Mountain Housing Council Meeting #3 January 12, 2017 8:00-11:00am Donner Memorial State Park Visitor Center

Agenda Welcome, Introductions, Tool Stories Tiger Team + Work Team Updates State Housing Packet Partner Updates + Open Discussion Public Comment V. Close Notes: -Acknowledge public, public protocol doc at sign in -Walk everyone through placemat and dashboard -Reminder: Role to these quarterly council meetings is coming together to update, inspire, collectively measure results and brainstorm solutions

Meeting Goals Vote to Recommend Achievable Local Housing Review - Nonprofit Developer Tour Concept - Policy Agenda - State Policy Agenda for Housing

Video Stories Challenges and Opportunities in Housing the Missing Middle

Council Updates

Tiger Team Update: Innovative Policy Team

Thank you to the Policy Team! Kristi Thompson, Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe Alexis Ollar, Mountain Area Preservation Brain Foss, Nevada County Amy Kelley, North Tahoe Family Resource Center Shawna Purvines, Placer County Fred Ilfeld, Andrew Lange, Squaw Valley Public Service District Ted Owens, Tahoe Forest Hospital District Wally Auerbach, Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation Yumie Dahn, Jeff Loux, + Dave Tirman, Town of Truckee John Manocchio, Truckee Chamber of Commerce Jen: Please ask Emily for complete list of Innovative policy team members and update this.

10 Innovative Policies in 3 Years Innovative Policy Agenda Goal Decrease Barriers Increase Incentives Handout of projects in the pipeline: 10 Innovative Policies in 3 Years

Today Review Progress + Feedback: Regional Policy Agenda Review + Decision: Policy Brief: Achievable Local Housing Other Updates: Fee Roundtable, ADU Outreach Plan

Regional, Innovative Policy Agenda Expanded Definition of Affordability 2017 Expanding Types of Housing Fee’s (Permit + Hook-up, etc.) Unlock Current Inventory Density Strategies 2018 Inclusionary Housing Streamline Review Process Jeff Loux

Focused on a Range of Housing Types Senior Co-Living Cohousing Supportive Mobile Homes Focused on a Range of Housing Types Junior ADUs Single Family Condos + Townhomes Multi-Family (apt) ADUs This is a example of what we mean by EXPANDING the types of housing—either via policy development or education to developers, community and employers

Policy Development Process ID Barriers + Opportunities Work Group Formed Council Feedback MHC Policy Brief Council Recommendation Rollout to Agencies

An Expanded Definition of Affordable Achievable Local Housing - For the Moderate Income (> 80% ≤ 120% AMI) level, the only incentive for housing programs is through the State Density Bonus Law which still only applies to condo projects. - Local jurisdictions can support Moderate Income housing through design waivers, expedited process review, and fee reductions.

Regional Housing Needs by Workforce Household Type + Income Category Household Income Category Year-Round Resident Seasonal Resident In-Commuter Total % of Total Extremely Low (≤ 30% AMI) 379 274 258 911 7.49% Very Low (> 30% ≤ 50% AMI) 440 269 986 1,695 13.94% Low (> 50% ≤ 80% AMI) 884 291 1,373 2,548 20.95% Moderate (> 80% ≤ 120% AMI) 1,001 168 1,330 2,499 20.55% Above Moderate (> 120% AMI) 1,396 194 2,917 4,507 37.06% 4,100 1,196 6,864 12,160 100.00% Source: Table ES-1, Truckee North Tahoe Housing Study, BAE 2016 - Table is from the BAE Regional Housing Needs Study. - Demonstrates a total need of 12,160 units. - Of those units, over half (57%) are needed for households earning moderate incomes or above. - To meet this need, our region will need a range of options from apartments to rooms for rent to single family homes.

Ownership Affordability Gap for Single-Family Homes - Chart is based on Nevada County Median Income of $73,500 for a family of four (2017). Key Points: - So that a household would pay no more than 1/3 of their annual income for housing, affordable sale price is calculated at 3.79 x annual income. - 3.79 rate is based on BAE’s analysis. - Looking at chart, households earning below 120% AMI will never be able to afford a single-family home. - Example, a family of 4 earning 120% AMI in Nevada County, earning $88,200 ($91,300 - Placer County) has a gap of affordable sale price to median home sale price of $203,413 in Nevada County ($191,577 in Placer County). Source of Data: Table 21: Single-Family Home Sales & Table 23: Affordable For-Sale Housing Prices, Truckee North Tahoe Housing Study, BAE 2016.

Affordability Gap for Rentals - Chart based Nevada County Median Income of $73,500 for a family of four (2017). Trends: - For lower income households, there is a significant gap in affordability of rentals. - Example, a family of 4 earning 80% AMI ($61,300 – Nevada County, $60,900 – Placer County) can only afford a rental cost of $1,428, but the median rental rate is $2,200 for a 3-bedroom. - The more significant barrier to rental housing that affects all income levels, however, is the severe rental housing shortage. Source of Data: Table 28: Affordable Rental Rates, Truckee North Tahoe Housing Study, BAE 2016

Annual Incomes by AMI for Placer County Residents (2017) Eligible for State and Federal Assistance Annual Income Level 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person Extremely Low (up to 30% AMI) $16,000 $18,300 $20,600 $24,600 $28,440 Very Low (up to 50% AMI) $26,650 $30,450 $34,250 $38,050 $41,100 Low (up to 80% AMI) $42,650 $48,750 $54,850 $60,900 $65,800 Median (up to 100% AMI) $53,250 $68,500 $76,100 $82,200 Moderate (up to 120% AMI) $63,900 $73,050 $82,150 $91,300 $98,600 Middle (up to 170% AMI) $90,525 $103,530 $116,450 $129,370 $139,740 Upper Middle (up to 195% AMI) $103,838 $118,755 $133,575 $148,395 $160,290 Eligible for Limited State and Federal Assistance Missing Middle No Government Assistance - With the new definition of Local Achievable Housing, the darker blue and green row income categories (80% to 195% AMI) would be categorized as the “Missing Middle”. - Blue rows for Annual Incomes for each County calculated by HUD and adjusted by CA Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD). - Green rows are un-verified estimates for households with “above moderate” income levels.

Affordable Home Purchase Price by AMI for Placer County Residents Annual Income Level 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person Extremely Low (up to 30% AMI) $60,640 $69,357 $78,146 $92,258 $107,887 Very Low (up to 50% AMI) $101,004 $115,406 $129,889 $144,305 $155,989 Low (up to 80% AMI) $161,644 $184,763 $208,036 $231,100 $249,612 Median (up to 100% AMI) $201,818 $230,811 $259,615 $288,419 $311,538 Moderate (up to 120% AMI) $242,181 $276,860 $311,674 $346,423 $374,039 Missing Middle (up to 170% AMI) $343,090 $392,379 $441,346 $490,312 $529,615 Missing Middle (up to 195% AMI) $393,544 $450,081 $506,249 $562,417 $607,499 Missing Middle - Blue rows in Amount Available for Housing and Affordable Home Purchase Price Tables reported in Truckee North Tahoe Housing Study, BAE. - Affordable Purchase Price Calculation: Annual Income x 3.79, following BAE methodology.

Achievable Affordable Housing Decision Achievable Affordable Housing

MHC Recommendation Propose regional definition—achievable local Expands up to 195% AMI to include missing middle need Rolls out to agencies + jurisdictions for recommended Board adoption by June 2018 Staff to develop program/policies/funding Jurisdictions to develop programs around new definition based on what fits for their agency Staff training critical—not just people in this room

What Your Vote Means A vote yes for achievable local housing is an individual member vote and does not reflect the opinions of the agency/organization that each person(s) represents. An agency/organization vote occurs at the Board level of each organization. If the MHC votes to recommend an action, MHC representatives will attend in support of your recommendation to your Board if/when the item goes to vote.

The Vote Process Vote Roll call by name per Collaborative Agreement Approve, Oppose, Abstain Recorded in Summary Notes To move from policy brief to policy recommendation for achievable local housing up to 195% AMI

Roll Out MHC staff available to present to Boards, staff Publicity Report back progress at April Council meeting Jurisdiction/agencies to update policies, design program, commit funding per individual process

Other Policy Area Updates Regional Fee Roundtable Tiger Team Accessory Dwelling Unit Information + Outreach Campaign

Tiger Team Update: Mapping Local Agency Land

Thank you to the Map Team! Richard Anderson, Nevada County Jennifer Merchant, Jennifer Montgomery, Placer County Steven Poncelet, Truckee Donner PUD Yumie Dahn, Jeff Loux, Town of Truckee Jerusha Hall, Vail Resorts/Northstar California

Goal: create tools for regional conversations about housing, identify opportunities Progress To-Date: Map 1: All parcels owned by local public agencies (done) Map 2: All parcels “conceivable” for housing (today) Map 3: Overlay affordability criteria on map 2 (today) Map 4: “Opportunity” sites for MF projects (in progress) Mapping Team Update Jennifer Montgomery

Map 2: Local Agency Owned Parcels Conceivable for Housing See Attached Map

Proposal Kick-off 25x100 100 multi-family units (apartments) 5-6 sites x 20 units to scatter density throughout region Update From: Jennifer Montgomery

Next Steps ID opportunity sites (10-15) Public + private Parcel sheets List Tour Update From: Jennifer Montgomery

Tiger Team Update: Capital Attractor

Thank you to the Capital Attractor Team! Pat Davison, Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe Cindy Gustafson, North Lake Tahoe Resort Assoc. Jennifer Merchant, Placer County Mike Riley, Saint Joseph Land Trust Kristin York, Sierra Business Council Heidi Hill-Drum, Tahoe Prosperity Center Matt Hanson, Tahoe Truckee Homes

Progress To-Date Meeting Expanding Network State Package—readiness Handout: homework for next meeting Supporting commitments to region (see Dashboard)

Other Council Updates Employer Solutions Meetings with NeighborWorks (6) Webinar—Tiny Homes in Campgrounds Think Tank

2017 State Housing Bond Package Summary + Implications for Our Region

2017 State Legislative Housing Package Highlights 15 Housing bills signed by Gov. Brown 1B Potential new funding for housing (SB 2+ SB3) 2011 Most significant funding + since 2011 elimination of redevelopment funds 180,000 Equals # of homes needed in CA to keep up with need 14,000 Equals # of homes new funding expected to create each year for SB2+SB3 5 Focus areas in the package Source: LA Times Article, Sept 29, 2017

Spending More $ to Build Housing for *Low Income 1 Senate Bill 2 Senate Bill 3 $75 new recording fee $200-$300M per year generation expected 1,200-4,300 homes per year Small percentage of funds for middle class (150% MFI) On Fall 2018 Ballot Goal: Secure 4 billion in bonds 3 billion to support existing state affordable housing programs 1 billion for veteran affordable housing Small percentage for up missing middle—up to 200% of AMI Bill 2: NEW Funding for low to very low income rental or purchase projects—rental or rehab something unlikely to be built by developers as it is not profitable Low income=60% of MFI What is means for our region: -distribution of funds to jurisdictions: -What can we do as a region to prepare for this opportunity? -Or, will most of $ go to urban areas? Bill 3: -Funding for rural? -Benefits to our region?

Making It Easier for Developers to Build 2 Senate Bill 35 (stick): Requires cities + counties to streamline process if not meeting housing requirements Senate Bill 340 (carrot): Allows local governments to create Workforce Housing Opportunity Sites; expediting housing if 50% for low, medium low income. Low to zero interest loans for planning, zone EIR instead of indiv project Assembly Bill 73 (carrot): Allows local governments to create Housing Sustainability Districts; preplanned review + environmental process for land rather than individual projects. 20% must be low income. Goal here is to facilitate private developed affordable housing production rather than providing direct funding with public dollars Recognizes need to partner with private developers to meet need Recognizes need to build at range of income levels 35 is a stick approach: if jurisdictions not meeting housing requirements, gives developers leverage 30 + 73 incentivize jurisdictions to id zones for housing that set them up to apply for state funding…

Forcing Cities + Counties to Plan for More Housing 3 Forcing Cities + Counties to Plan for More Housing 7 Bills designed to put teeth into Housing Element requirements Requires jurisdictions to report more details regarding progress being made to meet housing needs

Bolstering Inclusionary Requirement 4 Bolstering Inclusionary Requirement Reaffirms local jurisdiction's ability to include inclusionary zoning requirement of affordable development for rental products as well as ownership

Preserving Existing Subsidized Housing 5 Seeks to preserve existing low income rentals once requirement has expired (30-50 year timeframe) Incentivizes owners for units to sell to landlord who will keep rents low via tax credit program Is this an issue in Truckee? Do our low income projects have an expiration date?

What does all of this mean for us? For now, wait and see NOFA via HCD Town consultant monitoring Implications to drive regional policy agenda? Inform lobbyist working for our region

Partner Updates + Open Discussion

Public Comment

www.mountainhousingcouncil.org To learn more, sign up for updates Close + Thank You www.mountainhousingcouncil.org To learn more, sign up for updates