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

2. 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

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

4. Video Stories
Challenges and Opportunities in Housing the Missing Middle

5. Council Updates

6. Tiger Team Update: Innovative Policy Team

7. 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.

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.
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.

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Achievable Affordable Housing
Decision
Achievable Affordable Housing

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

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

25. Tiger Team Update:
Mapping Local Agency Land

26. 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

27. 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

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

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

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

31. Tiger Team Update: Capital Attractor

32. 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

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

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

35. 2017 State Housing Bond Package Summary + Implications for Our Region

36. 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

37. Spending More $ to Build Housing for *Low Income1
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?

38. Making It Easier for Developers to Build2
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
incentivize jurisdictions to id zones for housing that set them up to apply for state funding…

39. Forcing Cities + Counties to Plan for More Housing3
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

40. Bolstering Inclusionary Requirement4
Bolstering Inclusionary Requirement
Reaffirms local jurisdiction's ability to include inclusionary zoning requirement of affordable development for rental products as well as ownership

41. Preserving Existing Subsidized Housing5
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?

42. 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

43. Partner Updates + Open Discussion

44. Public Comment

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