The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-06-26 Housing PACKET Ashland Housing Commission Regular Meeting Agenda th Thursday June 26, 2008: 4:30 Î 6:30pm Community Development Building - 51 Winburn Way 1. (4:30) Approval of Minutes th May 8 2008 Special Meeting Minutes nd May 22, 2008 Regular meeting Minutes 2. (4:35) Introduction of Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist 3. (4:40) Public Forum 4. (4:50) Reports and Updates Subcommittee Reports Liaison reports Finance (see item 5) Council (Hardesty) Education (none) Parks Commission (Westwood property hearing Î 6-23-08) Land Use (see PC Study Session 6-24-08 School Board update) Planning Commission (Annexation Ad-Hoc/Public Meeting Updates study session 6-24-08) Facilities Plan 5. (5:20) Affordable Housing Trust Fund Draft Ordinance and Resolution Commissioner Discussion and Recommendation 6. (6:00) Commission Annual Retreat Review of Discussion Priorities 7. (6.15) Items from Commissioners not on the agenda Items to be discussed at this meeting, and/or suggestions for future agendas. 8. (6.25) Upcoming Events and Meetings th Annual Retreat Î July 12, 2008, Parks Offices within Lithia Park at the intersection of Winburn and Granite Streets 9:00- 1:00: For the retreat please bring your Housing Binders and the 2008-2010 Housing Work Plan for review. Lunch provided. Housing Commission Regular Meeting 4:30-6:30 PM; Thursday July 24th, 2008 Community Development Building Quorum Check Î Commissioners not available to attend upcoming regular meetings should declare their expected absence. 9. (6:30) Adjournment ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Bill Smith called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E Main St., Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison Alexandra Amarotico Carol Voisin Richard Billin Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty Steve Hauck Aaron Benjamin Staff Present:: Graham Lewis Brandon Goldman, Housing Nick Frost Specialist Regina Ayars Carolyn Schwendener, Account Bill Smith Clerk PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak CLAY STREET LAND ACQUISITON PROPOSAL Staff Presentation Goldman explained that this action is coming to the City Council in two parts. The first aspect of the project is the acquisition of the property for affordable housing. The second being the acquisition of the property for parks purposes. Goldman noted that if the original proposal for the 10 acre property has an annexation approval for 107 Units, 17 of which would be affordable. Goldman said that the City Council had previously identified the sale of three lots on Strawberry Lane, and specified that the proceeds from those lots are to be used in support of affordable housing. The Strawberry Lane site itself it is not well designated to have affordable housing units so the intention was to sale the property in order to support affordable housing somewhere else in the City. Goldman explained that for housing to be considered affordable people cannot be spending more then thirty percent of their total income on housing costs. The 10 acre property on Clay Street has been envisioned to be a site for provision of housing to people that make the median income and below. Goldman said that the Clay Street property would not be purchased in its entirely for housing development, they envision sixty homes, with a number of them being rentals, put on five of the 10 acres. The remaining 5 acres would be developed as a park. Goldman showed pictures of affordable housing located in Ashland pointing out how indistinguishable they are from the market rate housing around them. The City looks to see that affordable housing is built with longevity in mind and that itÓs built to a higher standard so that the replacement costs donÓt negatively impact the project explained Goldman. ACLT Presentation Evan Archerd, 550 East Main explained why the City should consider building affordable housing on this particular site. Mr. Archerd said what makes this a good value is that the property has a number of qualities that make it suitable for mixed affordable and workforce housing. ItÓs hard to find this large of a piece of property in Ashland that is zoned for multi-family housing. ItÓs very flat; topography is important making it much cheaper to build on. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 1 MINUTES May 08, 2008 This property has the City services necessary; water, sewer, storm drain, city streets. The location is great. Residents would have the ability to walk to the market, drug store, YMCA, parks, restaurants and it is close to schools. Archerd stated: You can pretty much do all you need to do by foot, or bike, or the bus on Ashland Street, making it possible to live on this property without the need of a car. Public Comments Darren Borgias, 503 Strawberry Lane, spoke representing the Friends of Westwood Park. Mr. Borgias read his letter in opposition of trading this dedicated park land for acquiring land for affordable housing. He gave a copy of his letter to each Commissioner. Keith Baldwin, 1176 Beswick Way, spoke as a friend of Westwood Park. Mr. Baldwin explained his main mission was to ask the Commissioners to either delay or recommend against the park land swap portion of the project. His reasons were: Decisions regarding park land should be separated from those decisions related to affordable housing, they are two separate subjects. By Co-mingling these the community is faced with a choice of affordable housing or to protect park land. The park land swap portion of the deal breaks the trust the community places in the City to protect and preserve existing park land. Westwood Park is part of a Community that was negotiated over a period of eight years between the then land owners and it involved all the existing lots in the area as well as the open spaces and Westwood Park. Scott Dixon, 838 Blackberry Lane, spends time walking on that property. Mr. Dixon said he believes it is a bad precedence to establish that the City is going to begin to sell off parks, even for affordable housing which is an honorable objective. The citizens want to have affordable housing but if it was offered to them as a ballot measure he questioned whether they would agree with the selling of the park. Of course affordable housing is worthwhile and itÓs a question of how do we fund it and where does the income come from stated Mr. Dixon. He objects to the idea of selling parks and encouraged the group to scale back the project and see what they can fund without selling off the park. Gaia Layser, 503 Strawberry Lane, thanked the Housing Commission members for all the public service they do. Ms. Layser read her letter and gave the Commissioners a copy regarding her concerns related to the proposed land trade. Ron Roth, 6950 Old Highway 99 South has worked in downtown Ashland for thirty-one years. Mr. Roth believes if any city is going to do affordable housing they need to recycle existing premises and challenge existing regulatory barriers. Mr. Roth has seen the small affordable units in the downtown disappear. Years ago people could work downtown and afford to live there. The best planning process Mr. Roth has seen in the Community was North Mountain Park. This land trade would provide a park for people living at the Clay Street end of town as well as providing five acres of high density housing. Mr. Roth strongly recommends that the Housing Commission support this proposed land trade. Robert McLellan, 500 Strawberry Lane, said they purchased their property in 2000 at which time they believed the two acres of City owned land at the corner of Westwood and Strawberry would be dedicated to park land. Shortly after purchasing their property the City was planning to subdivide the land into four lots and sell them for affordable housing. Because the property was put up for sale Mr. McLellan and the neighbors formed an organization called the Ashland Woodlands and Trail Association. This organization was intended to look at situations like this and at the parks land that we have collected and continue to collect in order to provide parks and connect them with the trail system. Mr. McLellan encouraged the Commissioners to re-think the selling off the land as it sets a precedence for future actions. This is land not just for the residents in the Strawberry Westwood area but for citizens of Ashland, itÓs irreplaceable. Reconsider keeping it as Parks land and find other ways for affordable housing. Lance Thompson lives a half mile away from Strawberry Park. Mr. Thompson shared about his experience with the park. Every day he hikes on a trail neighboring the park and always assumed it was land being prepared for development. Mr. Thompson confirmed he shares the sentiments of the Friends of Westwood Park. Mr. Thompson looks forward to exploring this park more. People do need to know its public park and not private land. ItÓs a beautiful piece of property. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES May 08, 2008 Krista Bolf, 190 Oak Street confirmed that this Commission was here to deal with the Housing portion of the trade not the land swap. Her understanding is that currently there is 10 acres on the Westwood Park and two of those acres will be traded for five acres of Park Land on Clay Street increasing the total number of Parks land by three acres. Eight acres on Westwood would still remain Parks Land and the three additional acres on Clay Street will probably get more use because itÓs centrally located where more families exist and use park land, stated Ms. Bolf. The affordable housing element of the trade is being paid for out of the sale of Strawberry Lane property which is designated for affordable housing. At least 45 affordable homes will be built on the Clay Street project. Ms. Bolf wanted to be sure that the public is aware there is no sale; itÓs a trade with a net gain of three additional acres of park land. Catherine Dimino recommended to Commissioners that even though they arenÓt allowed to consider this she would still like them to recommend to the City Council that the swap not include the dedicated park. Commissioners discussed the proposal Billin asked Goldman how fundamental is the Westwood Park swap to the overall project? Goldman responded that under the City as well at State rules any proceeds from the sale of Park property must be dedicated 100 percent to benefit Parks purposes. With that division whether or not the Westwood property is included or excluded it wonÓt have any barring on the number of affordable housing units that can be created. If the Westwood property goes away the City is still looking at the sale of the Strawberry property in order to support affordable housing noting that the funding for each was distinct ÐParks for parks, housing for housingÑ. Mr. Archerd explained that the property is zoned R-2 which currently allows density of thirteen and a half units per acre. The developer can get a twenty-five percent bonus density if they develop it all as affordable housing. Theoretically they could have over seventy units of affordable housing on the five aces. Mr. Archerd said that if that is what the Commission in conjunction with the Council and the Community decides is in the communityÓs best interest it could be done. Goldman explained that the City acquired the property, approximately 12 acres, for the purpose of putting a water tank on it. The water tank was relocated to another site on Hitt Road. A resolution was then passed by the City Council dedicating 10 acres of it for Parks Land. Goldman is not aware of any specific agreement that the City was obligated to maintain the two acres as Strawberry Lane properties dedicated to open space. The Commissioners commended the eloquence of the neighborhood group in defending the existence of Westwood Park but wanted them to remember they testified before the Housing Commission. The Commissioners also commended Mr. Archerd with the ACLT for their efforts regarding the CityÓs affordable housing and workforce housing goals in relations to this project. This is one of the best sites that have ever been presented to the City and the Housing Commission for development of affordable and workforce housing that would serve the entire community, stated Benjamin. Amarotico commented that as a representative of students in Ashland the housing costs in Ashland make it literally impossible for students to live in Ashland and at the same time afford school. She believes this is one of the best pieces of properties the City has seen for a long time and the parks land is available for others who could utilize it. Amarotico said this is a good allocation of the trade of properties, because it important to pay attention to the people who cannot afford to live here. Hauck/Ayers m/s to recommend to the City Council that they proceed with swapping the land on Strawberry, the three lots, for property in the Clay Street project. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Ashland Community Land Trust - Bridge Street Property discussion The Commissioners reviewed the scope and timeline for the project at 404-408 Bridge Street ACLTÓs representative, Steve Ennis, explained that there are two two-bedroom units in front of the property at 404-408 Bridge Street that were there when they purchased the lot. ACLTÓs proposal is to work with Habitat for Humanity to construct two new three bedroom units in the back portion of the property. Currently ACLT is working on the Planning Application. Habitat for Humanity board confirmed that they are not prepared to start construction until 2009. The existing two units will have funds allocated for their remodel . The front two units will be condos and they will give first right of refusal to each of the tenant to buy ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES May 08, 2008 them. If the existing residents canÓt purchase them due to their income, or other issues, they wonÓt be evicted and can stay as long as they want and the units will be used as rentals. Goldman explained that ACLT is presenting this project to the Commission as part of their Planning Pre-application review process. Annual Retreat Goldman suggested that the Commissioners email him with the dates they will be gone and then he will provide the possible dates for the Annual Retreat . ADJOURNMENT Î The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Carolyn Schwendener ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 4 MINUTES May 08, 2008 ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Carol Voisin called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Alexandra Amarotico, Richard Billin Absent Carol Voisin Graham Lewis Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty Steve Hauck Bill Smith, arrived at 4:38 Staff Present:: Aaron Benjamin Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk Commissioners Absent Regina Ayars APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page two, liaison reports last sentence of the first paragraph should read ÐHardesty encouraged the Commission too not go to far away from the 200 goal.Ñ Hauck/Lewis m/s to approve the minutes as corrected from the April 22, 2008 Housing meeting. Voice Vote: Approved PUBLIC FORUM Allan Sandler, 1260 Prospect, gave a presentation of a proposed ten unit apartment rental project over the City of th Ashland Lithia parking lot. It is Mr. SandlerÓs desire to get on the June 17 Council meeting agenda. Mr. Sandler would like the Housing Commission to advise the Council at to whether this is something they think should be looked into. Mr. Sandler would like the City Council to ask staff to put in about two hours of their time to go over his plan and submit their opinions back to the Council. Mr. Sandler read through his plan and gave a copy of his presentation to each of the Commissioners. The Commissioners briefly discussed Mr. SandlerÓs project. Goldman explained if the City Council directs staff to go forward they can also direct that any agreement be put before the Housing Commission before going back to them. Hardesty said this project makes a lot of since but the only reason why she wants so see the Commission take more time with it is if they want to talk about the possibility of doing a different parking lot so they get more units. Hauck/Voisin m/s to place this item on the agenda today for discussion. Voice Vote: Motion passed with Hardesty and Lewis opposing. REPORTS AND UPDATES Subcommittee Reports Finance Î Voisin reported the committee met and their intent was to look at means of revenue for the Housing Trust Fund. The Committee decided they wanted Goldman to begin working on the ordinance and resolution that outlines the policy procedures. While thatÓs in process they will be working on revenue streams. Goldman gave an update that he just finished an initial draft of the ordinance establishing the Housing Trust Fund and a resolution establishing procedures. Goldman has sent them to legal for initial review and was hoping to have them back in time for the June 10, 2008 Finance Committee meeting. Liaison Reports Council Î Hardesty reported that at the last meeting the Council repelled the twenty foot setback on the north side of Lithia Way and asked the Planning Commission and Planning Department to look at what kind of ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 1 MINUTES May 22, 2008 business would inhabit the first floor of Commercial spaces downtown. The reason they requested this was because offices tend not to be friendly to pedestrian shoppers, and retail spaces are more appropriate. The Council also asked the Planning Commission to look for a way to increase the sidewalk space on the south side of Lithia Way. Hardesty said the Council passed a fifteen foot sidewalk including the park row for arterials downtown as part of this ordnance. Goldman informed the Commission that Linda Reid the new Housing Specialist will be starting on June 3, 2008. Parks Î Hauck did not attend the Parks meeting but got the tape and watched it. There was nothing relating to housing issues. Hauck will be attending the next scheduled Hearing with the Parks Commission on June 23, 2008. School Board Î No report. Planning CommissionÎ No report. Ad-Hoc/Public Meeting Updates Annexation and Zone Change Ordinances Ad-Hoc Committee Î Goldman reported they did meet and went over the proposed annexation and zone changes to bring up the familiarity with the Planning Commission members as to what the Housing Commission had worked on. The Housing Commission forwarded to the Ad-Hoc Committee two points; 1) Rentals be restricted to sixty percent AMI as opposed to the eighty percent which was allowable under the existing and proposed annexation ordinance. On that specific issue there was some concern at the Ad- Hoc meeting if that discourages the development of apartments. 2) One of the Planning Commissioners recognized that the Housing Commission had established minimum size for a one bedroom unit was six hundred square feet and that was taken from the home program rules. Under the City of Ashland parking requirements as well as density requirements five hundred square foot units are counted as only .75 of a unit. This means that if 600 feet were rolled back to 500 feet it may allow for either an increase in number of units or a reduction in parking requirements. The draft annexation ordinance is scheduled to come before the Housing Commission in June. Study Session th of the Planning Commission is tentively scheduled for June 24 to review the Ordinance. The Commission th. meeting to make a formal recommendation on the draft would be at the regular meeting on June 26 SDC Meeting-Hauck reported that the recommendation from consultants was when they set the formula for the SDCÓs they left out pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of how they would calculate those. The Committee voted to go back to the way they have always done and consider those fees part of transportation. Facilities Plan Î Hardesty said there is a Study Session planned in June 2 to discuss the gun club. Hardesty said the lease is up in 2009 and they are asking for the Council to give them an early lease. Someone from the Planning Department is working on possibilities for use of the gun club property. Voisin said that the City is still looking at serious consideration of using the Grove. Lewis stated his group has decided not to try to utilize the building and is not prepared at this time top make such a request. HOUSING WORK PLAN 2008-2010 REVIEW Staff Presentation Î The Commissioners had received the 2008-2010 Housing Work Plan in their packet. Goldman reported that the Housing Work Plan was presented to the City Council to provide them with a better understanding of the different activities that are currently being worked on by the Ashland Housing Program. Goldman reviewed the distribution of time dedicated to each aspect of the Housing Program over the course of a year and gave a general overview of the Work Plan. COMMISSION ANNUAL RETREAT The Annual Retreat will be on Saturday July 12, 2008 from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. Lunch will be provided by the City. It was suggested to spend the majority of the time on Goal setting and the Action Plan. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS NOT ON THE AGENDA The Commissioners discussed Allan SandlerÓs proposal for a ten unit apartment rental project over the City of Ashland Lithia parking lot. Smith confirmed with Mr. Sandler that he was requesting the Commission to decide if they think the business aspect of the project is worth the City CouncilÓs time for reviewing. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES May 22, 2008 Mr. Sandler said they have chose to build a very attractive, more expensive, units then most low income housing in order that the tenants would take pride in ownership. Mr. Sandler confirmed that he is open to using a different parking lot if one is available and works with his plans. Hardesty said her concern is that the Housing WorkPlan has a ten percent time allocation for project development and is not sure they have the extra time this takes to devote to the project. Hardesty would maintain that the Commission should consider thinking more seriously about using a bigger parking lot in order to get more units. Hauck believes this is worth taking a look at and Billin doesnÓt see any downside since its not taking the funding away from anything else. Benjamin see this project as a possibility for not just low income Housing but could be an affordable workforce project as well. Lewis stated itÓs a good idea to give it to the Council for them to talk about and decide if itÓs a project worth going forward with. Hardesty commented she is not sure this is a good use of the Housings SpecialistÓs time and believes the Commission should set their priorities first before deciding. Hauck/Lewis m/s to recommend to the City Council that they take a look at this project to see if itÓs worth proceeding with. Voice Vote: Motion passed with Hardesty and Voisin opposing. Community Meeting Regarding Homelessness and Poverty in Ashland Lewis met with Chief Holderness, United Way, Saint Vincent DePaul and a group of other interested organizations regarding the poverty and homelessness in Ashland. They are putting together a document that can be handed out to individuals who ask for help explaining the different available programs in the Community. They will also be giving out bus tokens. Lewis said there will be another meeting with the Faith Community people and the City to see how they can work together to help not just the homelessness but the impoverished. Frost asked questions regarding the Education sub-committee. Benjamin explained what the past efforts and direction of the sub-committee had been. Currently this Committee has been put on hold. UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS The next regular meeting will be Thursday June 26, 2008 at the Community Development Building 4:30-6:30 pm. The Planning Commission Study Session on Annexation Ordinance revision will be June 24, 2008 ADJOURNMENT Î The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES May 22, 2008 Commission Communication TO: Housing Commission Title: Affordable Housing Trust Fund Date: June 26, 2008 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Summary The Ashland Housing Commission has undertaken the process of developing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to assist in the development of needed housing within our community. Specifically City Staff, the Finance Subcommittee, of the Housing Commission has taken an active role in the research and development of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF), and over the last two years has periodically brought forward information to go before the full commission for consideration. This effort has now produced a draft ordinance and resolution constituting the framework, or platform, of the proposed Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Public Involvement Public involvement regarding the formation of an Affordable Housing Trust fund was incorporated from the onset of its development. Key interviews with affordable housing providers to identify gap financing needs were conducted with the Housing Authority of Jackson County , Access Inc., the Ashland Community Land Trust, and the Rogue Valley Community Development corporation. In February and March of 2007 a public survey was direct mailed to 80 individuals and businesses in the community, and was posted as an online survey on the City website for the general public to assist at identifying housing needs, potential uses for a trust fund, and potential financing mechanisms that would be supported or not. The City received 69 responses to the survey helping inform the formation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Platform th A Public Forum was held on October 30, 2007 with the nationally recognized expert on Housing Trust Funds, Mary Brooks, presenting on the topic. This forum was universally considered informative by those in attendance, and further provided another opportunity for public involvement in advance of the drafting of the attached draft Ordinance and Resolution. As a direct result of these community outreach efforts the City currently maintains a list of th approximately 40 individuals who will be informed of the he CommissionÓs June 26 review and directed to view all materials which will be available online in advance of the meeting. Next Steps This draft ordinance and resolution are being presented to the Housing Commission for review and recommendation before being presented to the City Council for consideration. In the event the Housing Commission determines further review of the proposed ordinance and resolution are warranted by the Commission at this time before advancing them to the th City Council, the item may be continued to the July 24 Housing Commission regular meeting. ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 4.36 , REGARDING THE ESTABLISHIMENT OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined through and additions are in bold. WHEREAS the City of Ashland recognizes that under Goal 10 of OregonÓs Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines (OAR 660-015-0000(10)) that jurisdictions shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, including the Housing Element, establishes the goal of ensuring that a variety of dwelling types housing opportunities are available for the total cross-section of AshlandÓs population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the City; and WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of Ashland who are adversely impacted by the lack of housing available to all income types, specifically very low, low, and moderate income households, it is necessary to establish a fund to support the development , preservation, and rehabilitation, of needed housing types within the City; and WHEREAS the City of Ashland City Council recognizes that for a healthy community the provision of a range of affordable housing opportunities and funding mechanisms for affordable development is a top priority for the City of Ashland; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that neither the private market, nor the public sector, has yet provided the levels of housing affordability necessary to maintain a balanced community, local government must take an active lead to ensure an adequate supply of housing for residents and working people of all income levels; now therefore THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. New Chapter. A new Chapter 04.36 ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code to read as follows: SECTIONS: 04.36.010 Purpose 04.36.020 Definitions 04.36.030 Dedication of Revenue 04.36.040 Establishment of Policies and Procedures 4.36.010 Purpose The purpose of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is to support the creation or preservation of housing that is affordable to people with incomes that do not exceed 120% of the area median income, as defined by HUD. AHTF funds will support activities that create, preserve or acquire housing within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. AHTF funds may also be used for permanent or transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, and for the modernization, rehabilitation and repair of public housing. The AHTF is not intended to be the sole source of funding for affordable housing and any activity or project eligible for support from the AHTF is expected to develop additional sources of funds. 4.36.020 Definitions The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section unless from the context a different meaning is intended. A. AHTF means the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. B. Administrative procedures refer to the administrative procedures adopted by resolution that outline application, evaluation, and all other administrative procedures associated with the AHTF. C. Affordable housing means residential housing primarily for persons or households earning less than 120% the area median income where housing costs including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and homeowners association dues, or rent , do not constitute more than 30% the household income, and as more fully defined per Resolution 2006-13. D. Eligible uses and activities mean those uses for the AHTF which are adopted by resolution that facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing within AshlandÓs Urban Growth Boundary. E. Affordable housing priorities means priorities established from time to time by the governing body to guide the allocation of funds from the AHTF. 4.36.030 Dedication of Revenue The AHTF allows for a dedicated funds to be used in support affordable housing priorities through receipt of dedicated revenue streams, including donations, grants, sale of surplus City Property, or any other revenue sources approved by the Ashland City Council or the People of Ashland. Distribution of funds shall be in accordance with the policies and procedures per Resolution 2008-_________. 4.36.040 Establishment of Policies and Procedures The administrative procedures associated with the ATF, including fund administration, determination of eligible applicants, eligible uses and activities, award preferences, eligibility criteria, award process, and selection criteria are approved by the City Council per establishment of Resolution 2008-________ The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2008, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2008. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2008. ___________________ John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: ___________________ Richard Appicello, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2008-_____ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND RECITALS: WHEREAS, the City of Ashland City Council approved the establishment of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Ordinance _____), to keep our community diverse by facilitating the production and preservation of affordable housing throughout Ashland; and WHEREAS, The policies and procedures for administration of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund establish eligible uses, eligible applicants, the method by which funds are awarded, and selection criteria; and WHEREAS, the City Council understands the changing nature of the housing market and corresponding housing needs, and therefore has established the policies and procedures for administering the Ashland Housing Trust Fund to remain flexible to respond to changing market conditions and opportunities; now therefore . THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of the City of AshlandÓs Affordable Housing Trust Fund is to establish a dedicated source of revenue to provide ongoing funding for housing projects or programs that address the housing needs of Ashland residents. To this end the AHTF is established to address the primary purpose of encouraging the creation of housing for homeownership or rent, at a cost that will enable low and moderate income families to afford quality housing while paying no more than thirty per cent of gross household income on housing. 1.2 To promote the rehabilitation, preservation and production of quality, well designed rental and homeownership housing the AHTF will award funds to community development partners that are furthering the AHTF mission. It is expecting that the local contributions made through AshlandÓs Housing Trust Fund will assist in maximizing the leveraging of state and federal funds, as well as encourage private sector investment in affordable housing. Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 1 1.3 Understanding the high cost of housing regionally, it is evident that low and moderate income households are not being served by the housing market. To address the disparity between the cost of housing and the means of resident households to afford housing, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund aims to provide direct financial support to projects that retain or increase the supply of needed housing for households earning less than 120% the Area Median Income as defined by HUD. Section 2. Eligible Applicants 2.1 The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is structured to ensure that many different types of organizations are eligible to receive financing. 2.2 Eligible applicants include governmental subdivisions, community development corporations, local housing authorities, community action agencies, community-based or neighborhood-based non- profit housing organizations, other non-profit organizations, for- profit entities, and private employers. Section 3. Eligible Uses and Activities 3.1 Affordable Housing Trust Funds shall support the creation or preservation of housing that is affordable to people with incomes that do not exceed 120% of the area median income, as defined by HUD for the Medford-Ashland metropolitan service area. 3.2 AHTF funds will be focused on those activities that create, preserve or acquire housing within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. 3.3 Housing developments financed by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund which receive subsidy, financing, tax credits or other assistance under a state or federal housing program, may contain market rate units insofar as permissible under those programs and/or to the extent that they are necessary to support the creation of and/or on-going sustainability for the affordable housing units in the development. However, AHTF funds may not be used to support such market rate units. 3.4 Affordable housing units developed utilizing subsidy from the AHTF shall comply with the limits established by Resolution 2006-13, as amended, and as restricted by a covenant prepared by the City of Ashland. 3.5 The Affordable Housing Trust Funds can be provided as either a grant or a loan depending on the project or program receiving Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 2 funding. To retain a significant degree of flexibility the eligible uses have a broad application including the following: 3.5.a Acquisition and Construction of new affordable housing. Eligible acquisition and construction costs include reasonable costs associated with building or land purchase, such as: ¤ Purchase price ¤ Option costs ¤ Financing fees ¤ Appraisal costs ¤ Closing costs ¤ Interest ¤ Inspection fees ¤ Title insurance ¤ Relocation costs ¤ Architectural/engineering fees ¤ Construction costs 3.5.b Conservation of energy through the use of ÐgreenÑ technologies provided that the benefits of the energy savings is passed on in the form of reduced costs to the qualified occupants of the affordable housing. 3.5.c Land Banking: the purchase of land to be dedicated toward the development of affordable housing in the near or long term. 3.5.d Predevelopment activities undertaken by a community development organization in support of the development of affordable housing including planning, architectural services, engineering services, landscape design, legal services, surveys, appraisals, site clearance and demolition, environmental clearance, permit application fees and system development charges. 3.5.e Bridge loans to assist in development of low-income housing (for rental or owner occupancy). Bridge loans are intended to provide funding to permit housing projects to proceed in advance of the availability of permanent project funding. Bridge loan funding is available for such project development activity as acquisition and/or construction. 3.5f Capacity Building for non-profit affordable housing providers in the form of direct grant awards to fund administration of an affordable housing project or program. Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 3 3.1.g Rehabilitation and Emergency Repairs as part of an established program to secure units as affordable or to provide direct benefits to existing low-moderate income households. Eligible rehabilitation and emergency repair costs include but are not limited to: ¤ Architectural/engineering fees ¤ Construction costs ¤ Relocation costs ¤ Hazardous materials abatement including lead based paint noticing consistent with The Federal Lead Safe Housing Regulations HUD requirements at 24 CFR §35 3.1.h Direct benefits to low-moderate income households through an established program including down payment assistance, rental assistance, mortgage foreclosure prevention, emergency housing vouchers, homeownership training, renter education, or other programs intended to increase housing opportunities for AshlandÓs low-moderate income residents. 3.1.i Transitional and Emergency Housing for homeless individuals and families through an established program to move people toward self-sufficiency. 3.1.j Other uses as deemed appropriate by the Ashland City Council as supporting the development or preservation of affordable housing within the City of Ashland. Section 4. Preferences 4.1 The general criteria of selection found in Section 7 and may be modified through the annual Request for Proposals, however the following preferences are provided as guidance for future applicants. 4.1.a Developments that produce ÐnewÑ affordable housing units. For the purposes of these Guidelines, ÐnewÑ affordable housing units shall include housing units constructed where none had existed previously, abandoned or fire-damaged residential units to be returned to residential use, and non- residential or non-residentially-zoned property converted to residential use. Any designated new affordable housing units shall be secured as affordable through recorded Resale Restriction Covenants. Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 4 4.1.b Developments that provide new affordability. For the purpose of these Guidelines, Ðnew affordabilityÑ refers to existing housing where a new level of affordability is provided that does not currently exist. This could occur in rental or ownership housing where the number of affordable units is increased; where a portion of existing units will be made affordable to households at income levels substantially lower than the units currently served; or where the term of affordability on the units will be extended for a period beyond thirty (30) years. 4.1.c Developments of housing utilizing the Land Trust model to secure property and perpetual affordability. 4.1.d Developments that include joint ventures between multiple non-profit developers and or for-profit developers, working in partnership, to complete an affordable housing project 4.1.e Developments that include a joint venture between service providers and non-profit affordable housing developers to create projects that contain additional benefits to low income individuals in the development of the project, or additional services for the residents upon completion. 4.1.f Developments that incorporate the use of ÐgreenÑ building materials, use of energy-efficient appliances, low-water use landscaping, and building design and operational factors that minimize energy use and resource consumption as well as avoiding indoor health impacts to achieve Earth Advantage Certification. 4.1.g Developments that include affordable units for the disabled and the homeless. 4.1.h Projects that propose the longest term of affordability. 4.1.i Projects that are sponsored by non-profit organizations. 4.1.j Projects that use private funding sources and state funding sources to leverage the least amount of Ashland Housing Trust funds. Section 5. Fund Administration The Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) originated through the direction of the Ashland City Council and Ashland Housing Commission. Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 5 5.1 The City of Ashland acts as fiduciary agent and administrator of the funds. 5.2 Funds dedicated to the Ashland Housing Trust Fund shall be exclusively reserved to support the eligible uses identified within the AHTF (Section 2) and shall not be used for the general operation of the City. 5.3 The City of Ashland shall issue a request for proposals (RFP) on an annual basis to announce the availability of funds. The AHTF RFP issuance shall be timed to run concurrent with the Community Development Block Grant Program award process. 5.4 The City may issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to specifically target up to 10% in annual AHTF revenue to undertake activities identified in section 3. 5.5 The City of Ashland Housing Commission, and City Staff as designated by the Director of Community Development, shall review applications for Affordable Housing Trust Funds to determine project eligibility and evaluate the applications based on the selection criteria provided in the annual Request for Proposals. The Housing Commission, and City Staff, shall provide recommendations to the City Council who shall make final award decisions. 5.6 The City aims to administer the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in a manner consistent with other affordable housing programs such as the Ashland Community Development Block Grant Program. The implementation of a comparable application, application evaluation, and approval process will provide housing developers with a consistent and coherent method for securing housing funds from the City. Coordination of the grant allocation process with other local and state funding application timelines, will help ensure that AHTF funds are best applied to leverage additional resources in support of the housing projects. 5.7 AHTF funds will be allocated in a manner consistent with the threshold criteria provided Section 7.3, and consistent with State and Local Public Contracting law. Section 6. Match Requirements 6.1 The Ashland Housing Trust Fund is intended to support the development of needed housing, but is not intended to provide the sole source of funding for any development project or housing program. To ensure that affordable housing providers, and Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 6 organizations that assist individuals and families in obtaining needed housing, do not rely exclusively on AHTF to support their activities, it has been determined that; 6.2 The housing trust fund contribution shall not exceed more than 50% of the total project, or program, cost. Required Match can be met utilizing Community Development Block Grants, State or Federal Funding, direct contribution from the applicant, private donations, and the contribution of land, materials or labor to the project. 6.2.a In the case that land previously owned by the applicant is considered as required match, the value of the land shall be determined by a City approved certified appraisal completed by the applicant, unless otherwise directed in Oregon Revised Statute or City Municipal Code. 6.2.b The valuation of land, and available equity to be considered as matching funds, shall be verified by the City prior to the disbursement of an AHTF grant when its value is considered as required matching funds. 6.2.c Donated materials and labor which are proposed as required match through the development of a project shall have their value estimated at the time of application. The actual value of these contributions is subject to verification by the City at completion of the project. 6.2.e Award recipients shall provide verifiable accounting for donated labor and materials, when such was necessary to satisfy the AHTF match requirements. 6.3 A recipient of an AHTF grant that fails to verify the match requirements have been satisfied at the conclusion of a project would be considered cause for the City to require full or partial repayment of any AHTF grants awarded to a project. Section 7 Î Allocation of Funds The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is structured to allow the flexibility for the City, and housing providers, to be responsive to opportunities that arise that require an immediate expenditure of a relatively small amount of funds to secure property, or financing, as well as to ensure the majority of housing trust funds are allocated through a annual competitive award process. Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 7 Establishment of two distinct and separate award processes are intended to provide for both consistency and flexibility. The issuance of a Request for Proposals which will allocate 90% of the annual allocation of Affordable Housing Trust Funds will be coordinated with other local and State funding Cycles to allow applicants to best structure their project financing (Section 7.1). Additionally a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) may be announced, as funds permit, to allocate up to 10% of the annual funding available. A NOFA is primarily intended to be responsive to immediate needs for a limited grant or loan if needed for predevelopment activities which will further the mission of the AHTF. The distribution of any and all AHTF funds through Competitive or Non- Competitive awards as described in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, will be in accordance with State and Local Public Contracting laws. Section 7.1. Competitive Awards - Request for Proposals (RFP) The City of Ashland has a limited amount of AHTF funds to use each year in comparison to the scope of the housing needs within the community. As a result, it is essential that the funding be used in a manner that best meets the CityÓs priorities and that projects utilizing the resources of the AHTF are efficient and cost-effective. To this end a competitive award process has been established and a set of award criteria shall be developed each year to evaluate proposals received through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process in terms of how they address the specific priorities outlined in the annual RFP. The steps for making the annual competitive grant awards or loans is outlined below. 7.1 a. The City of Ashland shall issue a Request for Proposals providing applicants with a minimum of 45 days to respond to the request. 7.1 b City Staff shall assess the project proposals to determine if the eligibility criteria are met and shall develop a recommendation to provide to the Ashland Housing Commission and the City Council. 7.1 c.The Housing Commission will provide applicants the opportunity to make a presentation on the project proposal and provide community members the opportunity to comment by holding a public meeting. 7.1 d.The Ashland Housing Commission will develop a grant award recommendation to the City Council using the AHTF criteria to determine which projects best meet the CityÓs spending priorities. Each application will be rated on a high-medium-low scale for each criterion (Section 8). 7.1 e.The Ashland City Council shall make a final decision on the AHTF grant awards. Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 8 7.1 f.The City of Ashland shall prepare an agreement between the City and the award recipient. The Agreement shall outline the conditions of award and shall be executed prior to the disbursement of any AHTF funds. Section 7.2. Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) Upon electing to initiate a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) the City shall issue a notice of funding availability through publication in the Ashland Daily Tidings and on the CityÓs Website providing 30 days for eligible applicants to submit qualifications for funding. The City shall review all applications received to determine if the applications meet the CityÓs threshold criteria. If the criteria are met then the funds are awarded to, or reserved for, the applicant. Funds available through the NOFA process are awarded on a first come, first served basis, until reaching the annual funding cap. A reserve award granted to an applicant may be rescinded by the City if the applicant does not undertake the activities identified in response to the NOFA in advance of the CityÓs issuance of another RFP or NOFA. 7.2.a On an annual basis the City shall determine the amount of funds available to be distributed through a NOFA procedure 7.2.b In no case shall the amount disbursed through the non-competitive process exceed 10% of the annual AHTF revenue in a given program year. 7.2.c The City of Ashland recognizes that the nature of affordable housing development acquisition of property is often opportunity dependant. Further many nonprofit housing developers lack the resources to undertake feasibility studies, due diligence inspections, preliminary drawings and other activities required to evaluate potential projects as well as apply for project financing. 7.2.d To enable non-profit organizations, community development organizations, the Housing Authority of Jackson County, and the City of Ashland, to be responsive to opportunities outside of the annual Request for Proposals timeline, the City may reserve a portion of housing trust funds to support pre-development activities. 7.2.d.1 Predevelopment activities undertaken by a community development organization in support of the development of affordable housing including planning, architectural services, engineering services, landscape design, legal services, surveys, appraisals, site clearance and demolition, environmental clearance, and payment of permit application fees may be supported through a non-competitive award of a Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 9 predevelopment grant that may be required to convert to a loan if the project receives full funding. 7.2.d.2 For-profit developers are not eligible to apply for AshlandÓs Affordable Housing Trust Funds to assist with predevelopment costs. 7.2.e The City of Ashland is eligible to utilize the funds reserved for the NOFA process to conduct eligible activities as described in Section 3. 7.2.f The City may fund through a NOFA process an ongoing down- payment assistance program, rental assistance program, education program, rehabilitation program, or other programs intended to increase housing opportunities for AshlandÓs low-moderate income residents which are administered by a non-profit or governmental organization. Section 8 AHTF Grant or Loan Award Threshold and Selection Criteria 8.01 The project involves the rehabilitation, preservation or production of quality, well designed rental or homeownership housing benefiting households earning less than 120% the Area Median Income. (threshold verification Î not ranked) 8.02 If the project is related to the provision of technical assistance to affordable housing providers, the use of Ashland Housing Trust Funds functions to increase the capacity of the organization to specifically address the mission of the AHTF. (threshold verification Î not ranked). 8.03 Affordable Housing Trust funds shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to complete the project. The lower the percentage of AHTF funds requested, relative to the full project costs, the higher ranking the project shall be given (0-10). 8.04 The project addresses the unmet housing needs as identified in the Ashland Housing Needs analysis or Consolidated Plan. (0-15) 8.05 The lower the income level that is targeted for the benefiting households, the higher the ranking the project shall be given (0-15). 8.06 The project provides new affordable housing, or new affordability, through retention or rehabilitation of existing housing within the Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 10 City. The greater the number of units provided, the higher the ranking the project shall be given. (0-15) 8.07 The project retains the affordable housing units as affordable. The longer period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given (0-15). 8.08 The project addresses energy conservation through the integration of green building technologies in new construction, or achieves greater energy efficiency through rehabilitation of existing housing (0-15). 8.09 The project maximizes partnerships in the community (volunteers, in-kind contributions, cash contributions, multiple organizations involved, etc.) (0-5). 8.10 The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization (0-5). 8.11 The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project and has had demonstrated successes completing projects of similar scope (0-15). 8.12 The budget and time line are well thought (0-10). 8.13 The project is ready for implementation (0-5). 8.14 If the project includes the acquisition of property, the identified property is currently available for acquisition and the applicant has secured either a purchase option or letter of interest from the seller. If the applicant is also applying for federal funding (Community Development Block Grants or HOME) they should carefully review procurement requirements and limitations before obtaining a purchase option (0-5). 8.15 That relocation of existing residents will be minimized, and when necessary the applicant has included accurate relocation assistance costs as part of the project performa. (0-5) 8.16 The proposal demonstrates that Ashland Housing Trust Funds are the most appropriate funding source, and necessary, for the project. (0-5) Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 11 8.17 Additional selection criteria may be developed and included in the annual RFP to best direct AHTF resources toward an identified priority need. SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2008. SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2008. ___________________ John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: ___________________ Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ashland Housing Trust Fund Working Draft: June 2008 12 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Ashland Annexation / Zone Change Ordinance Development Î Scheduled July 24, 2008 Ashland Housing Commission Packet Commission Communication TO: Housing Commission Title: Annexation Ordinance Amendments Date: June 18, 2008 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Housing Commissioners, The enclosed materials relating to the Annexation Ordinance amendments are being provided to you in advance of the Planning Commission Study session scheduled for 6-24-2008. The Annexation Ordinance is not a topic of review at the Housing Commission th regular meeting on June 26, other than as an update item by the Planning Commission Liaison. The Housing Commission most recently reviewed the ordinance provisions on April th 28, and is not scheduled to review the ordinance amendments again until your th regular meeting on July 24, 2008. The Legal Department will have completed its review of the ordinance by that time and the Housing Commission will then be able to provide its recommendation on the ordinance changes proposed. For those interested in following the Planning Commissions initial study of the proposed amendments, these materials will be helpful at this time. Commission Communication TO: Planning Commission Title: Amendments to the Annexation and Zone Change ordinances Date: June 24, 2007 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Over the course of the last two years the Housing and Planning Commissions have examined AshlandÓs current annexation policies specifically as they relate to promoting the development of affordable workforce housing. As drafted the existing ordinance achieves the primary goal in this regard and is seen as a model that other communities in the state have examined in their efforts to address the increasing lack of housing affordability. However, experience in application with any ordinance functions to highlight areas that could be adjusted to better suit the intentions of the community. Since 2003, with a number of applications for annexation and zone changes processed, potential revisions to the existing ordinances have been identified to ensure the provision of affordable housing is both timely and equitable. These issues are as follows: Percentage of affordability Land Dedication Construction Timing Distribution of Affordable Housing Construction Standards Cash-in-Lieu fees It is important to note that the purpose behind amending the annexation ordinance at this time has been limited to addressing the provisions specifically relating to affordable housing to better reflect policy objectives for affordable and workforce housing. The schedule provided below outlines a public review process that is underway to complete this activity. June July August September October Planning Commission Planning City Council Public Hearing City Council Commission Final Draft Ordinance First Reading Ordinance Second Reading Study Session Developed September 16, Recommendations August October 7th, 2008 June 24, 2008 2008 12, 2008 Housing Commission Public Hearing Ordinance City Council Study Adopted Ordinance to Legal Review Recommendations, July 24, Session August 19, 2008 DLCD 2008 1 The attached draft ordinance is the first time the Commission will have seen the changes that have been previously discussed in ordinance format. As presented the proposed ordinance amendments are largely consistent with example language presented to both the Planning Commission, the Housing Commission and to an ad- hoc committee that convened on May 1, 2008, with a few notable exceptions as outlined below. Section 18.106.030 G(1) This proposed approval standard establishes an Ðequivalency valueÑ for affordable housing units as a means of providing greater flexibility in the mix of income levels targeted by a development. 1) The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25% of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein: a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership units (could potentially include Ðor rental unitsÑ) restricted to households earning at or below 80% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit, or; There has been general agreement that the concept of applying such equivalency values is an appropriate way to add flexibility to the ordinance and as such promote developments that target various income levels. Within this section however there has been discussion by both the planning commission and the Annexation ad-hoc review committee regarding subsection ÐcÑ as it relates to rental housing. Specifically the question has been raised as to whether any affordable rental housing units targeted to households earning 80% the Area Median Income (AMI) should qualify in meeting this standard. A concern raised is that as rents for households at 80%AMI are essentially equal to todayÓs market rental rates (a household earning 80%AMI can afford to rent a two bedroom for $805 per month), it raises the question as to whether meeting this standard provides any additional affordability not otherwise provided by the market. Alternatively, it has been suggested that to include rental units within this specific standard would promote the development of dedicated rental units which are not otherwise being developed in our community by the marketplace. The Rental Needs Analysis (2007) found that rental rates in Ashland are likely to increase substantially in the near future (Future Market Conditions pg 7), and as such regulated rental units targeted to 80%AMI are likely to become below market rentals as market rate rents increase. The Rental Needs Analysis expresses the issue as such: The lack of rental property production is due to basic market economics. It is simply more profitable to build and sell a multi-family unit as a condominium than it is to rent it as an apartment. The only way for the development community to have a financial incentive to build multi-family rental properties would be for rental rates to increase, which is detrimental to the overall affordability of AshlandÓs market. As a result, any solution to the problem will require balancing affordability while maintaining or promoting a market incentive for apartment development. 2 Section 18.106.030 G(2) This proposed approval standard allows for a developer to transfer ownership of property to an affordable housing provider as a means of satisfying their obligations under the ordinance. Transfer of property allows housing providers experienced with affordable housing to more readily partner with for-profit developers to complete the affordable housing component required by the annexation or zone change. This provision is similar to the existing ordinances allowance for such a transfer. Section 18.106.030 G(3) The existing Annexation and Zone Change Ordinances do not provide an alternative for Cash-n-Lieu fees. Such fees are often an option for developers to contribute a set amount into an affordable housing fund, to enable the City to apply those funds to meet its housing goals in another manner or through purchase of another site or support of housing programs. Should the City wish to examine in-lieu fees as a viable option in the future it seems appropriate to incorporate language in a modified annexation or zone-change code at this time that would maintain that option. However the City in accepting such fees would be essentially allowing a development to be built exclusive of affordable housing. This would then shift the onerous to the City to identify alternative property and coordinate the development of a comparable amount of units to realize the same benefit that would have been achieved were the affordable units originally included in the development. Staff is concerned that implementation of a Cash-n-Lieu fee program may not be an effective means as distributing affordable units throughout the City as would be the case with their incorporation in each independent annexation or zone-change. Language is provided in this draft ordinance should the Commissions and Council wish to eventually establish such a program. No ordinance or resolution has been enacted for cash-in-lieu fees and the methodology to establishment of actual contribution amounts has not been done. This section of code would allow the City to develop such a program in the future, until then the applicants could not exercise a Cash-in-lieu option. Section 18.106.030 G(4) This new section is proposed with two purposes in mind; 1) Ensuring that affordable units provided by a development are both comparable in terms of number of bedrooms with the market rate units developed; 2) Ensuring affordable units provided are not substandard in terms of total square footage. 4) The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the development. a. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor based as set forth in Table 1. 3 Table 1 Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio 350 1 Bedroom 500 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,000 4 Bedroom 1,250 The unit sizes in Table 1 were largely derived from using the minimum unit sizes from the State of OregonÓs HOME affordable housing program standards with one notable exception. The minimum unit size for 1 bedroom units under the State program is 600sq.ft. However, as AshlandÓ ordinances use 500 square feet as a delimiter for both density calculations and parking requirements by adjusting this down to 500sq.ft. we would allow greater opportunities for site design and potentially allow for an increase in the total number of affordable units (utilizing the 0.75 unit density designation for units 500sq.ft. or less) than could otherwise be provided were the standard to remain at 600sq.ft. This potential change was suggested at the Annexation Ad-Hoc Committee and Staff believes such a change has merit and should be considered for inclusion in the final ordinance. In the original language presented to the Commissions included the following under this section: Interior features of the affordable units shall not be required to be the same as or equivalent to the market rate units, so long as they are of good quality and consistent with current building standards Staff is suggesting that we strike this language in its entirety from the final ordinance language Although it is descriptive, it does not actually establish a ÐstandardÑ of development, other than to note consistency with building standards, which is a given. Removing the section from the proposed draft will not materially effect the interpretation of the section but removes complexity from the draft language. Section 18.106.030 G(5) Under the existing ordinance there is no established criteria that addresses how a project is to be phased, specifically identifying at which point affordable housing units are constructed relative to the market rate units within the development. The section below is intended to remedy situations where all the market rate units are developed and the affordable housing component remains unbuilt. By phasing the development as follows the City can be assured that all the affordable housing will be made available for occupancy on approximately the same schedule as the projects market rate units. 5) A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the Affordable Housing Units per 18.106.030(G) shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows: a. That 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final 10% of the market rate units, the final 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 4 Section 18.106.030 G(6) The desire articulated by the Housing Commission and other community members has consistently been to ÐscatterÑ affordable housing throughout the community and on individual projects to reduce the potential for stigmatization of a Ðlow-income areaÑ and further to support income integration as a community value. Concern had been raised by non-profit housing providers that mandating a method of scattered site development may impede funding sources, specifically state funding sources. The State representative from the department of Housing and Community Services has indicated that this is not the case and that scattered site proposals can be funded without compromise. The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has indicated that the economy of scale of ÐclusteredÑ development is beneficial to their application of the Self Help Program and as such did not recommend language that required scattering of units. Staff believes that given the scale of developments in Ashland the issue of ÐclusteringÑ is not pronounced in our community. Even in what Ashland considers to be large projects (ie 40-100 units), the number of affordable units provided do not typically appear to create a distinguishable Ðlow-income areasÑ. The new code language suggested is as follows: That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project This language eliminates the numerical limitation previously discussed Ðno more than four affordable housing units be located adjacent to one anotherÑ . In further consideration of this potential language staff believes such language would be problematic to housing providers aiming to complete larger scale apartment projects which could include apartment complexes of greater than 4 units. Additionally, questions of interpretation regarding ÐadjacencyÑ were discussed at the Ad-Hoc Committee and could further be discussed by outlining what qualifies as a separation between affordable units (including market rate units, common open space, new roads within a development, pre-existing affordable units on adjacent properties). For these reasons staff believes the elimination of the numerical limitation, but retention of the broad standard should be considered by the Commissions and Council. With the standard above the applicant would still have the burden of proof to demonstrate that affordable units are distributed throughout the project, or alternatively apply for an exception under section 18.106.030(H). Section 18.106.030 (H), Exceptions This sections outlines the exceptions to the requirements of 18.06.030.G(2), 18.06.030.G(5), and/or 18.06.030G(6) that may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of the alternatives proposed. This flexibility is intended to allow the City to consider proposals that may accomplish additional benefits for the city or provide adequate assurances that the intention of the standards is met. An important point to note is that the language presented states that exceptions Ð may be approved by the City Council Ñ and thus applicants will be unlikely to apply for a discretionary exception when meeting the standard is feasible. 5 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE Additions are indicated in Bold Red type, deletions in strikeout type. CHAPTER 18.106 18.106.010 Procedure. 18.106.020 Application. 18.106.025 Initiation by Council. 18.106.030 Approval Standards. 18.106.040 Boundaries. 18.106.050 Statutory procedure. SECTION 18.106.010 Procedure. All annexations shall be processed under the Type III procedure. (ORD 2791, 1997) SECTION 18.106.020 Application. Except for annexations initiated by the council or commission pursuant to section 18.106.025, application for annexation shall include the following information: A. Consent to annexation which is non-revok c able for a period of one year from its date. B. Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of special districts defined in ORS 222.510. C. Boundary description and map prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. Such description and map shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monumented as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. D. Written findings addressing the criteria in 18.106.030. E. Written request by the property owner for a zone change. Provided, however, no written request shall be necessary if the annexation has been approved by a majority vote in an election meeting the requirements of Section 11g of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 47). (ORD 2792, 1997) SECTION 18.106.025 Initiation by Council. A proposal for annexation may be initiated by the council or commission on its own motion. The approval standards in section 18.106.030 shall apply. Provided, however, that in the case of annexation pursuant to section 18.106.030.4 (current or probable public health hazard due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services) or section 18.106.030.6 (the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits), the approval standards in section 18.106.030.E, F and G shall not apply. (ORD 2792, 1997) SECTION 18.106.030 Approval Standards. An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria: A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half- street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. Page 2 of 7 www.ashland.or.us Annexations fax 541-552-2050 TTY 800-735-2900 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. 1) The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25% of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein: a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership units (could potentially include Ðor rental unitsÑ here to promote rentals) restricted to households earning at or below 80% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60% the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit, or; Page 3 of 7 www.ashland.or.us Annexations fax 541-552-2050 TTY 800-735-2900 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 2) As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.106.030(G)(1) the applicant may provide Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235 for the purpose of complying with subsection 18.106.030(G)(1)(b). a. The land to be transfered shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.106.030(G)4, 18.106.030(G)5 and 18.106.030(G)6 b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. c. Prior to commencement of the project, Title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a non Îprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235, d. The land to be transfered shall be deed restricted to comply with AshlandÓs affordable housing program requirements. 3) A cash-in-lieu equivalent contribution as a alternative to the provision of affordable housing through 18.106.030(G)(1) may be approved at the sole discretion of the City Council, or the provision of land through 18.106.030(G)(2) may satisfy affordable unit obligations by making contributions to the cityÓs affordable housing fund if authorized by city ordinance or resolution (XX.XX.XXX). a. The city administrator is authorized to adjust the cash-in-lieu contribution on an annual basis to reflect changes in the median sale price for detached and attached housing, using information provided by Jackson County Assessor records for the City of Ashland. b. The city administrator shall establish an affordable housing fund for the receipt and management of permanently affordable unit cash-in-lieu financial contributions. Monies received into that fund shall be utilized solely for the construction, purchase, maintenance of affordable housing, or for the costs of affordable housing programs. 4) The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in the development. a. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor based as set forth in Table 1. Page 4 of 7 www.ashland.or.us Annexations fax 541-552-2050 TTY 800-735-2900 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 Table 1 Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio 350 1 Bedroom 500 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,000 4 Bedroom 1,250 5) A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the Affordable Housing Units per 18.106.030(G) shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows: a. That 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final 10% of the market rate units, the final 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 6) That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project. H. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.06.030.G(2), 18.06.030.G(5), and/or 18.06.030G(6) may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following: 1) That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of 18.106.030(G)2, or; 2) That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting 18.106.030(G)5 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion,or; 3) That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting 18.106.030(G)6 is necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing financing limitations that require a clustering of the affordable units or; 4) That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting 18.106.030(G)6 is necessary for development of an affordable housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services or; 5) That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution requirement of 18.106.030(G)6 Page 5 of 7 www.ashland.or.us Annexations fax 541-552-2050 TTY 800-735-2900 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H I. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five- year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997) (Ord 2895, Amended, 04/15/2003) SECTION 18.106.040 Boundaries. When an annexation is initiated by a private individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of property in the proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of land which are not incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff Advisor, in a report to the Commission and Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcels other than the parcel for which the petition is filed. The purpose of this section is to permit the Planning Commission and Council to make annexations extending the City's boundaries more logical and orderly. (ORD 2792, 1997) SECTION 18.106.050 Statutory procedure. The applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS Chapter 222 the applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely. Page 6 of 7 www.ashland.or.us Annexations fax 541-552-2050 TTY 800-735-2900 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 (ORD 2792, 1997) Page 7 of 7 www.ashland.or.us Annexations fax 541-552-2050 TTY 800-735-2900 ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE DRAFT CHANGES TO THE PROCEEDURES SECTION OF THE LAND USE CODE RELATING TO ZONE CHANGES Additions are indicated in bold red type, deletions in strikeout type. CHAPTER 18.108 PROCEDURES SECTIONs: 18.108.010 Purpose. 18.108.015 Pre-Application Conference. 18.108.017 Applications. 18.108.020 Types of Procedures. 18.108.022 Ministerial Action Time Limits. 18.108.030 Staff Permit Procedure. 18.108.040 Type I Procedure. 18.108.050 Type II Procedure. 18.108.060 Type III Procedures. 18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision and Appeals. 18.108.080 Public Notice. 18.108.100 Public Hearings Procedure. 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. 18.108.140 Fees. 18.108.150 Council or Commission May Initiate Procedures. 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. 18.108.170 Legislative amendments. 18.108.180 Resubmittal of Applications. SECTION 18.108.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures to initiate and make final decisions regarding planning actions. Sections18.108.070-18.108.180 not included as no changes are proposed to those sections, and they do not relate to the changes proposed in 18.108.060 SECTION 18.108.060 Type III Procedures. A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions. 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that: Page 1 of 3 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 www.ashland.or.us a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G) one of the following: 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the aroa or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project; or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G) one of the following: 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions. Page 2 of 3 Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wy, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 www.ashland.or.us C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be process as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in 18.108.100. 2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A. 1 and 2, the Commission shall have the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision without further action from the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110. 3. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A. 3 and 2, the Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. (Ord 2895, Amended, 04/15/2003) , 1990; Ord. 2775, 1996) Sections18.108.070-18.108.180 not included as no changes are proposed to those sections, and they do not relate to the changes proposed in 18.108.060 Page 3 of 3 Housing in the NEWS Ashland Housing Commission Packet Affordable Rentals to the RescuePage 1of 5 Print Now June 2008 Affordable Rentals to the Rescue How to retain market-rate Ï but affordable Ï apartments in your community. By Lisa A. Fowler Arlington County, Virginia, is one of the most expensive communities in the Washington metro area. It is also home to Fillmore Gardens Ï a 559-unit apartment complex that is affordable to families earning 60 percent of the area median income. But unless Arlington County and other high-cost jurisdictions make a priority of preserving market-rate affordable properties, apartment complexes like Fillmore Gardens are in danger of disappearing. The complex is within walking distance of a public library, a major bus route, and a revitalizing commercial district. Two-story brick buildings border courtyards of well-manicured grass and trimmed shrubs. The one- and two-bedroom units range in size from 650 to 800 square feet. In 2007, a two-bedroom apartment at Fillmore Gardens rented for $1,085, whereas new two-bedroom apartments in the county can fetch upwards of $3,500 a month. Fillmore Gardens, built in the 1950s, is like other market-rate affordable rental properties. It is privately owned housing that does not receive public assistance but is nevertheless affordable by virtue of the fact that it is older and has fewer amenities. Properties like this served as middle-class family housing in the middle of the last century and now constitute some of the only options for moderate- income households living in expensive communities. This housing choice is disappearing. In metropolitan areas where land values have increased dramatically, many owners of older multifamily buildings have sold to private developers who raze the buildings to build larger, high-end rental and condominium properties. However, for some owners of market-rate affordable rental properties Ï particularly those with strong ties to the community Ï maintaining and managing older rental properties as a source of affordable housing is a mission, not just a business. Why keep market-rate rentals? Many communities facing an affordable housing shortage focus primarily on tools to generate new affordable units or ways to extend expiring federal subsidies for subsidized units. But in many cities and inner ring suburbs, market-rate rentals make up a considerable share of the available affordable housing. Keeping them affordable is the tricky part. Arlington County has about 10,000 market-rate affordable rental units, compared with fewer than 6,000 committed affordable rental units, or CAFs. (CAFs are units built at least in part with tax credit dollars and are negotiated through the county's planning process.) While the county has succeeded in increasing the number of subsidized affordable rental units, it has not been able to stem the loss of market-rate affordable rentals. The number of CAFs in Arlington County increased by about 1,700 between 2000 and 2007, but nearly half the stock of market-rate affordable housing disappeared during the same period as a result of condominium conversion, redevelopment, and rent increases. Preserving market-rate affordable rental properties is necessary to stem the "one step forward, two steps back" process occurring in many high-cost communities. Saving the units http://www.planning.org/planning/member/2008jun/affordable.htm?project=Print6/18/2008 Affordable Rentals to the RescuePage 2of 5 Surprisingly few communities give private property owners incentives to maintain their properties as affordable. Instead, they may use other strategies, which typically fall into two categories: acquisition and property tax exemptions. The best way to preserve at-risk properties permanently is to transfer them to organizations whose mission is to provide affordable housing, rather than to make money. Several states and localities have initiated programs to increase opportunities for local jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations, or tenants to stop the sale of affordable rental properties to speculative buyers. Referred to as "right of first refusal" initiatives, these policies require property owners to notify a specified group of interested parties when they plan either to sell the property or to terminate participation in a federal or other subsidy program. The right of first refusal can go to the tenants' association, local or state housing authority, nonprofit organization, or some combination of these groups. Montgomery County, Maryland, enacted its right of first refusal policy in 2002. Owners are required to provide written notice of the sale both to all tenants and to the county within five days of entering into a contract with a private buyer. This notice must include an offer to the tenant organization, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, or the Housing Opportunities Commission to purchase the property. The tenants or the county must usually match the contract made with a private buyer. Securing funding typically involves partnering with a nonprofit affordable housing developer and taking advantage of tax credit financing. In Montgomery County, owners of multifamily rental properties are also required to give tenants at least 120 days notice before converting the property to condominiums. Further, the owner must provide tenant relocation assistance equal to two months' rent. The first project preserved under the county's right of first refusal policy was Woodside Manor Apartments, a 221-unit complex in Silver Spring. The tenants exercised the right of first refusal, but lacked sufficient funds to buy the property themselves. Instead, the property was bought by a developer who used federal low-income tax credits to rehabilitate it and maintain it as affordable. Having the right to purchase a property is futile unless the local jurisdiction, housing group, or tenants association can acquire the funds needed to meet a private offer. At the city or county level, these funds usually come from a dedicated pool of property tax revenue or broadly supported housing trust funds that generally are distributed to nonprofit housing groups to initiate the purchase or rehabilitation of a property. In 2004, the board of supervisors in Fairfax County, Virginia, established the One Penny Fund, which dedicates revenue from the county real estate tax rate to the preservation of affordable housing. The fund, worth $22.7 million in fiscal 2008, provides money to nonprofit housing developers who want to purchase and rehabilitate affordable housing. Rental projects funded by the One Penny Fund are required to remain affordable for 20 years. Units must be affordable to households earning no more than 120 percent of the area's median income. The first project funded through the One Penny Fund was the 216-unit Madison Ridge apartment complex, which was purchased by the nonprofit Wesley Housing Development Corporation with $2.5 million from the fund and other county funds. The final acquisition and rehabilitation cost was $38.5 million. Housing trust funds are another way localities generate additional resources for affordable housing preservation. In 1999, businesses in Santa Clara County, California, joined with nonprofit organizations and local governments to establish the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County. The Housing Trust raised an endowment of $20 million in the first two years by asking local employers, foundations, governments, and citizens to make donations to the fund. To date, the trust has focused on generating new affordable units, rather than on preservation. As of February 2008, the Housing Trust of Santa Clara has invested $5.5 million in affordable multifamily rental development, creating 1,258 new rental units. Property tax exemptions http://www.planning.org/planning/member/2008jun/affordable.htm?project=Print6/18/2008 Affordable Rentals to the RescuePage 3of 5 Even with additional revenue sources and a right of first refusal requirement, it can be prohibitively expensive for local jurisdictions or nonprofit developers to purchase a multifamily building. In many areas, it makes more sense to encourage current owners of affordable rental properties to hold on to their buildings and continue to maintain affordable rents. Rising costs, especially high property taxes, make it particularly difficult for property owners in expensive areas to keep rents affordable to low- and moderate-income tenants. In some states and localities, however, affordable properties owned by nonprofit organizations are exempt from property taxes. California provides a property tax exemption for low-income housing properties owned by nonprofit organizations or by limited partnerships in which the managing general partner is a qualified nonprofit organization. These properties are eligible for a 100 percent property tax exemption if all units are leased to qualified low-income tenants at specified rent levels. Partial exemptions are available for the portion of the property serving low-income tenants. Some localities offer tax abatements to owners who substantially rehabilitate multifamily rental buildings. New York City's J-15 program provides tax exemptions for substantial improvements to multifamily rental buildings. The J-15 program exempts the property from an increase in assessed value that otherwise would occur as a result of significant renovation. Most exemptions last 14 years. The city does not place restrictions on rents, however, so the owner is not required to maintain the property as affordable. What owners say What keeps some private owners from selling their properties to the highest bidder or raising rents to capture a share of what was an out-of-control housing market? In 2006, the Alliance for Housing Solutions, an advocacy group based in Northern Virginia, sought the answer by conducting interviews with owners and managers of market-rate affordable rental properties in Arlington County. The individuals interviewed owned or managed about 1,500 units that were affordable to households earning between 60 and 80 percent of area median income. The data showed that Arlington County property owners held onto their properties even in the face of very lucrative offers, because the properties provided good cash flow and the capital gains taxes resulting from a sale would be too high. For other property owners, however, particularly those who had owned their properties for 20 or more years or who grew up in Arlington County, maintaining and managing older buildings to provide housing that was affordable was also very important. Many of those owners said they kept rents low because they wanted to hold onto good tenants and they felt they were providing a service to the community. One owner who said it was the right thing to do worked with local community and church groups to help low- income renters find apartments. All of the owners surveyed were clear: They did not want the government telling them what they could or could not do with their properties. They have avoided subsidies and other government programs because the programs "take away the power of owners to run their properties," according to one respondent. However, property tax increases can make owners into sellers. In Arlington County, where land values have increased dramatically in the past decade, so too have property tax assessments and tax bills. Some owners of market-rate affordable rental properties saw their property taxes double between 2000 and 2007. In almost all cases, property owners indicated they had paid for these cost increases by raising rents. Landlords who had owned their properties for a long time or who have large holdings found it easier to absorb cost increases, but owners of smaller buildings said they often could not. Because they tend to be older, most market-rate affordable rental buildings need major renovations. In Arlington County, those renovations will be needed soon. Buildings there are 50 years old on average. Most are two- to four-story garden apartment buildings with relatively small units that often lack dishwashers, disposals, central air conditioning, and other amenities that have become standard in rental buildings. The buildings are structurally sound, but many will need new windows, new heating and cooling systems, and amenity upgrades. http://www.planning.org/planning/member/2008jun/affordable.htm?project=Print6/18/2008 Affordable Rentals to the RescuePage 4of 5 Tenants in market-rate affordable rental properties may not be needy. There are no rules governing the income limits of a tenant who rents an unsubsidized or unregulated apartment unit. According to the property owners, many of the people living in these units are "meaningfully" over the income limits. They simply choose to rent these properties for other reasons. What local governments can do Local jurisdictions may be able to use several different tools to encourage the preservation of market-rate affordable rental properties. One is a requirement that owners sell to a local government or tenants association Ï in partnership with a nonprofit developer Ï if they can match an acceptable offer. Enacting a right of first refusal law is another strategy. The two biggest challenges to this proposal are opposition from property rights groups and the money involved. In addition, in the 39 Dillon Rule states, localities can have very limited powers that are specified explicitly by the state. In most cases, local government officials cannot tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their property. Local jurisdictions would have to work with the state to craft a specific set of rules regarding sales of multifamily rental properties to ensure that they stayed within their authority. The second challenge Ï money Ï may be even harder to address. In areas like Arlington County, a 60- year-old rental property could be sold to a private developer for $10 million or even $20 million. Even if localities partner with nonprofit housing organizations and leverage federal and state subsidies, they may find it difficult to match private offers. Local governments need to figure out how to generate more guaranteed resources for affordable housing to be able to compete with private offers. Another strategy is to offer property tax reductions to owners of both subsidized and unsubsidized affordable rental properties. Such a system would reduce their cost burden and make it easier for them to keep rents low. Property owners could apply for a tax reduction and certify the property as an eligible affordable rental property, defined as one either with units that have rents affordable to households earning 60 (or 80) percent of area median income, or units that house tenants whose incomes are 60 (or 80) percent of area median income. The latter requirement would ensure that the units are affordable and that they are actually being occupied by low-income tenants. In order to qualify for tax reductions, property owners would be required to maintain the units as affordable for a specific period of time. While the property owners we interviewed said they would prefer a year-to-year affordability commitment, local jurisdictions would need a longer buy-in. Another alternative is for the local government to help owners identify additional density potential on their property. In some cases, the parcels have been approved for much higher densities. Under local planning and special exception processes, owners might be allowed to build new, market-rate buildings on-site if some of the units were subsidized. That option would improve the owners' cash flow and make it easier for them to maintain their affordable projects. Individuals who own multiple properties within a jurisdiction might be able to transfer density rights from one parcel to another in order to allow sufficient density for development. As with the tax abatement proposal, property owners who take advantage of density transfers would be required to keep their rentals affordable for a specified period of time. In many cases, private property owners don't understand existing programs. Only one of the owners interviewed in Arlington County participated in the federal Section 8 program. But if private property owners were better educated about the Section 8 process Ï and the guaranteed rental income that results from participation Ï they might be more inclined to participate. Current program participants could be an excellent source of information because they could help clear up common misconceptions. Without a serious effort to preserve the stock of market-rate affordable rental housing, communities will continue to see their affordable units disappear. In the meantime, the pressure on private owners continues to grow, especially in desirable communities. Just down the street from Fillmore Gardens in Arlington County, two new high-end multifamily residential buildings are under construction. And the http://www.planning.org/planning/member/2008jun/affordable.htm?project=Print6/18/2008 Affordable Rentals to the RescuePage 5of 5 owner of Fillmore Gardens is looking toward retirement. It may not be too much longer before market- rate affordable rental properties in this expensive jurisdiction are a thing of the past. Lisa Fowler is director of the Office of Housing Policy Research at George Mason University's School of Public Policy. Images: Affordable rental housing is increasingly hard to come by, especially in expensive communities. One exception is Fillmore Gardens in Arlington County, Virginia. Photo by Lisa Fowler. ©Copyright 2008 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved http://www.planning.org/planning/member/2008jun/affordable.htm?project=Print6/18/2008 Ashland Daily Tidings :: Online Edition :: Print ArticlePage 1of 2 PRINT | CLOSE WINDOW June 18, 2008 Parks, houses and vacant lots in Ashland By Sandra Coyner and Carol Voisin Guest opinions Letter Submissions Letters should be e-mailed in text-only format to tidingsopinion@dailytidings.com. Please include your address and a daytime phone number where you can be reached for confirmation. Letters are limited to 250 words. At Length submissions are limited to 400 words. Submissions may be edited for length, content and clarity. The Tidings gives priority to letters on local and regional topics of current interest. It seeks to encourage thoughtful, well-reasoned leters and to discourage personal attacks, repetitive messages and personal disputes. Form letters are not published in the Tidings, nor are letters identified as having been published in other publications. Ashland's Parks Commission will consider a land swap on June 23. The plan is not "parks for housing." Four houses would be built on two acres now open, but five acres would shift from housing to open. Advocates for preserving the two acres have generally not addressed the five acres to be gained. We support the Housing Commission's positive vote on its part in this proposal, and hope the Parks Commission will also agree. Westwood The disputed land on Westwood Street near Strawberry Lane is on the wildlands interface. Some call this 10-acre tract "Westwood Park," but the city purchased it in the 1990s for a water tower. Plans change Ï the tank is elsewhere Ï and the land remains undeveloped with no master plan. The neighborhood around this vacant lot already includes much parkland, open space and conservation land. Walk along Westwood and look north: huge, now vividly green Hald-Strawberry Park is breathtaking, providing many trails and views. Additional hiking trails take off from Birdsong Street and Hitt Road, leading through more open lands. Conservation areas protect long stretches of Wrights Creek. More citizens should visit the Westwood-Strawberry neighborhood to take advantage of these public amenities, though you'd need to drive to get there. Does this already sparkling neighborhood need more parks? The vacant lot adds little to it. When we visited recently, we stepped gingerly through a hot field full of poison oak and came back with ticks. We couldn't safely get anywhere near the creek. We saw nobody on the lot Ï though we saw a few hikers using the developed trails nearby. Clay On the other side of town, however, alongside the proposed swap land on Clay Street, we saw parks and streets full of kids and adults playing and hanging out. Developed parks can easily draw high usage, and the swap land borders the City's YMCA Park with its popular facilities. But neighborhoods matter, too Ï Clay Street is more densely populated, easily accessible by bike and foot and even near the bus line. The Clay Street swap land Ï 10 acres, same size as the other parcel Ï was targeted for city acquisition and was included in the 2002-2012 Open Space Plan. However, it is currently privately owned, used as http://www.dailytidings.com/print_article.php?pagename=/2008/0618/stories/0617_oped_...6/18/2008 Ashland Daily Tidings :: Online Edition :: Print ArticlePage 2of 2 pasture, and well along in the approval process for a housing subdivision. It includes 1.5 acres of listed but somewhat degraded wetland. Swap The proposal envisions new housing and park potential on both these parcels. Currently we have 10 acres for housing (Clay) and 10 acres of open land (Westwood). The park-related swap would give seven acres for housing (five on Clay and two on Westwood), five acres of open land (Clay) and eight acres of open land (Westwood). One might reasonably view the proposal as a gain for Ashland's open space, not a loss. Some suggest the Clay Street land will become ball fields. That's possible. But so are other uses. The swap need not designate how the lands will be developed, though high priority should be improving the 1.5 acres of wetlands. The rest of the land could be open, developed ball fields, something in between or some of each. The Parks Commission should make that determination after hearing pros and cons on all sides, including alternative sources of funding, environmental considerations, and current usage. This swap also involves social equity. The plan reduces potential parkland in a wealthy area (houses $1.5 million and above). It increases potential parkland in a less affluent area (houses $275-325,000). The Clay neighborhood is good for workforce and affordable housing Ï encouraging the Housing Commission's support for its part of the swap. But Westwood advocates have organized resources to lobby for their interests, distributing a slick-paper color brochure telling how important the land is to them, prematurely designating the vacant lot as "Westwood Park," and (revealingly?) calling it a "neighborhood," not "city" resource. Parks are important all over our town. This swap is a great opportunity. Sandra Coyner is recently retired from Southern University as Emerita Professor of Women's Studies and Honors. Carol Voisin teaches at Southern Oregon University and is a member of Ashland's Housing Commission. © 2008 DailyTidings.com Page: http://www.dailytidings.com/2008/0618/stories/0617_oped_guest-voisin.php http://www.dailytidings.com/print_article.php?pagename=/2008/0618/stories/0617_oped_...6/18/2008