it still has to be done through a Nexus study. Nexus study. It still needs to be done. So even though we all may set up here and say two fifty or one fifty a square foot or whatever, it's also gonna be done in through the Nexus state. Ultimately, we'll tell us what it comes into.

Yeah. But that's driven by you're right. And Nexus takes into considerate into consideration, you know, what is the new development's share of, you know, the cost versus existing development. But what I would also say is, like, it's important what you're trying to accomplish with that in lieu fee. Because if you say the in lieu fee is to construct, you know, solely affordable projects, then the number's huge. Right. And it it it there is

But I don't think we've ever said that. No. No. No. At least I never thought that that was the goal was that this in lieu fee was gonna fund a 100% of the projects. Right. It was gonna be basically a gap filler. It was gonna be an incentive to maybe bring other funds into a deal to keep them going, not to go in and just, you know, start from the ground up and throw it in as seed money and hope that they're gonna get the rest of the into there.

And that's where the community educator part comes in because the community looks at it as being Luffy is gonna build affordable housing. So the community Well,

I think

it's it's understand that.

Right. And that's the education

own it.

Right. It's a it's a it's a step into the process of it.

There's gonna be need, there's gonna be a need for community education on this.

I think if we go back all the way to our first couple of meetings too, there was a you guys got a SACOG grant that's gonna help with that. Right? The community education process. Yeah. So that'll be very And

those meetings, have they started?

No. We just got the contract signed off, I believe. So Is

that the one the foundation's involved in? Yeah. Yeah. I talked to Amy about that.

Yeah.

This is a little off topic, but maybe in the in the range of basically by design affordable projects. Karen, maybe to your point, you know, smaller lot projects or even how does how do mobile homes and or ADUs play into the picture from the county standpoint? I mean, is there credit that can be gotten for that as a component of affordable housing? Because, again, I don't know the financial implications of, you know, building ADUs or, you know, mobile homes, but maybe there's a component of that that gets filled by that. I know we also heard comments about that in early task force meetings.

So does that provide any benefit? Is it can the county take credit for that as affordable without it being deed restricted? What what does that look like?

We we do. So ADUs, they definitely apportion counts towards our rena numbers and you know, so we can check that box. That has also been expressed by the board and others as a as a pretty palatable type of affordable housing Sure. Because, you know, you you really don't even notice, and it's spread out and so forth. So that is something that I think, you know, we should look at further encouraging. And

But doesn't it target at a higher AMI, though? You guys kinda get it automatically, don't you, for the ADU unit? So you don't have deed restrict or anything else.

ADUs do not have to be deed restricted. They are exempt from deed.

Problem is on your renin numbers is those thirties and 4850% AMIs, those lower AMIs reaching those, which, honestly, the only way you can do that is through the multifamily development. Because even single family is not gonna work for trying to reach those range

of numbers. Very low.

Mhmm. Right.

What about what about mobile homes?

Mobile homes is that's a lot more tricky, but it you know, my thought is we we really need to invest in our mobile home communities because, you know, some of them are really that step between homelessness and having a roof over your head. And the age of mobile homes, you know, they're supposed to be thirty, forty years, and many of them are going on fifty, sixty years. I know Community Foundation did or Housing Eldorado did a great report on that, and the challenge is it's where you know, state is regulating some portion of the mobile home park or really regulating them altogether, and so it's hard for us to step in. The people don't own the land. They own the mobile home.

And so a lot of the the grants that are available, like, for repairing things, you have to be the homeowner. So that is one area I think is important for us to look at. We do have a lot of mobile home communities in the the county and either doing repair

restricted that way.

Or, you know, replacement with modular because, know,

because HCD does have a program called the improv program, which hasn't been utilized a lot, which allows either jurisdiction or a nonprofit to come in and and apply for the funds to go in there. A lot of the parks, as you said, the the units are old, but a lot of the parks are really old too. So the infrastructure is very dilapidated because usually typically, park owners don't put any money back into them to fix them up. And so that may can be utilized for both the park rehab work as well as for units. And then, basically, the the all the owners become like a like an HLA or some type of a joint ownership of it than that way.

There is a a process going on in the county where they're looking at a mobile home ordinance. Supervisor Turnboo and Lane are tasked with leading that Let's see where it goes. It mobile homes in El Dorado County are very complicated. It's complicated, from where you get your propane, who the supplier is, to outside entities coming in and buying the park and raising rates, which makes it really hard because you have a lot of older adults who are living in this park. It's complicated. Right.

Sure.

And I

used to work at Sacramento County, and we would get a phone call about a mobile home park. We would always just sweat. Yeah. I'm like, I don't know what to do here. It's complicated everywhere.

K.

Okay. So how how do you let's come back on this matter, Eric.

Any other feedback. Converted. No. This is all good conversation. Do need other feedback feedback on BAE report specifically?

Well, I think a lot of the options is kind of some of the options we've kind of been talking about for the past ten months

Yeah.

Eight months. And so I think kinda carrying those over into as we look moving that forward.

Okay. And I appreciate your your patience. I said me jumping in and and

Oh, that's good.

Not having Chris you know, not a lot of, I'll I'll try and go back and at least look at the minutes, if not, you know, more thorough notes and watch rewatch some of meetings so we're not repeating things and moving forward rather than getting set.

On the BAE report, what jumped out at me was what's gonna resonate with community is de restrict restrictions on new and existing home for workers employed in the county. That that language is gonna be really important. You go and you go to any store here in Aldorado County and ask the people where they live. Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, East Sacramento. If I'm it's hard to find housing up on the hill.

And then underfunding approaches, that last sentence by contrast using new or diverted local revenues for housing plus fund. And that's what we're talking about this funding. Mhmm.

I 'll say this too about the BAE report is 04/14/2022 is already three years ago, so the the market has shifted greatly since this report was completed. And any of their recommendations, I'm still hold I'm sure still hold a lot of water, but you're gonna have to take a a really close look at all of it again just to see what numbers have shifted and and need to be accommodated.

Alright. You ready to move to next item?

Let's take public comment on

Oh, yeah.

I'm sorry. Yeah.

That's just a rumble.

I know. Alright. Is there any public comment in the room on this item? Seeing none, is there any online public comment?

Now taking public comment from Zoom participants, please use the raise hand button. We have no public comment.

Do we have anybody online? Okay. Alright. Item 425Dash1012, stack staff recommending the task force one, review and discuss a table of affordable housing policies in neighboring jurisdictions, and two, recommend key points to incorporate into the county's draft affordable housing policy.

Karen, would you like your staff report pulled up first, or would you like the table?

I think the table's fine. Yeah. Just that. Mhmm. Again, I think this is really just getting feedback from this group on, you know, if there's anything here that seems particularly worth diving into for Eldorado County or if there's any in addition to these things. I mean, it would be nice if there were one program that we could do that would just make it so much easier, but as I think we all know, it's it's gonna take a lot of different efforts to make it happen.

So I'm just curious. On Sonoma County, you list here the in lieu fee is 3,023 to $45,009.39. That's a big difference. I know. Was was that a typo?

It's Sonoma County. Maybe it's by jurisdiction.

I mean, it's I'm willing to bet it's probably some type of square footage based calculation or potentially even based on the the value of the homes being built kinda similar to

I just wanted to say difference between theirs. It's big range.

Yeah. I mean, they're selling homes there probably at a high enough price that

Oh, yeah.

They're okay with it.

Right.

Yeah. So the minimum amount of fee schedule right now, the minimum thousand square foot or less is $3,000 for that Okay. Fee. And as it goes up incrementally by 10 square feet, the fee goes up. So it's they have it listed from

It's really

thousand square feet, a 10 square 20

my

gosh. All the way Please don't do that. Oh, please. All the way

up to greater than

4,400 square feet, which is at the $45,830.

Wow.

So and over 4,400 square feet goes to $10.43 a square foot.

Never been so happy to be in Eldorado County.

That's a

lot of numbers on one page.

I don't think we need to get that dude in the weeds.

No. No. We do not. I will say it's, of course, notable that everyone has fee deferrals available Mhmm. Across the board.

And fee waivers.

Yeah. What Separate password?

Yeah.

That seems odd. What does the county hear from people who come in expressing an interest in building ADUs? Are there, like, sticking points? I mean, it looks like free and low cost ADU plans, so that seems like a good incentive. Are there other challenges that the county, you know, that that are expressed to the county from those who are interested in doing, you know, ADUs that turns any of them away? Or

You know, I know Housing Eldorado has been a great partnership because they provide more of the technical assistance and and the frank conversation that, you know, we don't have opportunity to do where they're telling them, you know, here's what you really have to think about. Here's how much it's really gonna cost. Because some people, I think, come in with the wrong expectations. Like, this is really inexpensive to do, and it's not as cheap as they they think. To be honest, there's been conversation lately as as we are looking at other sources of income of the county does not allow ADUs to be converted to short term rentals.

That's our own ordinance. The state, except for some exceptions, they're silent on it, meaning they would allow it. I'm concerned about that. You know? First of all, there are there are certainly are incentives that the state provides for building an ADU, and then to turn that around into a money making opportunity just doesn't sit well with me personally.

I don't think that's the right thing to do. If you're actually going to use it for long term rental, I get having those advantages. So, you know, I am a little bit concerned in preserving our ADUs as a source of affordable housing and and making sure we protect that. That's not to say you can't build some things to do short term rentals, but maybe they're not exactly ADUs. You know, we we don't want people converting them, I guess, is is my concern.

So I'm also curious about development bonus. Is that row is that density bonus?

Yes.

Okay. So it does look like a number of jurisdictions allow density bonuses significantly beyond what state law allows for. Has that been your experience, Chris? Have you seen no? Okay. So because that jumps out at to me. It's like, well, El El Dorado County on this table appears to be the lowest, You know? And there are some that go up to 50 to 80%, but I just don't know if that's an apples to apples comparison. And is this for affordable

that they're talking about, or is this for market rate? The density of bonds.

Yeah. They're

affordable housing policy. Well,

then so I I think this is the same as ours where market rate developers can opt in to this density bonus program. So they have it written into their guidelines as well that this is an option. For mercury to burn. Yeah.

Yeah. And and to be honest, I don't even know what the state's threshold bottom minimum is. I was just trying

to look that up, probably. But

There's, like, different tiers depending on

Yeah.

The level of

Right.

Affordability, the percentage of affordability. I guess what I'm just wondering, though, is if you look at Sonoma County and, obviously, we're not suggesting to take Sonoma County and develop an ordinance similar to theirs because they have a $45,000 in move fee. But just on the density bonus component, I mean, I'm not sure what that means, but does that mean that you can get a 100% density bonus on the market rate, which I believe is, you know, which is higher than what the state would allow if you They didn't lose me. Or cause

That's probably why they get away with $45,000 fee. Yeah. Maybe. You can double your density.

Yeah. Maybe. I mean, I

guess that is something too. What when we you were talking about the fee and stuff and we go back and forth, is that a better incentive if we if a market rate project had a higher density, would that make an incentive to be able to pay a $2,000 fee or $4,000 fee, whatever that fee would be? Because we've we've been always just talking about the affordable side of this, but the market rate side, would be the incentive, I guess, if for the in lieu fee if you could get more units for your project. Yeah. I mean, I because it works for us as an affordable developer if we can get more units.

Yeah. I just don't necessarily tie the two together that getting the density bonus I suppose there's a project where getting a larger density bonus could make it more palatable to pay a reasonable and lieu fee. Mhmm. But but, certainly, I think density bonus provides incentive to to want to construct affordable housing because there's an incentive for doing so. And so to the extent that there's the opportunity, like, it appears many of these jurisdictions do for the county to allow something even beyond what state law allows it, it might be worth including that as a component because, again, this could be apples to oranges in terms of this development bonus percentages, but it appears from this table that other jurisdictions allow more than

what technically more.

Yeah. Than what state law would give you by right.

Chris, what you're suggesting, if I understand correctly, is you've got a subdivision market rate. You're gonna build market rate homes. If we allow a more dense product, then maybe that developer then, you know, tying that into affordable units somehow. We we will

Well, not tying into affordable units, but then, basically, I guess, the in lieu fee would as I was saying, it'd be more palatable if you could get more units.

Right.

Instead of getting five units to the acre, they're gonna go now to 10 units to the acre. Mhmm. So they're basically doubling their production

Right. Okay.

On the same footprint.

What ability is the county have to take credit for homebuyer assistance? Does that does that provide any credit from achieving a horrible housing levels for the county or not really? It's just an additional incentive to the buyers That mine

is basically the homebuyer assistance program. Like, does the county have that established? So and our affordable housing trust fund with the county is where we do the loans back out.

So it's not this question is

But back to

the rean numbers. Yeah.

Does it it doesn't help you with rean right? It's set up in your AMI levels.

It's not like you you're able to say, hey. We've provided this significant enough incentive that now that home is affordable to Yeah.

In less

than 60% AMI. Okay. Yeah.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, aren't they are deed restricted when we record the loan. What? For because they have

Right.

Thirty years, and it has to be low income housing. If they don't qualify anymore, then they're they have payback requirements.

Or just

do you But there's not a arena requirement to have so many single family homes.

Okay. Yeah.

Just the AMI level unit counts. Got it.

Anything on this list that you've talked about or has been mentioned before or, I guess, is not on this list that's missing? Got housing trust funds, deferrals, waivers.

What's ADU amnesty? Is that somebody who filled an ADU that maybe wasn't permitted, and then you basically Trying

to get grandfathered? Yeah.

I guess. Is that Yep.

That must be. Which we we essentially have a program for that as well. Yeah. And and this this state now, their new regulations protects people that have illegally built ADUs as well. So

K. So El Dorado County doesn't waive the impact fees, only the TIF fees?

Correct. Yeah. That's only based on if it's a certain square footage, though. Right? Because state law under a certain square footage has to be exempt from impact fees. Right?

For ADUs. ADUs. Yeah. So about, in general, TIF fees, affordable depending on the level of affordability, you'll have more of a TIF fee waiver. So if you're I'm trying to think of, like, what some of our recent projects, which are 100% affordable. Uh-huh. Did they have a 100% of their TIFI waived? I can't remember.

We did have one that had a 100% because they made the manager's unit a 120% AMI. So they did ask the board to waive that unit, but usually, managers' units are not waived. It's just the actual units.

Oh, but that's one unit of sixty, seventy unit projects.

Yeah. No.

If you

had The the whole had the project was actually the same.

A 100%.

Basically, whatever units you're you're deed restricting to affordability, you can get the TIFFY waived.

Okay.

Which is a big one. Mhmm.

And most and I say most of the rest of, like, impact fees aren't really the county's impact fees. Mhmm. I mean, it's mostly I mean, we usually have the TIF. And so Yeah. Especially, school, fire, water. Yeah.

Is anybody aware of any jurisdictions that have had success in, you know, fee waivers for juris or for agencies outside of their purview a reduction. School. Yeah. Like a reduction or,

you know, outside water agency. I mean, the way, for example, Sac County did their water agency, the water agency is officially separate from the county, but also part of it. Right? So I don't know that that one necessarily counts as getting an outside agency. I know that they have worked very closely with SAC Sewer, which is a a JPA, to help them work toward lower fees and fee deferrals for sure.

I think Eldorado County is in a unique position, though, because a lot of the fee collection policies are within your general plan stating that you're the collecting agency for these outside agencies. So I think in terms of setting up deferrals specifically, I think you're already empowered to do that for these outside agencies. Reductions, that's, that's a taller order for sure. But I think Sack County has had success, you know, at least negotiating or persuading type of methods.

Say the deferral is, like, kind of a two stage thing. Right? Because, like, fire fees can be deferred to occupancy, but, like, we could other fees can be deferred on projects for certain number of years or resale or refinance as well.

What do you mean?

Our current fee deferral program does that.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. But I'm just saying so but if you wanted to defer the outside

the Yeah. So it'd be I don't know if they would be willing to defer for, you know, our

Or waive.

Our waive for that many years.

Yeah.

So

But if it's in your general plan, you could do it is what I'm saying. Mhmm. So you may not necessarily have to ask. You could say, hey. We're doing this. Come to the table, and let's find out a way that works best for you, or you could just do it. First one's probably better,

but I

think it's doable. Yeah.

Okay.

There's also been that discussion we had too, maybe a two tier fee system too, and that it's hard with the outside third party groups like the community districts to get one level for affordable housing and then one level for market rate if they can't do a a waiver. Because I've I've tried to do that before with community districts, and it's it's difficult trying to get them to reduce from their market rate units or how they calculate, you know, their EDUs or anything else onto, like, a portable multifamily project.

And what fees are you talking about?

Well, like, water fees. Like, EIDs fees are pretty pretty large. Okay. And and they just went up quite a bit.

Is there a reason Roseville isn't on here? Karen, you had mentioned Roseville success, and I don't see them on here.

We just

I can look

Yeah. On

the at them.

We can I mean, we just grab jurisdictions mentioned during these meetings?

And Okay. So anything some in Roseville on some of your projects?

Well, yeah. But in Roseville, you can usually just identify a multifamily site. It doesn't it doesn't require, like, construction or subsidizing it. It would be basically a zoning. You're zoning the HDR site.

Yeah. And then in terms of I don't know what the incentives are on the Roseville side for actually developing affordable housing, but on the market rate side, it can just be addressed. Just put zoning, HDR within a specific plan. You know?

So you're saying that in your project, in Rosa, you you set aside a piece of property for the park wall?

Well, this the at the specific plan level, they typically identify where HDR sites will look. It's not like a project by project. It's not like you have a a single family residential village, and you have to take a portion of that and make it HDR. It's that at the specific plan level, they accommodate a plan for all kinds of land uses, including HDR, and those are designated as HDR sites. And then you would point to one and say this is, you know, gonna be an affordable site.

But there's then market rate factors are able to acquire that land and build it if and when and how it makes sense. It's not it's not it's not put as a burden on to the market rate developers to deliver affordable housing.

So how do they but you say that they have to do it at a later date or something?

No. No. You you just have in a specific plan, you would have areas designated for single family residential. Right. And you'd have areas designated for high density residential, and you could point to a high density residential site and say that's where the affordable housing obligation will be satisfied. And then its market rate forces as to when it makes sense, when

And who owns that land then? Does that held by the city then, or is it by the developer?

No. It's by the developer, and then they can sell it to an affordable housing builder. You know, once an affordable housing builder secures tax credit financing. Okay.

Do they do you pay any any type of fee or in lieu for each unit?

So how does

So is it just then land donation is

It's not donating. You're not selling.

Lands. Yeah. There's no land donation. It would just be a designation of a future affordable site, and then market driven forces would dictate how and when that develops as a future affordable project.

He's not seeing, I guess, where the money's coming from to actually build that affordable site down the road.

Well, it's the same sources of funding that any affordable project gets, which is state tax credits and those programs. So when an affordable housing developer can make an affordable project work with

But the market rate but the market rate doesn't put anything into the project? No. Because the ones I've seen, like, in San Diego County, they usually will donate the land and sometimes do either, like, complete the infrastructure to the site, which is a big thing in some developments is just getting the infrastructure to

Yeah. That's not a requirement in Roseville. Do

you know in Roseville, do they for an affordable housing project, do they subsidize the water, sewer, electric?

I don't know the answer to that because we haven't we haven't we don't develop affordable housing projects. So but

You just don't excite them.

One of the incentives that, you know, they obviously can offer because they control that. We we don't. But that

My my guess, and I don't know this, but my guess is they have programs that incentivize the market rate the market driven development of affordable housing by incentivizing, you know, but I don't know. And so that's why I think it'd just be interesting to add to this Yeah. This list. Yep.

Think another row to potentially add to this list, and it may be harder to identify, is just in do they have streamlined permitting processes as well?

Okay. Yep. Mhmm.

Any others that you could think of?

Another city to potentially add to if we are adding cities just would be Elk Grove. I think they've had some, you know, decent success over the years. And if you go to their affordable housing, city's website, they're they're pretty braggadocious about what they're doing, so I think you'll get some good info.

Yeah. You just have the state looking over their shoulder right now.

Just a little bit.

Mhmm. I don't wanna be in that position.

Are there, just out of curiosity, any other rural, like, cities or counties that we could add to this to like, because it you know, like, it's Roosevelt, not Grove are you know?

Major growth areas.

Yeah.

Yeah. So is there any just being at the BIA and all your stuff, you can I think

about the rural areas that we cover? El Dorado, Yuba, Sutter would be our most rural counties. I guess Yolo as well. Neither or none of those come to mind as necessarily having a lot of affordable housing being built. Okay.

I think we're really even just breaking into Yuba Sutter a little bit more than we used to in the past because it's been so inactive overall across the board. I think you've already got YOLO on here. You may look into I mean, when I think about other rural counties in California too, I'm thinking about the fee study that we did, and it's it gets hard to compare too because then you look at their fee burden, and it's less than half of what it is in El Dorado County. Yeah. So even then, it gets hard to to really compare.

Thank you.

And I don't think you have a county has any requirements either in lieu fee or inclusionary or otherwise. Great.

I appreciate all that feedback. That's super helpful. There's nothing else if you wanna take public comment.

Alright. Any public comment in the room? Seeing none, any online?

Now taking public comment from Zoom participants. Please use the raise hand button if you

would like to speak.

We have no public comments.

Alright. So next meeting, what are we looking at then for June? So June, you kinda come back with that ordinance kind of with red line strikeout, not saying dent density bonus and stuff, and and kind of reputting into all the supportable housing ordinance into that structure then. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. I'll I'll I can certainly do that. And so we've got that. We've got adding a couple of jurisdictions to compare to.

I will also see if we can maybe there's a nice neat summary someone's already put together of current state density bonus requirements and so we better understand that and then start fleshing out with these incentives what we think we wanna explore and, you know, whatever I can get together in in as far as going into a little more detail, bringing that forward as well. Like, for example, structure of talking to some of these other housing trusts and and see how they work and bring back some information on those.

Okay.

So I know this meeting's falling a little later in the month, then usually it's the third Wednesday of every month that we usually have the meeting, and this is falling on fourth. So if it was in the eighteenth, that would give us about three weeks to prepare. But do you there are do we wanna

So do you

wanna meet the twenty fifth then?

That I was gonna ask Karen how much time do you think we might need unless I mean, we can

Yeah. It's whatever whatever works for you. I you know, if everybody has the eighteenth already blocked out on their calendar and you wanna stick with that, that's fine.

If Are

we picking the same time, 10:00?

Yeah. Do you wanna do it later?

No. That's fine. I couldn't do 10:00 on the twenty fifth, but I can on the eighteenth.

I can't do the eighteenth at all.

Can't do the eighteenth?

I cannot. I have to do the eighteenth, but that's fine.

I could do later on the twenty fifth if we wanted to do it on the twenty fifth, like noon or one.

You had a ERA on the twenty fifth?

Yeah. I'm back. Yeah.

All day is clear for me.

Wanna do let's do the twenty fifth and at one. That work for you guys?

Yep. That works for me. Hold on. Sorry. Wait. I'm on vacation.

No. It's not vacation. Oh, okay. Let's see. I'll be there. Fourth. But, yeah, twenty fifth works.

One. Yep. At one. Okay. That work.

I mean, we can always push it, like, even just a Thursday if we have to versus a Wednesday too. I mean

Yeah. We'll we'll put it at least send out a save the date

for Yeah.

Wednesday the twenty fifth at one? One.

Okay. And that's a good point. Is there a way to do a meeting invite? Because I think previously, we haven't had meeting invites. And if there's a way to just do, like

That I sent one out last time, and I think all of you are seeking to today's. I did. Uh-huh.

I don't think I saw one. I had added I had added to my

calendar. Jennifer Morris. Oh.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. Well, can you keep doing that, please? I can.

And I think what we would might be helpful too is if if our regular time is the third Wednesday of the month from ten to noon, Send out, like, a recurring invite for the next several just so it gets on the calendar Okay. Early.

Okay. K.

Thank you.

Absolutely. Except for next month, we are doing the fourth ones.

Correct. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Yep. Understood.

Back to normal programming.

Yep. There is no normal. Alright.

Alright. Question to adjourn?

No. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Alright.

Thank you.

Thank you.