gaithersblog.net

The City has posted two alternative drafts [alternative one, alternative two] for an affordable housing policy, to be discussed at a joint public hearing of the Mayor and Council and the Planning Commission on October 3, 2006. The primary difference between them is that the second alternative does not apply in the CBD zone except to require payments into an affordable housing fund.

Essential elements of the drafts are:

• The rule kicks in when the development size is twenty dwellings or more.
• Developments with an approved SDP at the time the ordinance goes into effect are exempt.
• For for-sale developments,
  • 7.5% of units must be affordable to households at the 70% of median income level (MPDUs)
  • 7.5% of units must be affordable to households at the 90% of median income level (Workforce Housing)
  • If the community fees are too high to be affordable, the developer can pay into an affordable housing fund instead of building the units.
• For rental developments,
  • 15% of units must be affordable to households at the 60% of median income level (MPDUs)
  • The MPDU status of those units must be maintained for 30 years
  • If the development is converted to condominiums, the for-sale rules (7.5%/7.5%) apply.
• Affordable units have to look the same as the market-rate units and have to be dispersed throughout the development.
• There are waiver provisions for “undue economic hardship” and “The absence of a reasonable relationship or nexus between a proposed project and the provisions of this Article,” whatever that means.

The draft ordinance does not address the resale of affordable non-rental units and thus there is nothing, about e.g. equity sharing between the City and the home buyer. This aspect was a major focus of discussion the last time the council talked about affordable housing on August 14 [agenda, video], so I’m somewhat surprised that this isn’t even mentioned.

Personally, I would like to see more focus on dispersing affordable housing throughout the City. The second alternative, which excludes CBD, is a start, but I would prefer that the exception be triggered if a specific percentage of nearby dwelling units already meet affordable housing requirements, For example if at least 50% of the dwelling units within a half-mile radius are already affordable, then a development could opt out by paying into the affordable housing fund.

Incentives in the other direction would also be good to see — if, for example less than 5% of the units within a half mile are affordable, perhaps the affordable percentage should be raised, possibly to 12.5% and 12.5% from 7.5% and 7.5%. And in the middle ground, perhaps developers could opt out of the affordable-units requirement by purchasing units in existing developments and reselling them as MPDUs.

The City has posted the outcomes of last night’s meeting. Included in that document is the text of the City Manager’s statement regarding the Day Laborers:

“Last Friday, I received formal notice from a representative of the owner of the shopping center at 117 North Frederick Avenue that he will be closing the parking lot for use as an informal day laborer assembly site on Wednesday, September 20. Our police are coordinating with County police, the State’s Attorneys office and City staff to inform the workers of the owner’s decision. Appropriate bilingual flyers are being distributed as of this morning.

I’ve also been informed by Grace United Methodist Church that the day laborers may continue to utilize the front lawn area of the church facing 355 and continue to use the church bathrooms. The workers will not be able to use the rear church parking lot.

This could create a traffic problem given that it is possible that some of the day laborers will simply move from the shopping center lot to the front grounds of the church. Since there is no spot for contractors to pick up workers on the church site they may be tempted to stop in the traffic lanes. To manage this, the City will be installing signs prohibiting stopping or standing on Walker Avenue . In coordination with the State Highway Administration, we expect that similar signs will also be installed in various spots along Route 355. This is a safety measure given the circumstances.

Of course, we are continuing to pursue a location for a day laborer center but still do not have a definitive answer from any landlord or property owner. I reported during the Mayor and Council meeting on September 5 th that a local shopping center within the City that staff believes meets the spirit of the task force criteria and the needs of the workers and the contractors was being investigated and that site is still a possibility. We are providing the owners with any information they ask us for as they evaluate this use, but we do not have any letter of intent to bring forward.

Until a site is found, we are referring workers to the Wheaton and Silver Spring sites, as well as Labor Ready on Shady Grove Road . The bilingual flyers we began distributing this morning contain information about those alternatives and provides the bus routes involved in reaching them. It has also been suggested that an interfaith group could provide bus tokens to those who might not be able to afford public transportation .”

The video of last night’s Mayor and Council meeting has been posted on the City’s website. They’re getting quicker about doing this. The City Manager’s statement on the Day Laborer situation starts at about 12:30 into the video, right after the proclamation of National Hispanic Heritage Month.

Edens and Sesma were both absent, so they had three Council members and the Mayor, and for the redevelopment deferral hearing the Mayor was also absent because of a conflict. Here’s a quick review of what the Mayor and Council decided tonight (or last night, probably, by the time I’ll finish writing this):

• Climate Protection Agreement: Passed unanimously. Mr. Schlichting expressed his appreciation for the fact that this would make us a “cool” city.
  Update 2: Chris Robinson reports on Mayor Katz signing the agreement on 6/12/06.
• The staff was given a green light to proceed with the Goddard School project.
• The zoning change item turned out to be somewhat controversial. It was a joint hearing with the Planning Commission. If I hadn’t been so distracted with the deferral issue I probably would have at least linked to the background materials that got posted a few days ago, or even have read them to know that the proposal was for building yet another self-storage facility. There were a number of concerns about the project, mostly focused on the inappropriateness of Old Game Preserve Road to support such a facility, and the general ugliness of the proposed building. I don’t think anyone liked it except perhaps Mr. Marraffa, who rarely finds any reason not to like a development project. There were several speakers from the adjoining single-familiy home community, and the Mayor in particular thought the design of the building was unacceptable. In the end they decided to leave the record open “indefinitely”, which is generally how they tell a developer that if they ever want something approved they better come up with a different plan.
• The record on T-372 was closed.
• The City Manager read a statement on the Day Laborer situation. I will link to a copy as soon as the City puts one up. [Update: video here, scroll to 12:30 for the City Manager] Basically the parking lot is now off limits to the Day Laborers, but Grace Church will still let them use their front yard and bathrooms. But the Police will not allow contractors to stop on MD355 or Walker Ave, and the shopping center parking lot is useless because the laborers aren’t allowed to go there. The hope is that the laborers will eventually get the point and just stop coming. The Mayor plans to go there early on Tuesday to explain the situation to them. Rocha attended the meeting but never spoke.
• The deferral was, well, deferred. Alster was supportive but Schlichting and Marraffa didn’t like it. Much of what I pointed out in my analysis was discussed, not that any answers were forthcoming. Mr. Schlichting also had a lot of heartburn over the clause that said “WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have determined that the permitted densities in some of the City’s residential zones are inappropriate and should be reviewed prior to potential redevelopment.” because he could not recall this issue ever having been discussed in public, and his review of the minutes from the last several months’ meetings turned up no mention of this. (I also had wondered about this but hadn’t mentioned it in my post). The most interesting part of that discussion was that the City Manager admitted that the zone they were concerned about was R-20. When I heard that things started to fit together for me, because from fooling around with that zoning map for my analysis, I had noticed that the Broadstone Apartments were in R-20, not CD. Go back and read the bit about the proposed text amendment in my previous Council Report. Without it having been placed on the agenda or being mentioned in the official outcomes document, staff introduced a proposed text amendment that would allow for a height change in the CD zone. What I think that I missed in that discussion (it’s in the last five minutes or so of the video) is that not only would they need the text amendment for the CD zone, they would also need to have the property rezoned to the CD zone — i.e., it wasn’t already in the CD zone, but the CD zone was better for what they wanted to do except for the height limit. Now, I think I’ll have to read up a bit on the zoning rules, but I’m wondering if they’re thinking that the CD text amendment is a minefield, and if they can increase the density in R-20, then they won’t have to rezone to CD and thus the CD text amendment could just be dropped like it never happened. In any event, the more I think about it, the odder that clause in the draft deferral ordinance seems, largely because I’m having a lot of trouble seeing the link between that whereas clause and the details of the deferral — why did they even have to list that as a motivation for the ordinance? Anyway, in the end, they decided to leave the record open for 30 days, which places the next discussion of it after the first planned discussion of the affordable housing ordinance. I expect that they hope the affordable housing ordinance will moot the deferral ordinance.
• The public appearances were mostly about the day laborers and affordable housing. I’ll link to the video as soon as I notice the City has it up, it was another entertaining session.

Update: The Gazette has an article about the Goddard School.