Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good morning. We'll call the meeting to order for the affordable housing task force. I guess we'll start with

roll call.

Here.

Member King? Here. McDermott?

Here.

Brody? And Westlake?

Here.

Alright. You've been approved for him.

Alright. So adoption of the agenda. Move to approve. I'll second. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Okay. So approve a consent calendar. We do this in two sections since I saw the recording from last month when I wasn't here. Consent calendar item number 125Dash1315 for the May meeting. We have a motion to approve because I believe last time, Mia was the only one that wasn't here, so we can So

we kicked it over. Yeah.

So So I'm gonna do us were here. Yeah.

One second.

Alright. All those improvement. Consent calendar one. I I a are we gonna have to move this one to the next Technically,

could have moved those as one item. That's totally

last one.

So Oh,

so if you wanna separate that, yeah, I guess we'd have to kick that over again.

Yeah. So we have to move consent calendar item number two to the next meeting. Alright. At this time, it's open forum. It's all created for the members of the public to address 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.

Hello. Love a dramatic entrance. Alright.

So what before we get into open form, we'll step back to the consent calendar. We already voted on item one for that consent calendar that was pulled this meeting. Consent calendar two is the July meeting that I was not at. The three of you were, so we were gonna roll it. Since you're here now, we can

Vote on it.

Vote on that one.

I'll make a motion for approval of the meeting minutes from July 23.

K. All those in I'm abstaining. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

That's passed. Okay. So we'll open back up to open form. Is any open form in the room?

Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to all of Frank Porter, Hal Hausie in Dorado. I thought it would be a good thing to start this meeting if maybe the clerk can hand those to the the task force members. I just think it's kind of nice to you're at a point where you're getting ready to send it off to the board, and I'm here to talk about the housing element, not so much the ordinance that you're working on.

I know they're two different things. They certainly relate, so I'm not out of order at this point. And the thing I wanna point out to you is if look carefully at this chart, it summarizes the progress to date of the current housing element, and it underscores the critical importance of the work that you're doing to try and come up with a good ordinance that will actually impact that and change it around. I also wanna share with you my insights having worked on affordable housing in the county now for five years as a volunteer, pretty much not full time, but then it feels like it. But the reality is that county this pattern has been going on.

You you can see it's very telling. I mean, the the chart just says it all, doesn't it, about how this county is very good at building upper end housing above Bond Road. We're very good at it. In fact, we're exceeding we'll our goals, our needs there, probably by the end of this year, even though this is a nine, eight year plan, whereas we're only about two and a half what? 2.4% on the extremely low and very low about 10% lower, extremely low and building housing.

It's and the the thing is having studied the housing elements going back two cycles, it's the same pattern. The county is it comes up with wonderful housing elements. They're great. I've I've helped give input to multiple them and helped build them. But the reality is, like any plan or an ordinance, unless it's implemented well with fidelity and rigor and intensity and commitment and follow through and accountability, you know, it doesn't get anywhere.

So this this situation in our county is a accumulation of twenty years worth of failing to build the affordable workforce housing we need in our county for our people that live here, and we failed miserably the county has failed miserably at that. That's a beginning point. And the data on that is just very clear. I'm sure it's all clear to very all of you. And the the point is that you're gonna come up with an ordinance just like a housing element.

You know, honestly, if the housing elements had gotten implemented as they were written or even halfway, even 20% of them regarding affordable housing, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are now. So my worry is that, again and god bless you for spending all this time on this, that we'll pass an ordinance, and will it have any big impact? So I hope when you think about how you're framing things and going back to the board, think about the implementation part because I can tell you I can give you multiple examples of wonderful projects that met all the criteria or even properties that were on the list of suitable properties for housing affordable housing, and the county board lost their spine and backed away, and the project got kiboshed. And that's happened over and over, and that's why we are where we are today. So thank you for your time.

Alright. Thank you.

Any other public comment in the room? Is there any public comment online?

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

Alright. We have no public comment online.

Okay. At this time, we'll move to agenda item three twenty five dash one four seven two. Staff recommending that the task force one, finalize recommendations on affordable housing policies for the board's consideration. Two, review the draft resolution of intent ROI to amend article three chapter one thirty dash 31 dash or I'm sorry. Affordable housing density bonus of the zoning ordinance to include additional affordable housing approaches incorporating final recommendations and three direct staff to schedule a task force update to the board that includes review of the pro's ROI.

But do we wanna first go right your your attachments that you have here.

Yeah. Sure. I'm I'm prepared to kind of tee this thing up and and discuss what's in the attachments and then sort of how we hope the move forward looks like. Rob Peters with the planning division. We at the last meeting, I sort of introduced myself as the new person sitting at this chair.

I did have the opportunity to speak to mister Westlake in advance of the meeting as the chair just to kind of talk through and and catch him up on what my approach was. And I think I met all the other three of you in this room before. And so we discussed a couple items in the last meeting, which were trying to identify if staff needed or if there were any outstanding sort of informational needs that the task force needed to move forward. And then might want to sort of bring back to this meeting a draft resolution of intent, which is included as the legislator packet a, attachment a, and then to try to capture what I believed based on that discussion and the and the informational meetings that I saw before where the task force sort of was landing. Now this is, again, my best effort to try to capture those.

Nothing here is set in stone. This is for the consideration of the task force. That is attachment b, that table. And we we the way that that table is put together is sort of I've tried to structure it in a way where it has some categories, that it has a component and that a description of what we're sort of considering there. And then if there was any clarifying comments, again, I'm happy to elaborate more or you guys can discuss absolutely every one of the rows on this table.

But to try to get a sense of our staff understanding it correctly and and acknowledging that there may not be consensus on all the items, but we do need to bring a consensus recommendation to the board. And so in that third part of our agenda item is to sort of bring forward an outstanding update to the board of supervisors. There was one a few months back. It was intended for July. We lost some staff, and so I had asked for an extension of one of the meetings.

And so I've I've been communicating that with the board of supervisors that, you know, we intend to bring that back, but there was a little delay. And so our hope is to bring a package of information to the board that includes an update on what the task force activities have been doing that identifies this draft resolution of intent, and we can go through that if you all would like. You can see there there's some placeholders that were identified. Those are gonna be informed by the discussion that we have on the table. So once those out you know, once we get sort of what the parameters of the recommendation is gonna be, those will be incorporated into a final version of this resolution of intent that would go to the board.

So that is my goal for this meeting, and I guess I would ask the task force if they would like me to start by discussing the resolution of intent in that procedure or if we wanna just jump into the table in attachment b.

I think the the resolution of intent is is pretty clear. I assume we all read it in advance, so I'd be happy just skipping straight to the table. Yeah.

I mean, the table's gonna support what we're putting into it, so we might as well just start there in the interest

of time.

Yeah. Just wanted to make sure since I was bringing it for the first time and, you know, if there was anything to discuss on that one. Yep.

So just a quick question. So you were saying you're basically gonna take our recommendations from this table here, put it into the ROI for final version to the board. So that version, we will not see until it goes to the board. Correct?

Well, we could discuss that further in an effort to try to get it sooner. That would be that you would, you know, you would see the it would be a summation of what would be what we would see. Right?

Because it But Are you gonna try to go to the board then before our next meeting, like, in September then?

Well, I think we can discuss all of that as part of this exercise. We're yeah. If we're in the a place where we can make a decision today on what the recommendation looks like and how we're gonna acknowledge any, you know, discussions related to, you know, lack of, you know, a total support on any item or whatever. My intent would be to, yeah, that you guys have seen the ROI. We would only amend that one section, and it would highlight the things that we would agree to in this meeting and that we would take it to the board of supervisors in the next one.

Wanna clarify and make sure.

Yeah. I think, you know, the due date's sort of for 09/16, which is the first meeting in September of the board, might be a little tough, so it might be the following meeting. Okay. But my intent would hopefully be to be bringing it to the board at the September, and we may or may not have a meeting in advance of that. But and I would certainly could bring back the draft, but I I don't intend to put anything in there. It's just high level to say we're gonna discuss these types of things, but I would likely probably refine the table as an attachment to that meeting, you know, and also discuss if there's any other items that the task force would wanna bring in that update.

Okay. Alright. Sounds good.

Okay. So with that, I mean, I looked at some with the help of Jen and others, we looked at some other ways that ordinances have sort of been broken down in a way that you can kinda go through and and discuss the different items. And, you know, my understanding of the intent of the board was to bring forward a an affordable housing ordinance that considers whether or not to do inclusionary housing. I know that it's been said to me pretty clearly that at least my understanding was that this task force would prefer a voluntary program as opposed to a mandatory program, but that's the first sort of initial high level discussion that's on the table is number one is, as I understand it, it would be a voluntary program that provides incentives to develop and include affordable housing units and develop projects. So that's kind of the first and initial step to everything underneath it.

I think, you know, that recommendation can work either way, but it's that are we gonna require it, or are we gonna recommend it, you know, and provide incentives for folks that are developing a project to utilize in order to incentivize the use of it. Right.

Well, I think there's been a lot of discussion that that the task force basically has recommended that an inclusionary is not would not work here in this county. But I think there's there's still open discussion of, like, in lieu fee and how the incentives work. So I I know we've gotten away not trying to say anything was an inclusionary requirement, more of an affordable housing, and that's why we've changed. Because, originally, they were trying to classify this as an inclusionary ordinance, and we went to an affordable housing ordinance. So it wasn't having that persona on it.

Yeah. And I incorrect. And that's why it's titles as such, and that's why I've sort of said this as I understand it would be a voluntary program. On the page two of three in the blue, we start discussing incentives so we can get to that point, but and the things that I heard that would wanna be included as incentives. But just as an example, on this first program structure, the purse the part in purple so its first decision is voluntary or not.

I think I've got the sense that it it the recommendation would be that it would be. The geographic extent, just to be extremely clear, this would be for the county of El Dorado as a whole. Most of our multifamily designations are in rural centers and community regions for the most part. So I don't think it would be in the rural areas necessarily, but we could refine that and and if the final ordinance language said for all community regions and rural centers as an example. But we're just saying it applies to the county, but we have to, and I probably should have put this in a comment as opposed to the geographic extent.

But the Tahoe Basin will be a consideration that we have to work with our partners up there and understand how the nuance of how it works or doesn't work in those areas, and that will be something that we have to work on a little bit more as a as a task force as we develop the actual ordinance. And then the development type, I think I the understanding I got is that we wanna include in that ordinance both allowances for ownership and for rental. And so unless the task force go ahead.

I think that this also so right now, this is kind of geared towards market rate developers who are doing inclusionary or would be inclusionary. But But I think there's also a subset that's a 100% affordable. That's just doing affordable. Right? And that all these incentives and streamlines and and proposals should apply to, you know, incentivize a 100 like a tax credit developer.

We should come off all of these resources. Right?

So just wanna clarify that to me, since the umbrella now is wider and we're gonna encompass all of affordable housing, right, so this instead of just being and we're gonna expect develop market rate developers to build inclusionary, we're saying we now want the whole county to really focus on building affordable housing. So you know, which is both ownership and rental, but I'd also like to say supportive housing.

What was the term I'm saying?

Supportive housing. Supportive. Then that addresses, you know, low income folks that need services, and there are programs and funding sources for that particularly. But that falls under the entire umbrella of affordable housing. It gets to very low and extremely low. So I guess we're looking at it as a whole now.

But wouldn't that follow under just the rental anyways, though? I mean, it's a subset of the rental.

It's just something that's free. Mhmm. It's

not even it's like. Right.

So, I mean, all I'm saying is support housing.

In that development type, you wanna Yeah.

It's just that development type here. That's all.

I guess, yeah, in these type of instances, I'm just looking for the the task force as a whole to sort of Right.

Fine pieces as well. A little bit more in terms of pipe. Right.

And we can go back to any of these if we want to as we go through the whole thing so we can get a a sense of what I've put together. And then if there's one we wanna go back to, I'm happy to do that as well. And I think it speaks to project size is that next consideration for the policy itself. And what I'm trying to get there is project size. Are we gonna have minimums?

And and how I see it differently from, like, a state mandated project, you know, they they must be at least 50%. We can we can determine some percentage that is less than that as an example, but that would help promote without it being a a streamlined affordable project, would help promote the affordable housing components of it without having to reach those levels, but that's that's kind of what I mean by there. And I've seen other jurisdictions, and I I heard a little bit of discussion around this that sometimes there's some tiered approaches where you get certain amount of incentives if you're providing a certain amount of affordable, and so your the incentives are sort of multiplied or added to if you get to a higher level affordable number, and then in the next category, a higher level of affordability. Right? And so it can be tiered based on if you're providing those levels of affordability or project number, you can utilize additional incentives.

So that's kind of what I'm talking about in the first two boxes there. The design standards, I kinda threw that one in based on we didn't get to we get to it in the incentives piece on the next page, but a lot of it seems like there's a good amount of the ordinances out there that kind of address how you're going to determine market rate. Let's use finishes in the in the buildings as an example. Are you gonna require the same finishes in the market rate as the affordable, or are you gonna provide some, you know, flexibility there to reduce cost and and promote. So that's kind of what I'm speaking about on that next box for the design standard piece.

And so in in these instances, I'm saying that we we basically don't know exactly these thresholds right now, and that'll be part of the development of the ordinance. But I'm wanting to let the board know this is kind of the the key considerations that are gonna be included and that we're gonna, you know, hammer down and and get to, you know, sort of resolution on. Okay. So just to clarify, so you don't need the percentages, like, for the affordability of number of units in the development. You're just

to have this kind of a placeholder within the the draft, and then we're gonna get into those.

Yeah. I see, like, this providing the framework of our ordinance and

whole thing.

And this saying board authorizes to go work on this, and then we spend the real time and effort to get to those numbers. Correct. Yeah. So we won't have all the answers there necessarily. Right. But we'll have the framework. And if they're adamantly opposed to some portion of it, then they can express that in that meeting. Or if they're supportive of certain or want us to focus more on this than that, we can sort of tailor the actual ordinance to also you know, based on the recommendations of the task force, but also on the direction from the board. It's kinda

And based on this being structured as a voluntary program as currently described, these would be thresholds for being eligible for the various incentives. And I do think that that warrants discussion because you wanna incentivize, I think, all kinds of affordable housing. And so some level of incentives available depending on the tier of affordability, I think, makes some sense and probably warrants time and discussion. But I like the idea of establishing those as concepts for further refinement as things progress.

I mean, in the state laws, you know, there's, like, some of the affordable streamlined programs. It's a yeah. You have to provide this much. If we're trying to incentivize it, that isn't a requirement. You know, we're not probably looking for that much because they would go that route. But what is the, you know, the numbers that we're looking for underneath that or around that that we feel like would motivate folks to or developers to bring those to the table and and that the incentive, know, the care is worth the the effort. Yeah.

So just to remind you guys, like, through this process, if there is absolutely something in here that we don't wanna further discuss later, please let us know. And that's what we're looking for today so that we can move forward, you know,

with

all of this, which cross your fingers makes some huge headway today. So

Well, it's and and as an example, in the design center, some ordinances I was looking at don't go that far. Don't get touch the finishes. They touch the number of units and the affordability. Whether or not you guys wanna go that route or explore that, I kind of have it as allow for that flexibility. But that can be determined to be appropriate or not based on the final recommendation too.

We were just having a little sidebar. It it does open up Pandora's box.

Okay. Design standards. Yeah. Yeah.

You know? And then that could be hotly debated because it's a red herring or whatever it is. You know? I look at this and worry, oh gosh. You know, you're if you're gonna give that much flexibility to developers, you're gonna have a vanilla box with nothing in it, and then you're gonna have Okay.

Luxury trim. So I think it it is part of that negotiation, but I think what's really one, I I like how you're establishing this, but I think what's really important is the incentive has that carrot has to be really good for them to want to take whether it's funding, it's gonna mean the strings attached, it's gonna mean x y z. So there there is gonna be a lot of things that go into this sort of secret sauce that's gonna make it work. But I think establishing at least you know, you know, the normal route is this. But if you do some affordable and you take advantage of all these state laws, then we

can open up this whole other chamber of opportunities.

Well and and so we this is absolutely the opportunity. If if the the task force feels like this isn't something that we wanna include, we can say that. We can acknowledge it, or we can say to the board, hey. This is one where we're not entirely sure, but we wanna talk about it, and they can say yes or no on

What I would what I would like to recommend is is design and development standards. So the other one that's really crazy for developers is land. Touching the land, the sewer, the blah blah blah blah.

So I have that under the incentives portion on the bottom of two. So we'll get to that piece as was gonna say. More of a just are we gonna include these things or not? Because what what I'm gonna talk about on the next page is

because I'm just saying on

the design standards, most most of the projects that I've worked on or or even seen when I was at the state is they're designed to fit into the community. So if they're in a market rate master plan, they blend into that community. They're not designed to stand out as a separate project. They're designed to be incorporated within the community so that, you know, basically, you're driving by, and you don't know if it's a market rate or affordable. It just isn't apartments. And so I think on the norm, most developers, probably 99% of the developers I've seen around the state, would design it so that they don't stand out, that they don't become oh, yeah. That's the horrible. We know because they got the pink paint or whatever. You know? They blend in.

They do the wood trims. They do the rock, whatever fits in. Right. And most of them are designed to even a higher standard than a lot of the market rate because they have a long covenants on these for affordability. And, you know, they have renters, and so you have turnover and stuff. So they are designed to withstand Yeah. Tenants. And so a lot of times, they're already doing it. Even though it does cost more, they're already doing that on the norm. So that's that's why me and I were having just that little side discussion.

Yeah. Like I said, I I that's why I'm

I'm looking to you guys as the folks that have been involved to help staff understand kind of where we wanna land. Right. You know?

I think the in my mind, the development standard component is likely to be the more critical. Yeah. Right. Maybe that's to Mia's point. But I do think that flexibility on design standards, while not, you know, reducing the bar to where you're gonna get something that's not the expectation for the region, flexibility to allow for, you know, different product than might ultimately be developed. Whether it's higher or lower, just the flexibility there might be good. I think there should be limits on that flexibility, but having that discussion about what level of flexibility serves as an incentive, I do think warrants additional

Would it would it make sense to push this into the incentives category as opposed to where it's Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

And then you can articulate the kind of purpose of it, and I think adding to that would also be, like, you know, new technologies and build. Mhmm. Right?

Yeah. Right.

Modular or this, that that requires x y z changes.

Right. Okay. So, yeah, that can easily be moved. And they're in the same vein, and so we'll

Right. Right.

Get to those. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I guess I was just to me, it was a consideration because I think that was clear that that was an incentive, but whether or not we wanna include this topic, it's kinda where I was getting at on this piece.

And in my mind, it probably just becomes one section of the ordinance, which is develop design and development standards, you know, and it could be discussed in the

same section.

Yeah. Fine. Yeah. Right.

So we yeah. We'll discuss that one a little bit more when we get there, but I it likely requires a a change to the title and that sort of thing just based on what we said. So next is, yeah, policy. I think the in lieu fee, we absolutely at least it was clear to me that we wanna establish an in lieu fee as an alternative to unit construction because some folks may wanna just build, and we don't wanna prohibit that, but we wanna provide this other alternative. I think it's

Let me just say, though, it's never the amount that because it just $35,000 a unit never cuts it. Right? Like, you're never gonna build a unit for that. So the the trade off really is is I just think, personally, that number is really hard to achieve because, realistically, the cost certainly outweigh what's affordable for a field.

Yeah. And what we heard is that this was sort of more of a a gap funding mechanism as opposed to

a It's not gonna be a one to one type of replacement because, like me is saying, we're, you know, we're pushing 4 or $500,000 a unit for construction when you get everything tied into that at a minimum.

Well, and I think we'd also want this to be based I used the word feasibility. Maybe it'd been more appropriate to be, like, nexus study, but Right. Some sort of where we're actually looking at real numbers and not kinda just shoot

And we talked about that, I think, meetings or three meetings ago about that that that would have to be done. It wouldn't be designed by us sitting here saying setting up an arbitrary number of 5,000 or 10 whatever that number is, they would have to be done by that NEXUS study.

Well, this is one of those choices where when I bring it to the board, I'm gonna say this requires some additional work, and we'll have to you know, they'll have to support that. Yeah.

To do that. And I think, Vance, you mentioned that on the other jurisdictions that need that nexus studies when they develop their

Yeah.

Document, I believe. Or

Yeah. Well, they all use nexus studies, and I think that's what the state law dictates they do. And and I was just gonna say, you know, feasibility is also still the correct word because if it's making market rate housing infeasible, it's not gonna work for anybody. So that's that's the importance of, you know, including that within the NEXUS study.

And I would just add again, this is in the context of a voluntary framework, and so it's really a contribution to an affordable housing in lieu fee program that is driven by the incentives that are available for that contribution. And then that contribution can be, you you know, sized in a way that is feasible for the project and then also provides real value. And maybe, you know, if that's selected as the voluntary component, that provides money that can then be utilized in the incentive section to help making to help make projects that are affordable, you know, more feasible.

Yeah. And that's another instance where I don't plan to go up to the border. My intent was not to say, we have the number. Right? We did we got some work to do there, but do they wanna create this in lieu fee program as an alternative to know, it's that high level discussion that gives us that guidance to sort of move forward.

Right. Well, basically, expand from what they have in place now, which I believe is about, like, ten years old or something.

I'm

sorry? Basically, replaces the existing in LUFI that they have now. That's Yeah.

That one's sort of been ad hoc. Right. Right? And so this would establish

it. Right?

Yeah. They've been included in development agreements and because we don't have them as regulatory.

Them or something. Yeah.

Yeah. And so I think, yeah, it's a per unit type of cost. And so but I don't think those were necessarily based in in a nexus type of way. You know? So I think that is the as far as I understand, that is the times where we've got those contributions to that existing fund.

And I think later we talk about, on the last bullet, expanding potentially exploring, expanding those uses of that money. You know? Because right now, it's kinda narrow, and we might talk about what else we'd wanna include when we're in that program when we're culminating this amount of money. And I I don't know if alternative to the was the right way to term this one, but there was a there was a few times that it was discussed or at least it was discussed on how if there was a potential to utilize, like, a special districts or a CFD as an example to offset some costs. And so that isn't something I'm well I know of them in a lot of different scenarios, but not in this context of affordable housing.

So I'd love to maybe get thoughts that we this is something that we wanna move forward and continue to explore.

Well, I think it's an option we could have that depending on you know, if we don't if the development the master plan development doesn't do it like a in lieu fee, then maybe a portion of the community or the community facilities fee, the CFD, because I know some jurisdictions have done it specifically on development agreements where they'll have, like, a community benefit fee or community benefit amount, which I guess you classify that as maybe affordable housing or whatever you wanna classify with the funds would go to, and it's tied back to either a dollar amount or a percentage of the CFD. And so that does obviously raise the cost, though, on the CFD depending on the percentage of it on the long run to the marketplace side of it.

And that's somewhere where I I think staff would have a lot of learnings on that topic too because I haven't seen a CFD, at least in our, you know, area used in that way. But yeah.

Well, yeah, think you guys all just use the CFD. You just covered the actual costs that are into those. So, I mean, it's it's been discussed. I think we've talked Yeah. About several different jurisdiction around the state that have done some of that. And then Yeah. And it might be something I don't know. You know, we'd have to have some other discussions with you guys on how that impacts you guys' total numbers on the on that side of it.

But it's also It's something we wanna explore as part of this deal.

I still think we need to have that as another avenue.

Do you think it's appropriate to term that as an alternative to an in lieu fee? I don't know. I now that we're having this discussion, you know

No. I think it's I think it's more because, again, this is a Almost on this. This is a voluntary program. This so it's a it's a finance contribution Right.

To

an to an affordable, you know, program. Okay. It's it's it's

a con

it's a contribution, you know, funds to affordable housing financed through a CF

Financed through this. Yeah.

Or some kind of tax increment financing, like an enhanced infrastructure finance district.

So maybe it's better to say a special or special district might be

around

the Think about, like, a monitoring fee or finance fee. Call it whatever fee that's acceptable to the bankers, and there'd probably be an upfront capitalized fee and then an ongoing fee. Because the the the term of the loan is gonna be, like, you know, whatever, anywhere between, like, thirty years. So if there's some repayment, and then you're capturing that revenue as an annual revenue back to the account that then goes into

I think there's two different. You've been talking about having that captured on the annual basis. The one I was talking about was just on the initial amount of the CFD.

So there's an upfront. I would say upfront.

Either one type of fee or she's talking about annual fee

I think

during the payment.

Well, we can explore what the right

you know? Right. What mix of that would be. But just having that opportunity.

Yes. Like, didn't you say it was, like, it's still in LUFI, but it was, like, a reduced LUFI.

So the TOPRA would pay

It's not in the LUFI at all.

It's probably separate. That's why

we The financing mechanism. Right? For Right. Yes. Okay.

Okay. And, really, the LUFI here is not an LUFI unless there's a nexus study that's prepared where the county adopts a county wide in LUFI. And I don't think in a voluntary program, that's what we're talking about here necessarily. It's really a voluntary contribution dollars towards affordable housing that is tied to incentives that are listed in the ordinance. And so in that context, it's a voluntary contribution towards affordable housing with incentives involved.

Would the would the task force like me to modify that those types of statements instead of using the I think in lieu is sort of, like, a common term that folks sort of understand, but I understand what you're saying because it's not a mandate, and you're using you know? So it's yeah. We can sort

What about, like, an affordable housing fee?

Currently, it's called.

Yeah. You we never on.

Jen and I talked about what was the journey. Yeah.

That is that is literally the fee that we have in the development agreements, the affordable housing fee.

Yeah. Okay.

So

maybe we just turn it back. Okay. That's fine.

Instead of establishes, maybe it's redefined or, you know, however you want you know, you know, because you it's already established.

Mhmm. Well, it's it's it's sort of ad hoc in those development agreement discussions. So this would say it's this much is why I thought established because it would be determining, you know, that cost. Sure.

Well and then and then the definition of all that is to be sorted. Right. I should go through it. I think you should. Okay.

So let me understand, Sean, just based on how you described the affordable housing fee that we were just talking about, right, voluntary contribution in order to tap into incentives. The way I was understanding the option of a CFD or other special district would work the same way, and that's why in my mind, I heard it as an alternative to a fee. If the developer says, you know what? This pencils out better. It allows us to contribute. And now as a voluntary contribution, we tap into the incentives. We'd like to go this route. Is that

not No. I I guess, I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree with the idea. It's more just that the CFD is a financing mechanism for contributing to the affordable housing fee. It and, effectively, it's a contribution. It's just done through a financing mechanism. So maybe that is an alternative and maybe

Well, maybe it's an alternative to this affordable housing fee. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Mean, that's that's the context.

And we can define it when we're ready to define, you know, under definition.

We changed in lieu fee. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

But, yeah, that lieu fee is a charged word too. So

Yeah. Yeah. Right. So alternative to the affordable housing fee would be these other funding mechanisms.

And I think we should probably less CFDs or other financing mechanisms just to be broader because, you

know I can even say financing mechanisms and use CFDs or something else as a gift.

Yeah. Kinda twist

that around.

And I think the commonality is the county controls it.

K. Next step down on the sheet is land dedication. So that would be just another as as opposed it's almost like another alternative, a third alternative, if you will. And so I I didn't see any real discussion sort of opposition to that, but just wanted to

K.

Yeah. The only thing I'd like to clarify is that donation that is suitable for housing.

There's 30 acres of rock. Exactly. There you go. Crazy.

Great on it. Yeah.

Okay. That's fair.

Yeah.

A suitable donation. Yeah. Okay. Filmable. Yeah.

And we could talk about what suitability looks like as we get into that because there's a lot of I know in my work, there's a lot of considerations on any given piece of land. Right? Partnerships, I think we just wanted to outline that we would that my understanding is there there was a lot of there were some discussions on some different models related to this, but that we would encourage partnerships to try to bring forward, you know, particularly and that's some of those maybe collaborative financing opportunities and, you know, opportunities to partner with nonprofits to deliver sort of affordable housing. And so I don't know exactly how that works in the context of a voluntary program, so it might need some more exploration. But I think at least from my perspective or my understanding, there was a want to encourage that type of activity, you know, if it makes sense and it delivers.

Well, I think, like, the first of all, was some discussion that we initially had was making sure that there was a strong collaboration with the county working with affordable developers on state grants on a timing basis and getting and working with resolutions and applications. Because a lot of times, it's a a partnership with the jurisdiction and the developer of the state. And in the past, the county has been slow on some of that stuff. And so it's figuring out how we speed that process up.

So that may be more programmatic than Right. The ordinance. Right? Right. Implementation piece of that. Yeah. It's more into that.

We are, yeah, we are looking into the streamlining of it too. It's just there's certain board policies we'd have to

Right.

Try to amend to streamline it for affordable housing specifically, not, you know, for the rest of the yeah.

K.

And then lastly, yeah, we have the housing trust fund. That is where our affordable housing fees currently go and just expanding the potential use of that. I think Jen could probably speak a little bit better too, but it's for loans and other thing predevelopment loans, and or maybe there's other opportunities where we can utilize those monies that bring more affordable housing to the table, and we can explore those a little bit more.

Right. And that's also what I've talked in the past too is leveraging those funds, for additional housing trust funds from the state and and using that to grow that rent

a pot of funds as well.

So adding to the growth of those funds, I think the other sort of entrepreneurial piece the county could take is really working so what you do get is kind of cross you know, you might get infrastructure dollars, for example, or maybe the county can apply for infrastructure dollars that then bring in the sewer line to help the affordable housing or something like that. So, I mean, nonconventional maybe or infrastructure support, like you know? And then maybe that's working with, like, your water department or your, you know, blah blah blah. You know? It's really kind of finding and chasing sources that are gonna help development, you know, that kind of thing.

And then one more to broaden that, you know, there is a lot of homeless dollars that are coming through the state that are coming to build supportive housing, emergency shelter housing, and putting that under the same umbrella as your housing and bring being able to tap into some of those resources could also help bring affordable housing dollars. Dollars.

And just so you're aware, like, homeless services is actually through health and human services, so we do have a lot of coordination with them. And, obviously, when they're going after a grant, we can't compete with them, obviously, applying for it because the county can only buy once for the funding. But

being in partnership, do then funding something that you guys are also funding. You know? So that

there is And we yeah. We do. We have That's all it is.

Just I think it's coordination.

That's coordination between departments.

Yeah. And I

did typical that behavioral health and human services would come into the development. Yeah. I can't

and I did I recollect that comment in our last discussion, and I sort of on the in a couple boxes down, I captured it there. So it's in that same same vein where in that one, we're talking about coordination with other affected agencies to identify and coordinate opportunities. That's in the fee reduction waiver deferral sort of realm because we can't do it alone, and we do wanna get our partners involved, see what opportunities are there. So I think it's in that same kind of context where we're looking at all those opportunities as we're utilizing these funds.

Right? Okay.

Are we are we doing pretty good as far as on target and everyone's?

Yeah. No one's objecting to

One additional thing that I think would probably be good to add under policy considerations is affordable housing types because I think there's been discussion both from the public and members of the task force about thinking outside the box as it relates to uses of bubble halls, ADUs as a component of the, you know, solution to the affordable housing need. And so I think somewhere in the ordinance, it would be good to capture the idea of allowing that exploration in the context of a suite of potential affordable options.

That's a great solution. And ADUs are considered by default the missing middle housing.

So you have them towards your.

Mhmm. Yeah.

That's you know, can't go into too deeply, but that's something we've been exploring in our current discussions with project proponents of even trying to get additional, you know, when they're doing maybe master planning and other things to get some of those plans just to allow for easily and so that even the allowance for the selection and having it done up front is is better than and less costly than doing it later and having to sort of tear up the backyard and all that stuff. So

okay.

Well, this is great feedback. I really appreciate it. This is helping me sort of at least put your guys' thoughts into a context. So incentives, of course, density bonus side is the first one I put in there.

Rob, did you wanna go over the housing trust fund in the green still? Just skipped over that last box.

No. I thought we talked about it as far as,

like, I'm expanding the

sorry. I apologize.

No no problem. Sorry.

So I think for density bonus, I mean, we have there's a couple. There's a a density bonus, and I wanna make sure that it's clear when we're talking about this in the general plan that is speaking very about providing open space and having additional units. That isn't this density bonus. Right? This is density bonus.

The state law has the density bonus provisions. This is more of a do we want to allow some density bonus in our own policies that maybe don't have to meet the same thresholds? Like, as an example of something in the state law says five and we wanna go three. I think we have that latitude to to to do that. I think in there, we're talking about establishes a percent of unit increase if a percent of a percent of units are made affordable, and that can differ from the state law, and it can differ based, again, like, in a tiered fashion potentially on what affordability and the number of units or or whatever. So I

don't Are you saying that the county would exceed what the state allows?

I'm I'm saying that we I think we could do potentially, we could allow for more. Is that

Well, I don't know. I was asking you.

We can't be more prohibitive. Right? So we could allow for or or modify our I understand it, you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, there's some density provisions that say you get up to this amount. Right. If you do this amount, we could structure it in a way that is outside of those state laws if it if it makes sense.

Maybe it

should one of the waivers to increase density. Right. So there's a lot of creative ways to get to more density now. And my gut feeling is the state law is gonna be your most progressive. Right? Okay. Pushing the limits.

That's why I'm wondering if we even have needed it there.

That's my feeling. I think you just use all you know, like, the encouragement is to use whatever state law, whatever tools are available at the state level, you know, like Eldorado's

Then if it changes, then the then the county's automatically changing instead of being locked into whatever we said.

But there are lot of jurisdictions who won't even recognize state density focus law. Right? They're just like, not here. You know? And so then that sets up a whole other dynamic where the developer then, you know, has to really go head to head and say, no. You gotta give us all these incentives for this bonus and all that. So, you know, in in your mind, really, it's a tool for you guys to to say yes to more density even though maybe your neighbors wanna say no.

I think also, though, leaving the flexibility for the county to provide density bonuses that go beyond the thresholds that the state mandates, I think, could be helpful. But if it's done that way, I think it should be very clear under density bonus that, you know, reiterating that the county supports the density bonuses available under state law, which, you know, pretty much goes without saying, but I think from a policy standpoint, needs to be implemented that way. But if there was an opportunity for the county to provide additional density bonus incentives beyond what the state allows, seems to me like that could you know, that would be worth including in the ordinance. Now the state already allows a lot, but as things change over time, there may be an approach to density bonus that is, you know, outside the box or unique that a project proponent wants to propose. And if there's the opportunity for that discussion under this ordinance, it seems like that's a positive thing.

Doesn't mean that you have to identify exactly what that looks like because that might be challenging, but, you know, leaving room for that determination of density bonus, yeah, that it that exceeds even what the state allows. There might be value on that.

Yeah. I mean, otherwise, we can, you know, focus we can remove that portion and focus on the other pieces of this and let the state law, you know, be what it is. I I was looked again at other jurisdictions, and there are some that I you know, because it'll say, if you do, you know, state density bonus, you get as this much. And so they've tried to tweak those, you know, the the knobs to allow a little bit here and a little bit there. And and so maybe it's not that where they have to provide, again, like, this much affordability to get that density, but it could be a lower affordability with the same you know, or a lesser density. Again, up to you guys entirely on how we wanna sort of make this recommendation. But if I've miscaptured that, I it's you know?

Hey. I'm wondering because the

the box that describes density bonus doesn't really articulate the conversation we just had. It seems like a weird sort of, oh, here's a percentage, this and that. I'm just wondering because what you just said what we're really looking at is the county's really gonna be, let's say, flexible to all the new state housing laws, period. You know? So it's really and and then that covers streamlining. It covers sequel. It covers all the stuff that you don't have to articulate in the table. But that basically saying, you know, because you're in a housing crisis. You need to build it. We're gonna embrace all these tools.

You're acknowledging it.

Yeah. We're gonna use them.

When I and our intent based on the resolution of intent is to modify that chapter that already has our state density provisions, maybe narrowing or consolidating and, you know, clarifying. But so, yeah, it would work in that vein, I think. Is that so maybe it's better to describe that that we're gonna

Right. Rather than listing everyone out because you're gonna miss something. Right. There's all kinds you know? You need a whole, like, freaking glossary.

But that also kinda gets into the reduction and development standards.

Well, that's the I guess that's where I was trying to fix. So if you have a program that isn't mandatory and you want to provide incentives, the state programs provide a lot of, you know, flexibility, I'll say, in in particularly in standards and other things that can be modified to meet those. If you're not reaching that level of the requirements or the applicability of the state in this requirements, I guess I was thinking that the goal here was to to provide some other options when you're not reaching that level of affordability or something.

I a 100% think that's a great idea. Okay. That's a little bit more. Wanna just for a small, like, talk about three units or four units or something like that. Right? Yeah. Some, like, real low hanging fruit where someone's like, I really wanna build two ADUs here. Like, they can employ this because they're gonna make them affordable or something. Like, I think your reach is you got a lot of people, and I see this in every jurisdiction, that own a lot of land that wanna build four units, that wanna build three units. And you've got your ADU template.

They can go in. They can build those units, and boom. You now have, you know, five new, you know, whatever, five new families moving in or something like that. So to me, if you have your own county, like, affordable housing, like, if you're gonna say, even if it's missing middle housing, 120%, you could have to you don't need anything else, but you need to reduce the standard, then you've got that affordability. You can put it on your arena. Like, boom. No money. Easy. You know, that kind of stuff, like, at that level is super helpful, I think, for a lot of folks who wanna build housing on their land.

Apologize. Just making sure I'm taking some notes.

Oh, that's right.

So the next one in the incentives, I think that I heard in expedited processing. Right? So the state mandates allow some streamlining. We're getting used to that a little bit here in in our shop of of how to react to some of those streamlined requests, but there may be opportunities to incentivize or expedite processing both in the discretion or, you know, the I call it discretionary project because we're talking outside of state mandated streamlining, but but or or ministerial permits that are meeting design standards and other things that aren't state streamlined and trying to maybe model a program that incentivizes or removes some barriers to those types of things. I think, you know, just as an example, and this isn't one that I have brought all the way to the to fruition, but we have a requirement as an example.

If you wanna use single unit detached in multifamily, it requires a planned development permit. That requires, if you don't already have a PD overlay, a rezone. So getting rid of something like that potentially is a is a barrier to allowing, like, you know, those smaller sort of you know, the clustered sort of housing that we might wanna see in those alternatives like Sean was mentioning.

That's great.

So that's a that's an opportunity where we can say we wanna incentivize this. And then when we bring those types of ideas to the board and say, remember, we were talking about trying to remove some barriers. This is an example of one.

Can you I don't know if this is already covered, but, like, you know, building is different than development standards. So, you know, development standards, site standards, that's that's where we all get tripped up. It's very the complicated nature of all the things that have to happen underground, you know, water issues. It just sometimes it's the waterfall of regulations and permits that really trip up these small little sites.

So so in the development standards, we can be more specific. Yeah. I think in that one, I was thinking more of, like, the zoning type standards. Is that what

I'm talking about land. I'm talking about, like, you know, storm water.

Storm drainage. Yeah. Storm drainage and

storm drainage.

Storm drainage costs more these days than anything that is you know, it's union labor sometimes, you know, attaching pipes to black storm water. And then they you don't even in many jurisdictions, they don't even allow a 100% on-site storm water retention. Stuff like that really saves a lot.

Well, ours we have the storm water division in our in our department, and so I'm happy to we'll try to include anybody in those discussions.

I think that's a huge that's a sleeper cost that just eats you up.

But those types of things, not not just the setback and the height and the whatever is Right.

That's great. All of that.

Structure pieces that support.

Yes. That's what gets you that you don't always know up front.

But then there's probably another component to me, which you described, which is building standards as well, because I don't think the building standards, building code requirements would necessarily fall under the category of development standards. So you may wanna expand that description to development and building standards because there may be this happens all the time. It may not even be in state building code, but a local jurisdiction has a code requirement that's old and outdated, and it's based on development of product types that is different than what you're trying to propose. And And so the opportunity for building standard, you know, changes and incentives, I think, could be helpful

too. Mhmm. Mhmm. I mean, we again, as a planning and building department, the building official and the building division is within our department, and so we're happy to work with them further. I know there is a I think they have a a committee that looks at these types of things, so we can challenge that committee. I think it's the building industry I'm pretty sure. There you go. But I mean yeah, we can try to we're happy to as a part of this, and that's kind of what I stated last time. We I know that the initial reaction was let's get something immediately, and there's a lot of considerations here. And we wanna make sure that we're collaborating and coordinating and coming up with something that, as you spoke about earlier, actually works.

And so that's what you know, I think there will be a lot of those conversations that we have to have sort of internally and with any of those, you know, other committees that are appropriate and agencies and other things to try to bring something that everyone can support. So that's a great comment. Thank you. Okay. And then the the next one and so, yeah, we will definitely add those types of things. And we can talk about based on this discussion whether you guys wanna see it again before we take it or not and get that level sense of you know?

I think this is a great framework, though. Thank you. So

fee reductions, waivers, and deferrals. That one, I I also said discretionary projects and ministerial permits. In my mind, that's building permits, but we will phrase it in a different way because that's kinda how I see the the universe. But I think we're just looking at opportunities to for fee reduction opportunities, waiver opportunities, and deferral of fees. And and then, again, in that note section, this would be

have the deferrals. I mean, get the bill now, but now impact fees have to be deferred and can be deferred until certificate of occupancy on affordable projects. That's right. Yeah. And so, I mean, it doesn't cover it doesn't cover, like, school fees and stuff, but it covers the jurisdictions impact fees that they have because we're doing it right now in Platzerville

Yeah.

On a project. So it saves a lot on construction interest on a project. It doesn't seem like much, but when you're talking a couple million dollars impact fees Exactly. Right.

If you extend

it out twelve months, sixteen months, it makes a lot of difference on those types.

Yeah. And we talk about in the next part.

You know, we The best thing is that we could ever do waivers on any of them. I'm not saying waive all of these or or some of them. And then I think some of this we've talked about was a different fee for an affordable project versus a market rate project. Yeah. I know one of the biggest things impacts that I see, at least in Colorado County, is another agency that's not that not controlled by the county is EID for the water. The water fees are very high. And but there's no difference between if I was doing a market rate apartments or affordable project or apartments. And so if there was some way to we'll we'll never get those waived, but if there's a way that we could maybe Pay a reduction? Waiver.

Yeah. So on that notes piece there, we have coordinate with other affected agencies to identify, and and I put

That's what we talked about. That's why

That is exactly what I'm trying to capture

there. We can't force them to do any of this stuff, but if there's any way the county could start having discussions with them, just figure out there's ways we can do that, that

would be great on projects. Financing.

Yeah. Right. It that really helps on our financing side if we can have some type to reduce those fees because, you know, right now, we're at roughly 52 to $55,000 a unit for an affordable project for our all of our impact fees.

Well and I know our next sort of phase after this maybe initial action is to is to work on strategic planning. And Right. I know we have the an another group which I was gonna speak about later, but I'll just say now, you know, the EEI grant that was and we're working with the community foundation to do some public outreach, and they wanna that will influence and support strategic planning. And so, yeah, there's also that also sort of is in the same that would wanna be carried forward in those opportunities too if you know, we'll we'll certainly try as a part of this ordinance. But, yeah, we're not not able to add any language that requires it, but we can start building those relationships even if we get it. Yeah. Right.

K.

Can we add the word finance? So as as a lot of affordable housing developers will actually take fees, they're turned into a residual receipts loan, so they're not treated as a grant upfront. Anyway, that's a very common

So fee reductions

WAVE wait. I wanna say residual receipts loan.

Alternative financing or that's kind of broad. That's not really

because really it becomes a source then in our in our leverage stack.

Yeah. So it's a different utilization of that source of money?

I guess, residual loans because

So it's a different utilization of those funds. Okay.

Right.

Because when we talk about, like, a residual receipt per loan, basically, it's like a 3% simple interest loan. There's cash flow of the product. So it it's a financing structure for the the county would have it on their books.

Isn't that just what the deferrals are, though?

It's not a deferral.

Not exactly. Because you're gonna you're gonna say that you're paying it back.

You're gonna pay it at a period of time. Like, I was just talking about the impact fees. We're gonna pay that certificate of occupancy. We're talking about Mia was talking about a residual receipt loan where, basically, it's it's only paid if it's on the cash flow of the project. As you know, like, any of your loans, like, that you would do for the construction side of it. Mhmm.

Okay.

So it'd be in that kind of stack of financing.

It's basically you're saying we're charging you a fee of a million dollars, but we're gonna turn around and loan it to you to pay us.

Would it be appropriate to kinda call this whole section financing alternatives and talk about fee reductions, fee waivers, fee deferrals, and these loans in the context of that?

Yep.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah. And I will definitely need some support. We're at the board of supervisors to explain some of these things because I

Right.

I'm not intimately involved with And then we just the last part of this was just to sort of incorporate to the to some extent or acknowledge some of the existing programs that we may not be touching in our but as an example, the the traffic impact fee offsets and the we have the existing fee deferral, and we can you know, again, in the state law portion of this, it will acknowledge what is already being allowed. And then lastly, just, yeah, county collaborative opportunities, which is, again, you know, us maybe and we talked about expanding some of those in our discussion today, but that we continue to work to in our existing programs to make them better, make them quicker, you know, and and reduce timing and and impact to the developers and and delays.

Ken's question, how is the traffic impact fee working since that's been established? Is is that an incentive? Are people voluntarily building housing because of it? More affordable housing?

I would say most of the you know, and Jen's a little closer to the program, but most of the projects that I've seen in the most recent years are sort of those streamlined ministerial projects that are then going to utilize that offset, and they apply for it. I think they have two calls a year. Maybe it's quarterly, and then they apply for that. It's it's good for two years, and then they can extend it, I think, one year. There's been a couple times where those had to be reapplied for and preapproved, but they have been successful to support some of the pro projects that have been approved recently.

Great. Sorry. I walked away during that question because of the talking in the hallway. But, yes, Rob was right. We do offer it twice a year. And, yeah, they they are working. They're helping with kind of like a funding gap Mhmm. You know, to get the project

next week. Because, essentially, this is kinda what you're doing now going forward.

We haven't had a lot of just affordable for affordable sake projects. Right? Most of the ones that we've done recently have been some sort of streamlined, and so they but they have utilized this opportunity for sure. Mhmm.

There's a a number cap on it, though. Right? Only a total amount per

Nope. No?

Well so DOT allocates a million dollars of TIF funds to the pot. Yeah. Depending on the number of applicants, yes, the money could run out. Okay. But there is sufficient funds in it at the moment. And then so, I mean, they can apply and I mean, if their project pencils that it's 3,000,000 in TIF funds because it's a huge unit, you know, development, then they get the 3,000,000 as long as it's in the funding when we allocate it.

One thing that we're we're working with DOT still to continue to refine the the TIF based on the last major update, and one of the topics of discussion has been the use of residential traffic impact fees to offset commercial impact fees, which is an area that we take great issue with, potentially a legal concern overall. But I think, you know, whether there's a legal concern or not, it merits looking further into across the board because, you know, if we're paying fees from housing developments, it seems strange that that would then offset a commercial development when it could be going to make housing more affordable Mhmm. Overall. So I think that's a discussion that should be have in in more sectors than just between us and DOT.

Okay. Gotcha.

Well, and I think, you know, it's always a topic that in the at the board of supervisors, they're aware of and the offset and all that. And I think it'll certainly spark some probably discussion along those lines when we're when we're up there talking about it. Mhmm. But I yeah. I would say that the only one of the issues that we've identified and that we work with our partners up in DOT is, you know, there's a it's sort of a check-in time too.

So if fees go up or something based on that TIF fee that you were approved for for a unit amount, you know, how how do you modify that, or how do you incrementally keep that going if it takes two or three years and there's some fee increases or something like that. You know? So trying to look at that too, like, for the life of, you know, not only when it's approved, but until construction and or until submittal of permits or deferred. You know? There's a lot of nuance there, but trying to make sure that it's the money that you needed then sort of also still supports the money that you need when you're bringing the thing to life.

Yeah.

That was so, again, that is sort of my so I guess this would be a good opportunity. Is there anything that I just flatly missed? Is there anything that you wanna add or discuss further? You know, I'm just making sure that we

One thought, you know, again, it's I know it's controversial, but things like a dedication out of TOT for affordable housing. There is an absolute nexus between workforce housing and hotels and workers and tourism and Tahoe, etcetera, etcetera.

So just Yeah. To let you know recently at the board during budget discussions, TOT is not allocated to any departments anymore. It is just a fallout to general fund. So what it would be is just it's in the same general fund pot now. So it is paid, you know, into the county, but it's everyone has grabs at it. And so

I I think of you just putting it out there. Mean, I We're using TOT in Placer County right now for workforce housing. Yeah. So it's working close by. So TOT out of, you know, Northern Placer County, they dedicated a percentage to workforce housing. So that is now going to work for a cell site.

Well, I guess we can probably, in that financing piece, you know, also discuss that's another alternative financing mechanism, right, and have that as part of that discussion.

Yeah. It may not be, but I'm just gonna tell you, you know, the the biggest missing piece of all this is you need money.

Mhmm.

There's no money. There's lots of showmanship, lots of tricks in the hat. Great. You need it all. But there's no dedicated source, and there's no giant mega developer who's gonna come in and say, oh, we're gonna pay, you know, eight digits of fees to the county. Right? And tomorrow, we're gonna start building. So none of this is short term. All of this is long term. So you know? But we do have a short term problem. Right? So I guess, you know, I would just like to implore the county to say, you need to find a source of revenue someplace that you're gonna

tag,

that you're gonna dedicate to the trust fund or to affordable housing or whatever after you do all these great things. Then you have a program that you can actually start delivering housing separate from making the market rate developer build build on their land. And all all I'm saying is what is critical, I think, for Eldorado County is to be able to say we are gonna lead, and we are gonna develop, and we're gonna support. That's why you don't have a lot of 100% affordable housing developers coming to you guys because there's no money and there's no wherewithal. People are coming are the ones that have guns to their heads saying, if you want your project done, then you have to do it this way.

So I'm just saying that works, but what works better is honey. Right? And getting people to wanna do it because it's the right thing because it's an easy thing to do because you have all these, you know, great solutions to helping them, you know, get to the finish line of their construction. Just wanna say, it's still it's still a number.

More than what I have.

No. I just wanna stay thank staff for putting this together. I think it's a really helpful framework for moving the discussion forward.

Yeah. So my intent would be to sort of probably no. I I included a notes column just hopefully for your guys' use. Probably eliminate that. So let me ask, would you would this would the task force like to see a refined one of these implementing before we go?

Because I think I can I think the board is okay that they knew that I was kind of diving in and and sort of trying to and that we're getting close to hammering a recommendation together? And so I think I could probably get that latitude. You know, they they wanna have a a response back, but I think they want it to be meaningful. So And if if if the task force would rather, we can come back and, on the next meeting, sort of further refine and make sure everybody's comments were captured and then and maybe even implement some of that into here, and then you

can see sort of the full view. That would be good. Yeah. Yeah. If we if we could do it for the timing to still go to the board with it and stuff.

And it looks like our next meeting's on September 17. So wouldn't that be an opportunity to bring it back and talk about it again before it goes to the board at the September?

Well, that's so that's where it's a little

about dates, if you want me to mention dates and timing.

Oh, yeah. Was just gonna say, actually, I would have to have my documents for the board produced way in advance. Like, you know, we we have about a month lead time to the board of supervisors. So that's why I was saying

we were talking about it earlier.

Yeah. That's that part we were talking about earlier. So it's either I streamlined it. Yeah. It's either I sort of move forward with this without the second check, we or do the second check, and we try to bring it in October or something.

Yeah. Was gonna say if our next

As soon as we could after that 09:17 meeting.

Then I would say the next 09:17 meeting would be we would have to actually turn it around by 09:22 to our director for approval to move it to the board. So that only allows us

For October.

For an October 21 board date.

Yeah. So We could have a lot of the materials basically kinda teed up, and and we would only

We could finalize it during our meeting. What

What if he just sent us the documents? And if we incorporate if we thought that or do we even have

to be public in a row.

I would unless I just took comments independently. But it Right. We really do want the whole sort of task force to look at it.

Could we publish it early to give them ample time to review with the public?

We could certainly try. Yeah.

And try maybe.

I'm just trying to

see if you

guys could go to the board earlier.

Yeah. I like I said, I think, I mean, as I see it, it's either the it's a two way path. We're either gonna go directly from here to the board of supervisors, or we're gonna come back, and we'll do our very best to get it at the next event. Come back to

the meeting in September. Basically, you're gonna just incorporate everything we just discussed today to that document.

Correct. And we're gonna get a confirmation that everything that you guys talked about was in there so you could see it with your own eyes and make some corrections that we discussed, and that would be sort of the final support. And I'd probably amend the draft or ROI in the section that is the placeholders to kind of articulate the and it'll probably be high level. It'll be the program structure and maybe some examples, the, you know, the court So once we met

a week earlier, would that help your scheduling training in earlier October then? Because it seems like

There are

no that really makes it tight.

There are no board meetings between September 30 and October 21.

So Oh, he's saying if we did the task force meeting a week earlier

Yes.

That might give us time to turn it around. Right?

Well, I think you were talking about meeting the deadline of September to the board.

Oh. No. I was just saying because you you were talking about that if we do the September 17 meeting Yeah. It was tight for you guys to get to

the board meeting and Be Thursday, Friday.

That that would work for staff.

I mean, I don't I don't think it's gonna take

out of town.

You're out

of town. Before.

Okay.

Okay.

What's the board's expectation? I mean, if it came to the board in October instead of September, do you think that's

I think we'd be okay. I can I have regular meetings with them, and I'm informing them of my progress and kind of what we've been doing? And so

I mean, it's I think it's important I think it's important that the task force will be at it again. Otherwise, it creates an awkward situation where if we see it and there's something

Something like,

wait. That's not what I meant.

Our own That's what I don't necessarily want to.

But the only thing we

could do is come to the hearing, you know, we don't wanna Yeah. We wanna do that. So it does seem like it'd be good if we could

have one more meeting. Seventeen.

That would be terrific. Seventeen.

Let's do that. A little bit more time. We will do our very best to get it on the next available meeting. We'll confirm with you guys at maybe at that meeting what we're thinking.

Can you

already send this kinda pre and then adjust it after that meeting? To For the board. Cleared through your process to get on that meeting. And then if there's any weeks Yeah. And I'll just

push to keep the meeting in October with the board.

That's what I'm talking about, the October meeting.

I I haven't

But I think I hear what I hear from Rob is even if we meet on September 17, that there's a way to do that and keep us on track for the October meeting, recognizing that it's tight but not insurmountable.

I think we can do it.

Yeah. I think we I mean, we can basically prep our materials as if everything we've got. And if there's minor tweaks based on what you guys see, that's easy. If there were major ones, that's where I'd be a little bit more like

Then we can discuss, yeah, moving the date.

Right.

Yeah. We just want we don't wanna set an expectation that we can't deliver. You know? Okay. Let's let's plan for that then.

October 21. I was gonna say, would you all like to, since we're gonna aim for that, maybe check your calendars if you guys can be available.

Gonna say was that we K. We have been, again, working on that community

Hold that.

Input scenario outreach with the the community foundation. And so we are trying to coordinate them to come in and kind of just give an overview of you know, we got the grant funded. We got the agreement. They're starting to move forward on that effort. And so it's kind of just an overview just as we kick that off to the task force, and then they'll have lots of work they're trying to take have lots of meetings in the next, you know, coming months and surveys and all kinds of interesting things to get feedback. And then there'll be, you know, early in the next year, probably some some of that feedback loop coming back to you, but at least you get sort of a kickoff overview of that effort. So that's something we're working on too.

So at least October, there would be no budget discussions. Right?

No. So

we wouldn't go through the

Oh, good. It's supposed to be approved in September. So, no, we're good. But I can send an email out and get it scheduled and then

Okay.

Send you guys most likely, we will be scheduled in the afternoon. Would that be correct?

Yeah. Generally, our land use items are after the 01:00 public forum just because as a regular you know, they put our our

So what's the start time usually?

Looking at the calendar now, there is nothing scheduled in the afternoon. So

We would put this on a calendar tentatively, like, probably when we walk out of here or something, you know, to try to So

less likely they might give us the 01:00, which would just be after open forum.

Yeah. Usually, they'll do no sooner than one, but they depending on the public forum comments, it's usually around 01:30. They'll cap it, especially if they have a a bigger afternoon. Sometimes they'll go a little longer if there's only an item or two, but they'll try to get as much of that public comment as they can. But it will be a no sooner than type of a start Mhmm. Generally. Yeah. The only difference would be if there was no calendar items and they said, hey. There's an opportunity so the board doesn't have to wait for the afternoon. But we'll keep you guys informed when we come back and that we should have a pretty good sense of what that looks like.

Good for me. So should we open this up now, the public comment? Just sec.

Yep. Before

I forget that one. Alright. So we'll open up public comment for agenda item number three. Any comments in the room?

Great discussion to start with. Thank you. Fascinating listening in. And I, again, appreciate all the the wisdom and experience all of you bring to this task force. It's been impressive. I just a a little sidebar comment, and I don't know if it fits in here or in the housing element or somewhere else. But what I find lacking what I find as, you know, former school superintendent when I've implemented lots and lots of programs and new ordinances and so on, The key is you can path you can find the best curriculum or the best program in the world. If you don't implement it well, you you might as well not have you're wasting your time and your effort. You're you're wasting a lot. You're not getting the impact you want.

And the key to that is accountability and measurability about that and having accountability built into whatever you're proposing and that you have that and you abide by that. It's just like the housing elements. What I've experienced is the housing element reports. The chart that I gave you earlier is drawn from those annual progress reports that every jurisdiction is required to file. In El Dorado County, what's happened is that the those file those reports get filed in the consent agenda and buried, basically.

They are about if you've read them, they're, what, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty pages long. They're hard to read to begin with. They're not very transparent for the average member of the public. What we did with this chart, which we produced ourselves, and we have an annual update of it on a spreadsheet. My suggestion is you have some kind of accountability strand built into this somewhere because I think it would help to, you know, celebrate the progress, you know, because I hope the chart I presented to you, I'd like to see a different chart three years from now.

I and I hope your work results in that. I hope the hard work of the planning staff results in that. But without a regular reporting, some you're you're not you're not gonna you're not holding everybody's feet to the fire in terms of getting the work done and making it happen. So my recommendation is the annual progress report that's required by law becomes a real much more public, much more understandable document that you are publicly holding on, not bearing it in the consent agenda, but publicly reporting on it. In the school business, we used to have this public budgeting reporting tool, and it was a much more took a very complicated budget and reported out what our progress was in a very understandable way.

And so I would urge you to include that in your proposals as you move forward. Thanks for your time.

Any other public comments in the room? The online.

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

Alright. We have no public comment online.

Pardon me, mister chair. I'd like to respond to that because I think my so as part of my responsibilities here at the planning division includes the long range planning unit, which prepares that report. So I've heard the comments clearly. I'll discuss it with staff, and and so I appreciate the comment. I'd you know, I don't know. And we'll try to maybe discuss that at a later date if the task force wants to on what that looks like. They're generally in the early part of next year. I think they have to be filed with the state by April or some I I if I don't know the date exactly, but I it's usually the first part of the year. So certainly understood, and and we'll discuss that further with my staff.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. So we already talked about the next meeting. It's gonna be September 17, 10AM. Any other business? Otherwise, we have a motion to adjourn. Moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. Thank you, everyone.

Yep.