Calling to order the um Housing Health and Education Committee meeting for September eighteenth, twenty twenty-five.

Let's please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Councilmember Shacklet will not be here today at all.

Councilmember McShane is running late, and so we have three items on the agenda other than the minutes.

So we have um a presentation from Habitat on the um two hundred thousand dollar grant, and then one from the junction.

Oh, I don't see anyone here from the junction.

They're not presenting at all, so letters that I can speak to this, Madame.

Okay, sure.

Thank you very much.

So President Nash will speak to the Again, this is informational about funding that was provided to both um Habitat for Humanity and the junction for MPDUs.

So it's part of our work to consider the MPDU program.

Um an update as to the funding they received and what the funding has been used for if it has been used yet.

So just for the public's sake, I wanted to sort of provide that context.

We have invited those recipients to present, and that those presentations are forthcoming in October.

So there will be additional information, but we but we put this on the agenda because a couple of reasons.

We've had a lot of conversations about the MPDU in lieu of program in its entirety.

We've had a lot of conversations about the use of the funds and the uh acceptable uses of the funds, and we covered that in our last meeting two weeks ago.

We did we began that discussion.

And then we've also had discussion about the expenditure of the funds, so and the timeliness and what those funds are being used for.

So sort of three different uh tracks.

Uh and so this is that third track, and it's informational today because we wanted to make sure that we put it on the agenda to provide the information that has been thus received.

Uh we will follow up with the Lucas Village recipients.

We have not been able to receive an update from them yet, so we're gonna follow up on that and where that project is.

Uh but I did want to just make sure that everyone knew they had been included and they have been invited uh to to present as well.

So uh it's informational only today, madam chair, because we wanted to just provide the information in your backup so that everyone had a chance to read what was submitted uh so far.

Um but other than that, I think that's probably unless there are additional questions or uh direction for that specific topic area, we can probably move on.

But that was really the the genesis of having it on the agenda for today.

Thank you very much.

I actually do have just uh a relatively quick question.

So the um the the funding comes from the um MPDU fund itself, right?

And one of them is this 200,000 um grant to habitat for humanity, and my understanding is that that project on West All Saint Street um is actually a condominium project, so the people will actually own those homes, correct?

And then the two million dollar um for the junction, and maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but are those are rentals, correct?

Those are rentals.

So I'm just gonna be very clear that um uh when when we have this conversation more in depth, um I would consider possibly providing more funding for um the purchase condos.

Um again, I understand that the costs on those were much higher because of the supply chain demands and the you know COVID and and just kind of everything.

The the amounts on those were were pretty significant, significantly higher than expected.

So as we have that conversation, I'm just gonna note to Habitat maybe don't hesitate to make a request that I might support.

We'll do it next.

Um it will be on the agenda.

I'm sorry if you can't hear don't don't don't hesitate to make a request that um you know could change things.

So um excuse me.

Yes.

I just want to remind these letters or as the EGT committee, but the presentations from recipients will be at the government ops committee because it relates to um an update on MOUs contracts.

Um those will be on October 2nd for the junction project and October 16th, off the top of my head.

Um thank you for Habitat for Humanity, and that will be at the government operations committee at 2 p.m.

And that will be for both of them.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

So my comments stand.

Okay.

Um Madam Chair, before you move on, I think you I think you've hit on something that when you were talking, I realized I don't know the I don't know the answer to.

We haven't really explored.

When Habitat came forward with this project, it was unique in its nature, and it was also, and they're here, and I I'm talking to them like they're not here, but there were factors, I believe, that contributed to the success of that project.

It might be helpful when they give their presentation or even just a separate presentation before this committee to talk about what needs to happen to make what you're talking about happen.

I don't know the answer to that sitting here.

Uh you know, was it the dedication of the property that made it all the financing work in a favorable?

I don't rem I remember when we had the discussion before, and but I don't remember as I'm sitting here, and so maybe that might be helpful also to just understand how that project was successful and what we can do to make that happen.

And and and if it cost um, you know, if if there is funding that they have to pay down.

You know, so again, we are gonna have this conversation at the government ops meeting on the 16th.

Um this is today simply for information, so we are not expecting anybody to speak on it.

I think what we're trying to do is just let you know that it's a different kind of meeting.

The more information you can provide, the better off we are, and if we know where you are exactly in the project, and if you owe money or if how you made the project work, I think are exactly the points that we're trying to make.

I am um I know that it seems like I'm trying to stretch this out because I'm trying to stretch this out because we really need another committee member here.

Um but I guess we'll just have to move forward with that, and they'll have to catch up.

Um I do know that councilmember McShane does listen to these as he's driving, and he's dropping his son off.

So hopefully, council member, you were hearing us.

So let's go ahead and go to um the affordable housing overlay, geographic applicability, and that will be um director collard and president Ash.

Not sure who's given the So I can I can start.

And Madam Chair, when you offer the ability to have an open mic and talk about housing and give me no limit and tell me to filibuster until I mean that that basically is a dream, a dream come true.

Uh so but I won't I won't, I'm just kidding.

So just to recap, two weeks ago we uh continued the conversation about the overlay versus um floating zone, and I rewatched that meeting this morning, and I was painfully aware of when I'm tired, I say I'm a lot.

So I'm gonna really try to be mindful of that.

And the conversation we settled on that we wanted to make sure that the whatever we did was citywide.

Uh if I can recap and and council member McShane was not here, but I feel per fairly confident given the earlier draft that he had worked on that that that was something that I believe we we share.

So we we answered that question, which believe it or not is actually a policy question that usually gets folks pretty pretty stuck.

So that was more work than it it seems is easier than it seemed, but it it certainly was uh a positive and necessary step forward.

The thing one of the do outs that we had for from that meeting two weeks ago was to provide some examples, and so what you have the public has in it in our backup are examples that Clara pulled together.

Thank you, Clara, as always, of what we're talking about when we talk about an overlay, and we sort of right now at this at this point we're we're using overlay by right, floating zone loosely, and I I do I imagine that that makes Gabrielle skin crawl.

So I acknowledge that that we're doing that.

So when you're looking at the backup, just be aware that when we sort of compile what other communities are doing or the different components of what other communities are doing.

We haven't we haven't made the policy call yet about what specific language we want to use.

And I I don't do that flippantly, I'm just sort of flagging it as my own bias of saying these things and and interchanging them as we look at what other communities have done.

The examples that Clara pulled together, and Clara, you certainly are more than willing to speak up for yourself or able to speak up for yourself, but as I understand it, Clara looked at similar population cities with specific policy decisions according to an overlay.

Is that a fair summary of what you did?

I don't want to I wouldn't say that the uh same population as Frederick, but as a good variety to get a sense of how many different cities across country have specifically looked at overlays, and they use that term loosely.

Some of them are designed to be for a just a neighborhood, but other ones are um like Salt Lake's a good example, designed for the whole city, but they're kind of tailored to different zoning types to ensure that they align with the character of the neighborhood.

So a lot of different options to look at.

And if there's one in particular or particular type that you guys are interested in, I'm happy to do more research and pull more examples along that vein.

Um there's there's a lot of options out there.

Thank you.

So the affordable overlay conversation, Councilmember McShane, the backup is in our backup.

Uh we what the other thing that Clara did when she performed this research is she broke out affordability levels, which is another policy decision we have to make, as well as and she included the geographic scope, and I started the presentation by saying that by saying that citywide makes it a heck of a lot easier, but obviously there may be some considerations for different types of zoning.

And we have not yet made that conversation, or we've not made that policy determination.

Is it all is it all zoning?

Are there different incentives for certain types of zoning?

We haven't we haven't called that, called those balls and strikes yet.

And we have also not settled on the incentives for developers, but Clara did provide a robust list within her review of these examples of those incentives.

It's there are no surprises here with respect to the incentives, obviously, parking always comes up, density bonuses, setbacks, always gonna be a reoccurring theme.

But as you look at these examples, these now provide some, you know, one of the things I like to do when I'm considering new policy or new legislation, I'll Google it and say what the community said about.

I just like to know like what were they talking about when they when they were passing it.

So this also provides us with an opportunity to just to do that extra work.

One of the other discussions we had two weeks ago that we were looking to get additional information on was the preservation of community character.

I I still need to do more work on that because every time I went and I looked at that, I sort of went down a rabbit hole of I'll just say NIMBYism.

And I don't I know that's not what we were you were looking to answer the question.

So it was it was difficult to when I initially when I looked at this, it was difficult to parcel out true policy decisions based in planning versus well, I just don't like the idea of new houses going up next to me, right?

Um so and what we all know not just new houses, but houses at different levels of affordability.

So I'm still working through that, and I know Claire and I can work on that together, but uh I did want to answer that because I didn't want to ignore that we haven't ignored it, we're just need a little bit more time to do the work on that.

So we I'll stop there for a minute and just see if there's any comment or reaction to to the research or to the conversation that we've we've been having.

Yes, thank you.

Um great to see so much work going into this so far.

I'm really excited to continue moving this forward.

There is a long list of potential incentives, bonuses, things like that.

Um we're we're sort of endeavoring to pick what we think would be best for our community, but also most impactful to moving projects forward.

Um increasing housing affordability as as one goal of moving projects forward, activating lots or or parcels that have been dormant for a long time due to peculiarities.

Some of that is is the benefit of of doing this.

We know offer some some incentives, some bonuses, and suddenly a lot that no one has really been able to make functional becomes viable.

That's a a big bonus to doing this.

For the geographic area, I am very much inclined for it to be citywide.

Don't think it's a good idea to pick and choose which neighborhoods or which types of residential areas we're going to increase affordability and which ones we're going to keep exclusive.

I don't think we should do that.

I think it's citywide.

The only question I have about that is whether or not a policy would allow for residential development in a zone where it otherwise isn't permitted.

So when we add when we say this would be citywide, does that mean potential bonuses and incentives would be available to a residential development that in some form was already able to be proposed in that zone.

So it would apply to R4, to R6, to R20 to mixed use.

Okay.

I'm on board with that.

Different question, and I don't believe this is what anyone has proposed, but a different question would be would this be a scenario that would allow for an affordable housing project to move forward in a zone that currently isn't zoned for residential that comes to my mind when we talk about citywide.

And I think that would be complicated to open that door.

Could I debate with you for a minute?

Yeah.

So do we think though that there would be a benefit in incentivizing general commercial adaptive reuse for affordable housing projects?

Or is that so out of our scope right now that we want to focus?

I see the I see the flip side on there are different considerations if we start putting housing in and and again I'm sure Gabrielle's losing her mind.

But but that's the but that is it is a conversation, right?

About where do we typically have where have we typically incentivize these projects and do we want to do we want to change it up?

I think as a policy, I think it could be valuable to encourage adaptive reuse of even some general commercial areas.

I'm wary to involve that in this affordable housing overlay.

I think the affordable housing overlay that we're discussing is already pretty big and complicated.

I think adding in a more significant, almost, you know, sort of rezoning aspect into this.

Really what I think we're talking about to put it in kind of like a narrative sense is I would like to introduce bonuses and incentives to encourage more affordability on projects being proposed to as residential projects.

I think the starting point would be a residential project is possible on that parcel.

So I think I'm envisioning an affordable housing overlay applicable to all zones that currently allow for residential development, not as a way to start getting residential into zones that don't currently permit residential development.

That's another idea, but I think that should be a separate idea.

And I I strongly feel the opposite.

I think that the because we are doing this, the way we're doing this, citywide, having conversations, it it essentially is rezoning parcels anyway.

So I think that adaptive reuse absolutely needs to be part of this.

I can think of a number of large parcels that could benefit greatly from not just affordable housing, but the world is changing.

So I think that with with the world changing like that, we need to have more places and a mixture of places for people to live.

So I see this covering those spaces.

I also want to throw out to my colleagues.

My number one priority in this conversation and when discussing this concept is to move into law.

A policy that will benefit affordable housing construction.

If we expand the scope of what we're discussing to include those valuable ideas around adaptive reuse of general commercial or I have entirely zero confidence that we will move this process forward, and that this will become a policy on the books.

Based on timing, based on how much work that will be, we're not going to get this done.

I didn't a more narrow focus on affordable some bonuses and some incentives and some more narrow focused ways to move some projects forward, I think could be achieved, and we could accomplish a good thing.

IST zone brings it like an IST floating, we've we've seen more requests for that.

Like we haven't seen a general commercial, and I'm not saying we can't and we don't have that conversation.

What you've seen, council member or madam chair, is you've seen some thoughts about reusing IST zoned properties like the faith institutions, and I'm I'm almost wondering if those specific requests are handled in a separate piece of legislation because there are different considerations.

So what council member McShane is saying is if we limit it to residential, we don't have to have the conversation about you know how do you how do you how do you take a shopping center and make it adapt it to housing?

It is more complex, right?

It needs to happen, but it and I'm just wondering maybe we should bifurcate those conversations, let one move and continue the work to talk about IST zoning because that's probably been the most uh when you look at what the county's doing at Oak Street, that's IST, that's gonna be a re it's gonna be an adaptive reuse of that property, they're gonna rezone, and then I'm just I think we can do both.

Like there's a way to do both without holding one up for the conversation.

I do think I I do think there is a way to do both without holding one up for the conversation, but anyway you look at this, we are talking about rezoning.

Let's get some information from Gabrielle and hold this conversation until after we have that information.

Thank you, no, agree.

I I can't avoid a good zoning conversation.

So thank you.

Um Gabrielle with the planning department.

So I hear a lot going on, right?

When we talk about affordable housing, we talk about it being a multi-prong approach to solving this big problem, right?

We all we all I think when we say we all, the the you know, the community of large understand that um there's not going to be one specific fix to any of this.

Um and I'm hearing that there are several concepts.

Um we're talking about um increasing density and just increasing housing supply and incentivizing someone to build more residential units and and an affordability point that that we um want to incentivize.

Um then we also have projects like the low-income housing tax credit projects that in my experience and what I've heard in my um in my role with the city.

There's not land available for them.

It I feel like we have had developers come to us with interest and they're looking around for properties, and they're aren't available.

A lot of our residential zoned land is developed already, and it's not going anywhere any fast.

No, redevelopment starts to happen, right?

But in a newer neighborhoods, that that is many, many years, probably long, long um after our lifetimes here from seeing real reinvestment.

So you think about your core, you think about the downtown, you think about um where we're starting to see some turnover and we want to see more intensity and density.

And so that speaks to me as an overarching goal, not only in the affordability realm, but just in our our overall growth policy to increase and expand density and um to be able to provide more housing supply, which in effect turns into hopefully more affordable housing options for people.

So I think separate looking in the context of how do we support a low-income housing tax credit project that comes to the city and goes, I want to build 100% affordable units through this program.

We have had um developers come and look at properties close to the airport that we go, you know what, that's not going to probably be a suitable location, period.

End of story.

Um it to say this politely, it feels like people are grasping uh the the Warman's Mill Court development project that was rezoned to MU2.

Uh very fundamentally that was a residential project that was a low-income housing tax credit affordable project that couldn't find anywhere else.

This was the land that that was available to them, and the tool that they had was mixed use.

They did not comply with the mixed-use provisions.

They had to ask for concessions because it wasn't the right tool, right?

They wanted to build an affordable housing project, and they had to throw in a non-residential component to get there.

Um so that says to me that there is a tool we're missing specific for those types of projects, which when you think about a floating zone concept and you think about opening up what base zones to allow for that, um, that that could be an option.

We say if you are 100% affordable property, this is an affordable housing floating zone that can be applied anywhere, and then it allows a context specific.

Is it supposed to go on GC?

Is this a good GC property to locate it on?

Is it zoned, you know, M1?

Does this make sense there?

Um so I think that's kind of one conversation, and then the other part of the conversation is how do we incentivize higher densities and affordable housing in our already residential zoning districts, which may be a different tool.

Um, so I think this is a long, a long way of saying I think we're having a conversation about different tools that could be applicable.

Um, and we should be open-minded about all of all of the tools.

I think the institutional is another example that we've heard from the community that there's interest in partnering affordable housing projects with faith-based institutions or other or publicly um operated and owned kind of uses.

So I I think defining the affordability comp part of this is very important, and now is where I start to step away from zoning and very much more stewards.

But what what are our standards for affordability?

Are we looking to attain?

Are we looking to encourage 100% low-income housing tax credit affordable projects?

Are we looking to establish more affordable housing, maybe not at the same AMI at the same affordability level in residential projects otherwise?

So we have the NPDU density bonus that if you provide 12.5% of your units in a market rate development as affordable, and then you want to go beyond that 12 and a half percent, you get a density bonus.

No one has used that.

Um I don't think it's enough of an a bonus to incentivize anything.

So if you're just trying to infuse more affordable housing in market rate neighborhoods, either eliminating the fee and load of altogether or really looking hard at that density bonus and create it as something that's meaningful, and maybe that applies more in your your already residentially zoned areas.

Um but overall, I think I think we have a lack of undeveloped residential land, and that's part of the problem, um, and that the redevelopment options that are zoned residentially and the redevelopment options are really more in probably the more core area of the downtown, right?

In areas that are zoned DB, DBO, DR will see the infill, but that doesn't address the whole of the city.

So, in essence, what I'm hearing is um if we don't use all types of land, we're not going to achieve the purpose that we're looking to achieve.

Sorry, what's the last time?

If we don't use all types of land, we are not going to achieve the purpose that we're trying to achieve.

Is that fair?

I if if we take our residential zoning districts and we expand the density allowances for affordable housing, uh I think we still have limited opportunity, yes.

So have have we had conversations with the development community about this because you can expand density bonuses as far as you want if the if building it is not going to make money, and let's just be honest, I you know everybody does their job to make money.

Well, some less and some more, but it's a job.

You may a developer is making money, that's what they're doing.

Um, even if we triple the density bonus, if if in doing that they either can't build it or they can't make money on it, then there's no sense in them even following through.

So again, if we do not expand this beyond residential, will we be able to achieve and have we spoken?

Have we spoken to developers about this?

Your residentially zoned land is predominantly developed, except you're annexed areas.

Right, right.

Um, things that we've annexed, Christoph Wynnepenny, those are R4 or six or eight.

You look at R16, you look at R12, R8.

Most of it's all developed.

Yep.

Um when you look at things like R6 and R8, we get into conversations about kind of mi the missing middle housing, right?

Yep.

The fact the opportunity for a developer to buy up a bunch of individual existing homes on R8 property to build them into something bigger, probably don't it doesn't really exist right now, right?

You know, exactly the neighborhood you're not gonna buy it up and get everyone out and rebuild something for the next hundred years, where we have opportunities to promote affordable housing and not affordable housing, and that's why I say we're talking about what we mean by affordable.

Are we talking about live type projects, or are we talking about creating an opportunity for an R state property to be which you know allows a townhouse or actually multi-familiam is a lot in R, but R4, right, which allows single family.

Are we talking about well, that doesn't serve us well anymore?

Because at some point we want this R4 lot to maybe be able to be a duplex because now we're introducing more housing supply.

Now that's not the same affordability level as a LITEC project, right?

We're not talking about uh a specifically designed affordable housing project, we're just talking now about housing variety and choice and options and smaller units and those sorts of things.

So I I think that's why the conversation about when we say affordable, what are we talking about?

Because those things are gonna be a bunch of different tools.

If if today we we all said, you know what, we've seen interest from low-income housing tax credit projects, and they come to us and they go, there's nowhere for us to go.

Just increasing the density in R8 and saying, well, now you can develop at R16 isn't going to help them because they there's no RA property out there, and they're not gonna buy up a hundred homes where people live and rebuild this project right now.

Um so that's a different tool, right?

We maybe a floating zone for affordable housing is appropriate to open up other zoning districts and go, okay, well, maybe like we have MU, right?

The Westbridge shopping center, um, got rezoned from general commercial to MU2 to allow for residential to be infused with the non-residential component.

Now, the the goal of that zoning district is mixed use.

If you're saying a goal of something like a floating zone is affordable housing, then you define those parameters.

Um, and then you allow for that same sort of review process to go, okay.

Does it make sense to put affordable housing on this property that's currently zoned GC or does it not?

Are there compatibility issues, or there are other problems?

Um what are what are we trying to achieve in terms of affordability is so I I think what we're trying to achieve is being able to move forward.

Um and the concern is that we won't be able to do that if we expand and use other types of properties, and and and I think that council member McShane makes an excellent point.

We have sat up here and tried and tried and tried, and we feel like we're stymied.

And so we would like to get something moved through, and the fear is if we expand that outside of residential zoned properties, it's not gonna happen.

And the fear is if we expand that outside of residential zoned properties, it's not gonna happen.

It's just not gonna happen.

So doing something for just residentially zoned properties doesn't really get us anywhere.

It's a nice thought, but it really doesn't get us anywhere.

We have to expand further to make the difference that we want to make.

Does that make sense?

So the question for you, I think very specifically is can you do it?

Can uh how quickly can we do this?

I think I don't I'm I think addressing residential densities is an important part of the affordable housing conversation, right?

If we only think you can have single family lot that has to be this big and you have to put a home on it that's gonna cost you 800,000, like that's right, an affordability issue.

Having variety of allowable residential units, size, shape, you know, all those good things is part of the affordable housing conversation.

If the conversation is specific to low-income housing tax credit, habitat for humanity, specifically, you know, kind of targeted affordable housing, then I think the concepts that we've been talking about of either a floating zone, an overlay, if there is a geographic area you want to promote that.

Um I would caution with with trying to attach it to a specific geographic area.

You you would want to have some basis for it and say we need affordable housing over here, so you'd want to have some data to support that sort of decision to target it.

The way I look at the floating zone concept or um the incentive zoning where it would be by right, but subject to conditions, so kind of functional a little bit like a rezoning um because it's their performance indicators in terms of affordability, those opportunities I think are are setting the table and creating um creating removing barriers and allowing people to respond to it in the market, right?

Allowing a developer to go, oh no, there's this new tool.

I've been looking to do a lie tech project in the city of Frederick, and now you know this these properties were just opened up to me as potentials, um, so it's removing a barrier to that.

And I think those those options and that the conversation about which of those options is you know, really about the extent to which the council feels that regulations can be crafted that are predictable and we all understand and agree to as a community that if these are implemented that we don't need a public hearing process.

We don't need a level of discretion from the council that if if we can agree to terms of affordability, terms of what you get in return, what kind of development okay.

Before you move any further, please, when you use the terminology, we don't need a public process.

Let's acknowledge that there will be a public process.

It just doesn't come before the elected body.

Thank you very much.

Yes, absolutely.

And buy right if you do this, then yes, there's absolutely thank you.

There's absolutely a public process.

However, the level of discretion to say no, we don't like it here is lowered or non-existent.

Um so, yes, it's that question.

There's always there's a public process, yeah.

Thank you.

Um so the questions that you need answered really have to do with um the AMI, correct?

You're looking for for an AMI, and and I have to tell you that personally, my brain doesn't go um 50% AMI, 70% AMI, not like that's not how my brain works.

But I can also tell you that you know, FCAR came out with um a report, and the amount of homes in Frederick County under $300,000 is abysmal, more than abysmal.

So we have I I don't know what that means.

What what percentage of AMI is that talking about?

I think that when we when we talk about these things, we have to talk about other numbers also.

So if I'm gonna say 40% AMI, then I want somebody to say to me, that is a home that you pay this amount of money for.

Because it makes no sense to me.

And if it makes no sense to me, I can promise you it makes less sense to most of the general public.

I think the affordability standard is is you know, kind of a threshold question, right?

Are we asking that 100% of the units be uh X AMI?

Are we saying 50 percent?

And what are the incentives that they're getting in exchange for those?

Do you have some sort of tiered system where you include a certain percentage of certain units at an AMI and you get a scale um you know, at 100 percent you get this.

Um I think that affordability thresholds.

I am looking for a mixture of units also.

I am not looking for an entire um redevelopment that's all 30 percent AMI.

Like I am not looking for a bunch of 200,000 homes all put together.

I'm looking for, you know, two to four hundred, sure.

A mixture.

There needs to be a mixture in there because in my mind, one of the worst things that we have ever done is concentrate poverty.

And we continue to do it.

And I won't be part of it.

My assumption is that policies that we're discussing.

We could have the greatest impact by tailoring policies toward some modest goals of increasing somewhat affordable housing.

Probably as a mix in projects.

I'm doubtful that we have any dial we can turn, any breadth of incentive that we could bake into our policies that would result in swaths of houses being built to be sold for under $300,000.

I don't think that I can't imagine what we could do that would that would unleash building after building of units that these whole buildings are gonna be are gonna be offered at at under 30 percent AMI.

We've thought about this and and tinkered on this for a long time.

I I can't imagine what we what we can offer, what we could do that would move that much money in a project that that's gonna move those those forward.

And I think if we if we tailor a bunch of policies with that as the goal, I I don't think I worry it's gonna result in nothing happening.

We're like, well, we'll give you these bonuses.

You can build anything you want as long as you offer everything at this extremely affordable, you know, the the dream goal, I worry no buildings are gonna be built.

Like there's there's not a way that the the there is not a a mix that there's not a a cocktail we can offer that's gonna do that.

Even if even if that might be our dream.

So I think it's more impactful to think about offering opening up some new opportunities.

With the even unfortunate acceptance that w we're only gonna we're gonna dip down into more affordable, but I I don't think we're gonna be able to turn the clock back and be offering somehow enticing developers to come and build homes and then they're gonna offer them for for sale or for rent at prices from 25 years ago.

And and I think we'd be making a mistake trying to draft a bunch of you know, basically selling a product that that we don't have buyers for.

And the buyers are builders, not the home buyers.

We've got lots of home buyers.

We've got lots of people waiting looking for a home, but we we need to incentivize that intermediary, that person who's gonna build the home that they can move into.

And what about subsidizing those homes?

With with um the so I know we're we're gonna talk about MB the um PDU fund on the I forget 16th, something like that.

Um we won't get there like but when that point comes, when we're having that conversation, I think this needs to be part of that conversation also.

I think that's really difficult too because we're talking about so much money.

You know, if if we've got houses selling, I don't I don't know what to do.

This is depressing.

We've got we've got houses selling, but there's houses selling for $600,000.

What what is what is a person that we want to help need as a subsidy?

$250, $250,000 to get that house down to $350?

Okay.

So if if we took $2 million, we could help eight houses.

Those people deserve help and support.

But we've had 90,000 residents in the city, and that $2 million, we can give a quarter million dollars to eight times because sometimes these other subsidies that we talk about, what?

You know down payment assistance, then they can't afford the mortgage.

I mean, you know what, oh well, here's you know $15,000 in a down payment assistance to help you get in get in the door of a home you can't afford when the first mortgage bill comes.

So then we're talking for real subsidies, hundreds of thousands of dollars?

I don't think it's that high.

I I mean, yes, I agree that it is it's not fifteen thousand dollars.

But is it fifty?

Maybe.

I I I think that the numbers need to be looked at in ways that so if I'm living in an apartment and I'm paying uh $2,000, $2100 a month rent, what home can I afford that could possibly be subsidized so that I end up paying $2100 in a mortgage payment and actually getting something back, again, generational wealth, building generational wealth.

I don't think that we've looked at those numbers.

I don't think that we've looked at them hard.

I don't I don't think that we have I don't think we've taken it seriously at all.

And I think we should.

But even in in that, if if you know, a subsidy for a home purchase is $50,000.

I think still what we're talking about, we're still talking about helping people who could almost afford it.

If they they just needed that they just need that that little where are they?

And maybe that is our opportunity in these various in these various ways.

Maybe our opportunity is closing the gap for people who were sorta close.

But I'm doubtful about dials we can turn and incentives we can offer that will create housing opportunities, especially home purchase opportunities for our families that in this economy and in this housing market truthfully are are nowhere near close.

I don't see what we can do on on our local municipal level to close that sizable of a gap that that some people are looking at when they're when they look at houses and and everything's the mortgage would be 80 percent of their income.

Ninety percent of their income.

I I don't I don't know what what we can do to to adjust for that.

So I think our best options are probably looking at things focused on the missing middle.

Things focused on closing the gap for renters or home buyers that were were pretty close even in this current market.

And maybe we can try to bake in some bonuses that include to in incentivize a portion of units targeted toward 30 percent AMI and and points like that.

But it's gonna be I'm expecting a small portion because I don't see ways that we can encourage a project to carry a majority of that and be able to close that that financial gap for the project to move forward.

May I interject briefly?

Thank you.

Um so it seems like we're kind of wrapping up on this topic.

I just wanted to kind of make sure we're all on the same page.

In terms of geographic acco acquitability, excuse me, of any of the tools that we're looking at.

We're looking at whole whole city, um, not just residential commercial.

So I'm glad we reached an agreement at that point.

I think the next HHE meeting, we're planning to talk more about the mixture of affordability.

Some of that information has been included and what how we're defining what an affordable house is, so um or affordable uh development is.

Um of that information is already included in this research, and I know that got it very last minute, and I know you guys will need more time to digest that and figure out what direction you want to move in.

I'm happy to look at that.

They do um mention AMI, I can translate that into in terms of what what range that would look like in our specific situation.

Um and I think we can address that.

And Gabrielle, I think that was part of what you were asking, like what is an affordable, what was what's the goal?

What what what particular type of incentivizing?

So we'll we can talk about that next time.

But um and I also wanted to note that in addition to talking about that mixture next mixed year next time, Daniel Adams from the Frederick Builders Association will be coming to that meeting, and she'll be talking about a four um each of these topics, the overlay, um ADUs and the MPDU uh program and give you a developer's perspective on that.

So that might be a good opportunity to ask about what kinds of incentive or start that conversation at least about what kinds of barriers are preventing us and what incentives need to be considered.

Um and we can prepare for that conversation as well.

Thank you.

I I I do because I I can I'm concerned that we we sometimes talk around things because you know we we get into the cyclical conversation because we don't have all of the information that we need to have, and maybe one of us has one thing in their head and the other one has something else in their head, and having real information is absolutely necessary.

So thank you.

So the overlay examples that we have, did you want us to give you an idea of which one of these we would like to look at closer, or are they um there are there are so many different types of of ways to go about doing this?

I almost feel like you could pick them all.

Um way of going about this would be to take previously introduced legislation from one of these bodies, and it really sort of worldview is that we could just take one and mock it up, and it really doesn't matter which one.

So I highlighted when Clara provided her research, I highlighted the one that was sort of sim and similar size, uh the first the first listed.

It doesn't need to be that one.

But we are getting to the point, and this was always by design to have these policy discussions to talk about where sort of you know determine where the committee was, what you wanted to see move forward.

doesn't matter which one so I highlighted when Clara prov provided her research I highlighted the one that was sort of similar in similar size uh the first the first listed it doesn't need to be that one but we are getting to the point and this was always by design to have these policy discussions to talk about where sort of you know determine where the committee was what you wanted to see move forward we are getting to the point where in order to prepare the text amendment for submission we need to have something that we're actually you know and we we we refer to this chicken and egg concept right we need to provide staff with some idea of what we want to see within the text amendment but we can't do that without something sort of kind of drafted in front of us so I think where we are maybe not for the next meeting because I think our next meeting is is going to be robust with presentations but I think as a goal for four weeks from now we have an actual you know I I don't want to call a draft it's going to get mocked up and I don't want to scare anybody but it will be it will be changed around but maybe that's how we begin to actually now move put these practices in concept um for for greater discussion for the committee I think I think we're I think we're getting there and I think given the conversations that we've had about this I Claire I think we at least have something if if you want to take a look at the research you know obviously take more time and look at it and say like this don't like that that would be helpful too.

Sure.

That would be but I think is that a is that a decent well okay um so we'll look at a a draft document in four weeks time that we then will be using to submit or have a discussion with staff about how and of course staff is always welcome to participate along this along the way but that will inform the text amendment that ultimately gets submitted before the planning commission does that sound I that sounds perfect and I think that you're absolutely correct.

One of the things I think that that we have missed in the past because of the type of of um body that we had was um just laying something out there that isn't necessarily we know for a fact that this is isn't where we're gonna end up but we gotta start somewhere um and I think that you know we we have hesitated to do that in the past and I I really do if we're gonna move forward I think it's the only way to do it.

So yes please and I would be happy to be part of that conversation um I do have some very specific desires with this so and just a review very quickly Madam Chair the the text amendment will go it will have a very robust conversation even after that so you know we've been we've been very deliberate with this some would say slow but I would say deliver it with our with our work in this area so there's a lot many more bites of the apple to to make your voice heard if you're not if the if so many people are at home right now watching us and so excited about this and they want to make sure they weigh in we the millions of the yes the millions um no of course and and I think we want to do that also as we are um getting information out I think we need to be very very clear about the purpose you know literally I I don't know that I would even call it a draft I would call it a discussion starting point or or you know something that doesn't make it terrifying to people when they look at it and they just jump down our throats for things that we don't even ever actually plan to do.

So yes that would be great do you need anything else for that um again if you guys can if you can email me and I know that anything any model that we look at is going to be changed to our circumstances going to go through a lot of process a lot of review but having a starting off point to understand um what yeah a model that we want to work to work off of or start from and um and definitely even knowing that we want this to be more generally throughout the entire city not just a residential not just the specific neighborhood that already narrows it down from the examples that we have so we're already on our way to slimming that down and if there's there's a lot of examples of these if there's a particular type that we want more examples of a particular model I'm happy to look at more examples as well so let's say um we can provide you information um is next Friday so that's just over a week um that would give you then a couple of weeks to work on it before it comes back here is that right because we have we have in two weeks we have the conversation already set so it would be two weeks after that um well I'm of course be working with Gabrielle Collard and Zach Kirschhner but yes once I think once we kind of narrow it down on what particular area we're looking at I think we can meet and have those discussions and prepare something for at least so we can start talking about it.

So it would be two weeks after that.

Um well I'm of course be working with Gabrielle Collard and Zach Kirshner, but yes, once I think once we kind of narrow it down on what particular area we're looking at, I think we can meet and have those discussions and prepare something for at least so we can start talking about it.

I'm sorry, I'm talking about elected officials getting information to you so that you then can see what they're looking for and have that be.

We have to hold ourselves accountable also, right?

So if we have until next Friday to get that information to you, if somebody doesn't and they don't get what they want in the documentation, I you know, again, we need to hold ourselves accountable also.

So um so my question to you is is next Friday early enough.

Yes, sir.

And I'm assuming we couldn't go a whole lot later than that, because then you wouldn't have time to work on it.

Yes.

Okay, so next Friday.

Okay, so if if anybody here or um otherwise sit sitting on the council has requests for any of this legislation, again, we're not we're gonna call it a jump off point um coming forward.

Please have it to Clara by next Friday.

Okay, let's move on to the next item.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um, yes.

Public comment on on the um affordable housing overlay.

Thank you.

My name is Jim Smursall, and I have an interest in affordable housing long time interest.

First, let me kind of use an analogy.

There's two things that help affordable housing.

One is projects, and the other is programs.

And if you use that analogy, the projects are like the things on your plate that you have, like veg or meat or whatever.

They're there, they're big.

Like you say, Mrs.

Kazumcheck, some of them do concentrate poverty, and then the programs are things like Solomon Frederick, um, Maryland mortgage program, things like that.

And that's more like sprinkling salt and pepper on the things on your plate.

It goes all around.

So they both have their advantages, but the one that sprinkles things around through the community in single units or two units here, four units there, are your more or less your programs.

I established soil frederic many years ago, and I think if you look that helped a lot of people, true, they still had to buy a market rate unit, but it helped them do it.

And somebody somewhere can probably tell you how many there are.

One recommendation I have is I'd love to see a map.

I'd love to see a map of all the projects you have supported over the year.

Uh date them or somehow color coded them by date so that you can see when their affordability periods are ending the ones that you have in the hopper, you know, that you want reports on, and just have that map.

Obviously, you can't map individual, you know, people who've gotten second loans or anything like that, but you can map and see a geographic distribution of those things.

Now getting back to how zoning can be tweaked and used.

I just looked at section 804 on adaptive reuse, and you can use I I've always thought it was for reusing historically significant properties, but it does say economic value and other values to the city.

So and on table, I think it's 8041, you can see like in M1 and M2, you could use you could use it for anything in R20.

Now my recommendation would be to put a pastures beside that R20 there and say, provided it's 60% of the units are at low and moderate income and 40% or not, because it's just a flat out bonus or gift.

I don't know if you're gonna use that word uh to be able to take an old factory that you can't get rid of and turn it to R20.

Sorry.

Gotcha.

I am also sure that you'll send us a note.

Um, and I very much appreciate whenever you do that because it it helps me to see your your thought process the whole way through.

So thank you very much, Jim.

Okay.

On to accessory dwelling units.

Zach.

Sure.

Thank you.

Good morning, uh, council member.

Zach Kirshner.

Uh was asked to be here this morning to uh speak to our uh permit process and the associated fees for ADUs.

So what I've provided to you is our uh uh paper version of our building permit application.

This actually all occurs online today through OpenGov.

Um but all the questions that are asked here are asked as part of that application process.

Um I'm happy to go down through it and talk about each of the fees.

I didn't know if there were particular questions about the fees or if we'd rather me just kind of go through each one.

Um I I don't think it's necessary for you to go through each specific fee.

Okay, but the total in fees, the the total fee impact per accessory dwelling unit is just under $10,000.

Uh and you're talking about a accessory dwelling unit that's less than or equal to 800 square feet.

Correct.

Because the county has an additional impact fee if it's so if it's actually if it's if it's less than um it is to four closer to 4500.

Yes, surprise 4500.

So I have a difficult time believing that $4,500 is going to stop somebody from putting an accessory dwelling unit.

I I have a hard time believing that amount of money is going to stop somebody from building an accessory dwelling unit.

Now I would certainly love to have that conversation with my colleagues.

And please give me your thoughts on this now.

Um the house that I lived in, um I moved into a home with a friend.

Um the amount that we added onto the home was uh about 700 square feet.

The home to begin with was a 950 square foot home.

So really we're we're we're talking about essentially adding an ADU, right?

Right.

Um I can tell you 2500 compared to what we paid is a smidgen.

Yeah.

Um the the cost of building the 80, I just I just don't think 4500 adds so much that it will stop somebody from so colleagues.

I want to hear your thought process on this.

Councilmember, this uh we had requested we basically were doing the work to say what barriers exist.

I'm just covering for council member McSheen.

So we said, okay, is it fees?

And that's why we we hauled Zach in and we said, you know, these are the fees, and we wanted to make sure we put this to bed before we moved on.

So I am perfectly content to move on from this.

If I I think the discussion we began to have and we sort of pulled back was the ADUs be paying the fees that they're currently having if they shouldn't, what would the impact be to the greater city, all that good stuff?

That's what we that's why we served this up the way that we did.

We left it two weeks ago that we were going to pursue a community survey with our communications team to determine if it could just be that people don't know about the ADU program.

So that was another action item that we have.

And then finally we also acknowledge that we had not yet had the conversation about parking spaces.

That was the other sort of thing, right?

Do I have that right?

So uh those were the barrier the potential barriers that we've identified thus far as to why we haven't had any taking on the the legislation that was passed two years ago.

Oh no, before my time before my time.

So four years ago before I got here.

Uh but we didn't, you know, this is something that always comes up.

ADUs is a solution to housing.

So we didn't want to just cross it off the list, but um we had that rewrite come before us because of the parking issue that we had adjudicated or that we were working through, and so that was that was the genesis of all of this.

So that's why we're here today on this item.

If we want to cross this off, I'm happy to do that, but just wanted to that was closing closing the loop.

First, I'd like your your take on the um impact fees, um, council member.

And and then I just want to be sure we are still having the parking space conversation.

Okay.

The fees seem like a lot of money.

As we're trying to promote an option that is small and affordable.

In some cases you you know, it in all cases, built on an existing lot of record with a primary home, in some cases converting an existing structure or part of an existing structure.

When we talk about the overall fees as a percentage of the project cost.

It looks like a small percentage if the proposed ADU project is really a fully new construction standalone tiny home.

Right.

You know, brick and mortar with a foundation, you know, then the fees end up being not that much of the project.

There's other ADUs that we're talking about and that people have considered doing that are some renovation of a of an existing garage, renovation of an existing portion of a structure and things like that.

You know, maybe even a space that almost exists now, but they they want to put a kitchen in or a kitchenette in, and that would turn it into an ADU.

If that's triggering $10,000 in in fees, then I think that is some money.

Um, some of these fees we can control other fees we we don't have complete control over.

But I do think this constitutes somewhat of a barrier.

I don't know that the dollar amounts that we're talking about would stop someone from building a structure who was committed to doing so.

But I wonder if it is enough of a deterrent to dissuade someone who was considering this as an option.

And say, well, I don't know.

You know, this seems like a cool idea.

I could, you know, convert part of my basement, and then I then you start looking at, oh, you know what, this is way more expensive than I thought it was going to be, including all these fees.

So I think it is worth looking at reducing them, what our options are, especially since we've had no movement on this as a concept that that we made available to the public.

Is that clear?

So I mean I'm not quite sure what we're doing.

Yes, that's just I'm teasing them.

That could be a great opportunity to answer your question better, Councilmember McShane.

Are there members in our community that would take advantage of this if the fees were less?

So I don't I haven't seen the survey, but maybe that's one of the questions.

That's that's a fantastic that's a fantastic segue.

Uh I'm teasing because this is part this is this is the process, right?

Like we're gonna have so I think I think we can we can do that data gathering.

Uh we can figure out from the community what barriers exist.

Um but ultimately when we do the rewrite, we will have the conversation on whether or not we want the fees to remain as is.

Is that a fair compromise?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh is there any I guess from a SAP perspective, when we have that conversation, you'll let us know if there are strong feelings or recommendations you have about changes to the fee structure.

Yeah, so then while I have the opportunity here for a second, just and for the benefit of the public as well that may not quite understand why we have these impact fees.

So um water and sewer and parks are the city impact fees, um library and school are county imposed, so we don't have any control over those.

Um and of course we have a permit fee, so that pays for at least a portion of the time associated with reviewing the application, the plans and performing all the inspections.

Um to the water and sewer impact fees specifically, um our water and sewer fund is an enterprise fund, so that means it's at least currently self-sustained based on um fees and um uh you know, all charges to users of the system, so basically our customers.

Um the uh the the water and sewer impact fees for a new single family home are three times the amount that you see here, actually more than three times.

These numbers are 30 percent of what the water and sewer impact fees are for a new single family home.

So and there was a it's a a pretty robust discussion uh four years ago when when this was all enacted, it was back in 21, um summer 21, about where should those fees be set.

And um I think at that time we provided some information as far as you know, water usage and and if you're looking at an 800 square foot addition, uh just as a typical, say to a to a 2400 square foot single family home, that's roughly a third again of square footage.

So that's how we that's how we calculated those fees.

Um we haven't had really much of any uptake on the ADU uh opportunity, so it would be difficult to go back and kind of quantify whether or not we're hitting the mark there, but that's that's what we base those fees on is basically a 30% increase in water and sewer usage.

Um similarly, there was a a good deal of discussion on the park impact fees as well at the time.

And Zach, why do we do that according to um square footage instead of according to number of bedrooms and bathrooms to be honest, it would be very difficult to to for every single house to break it down to the the particular usages of those areas.

We go off square footage.

There was a time a long time ago that you that you probably remember because I think you're part of the board that we made the changes at the time.

Um but we moved away from what was called fixture units to um more of an average usage.

And there were a lot of advantages to that, um, including the fact that there were gave some opportunity for some redevelopment that otherwise would have had a much greater cost based on the number of fixtures, even though in reality the the use and the size of the property um re would result in a much lesser usage.

So I think it's a good thing to move away from fixture units.

Um we have a um and it's on the it's on the engineering website, but we have um listed out our flow matrix and how we assign fees um for water and sewer uh impact fees.

Uh one EDU is a single family home.

It's it's what's considered a single family home.

Um we charge uh lesser, and I I can't give you the exact percentages, but we charge lesser percentages for town homes and then lesser again, even for apartments and condos, and then for um uh sustainable projects um where they can demonstrate and we you know they provide calculations from the architect engineer where they can demonstrate that they're gonna reduce the usage even further than we take that into account and charge an even lesser um fee.

So it does incentivize um sustainability efforts um in in these constructions.

Um but I just want to hear that background, certainly for you all, but also for the for the benefit of the public as well to understand how where these fees come from.

Before we we move on.

Yeah.

Open question.

Okay.

But you know I'm gonna like you know, preface my question, right?

So we've got a lot of people who would love to live here.

Great city.

Great community.

We've got a lot of people, current residents and folks who like the look of our town who would love a small unit.

Love or really need a more affordable rent price for for somewhere to live.

And as we talked about today, we have a significant majority of our residentially zoned area already developed.

Thousands of houses here.

Many of them you know, many new, many old have been here a long time.

And we have for the last close to five years had the availability in VETA policy to make it available to construct an accessory dwelling unit on your property.

So why don't you think anybody is building them?

People would live in them.

People have got a lot of houses, there's a lot of space.

Why don't you think in what do you what's your gut or your analysis tell you?

I'd like to go back to the survey after it's done and see what see what the people say.

Don't rely on the survey, come on.

The only thing I think what I can tell you is that we uh we I'm aware of one application where uh currently they were we were not able to approve it because of the parking requirement.

So that's one barrier that I'm aware of where it's prevented us being able to approve an ADU.

Beyond that, I'm I'm not sure, to be honest.

I don't know whether it's it's I mean, as you well know, I'm sure construction costs have skyrocketed and putting an ADU in a in a in a basement in an unfinished basement.

I think you're easily looking at a hundred thousand plus to build a kitchenette and a bathroom and possibly to provide you know an additional window for appropriate egress and things of that nature.

So it's not an inexpensive endeavor even to add an ADU in the home, much less if you want to construct a new garage with an ADU above it, you're talking a couple of three hundred thousand dollars or something.

So it doesn't really again, it's all back to the question of affordability and what does affordability mean to the to the person that owns the property.

I think whatever we can do to reduce the barriers if it's a little if it's some uh extra costs, if it's you know, parking requirements or or or some regulations that are making a lot non-viable that that they would love to, but I I I do wonder if the whole concept is is crunched by much bigger economic realities where and maybe we're in a peculiar point price point here where I know an apartment isn't unaffordable, but for a 700 square foot, 600 square foot apartment, still the rent price isn't high enough for it to pencil out building this thing.

Just and I I know I've talked to lots of people who've thought about it.

Hey, mate, exactly that analysis you just did.

Maybe I could convert my basement in and then I could then I could rent it to somebody for 1,200.

You could absolutely rent it to somebody for 1,200.

But if it costs you $80,000 to do this, you're you're kind of you're doing it out of the kindness.

It it we it's it's an in-law suite, it better be your own in-law who's living in there because it's not really an investment opportunity.

Um I think we are seeing some of that.

So I agree.

I think we're seeing a lot of that.

I I I think that um it's just it's expensive to build anything right now.

So you have the answers that you need?

Yep.

Okay.

If I may, also, Madam Chair, I wanted to make sure that Mr.

Schmearsal knew Jim.

We did request, we did move forward the request to begin that mapping suggestion.

Great.

Um and our GIS department has actually already gotten back to us since setting here that they're gonna work on it with our housing department.

So marvelous.

Sometimes it feels like government isn't listening, and I just wanted to make sure he knew that it we are.

So any public comment on ADUs.

Sorry, you were in the same line.

It look Yeah.

Request from Gabriel about clarification in the zoning ordinance.

Um, an old house that was there before 2021 can have an ADU.

What about new builds where a developer wants to integrate an ADU into a new built unit by maybe saying you know your garage can be an ADU, we get the permits at the same time, and you're buying it as a kind of quote residential slash investment property, you know, where you have the granny flat or the person can uh you can rent it out and bring down your mortgage here, pay off your mortgage.

I don't know.

Is that possible?

Can you build a to you as a bigger one?

Jim, if you could if you could hold on a second.

So I just want the back to hear that the um people sitting in the seats are still not hearing well, especially the person who's speaking as the presenter.

I think you can generally hear those of us from the dais, but I have seen an awful lot of people not being able to hear the person who is giving public comment or the presentation.

So again, um Lance and crew were still having issues.

Thanks.

Okay, Jim, if you could go ahead and if you could go ahead, that would be great.

It's just a curiosity more than anything else.

I mean, it's a great question.

I knew there was one development in the city of Frederick years ago that built two units in one townhouse, you know, and just marketed that.

You know, that was a part of their marketing.

It was you know, an investment unit type thing.

And um we didn't treat it as a duplex, we treated it as an accessory apartment.

So it didn't, you know, their density was still the same, it wasn't a duplex, but and they had the same conditions of being an accessory unit.

It's just kind of a question of whether you can if it's only retrofitting old houses or can be done in newer newer houses.

But I like the idea, you know.

So take some credit, Frederick was one of the first communities I can remember in Maryland having what's called a granny flat law.

You know, we allowed them a long, long time.

Thank you.

Um Gabrielle, that's a great question.

And uh, if if you can let me we have other public comment first.

Ann, come on up.

No, no, no, we have other public comment first.

Sorry, let's finish public comment and then we'll worry about it.

Hi, I'm Ann Ryan with Frederick Housing Solutions Task Force, and I appreciate learning and absorbing what's being said today.

And I just wanted to um kind of respond a little bit to the notion of how do we do anything different when the need is so great, when we can't um change the market rate of a home, so what do we do when we don't have enough money to address that?

What we can't address the rental level in a market economy to get to people that can't afford it.

So, what do we have to say about it?

What are we here for?

Um so I just wonder if we can maybe be um able to see what would it take to add so right now nobody who makes under 25,000 a year can afford market rate rentals, no family under 50,000 can afford market rate rentals for a family.

So what do we have to say about that?

What if we figured out a way to imagine how it would look that we want to not have zero people able to afford to live here who make under 25,000?

We want to create at least 75 new units over the next year that would reach low enough for those who only make 25,000 who might be working in the hospitality industry, who might be working in child care, who might be working in our nursing homes, who might be on social security disability.

What do we have to say about creating those?

What would a subsidy look like to bring that down?

And then what's happening around the country where a public-private partnership has really resulted in creating those units?

We know that government can't do anything and the private market isn't doing it because there's no profit in it, but what if we figured it out?

In Baltimore that we went to see a project called Hope Village, where some guy just bought a bunch of property on a block, he then built 13 tiny homes, he then um offered a mortgage to each of the families.

There were single parent moms with with one kid, um, 25,000 dollar mortgages over 15 years, each um homeowner then paid 200 in mortgage.

So it did become real and it did become within reach, but it was a very odd combination of mostly private money, but a little bit of government incentive.

So what if we thought, what if we offered an invitation to our community to demonstrate how we could get these rents lower with a combination of support, how we could bring a mortgage down with a combination of support.

And then incentivize that somehow.

Rather than saying, well, it's too hard to figure out.

Thank you.

I think that's it for public comment.

Gabrielle, if you have any answers, you're welcome to give them now.

Gabriel.

That's it for public comment.

If you have any answers, you're welcome to give them now.

Jim's question.

Thank you.

I understand it was would we allow someone in a new construction situation to construct an ADU?

And the answer was yes, we would.

It would fall under the regulations for constructing a ADU and a new new structure.

And and that does not um that does not change the density because if it were um just as it's some legislative history, um we the previous iteration um prior to 2022 when we updated the ADU regulations, you could only build ADUs as part of like a PND or a TND, we don't have any or mixed use project.

So you had to do it as kind of a component of your overall master plan.

And in that case, it would have factored into the density.

Um we would have looked at it in terms of APFL and evaluated it, you know, proportionately their parkland dedication requirements that would have come into play in a existing neighborhood.

Um that would there wouldn't be any other exactions applied for that beyond the impact fees.

So if somebody were building a new single family home on a vacant lot downtown, not part of an overall development project, um, that would pay the impact fees that Zach discussed, um, but there wouldn't be any other um so if somebody were building a single home, yes, it would not be affected.

But what if they were building a development of homes?

Correct.

If if someone were proposing a master plan where they were conceptually going, we want to build you know a hundred homes and we want to design ADUs as part of them for 50 of those homes, right?

We would factor that into the overall development impacts in terms of APFO and how we analyze the project in terms of its its overall impacts.

So it would be a higher density.

No, it they would still um no, it wouldn't factor in um in terms of overall dwelling units.

We would still look at the primary structure and apply the ADU regulations.

So if you allowed 75 units per acre, we theoretically wouldn't count those ADUs as beyond that 75.

You count the principal units, but still a so I could come in and do a development.

Let's just I'm just gonna make this up.

I could come and do a development on R4.

And essentially build two homes on each of those lots under the current regulations you you could.

So it's really not R4.

Those units aren't being calculated the same way as the principal dwelling unit.

Okay.

That was the question.

Thank you.

Yeah, that we just wanted the answer to it.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Um else that you need?

No.

Clara, we're good.

You have what you have.

Staff, thank you so very much for all of the information that you've provided, all the answers that you've given us.

It's a lot to think about.

We really appreciate um providing everything thanks to those who continue to come to these meetings and and um we understand how important affordable housing is to you.

Um councilmember McShane, anything for the good of the order?

No, thank you.

Um, me neither.

We'll see you all tonight.

Have a great day.