Loading...
AHAC Minutes 10/17/2023October 17, 2023 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 17, 2023 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Development Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 Horseshoe Drive N., Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Hruby (excused) Vice Chairman: Jennifer Faron Arol Buntzman (excused) Thomas Felke Gary Hains Commissioner Chris Hall Todd Lyon Hannah Roberts Paul Shea Andrew Terhune (via Conference Call) Mary Waller County Staff Members Present: Cormac Giblin, Dir., Housing Policy & Economic Development, GMCD Derek Perry, Assistant County Attorney Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review, GMCD Julie Chardon, Ops Support Specialist II, GMCD Kevin Summers, Mgr., Technical Systems Ops, GMCD Lisa Carr, Grant Coordinator II, Community & Human Services Division, PSD Kristi Sonntag, Director, Community & Human Services Division, PSD Donald Luciano, Assistant Director, Community & Human Services Division, PSD October 17, 2023 2 Any persons in need of a verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department. 1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Chair Faron called the meeting to order at 9 a.m. and the committee recited the Pledge of Allegiance. She then outlined the guidelines for public speakers. 2. ROLL CALL OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF Mr. Giblin called the roll call. A quorum of seven was present in the boardroom; an eighth arrived later and a ninth joined via Conference Call. Mr. Giblin said committee member Terhune is participating via Conference Call and asked for a motion to allow him to participate. Ms. Waller made a motion to allow Mr. Terhune to participate via Conference Call due to extraordinary circumstances. Second by Ms. Roberts. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. [Mr. Lyon joined the meeting at 9:04 a.m.] 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES a. Approval of today’s agenda Ms. Waller asked to add an update about the guesthouse/ADU meetings. Ms. Faron said it would be added as 7.E. [It was later incorporated into the discussion under 6.a] Ms. Roberts said she’d like to hear an update on the inventory of lands that we reviewed, guidelines on how often we’re going to look at that and how those properties are being marketed or not marketed to developers in the area. Ms. Faron said it would be added as 7.f. [Now 7.e.] Ms. Roberts made a motion to accept the agenda, as amended. Second by Ms. Waller. The motion passed unanimously, 9-0. b. Approval of September 19, 2023, AHAC meeting minutes Ms. Waller said the minutes say she has a home in Chicago, but she doesn’t. Minutes amended to remove reference. Ms. Waller made a motion to approve the September 19, 2023, meeting minutes, as amended. Second by Ms. Roberts. The motion passed unanimously, 9-0. 4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND PRESENTATION Mr. Giblin said we’ve had some GMD staffing changes. He and Sarah have been interim directors of the Housing Policy & Economic Development Division at GMD since March 2023. Two weeks ago, he was appointed as the permanent director, Sarah is now the division’s planning manager and Julie Chardon has been permanently assigned to the October 17, 2023 3 division. Between those three and three other division employees who concentrate on economic development issues, the newly created division is getting fully operational. [Acting Chair Faron and others congratulated him.] Mr. Giblin said Sarah sends her apologies for not being here today. She was called out of state yesterday due to a death in the family. Acting Chair Faron thanked him for letting them know and thanked Cormac and Julie for the support they provide. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT (None) 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. SHIP Incentive Strategy Report (C. Giblin) Acting Chair Faron noted that several members are new to the process and asked Cormac to provide an overview. The agenda packet contains the revised latest draft that incorporates AHAC members’ comments. Afterward, she wants to focus on the substance and details of the comments. Mr. Giblin detailed a PowerPoint: • A draft report was presented at the last meeting, members were asked to review it and submit comments or questions, which were received. Subsequent edits were made to add the comments. Many members had comments or questions on the same topics. • As a state SHIP funds recipient, the County is required to have an AHAC, which is responsible for reviewing and evaluating local plans, policies and procedures for land development within the county. Per the statute, the AHAC is directed to review not only local plans and policies, but an additional 11 state-required incentives and report back on those yearly to the Board of County Commissioners. That report is then forwarded to the state for its review. • This is an ongoing activity that occurs during all AHAC meetings during the year. • The July to October time frame is when the draft report is presented to the AHAC. It goes to a public hearing and then the Board of County Commissioners in December. It’s submitted to the state before December 31. • After that, the Public Services Division and Department of Community & Human Services group take this report to amend the Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP), the governance document detailing how the county proposes to spend SHIP monies. This is the high-level planning document and the LHAP gets down to specific instructions on how the monies will be allocated in the coming years. • The statute requires there be at least eight, but no more than 10, regular members, plus one elected official. The regular members must represent at least six of the 11 categories, which are builders, bankers, Realtors, low-income advocates, non- profits, for-profits, ESP (essential services personnel) representatives. Each of you represents one of those categories. • Collier County reports to the state who is on our AHAC, the categories they October 17, 2023 4 represent when they were appointed, the date they were appointed and their expiration date. Ms. Waller noted that the AHAC doesn’t have a banker. Mr. Giblin said the previous slide shows you only need to have six of the 11 categories, so a banker isn’t a requirement. That’s something the AHAC can consider when there is the next vacancy. The Commitee can determine whether a banker’s influence would be good. Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • The first recommendation was that the county complete the implementation and adoption of the four regulatory relief initiatives previously approved through the Housing Plan adopted by county commissioners in 2017. • The Housing Plan included about 35 individual recommendations that were developed in conjunction with the Urban Land Institute on ways to improve the affordable housing market in Collier County. It dealt with densities, fees, time frames and process certainty. • The high-level recommendations were to increase housing affordability and density is key. We’ve seen this playing out week after week at the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, where there have been several Comprehensive Plan Amendments and PUD rezones coming through that offer additional affordable housing in exchange for additional densities. • The four remaining initiatives transmitted by the Planning Commission and the BCC to the state have been recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission and are scheduled to go to the BCC for adoption on November 14. They involve permitting housing that is affordable by right in commercial districts; increasing the allowed density and Activity Centers from 16 to 25; designating Strategic Opportunity Sites to allow maximum density of 25 units per acre; and establishing a policy to encourage higher densities along transit corridors. • Those are national best practices that the ULI highlighted for the board in 2017. • Of those roughly 35 recommendations, all were presented to the board for hearings. These are the last four up for final adoption. A discussion ensued over designation rights and what the state denied. Mr. Bosi then clarified questions, telling the AHAC: • The County received comments from the state regarding the increase of density within the Coastal-High Hazard Area and had to pull those back. • The current GMP (Growth Management Plan) has an evaluation of the Coastal High-Hazard Area, which is related to hurricanes and water infiltration. Within the Coastal High-Hazard Area, the County reduces density to limit exposure to potential harm and natural disasters. • Collier also has a policy that rewards affordable housing with a density bonus. In the past, the determination we made was that the need for affordable housing outweighed the concern we had for evacuation routes in placing additional density within the Coastal High-Hazard Area, so we allow the Affordable Housing October 17, 2023 5 Density Bonus Program to be exercised in the Coastal High-Hazard Area, however at a lower bonus level. • The current proposal to go from 16 to 25 units an acre for properties in the Activity Centers that are in the Coastal High-Hazard Area, had to be left capped at 16, as it currently is. The state is concerned about increasing beyond our current allocation, so the increase to 25 on a couple of Activity Centers would not be applicable in Coastal High-Hazard Areas. • A discussion ensued and the committee noted that it applies to certain properties and not others and the Planning Commission approved those. Mr. Bosi said the county hasn’t adopted a Strategic Opportunity Site from a regulatory perspective, but locally it has happened when the Planning Commission added multifamily to the Creekside PUD. That was the idea behind the Strategic Opportunity Site, an environment with a high number of economic and job opportunities. Adding higher density residential to those locations was the concept and the private site beat the county to it with the addition of the multifamily to Creekside. Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • Recommendation No. 2 is AHAC encouraged and is working with staff to create a transparent, publicly accessible database with corresponding GIS map to identify, locate, provide data and long-term monitoring results for all affordable housing. Staff has been working on this with the AHAC for several months. • Staff debuted the GIS tracking map at the AHAC’s last meeting, and it’s being added to the www.CollierCountyHousing.com website, along with some service enhancements you identified at the last meeting, when AHAC asked to be able to click on a point, get a name, phone number and information so people can follow through and inquire about an apartment. • Staff also had requests from the public, saying it’s great the county approves all this affordable housing, but what happens after developers leave commission chambers? Is that housing actually getting built? Are the right, qualifying people living there? Are developers actually doing what they said they would do? This recommendation incorporates putting yearly monitoring results on our website so people can have a one-stop shop to see it. This information is more of a public service than a planning function. It’s for the public to access information. Acting Chair Faron asked when it would go live. Mr. Giblin said within the next month. A discussion ensued and Mr. Giblin said he’d notify the AHAC when it goes live. Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • The next recommendation was the AHAC’s established work plan/matrix to identify actions, time frames and outcomes. • The AHAC’s recommendation was to develop a work plan and we continue to bring it back to you periodically to update it and provide a progress report. October 17, 2023 6 • The next recommendation involves the Live Local Act. The AHAC recommended that staff identify challenges and opportunities in the Live Local Act. • There were four categories: Identify parcels where the Live Local Act would apply; identify areas where the Live Local Act may conflict with local zoning regulations; develop solutions on how to resolve the conflicts; and hold a public forum or participate in a public forum where we can solicit input from the development communities to get reaction on how to mesh the Live Local Act with county rules. • The first one has been done. The County presented that list to the AHAC, commercial mixed-use and industrial properties in Collier County. The next is underway. He, Mike and Jamie continue to meet daily and weekly with developers interested in the Live Local Act. Staff explains the Live Local rules and trying to apply them to county regulations. • We’re hoping that in January, the Housing Alliance, in conjunction with the Community Foundation, will host a housing forum where developers and builders can share experiences and challenges with the public and how to use Live Local in Collier. • A few are moving through the process. They’ve had pre-application meetings and are applying Live Local, so it depends on the piece of property the applicant is interested in developing. Acting Chair Faron noted that this part of the report is new because the Live Local Act is new, as of July 1. Are there themes you’re seeing in these conversations about properties, such as setbacks or stormwater management has always been a problem when you’re trying to use the Live Local Act’s benefits? If so, the AHAC should focus on that next year. How do you take those themes to figure out a solution? We’re identifying them and talking to the local developer community, but then what? Mr. Giblin said it would have to work its way through a set of Land Development Code amendments. You now have a Land Development Code section that involves specific regulations for affordable housing. It now deals with mostly elevations, street makeup, sidewalk sizes, compatibility and maximum heights. It’s already in the LDC, and if there are additional specific regulations the AHAC or the BCC think would be applicable to affordable housing, that would be a perfect place to at least add an amendment. Acting Chair Faron asked if certain things already are happening. Mr. Giblin responded that: • The themes are that when the state gives you a green pass to build at whatever density and height you want, people seem to grab any property they can that meets the definition without thinking it through, such parking and a four-story tower can’t be built next to a home without a setback. • For a residential study, you’re generally looking at a 10- to 20-acre square. You’ve got plenty of room to do whatever you want in that square. For a commercial site, you’re looking at strips of land along the major thoroughfare. You don’t have the depth or area needed to accommodate the same things you need on a typical residential site. It’s much harder to fit all those things in that smaller box. October 17, 2023 7 Mr. Giblin continued the presentation: • Recommendation No. 5 was the use of Collier County surtax funding for affordable housing acquisition. • In March, staff developed and took your evaluation criteria and a policy to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption. • The County created a cross-divisional review team to review applications that come in for use of surtax funding. The procedure is that a developer will submit an application through the county’s Real Property Division.. Once scoring is complete, the applications and scoring will be brought to the AHAC for review and recommendation. Then it will be brought to the Surtax Citizens Committee for review and recommendation, and then ultimately to the Board of County Commissioners for a decision on whether we should purchase the property and partner with the developer. • Currently, we have three applications we’re reviewing. We’ll bring them to your November meeting for your review and recommendation. Commissioner Hall said it seems like a lot of government to go through. He doesn’t like it. He wants to have a discussion to get rid of two of the three steps. He doesn’t think it’s necessary for different committees to say they like it or not. That’s hindering what the whole process is trying to get done. We have two people in the back who have felt the frustration since the beginning. What can we do to get that eliminated? Mr. Giblin said staff can get together and discuss it. Action Item: Mr. Giblin will speak to Commissioner Hall about trying to streamline the application process and possibly eliminate two steps. Ms. Waller asked if the AHAC would change its initiative to reflect what Commissioner Hall proposed, to cut down on some of these government agencies and hurdles so we can fast-track it to affordable housing. Mr. Giblin said staff will meet with Commissioner Hall’s office before this goes to the Board of County Commissioners in November. October 17, 2023 8 Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • These are the recommendations required by statute that AHAC’s looks at and we report to you how we’re implementing them. They’re listed in the statute. • Among them are expedited permitting. The County had an expedited permitting process for affordable housing for at least 30 years. It’s very popular with developers proposing affordable housing. It gives them reduced review time frames for everything from a Growth Management Plan amendment to a PUD to a building permit. • He doesn’t recall anyone who was fast-tracked complaining that it’s not working fast enough. We have many satisfied customers, so it’s working as intended. Ms. Waller asked how much time it takes off the process. Ms. Cook said it cuts the 30-day zoning application process in half, 15 days. For a Site Development Plan or plat, it cuts the 15-day process to 10 days, and the 30-day building permit process is cut to 15 days. Planning Commissioner Shea asked what happens with the rest of the process, like the Planning Commission and the required public notices? Do they avoid public notices and public hearing? Mr. Bosi said those are statutory requirements we have to follow. They’re not eligible for reductions in time. Only the review process is cut in half. We’re at a 50% reduction in terms of time spent in this building for staff review. Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • The next statutory required incentive is allowable fee waivers.. As a result of the housing plan, we made some enhancements to that program. • In recent discussions, the AHAC recommended we continue to review opportunities to increase the length of the impact-fee deferral period to align with various financing sources. Particularly on the rental side, our rental deferral is administratively approved for up to 10 years. If it’s greater than that, applicants may go on a case-by-case basis to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. • There also are 30-, 40- and 50-year state financing requirements. Developers are telling us it would be more advantageous if the deferral period lined up with the affordability period, so we’ll continue to explore that next year. Acting Chair Faron said she’s interested in the appetite for trying to match the deferral period to the timeline. The LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) program is where it matters and that’s where her experience has been. It’s a thin margin of not only profitability but operational capacity once units are up and running Is there an appetite for deferral periods for very low-income projects where every dollar counts? Mr. Giblin responded that: • The challenge has been on more on legal side, not the political-will side. • There’s a statute that requires the collection of impact fees to pay for needed infrastructure, and the legal thought is the longer the deferral, the less it is a fee. • If the County made a 100-year deferral, will that severely impact your ability to sustain October 17, 2023 9 infrastructure and does it negate the structure of the impact-fee process? It’s more a legal question but could be political. We need to work out some statutory issues. Attorney Perry noted that there’s a distinction to be made between when we give a fee waiver for a commercial entity building and an apartment building. It’s easier to collect for a commercial entity versus if you give a $15,000 fee waiver to a low-income single- family homeowner. It’s very difficult 15 years later to knock on their door and ask them to pay $15,000. Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • The next recommendation is that the county should explore allowing flexible densities. We’ve had the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program in our LDC since at least 1989. That allows up to 16 units per acre. Recently, we adjusted that to go higher. We also have amendments on the table to allow up to 25. • The BCC also has recently allowed even greater densities in exchange for affordable housing. We recently saw the approval of 30 units per 1-acre projects/developments that contain set-asides for affordable housing. • The AHAC’s recommendation is that we continue to support that concept and that the Planning Commission and the BCC continue to negotiate that public policy of a minimum of 30% of units developed at or below 100% of median income for developers with those requests. A discussion between Planning Commissioner Shea and Mr. Giblin ensued and the following points were made: • It seems the percentages are bouncing around. • County staff has developed a proposed policy that would be attached when a development comes before the Planning Commission for approval. • It’s the first 30%. Mr. Terhune asked why there’s a limit on density at all. It’s great they’re expanding it, but why not uncap it and let each project stand or fail on its own, depending on the site characteristics? Why not a density of 50 if the site will tolerate it? Mr. Bosi responded that: • One requirement of the Florida statutes within our Comprehensive Plan is to look at the population and non-residential land uses required to support that population and allocate the proper acreage to handle all necessary land uses to satisfy that population and provide for infrastructure to serve that population. • If you had an uncapped density, there would be no way to have any expectations on what the demands could be in a five-, 10, 15- or 20-year period. Therefore, there’s a cap established within the GMP as ultimate densities that could be requested. That goes into the concurrency management system for capacity. Mr. Terhune said he understands, but why not evaluate it site specific without any predetermined cap? There may be sites were having 50 or 100 units per acre for various reasons is doable. Why should we prejudge that by saying you’re capped at 30 or some round number that we pick out of the air? Commissioner Hall said it’s a minimum of 30%. October 17, 2023 10 Mr. Bosi responded that: • The County has a regular process where that happens. • It’s a GMP amendment, as well as a PUD or rezoning request, and they ask for specific densities beyond what’s allowed for in the GMP. • Based upon the proposal, the situation or context in which that property is situated among the various land uses, we have a process. • The County have always had, and the state requires, at least a cap within what we can expect within the GMP in terms of densities associated with not only affordable housing, but market-rate housing. Planning Commissioner Shea said it makes it difficult to plan infrastructure if you don’t know what the densities are. Mr. Giblin said, as Mike said, The county has had developers come forward with proposals on specific pieces of land who may have asked for 25 units per acre in exchange for a unit of land development. It’ll be up to the board’s appetite for approval or not. Mr. Bosi said the Bayshore Mini Triangle rezone seven or eight years ago is a prime example. They requested 91.77 units an acre. Based on the context, situation, desire of the Bayshore CRA and the long-term allocation of that being a catalyst project for the Bayshore area, they were awarded a much higher density than any other project nearby. We have a process that allows for a developer to go beyond stated maximums, but stated maximums are what we utilize for – infrastructure allocation into the future, as well as the overall arrangement of how our land uses interact. Mr. Terhune said he’s glad to hear there’s a process. He wasn’t aware of that. His concern is that it’s great when you have a fairly good-size developer who will go through the various approvals and legal problems. He comes from a development background. The problem is that a smaller developer won’t go there due to the large amount of uncertainty. Mr. Giblin continued with his presentation: • The reservation of infrastructure capacity is the next required item. • The County doesn’t have any infrastructure deficiencies now, so we don’t need to implement anything. • In the early 2000s, when we had severe wastewater plant and road issues, we implemented some reservation of capacity, but we don’t have that issue now. Planning Commissioner Shea asked if the county didn’t really have infrastructure deficiencies. Mr. Giblin said nothing that would stop a development. Planning Commissioner Shea cited traffic in some areas. Mr. Bosi responded that: • Florida statutes have a provision for infrastructure deficiencies. If a proposed October 17, 2023 11 project would affect the safe road segment and was deficient, they can move forward as long as they pay their proportionate share of what’s needed to remedy that infrastructure deficiency. • We have road segments that are failing, near failing or could be failing. We have a program that allows those projects to move forward Ms. Roberts asked for the easiest way to identify trip-constrained areas. We looked at a project the other day and someone said a section of Airport Road might be trip- constrained, and she needs to plug a number into the pro forma. Mr. Bosi responded that: • The county performs the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), an assessment of the infrastructure and infrastructure capacity. • We’re taking the 2023 AUIR to the Planning Commission on November 2, and to the Board of County Commissioners on December 12. • The transportation section details segments of every road countywide, the amount of available capacity, what’s left and if it’s close to the deficiency level. • The 2022 AUIR is the most recently approved AUIR and by mid-December, we’ll have the 2023 AUIR approved with the most updated numbers. • It’s already in the Planning Commission’s hands. They’re reviewing it now and will make a recommendation to the BCC at the CCPC’s November hearing. Ms. Waller asked, So this statement is based on the 2022 data? Mr. Giblin said yes and based on the data from the past several years. Ms. Waller said that’s in 2022, so technically you really don’t know what the 2023 report is going to say? Mr. Bosi said we do. We’ve already distributed the 2023 report to the Planning Commission. Ms. Waller asked if they know there are no problems identified. Mr. Bosi said there are no major deficiencies. There are certain road segments that are in a deficient status, but there are plans in place to address those deficiencies. Ms. Waller said it should say, “Anything that has been identified has been worked on.” You can’t make a carte blanche statement that there are no infrastructure problems, when most people who live in Collier County know we have a few problems. But they have been identified and they have been taken care of. Mr. Giblin said that’s a good point. He can massage that. Action Item: Staff should revise the wording where it says the county has no infrastructure problems. It should say problems that were identified have been worked on or taken care of. Commissioner Shea said for proportionate-share issues, sometimes there are no alternatives, so he doesn’t know where a proportionate share comes in on cases where there are no real alternatives to correct a level-of-service problem. Acting Chair Faron noted that the language would be revised. Ms. Roberts asked if they could consider a reduced portion of that proportional share. If October 17, 2023 12 you’re developing an affordable housing project, there are cars, so it probably doesn’t help to reduce it. Is there an incentive specifically for affordable housing developers? Mr. Giblin said he can change the AHAC recommendation to “AHAC will continue to monitor and explore this over the coming year.” Commissioner Hall said it sounds flexible but firm. Action Item: Staff can revise the AHAC recommendation to say “AHAC will continue to monitor and explore this over the coming year.” Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • The next requires them to look at parking and setback requirements again. Model 1 is a deviation process throughout the PUD, and another is within the PUD, where you can suggest zoning regulations for your development. The AHAC recommendation is that as we try to fit Live Local into county regulations, we may require additional parking and setback relief for developments that want to use the Live Local Act. We’ll discuss the timeline on that in the coming year. • The county is currently meeting the state requirement. • Staff recently received news that the state requires us to look at affordable Accessory Dwelling Units. In the Q2 of 2023, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to look at the feasibility of a pilot program to allow Accessory Dwelling Units in the Urban Golden Gate Estates. • County staff County staff had the first Public Information Meeting last Wednesday at North Collier Regional Park. • Mailers were sent out and it will be consolidated into a recommendation that will go before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Guesthouse/ADU Update Mr. Bosi told the AHAC: • Staff sent 3,558 postcards to all properties that are zoned Estates west of 951, known as the Urban Estates. Unfortunately, only 33 people attended the meeting; 24 participated in the survey. • The majority were very supportive about renting guesthouses. • The majority were against the income-restricted program. • We have another meeting tomorrow. We’re doing additional social media posts to try to get more interest. • He also contacted a former planning commissioner who is associated with Oakes Estates, a large group of Urban Estates properties in North Naples, just east of I- 75. He’s been spreading the word within that association. • We will have similar questions to try to get public feedback on whether they support guesthouses and renting guesthouses. • Staff is going to package the feedback, take it to the Board of County Commissioners and they’ll tell us how they’d like to move forward. • Staff will tell attendees we’re not developing regulations because we haven’t been told to do that. We were told to see if the community supports this idea, so we’re trying to gather as much public opinion as we can, document it, put it together, and bring it to the Board of County Commissioners. October 17, 2023 13 • The BCC can evaluate the responses and determine what direction they’d like to see staff go in terms of moving forward with a program. Planning Commissioner Shea asked if the county was doing something other than public meetings, like a survey of the thousands of residents that provides information and the ability to respond Mr. Bosi said the process is to try to get feedback from attendees of the Public Information Meetings. Planning Commissioner Shea said you’re not going to base a decision based on a percentage. Mr. Bosi said he’s not going to make the decision. If we continue getting low participation, staff discussed going to Oakes Estates and Logan Woods Estates to see if the homeowner associations could get direct feedback. But we can only advertise and send postcards. If people don’t want to participate, it’s tough to collect information. Planning Commissioner Shea said, So you’re sending out surveys and you’re not getting people responding? Mr. Bosi said we’re not sending out surveys. Staff is asking people to come to the meetings. Planning Commissioner Shea said You should consider providing information and a way to respond because a lot of people will respond if they don’t have to drive there. Mr. Bosi said he understood. Staff also has budget constraints. Staff was directed to move forward with it, but there wasn’t an additional budget allocation, so we’re trying to do it as economically and pragmatically as possible through Public Information Meetings. If we continue to get low participation, we’re going to have to widen the net. That’s the discussion we’ll have with Mr. French and administration about what other steps they want us to take to get feedback. Ms. Waller asked if they’d considered that the Urban Estates wasn’t the way to go. The Logan Woods and Oakes Boulevard area has very, very high-end Estate properties. Have you considered maybe that was the wrong way to go, to ask someone to put a low-income person in their backyard? Mr. Bosi said it wasn’t a staff-driven initiative. It was driven by the Board of County Commissioners. They specifically said to go out and canvas the Urban Estates to see if they’d like to see guesthouses being rented. It started with an initiative from Commissioner Bill McDaniel, whose Executive Summary said he’d like to consider the ability for the Urban Estates to rent their guesthousesHe understands what Ms. Waller is saying. Commissioner Hall said the idea is to have a use within town to eliminate traffic and the commute, so the Urban Estates is a perfect place to start. The purpose and mission is to add affordable housing through ADUs, so this would be good news for Commissioner Saunders, because when this came up, he said he hated it and hoped it would go away because he was anticipating extreme public outrage, but that’s not what happened. Mr. Bosi said we’re expecting more participation in the next meeting as word gets October 17, 2023 14 around. The responses in the first meeting were different from the second meeting, which had more participation. If staff continues to get low turnout, we’re going to have to do something else to get better feedback. Mr. Bosi told the AHAC: • Even if the decision is just the ability to rent guesthouses, that’s not a negative thing. • Collier County is severely crippled with an imbalance between supply and demand. If you add ADU rentable dwelling units that weren’t in the market before, now there’s an additional number in the market, • The simple equation is that there’s too much demand and not enough supply. • The only way to attack supply is adding higher density, which is necessary. That’s why the provisions and what we’re trying to promote is more multifamily high- density projects in the right locations. • The market is starting to respond to the opportunity to increase to 25 units an acre within Activity Centers. • It’s changing rapidly. Brick-and-mortar stores are becoming less and less of the predominant suppliers of goods and services with the advent of internet retail and that type of activity. In Activity Centers where the intensity of activity is relatively high, we’re seeing a 25 unit or a 30-unit per acre multifamily project can go in there. It’s an actual reduction of transportation activity within the Activity Center because the amount of traffic generated by residential development is relatively short compared with the number of trips attracted by commercial development, so that strategy is being embraced. • On November 14, the next step is to get 25 units per acre in front of the Board of County Commissioners, so they continue to recognize that’s the trend and that’s where we’re trying to promote those opportunities. • Commissioner Hall’s point was that he understands you’ve got a wider universe to have more units in the Rural Estates, but there’s a spatial mismatch between the location of where those units would be and where economic opportunities are. Because jobs are the most prevalent within the Urban Estates is why that area was used as a test. • When the BCC discussed seeing what the community has to say about that location, that was the idea, and if we think it’s something that can generate some additional benefits, maybe we will expand it beyond the Urban Estates. Ms. Waller said she received a phone call from someone who was hysterical and screaming, saying they had a problem with taxes. They freaked out when that came up. She can’t judge it, so all she can do is try to dissect it. She’ll be at the next meeting so she can see what was said. They said someone told them exactly what they can rent their places for. Mr. Bosi responded that: • The dissatisfaction was because guesthouses could not still be homestead exempt. • Under state statute, they cannot be homestead exempted. You’re only allowed to exempt a homestead if you live in your homestead. If you’re making money on a rental, it doesn’t qualify for homestead exemption under the state statute. It’s not October 17, 2023 15 an option we have. • They believed the county was doing this only as a money grab. Staff told them that wasn’t true, and the county is trying to attack a supply and demand imbalance. They felt the county was just looking for additional revenue opportunities. • We had to tell them that if they were going to rent a guesthouse commercially, they couldn’t keep the same 3% cap they had for their homestead exemption. • There’s a 10% cap for non-homestead exemption properties. They thought the county was utilizing that as an opportunity to create more revenue for our tax base. We told them we’re obligated by state statute to tax homestead exemption properties with a 3% cap and non-homesteaded properties with a 10% cap. Ms. Waller asked if they’d just lose the homestead on that portion. Mr. Bosi said we told them the guesthouse portion would not be homesteaded. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Many already are renting their guesthouses and want a way to make it legal. • They don’t want to lose the homestead exemption. • The county will be using the same survey questions at each meeting. • Residents were upset with some slides staff presented on taxing implications. They were provided so they could make an informed decision. We wanted to let them know that there’s a tax implication if you rent your guesthouse. • That’s what caused dissatisfaction, a perception that we were trying to raise our tax base. • Staff told them we must follow the state statute. Staff said we spoke to the Property Appraiser, and he said this program would change how your property is taxed if you’re allowed to rent your guesthouse. Mr. Bosi explained how they categorized that: • Staff went through the 30%, 50%, 80%, 100% and 120% of AMI and the categories of workers associated with each category, and the maximum rent that could be charged for each. • Maybe we didn’t clarify adequately enough that we weren’t suggesting any one of those. We were just outlining the categories and listing the maximum rents that could be allocated. • Seeing caps on rents is probably what discouraged residents from wanting to participate. • Maybe it would have been a different outcome if we limited it to 120% of AMI and told them the rent they could get. We may have received better receptivity, but he doesn’t know what levels of AMI the Board of County Commissioners want, so it’s hard to determine because we showed residents the possible rents associated with various levels of income restrictions and left it at that. Acting Chair Faron responded that: • If the rents are whatever they can get for a guesthouse, then you add supply, and the trickle-down theory suggests other units at other levels would be available for October 17, 2023 16 other populations. • It sounds like staff is presenting the facts and residents are starting to make their own interpretations. • Hopefully, we’ll have more feedback in the next meetings. • She appreciates staff’s efforts to tease all this out. It’s not a small project. Ms. Roberts said that in the wording of the AHAC recommendation, she likes how the first portion is a meaningful source of additional units or a source that frees up attainable housing units. In the end, when we say, “and recommends the use of ADUs as affordable housing,” are we able to strike “as affordable housing,” so it just says “ADUs to increase the affordable housing inventory” so we’re not taking a stance? Mr. Giblin said that would be a decision for AHAC. In the past, when it was discussed, there was a motion to limit it and if there’s going to be an AHAC recommendation, it would be limited to affordable units only. Acting Chair Faron said she didn’t remember that context or vote. Mr. Giblin said it occurred in the past few months and Chairman Hruby made the motion, saying a sticking point of his support for ADUs was that if we were going to do it, let’s do it for affordable units. Mr. Hains said Airbnb’s are a concern. You spend $100,000 to build an ADU and then tell them you can only rent it for $1,000 and by the way, you’ll lose your homestead, so you’re going to be paying more taxes. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Ms. Roberts said there’s a concern about resources for monitoring and enforcement and then asking county residents to not only be landlords, but to monitor the tenants’ income levels or hold rent to a constantly shifting standard, whatever the AMI is that year. It sounds great on paper, but people are already renting their guesthouses so let’s endorse that and start attacking the inventory issue. • Mr. Giblin noted that if you have a one-bedroom guest house, the rent limit would be about $2,100 a month. • Ms. Waller said the state says you can’t cap rents. • Mr. Giblin said a state statute specifically allows accessory dwelling units for affordable housing, so we can have a rent limit if you only allow them for affordable housing. • Ms. Waller questioned the margins. • Mr. Giblin said it would be $2,100 for a one-bedroom or $2,025.50 for a two- bedroom. Rent limits would apply if you applied that statute. Those are the 2023 rent limits and they change yearly. • Ms. Waller said you don’t want to put a number on it. Just use market rate. • Acting Chair Faron said you can’t say that. Other affordable housing projects that have income limits in the LIHTC programs have caps. • Ms. Waller suggested not putting down a rent limit. October 17, 2023 17 • Acting Chair Faron said we should just say, “The AHAC encourages using ADUs as a source of affordable-housing units.” The question seems to be whether we’d still limit it to affordable and how is that defined versus others saying maybe this should be a supply of units under the trickle-down theory and those income levels would be in rents available downstream. • Mr. Terhune said if we go down that road and force that on an accessory dwelling unit, that’s going to be very intrusive and it’s an incredible enforcement problem. If we want a program that’s going to increase the amount of housing, we need to stay out of trying to enforce who rents and why. • Mr. Bosi said the public felt that way at the meeting. They recognized enforcement would be an extreme challenge and staff recognized the burden. • Mr. Terhune said that’s why we shouldn’t go down that road. • Acting Chair Faron suggested that our recommendation should be that ADUs are available as another source of housing to increase the overall affordable- housing rental inventory, so it’s increasing the supply. • Acting Chair Faron agreed and said we should just call it another source of housing. How it turns into a recommendation and program that’s adopted comes after we figure out what the public wants, and we have more information. • Mr. Bosi said after we gather that public opinion, before we go to commissioners, the AHAC will make a recommendation on whether to support income-restricted, just renting guesthouses or leave the program as is. The AHAC must formalize an official recommendation to the BCC. • Acting Chair Faron Maybe once all the information is available from the public meetings, in the first quarter of 2024, the AHAC will make a recommendation. • Commissioner Hall said isn’t this report going to the state? Let that go. We’ll have our ADU discussion when it’s applicable. We want to increase inventory, but at the same time, we don’t want to increase Vrbos and Airbnb’s. • Mr. Bosi said another point he had to make at the meetings was that if we allow guesthouses to be unrestricted rental, we cannot restrict short-term rentals. Attorney Perry said depending on what statute or avenue the county takes in adopting this program, there’s a specific statute for accessory dwelling units to be allocated and dedicated as affordable housing. Section 163.31771 states that the mechanism is that someone applies for a building permit for their ADU, and they sign an affidavit saying it will be for low, moderate, extremely low-income persons, etc., In theory, they could legally rent out Vrbos or Airbnb’s, but they would have to qualify every renter. Mr. Bosi responded that: • It’s not income restricted if guesthouses could be rented to anyone. We could not regulate the duration. The statute does allow the county to restrict it to income- restricted, so that would be a much tougher fit for Airbnb’s. • There are merits for adding to supply, but we can’t regulate Airbnb’s, so if we income-restrict it, there would be less participation and a homeowner is less likely to do it because the returns aren’t where they need them to be. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • The AHAC’s recommendation is that the county should continue to explore the October 17, 2023 18 topic and gather public feedback. • AHAC will make a recommendation when the information is available. • Water quality is a big issue and onsite wastewater facilities are alleged to be the biggest contributor to the problem, and now we’re going into an area with no public infrastructure that relies on onsite wastewater disposal and we’re going to increase the load. Does anybody see that as a problem? • The county will have to explore that to ensure we’re not creating groundwater problems associated with this program. • If there are a massive number of failing septic tank systems in the Estates, you’re going to increase the load. • That’s something the county would determine on a case-by-case basis. • Ms. Cook said they’d have to go through the state Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection for the system and either do a modification or add a new system to accommodate a guesthouse. That would be reviewed, permitted and inspected by the state. Acting Chair Faron The recommendation is to revise the wording, as we’ve discussed, and that will leave us open to a recommendation once we have the information. Action Item: Staff should revise the wording to say that the county should continue to explore the topic and gather the public’s feedback and the AHAC would make a recommendation based on the feedback, possibly in the first quarter of 2024. Mr. Giblin continued his presentation on recommendations: • Flexible block configurations. We already have zero development online PUDs. We recently changed our cluster-housing provisions to allow those to help them without needing a conditional use. We don’t see any need now for additional changes to flexible-block configurations • Modification of street requirements. We added a new LDC section a couple of years ago to allow for a modification of street requirements. We allow smaller sidewalks and a reduction of streetscaping for developments that include affordable housing. We’ve had a few developments that looked at it and one used it. It’s only been effective for about a year, so it’s functioning as intended If any additional recommendations through the review of the Live Local Act come, this is what they would most likely want. • The county needs to have a process of ongoing review for all plans, policies and recommendations that have an impact on the cost of housing. We have that through our Executive Summary system and multiple tiers of citizen boards and the county commission, which make all recommendations. With the transition and creation of the new Division of Housing Policy & Economic Development, the housing policy piece is plugged in here at the Growth Management Department. We have focus teams that review these things in real time to ensure we have an ongoing review process by all parties, so we’re going in the right direction. A discussion ensued between Ms. Waller and Mr. Giblin and the following points were made: • Those changes are recommended at the present time. In the future, it would be October 17, 2023 19 good if we were presented with the Executive Summary, so we can make that actual statement. The AHAC needs an Executive Summary to summarize that you have different groups reviewing something. You need to submit that to us. • Mr. Giblin said anything that involves affordable housing, a policy, recommendation, LDC change, growth management change, is typically presented to the AHAC before going to the Planning Commission. The AHAC has seen the plan amendments for the increased densities. We’ll continue to do that and bring those to the AHAC. • Ms. Waller said that as a committee, when the AHAC says it stands behind this, we should have read it to say we stand behind it. She hasn’t read these different reports, summaries or a conclusion for the AHAC to read. Acting Chair Faron asked if that’s what we’re saying. Or are we saying there’s a process of ongoing review and here are some changes that have now been made.. She agrees she can’t summarize them but there’s a process for ongoing review and it’s been tweaked over the years and continues to happen. Departments work and talk together and the AHAC recommends that it continues. Mr. Giblin said the AHAC is part of the ADU discussion and reviewing how the county moves forward, what language is written and comes out of the Zoning Division for the AHAC’s recommendation for approval. Then it goes to the Planning Commission and the BCC, so this outlines the process and each item runs through that process individually. Acting Chair Faron said the AHAC isn’t opining on individual items. We’re saying we don’t recommend any changes to how the process is reviewed, adopted and then commented on, so it’s a process concept. Ms. Waller asked how the AHAC can recommend changes we don’t know. Sometimes in the interests of time, things get overlooked and that’s not a good statement. Acting Chair Faron said she believes we have a consensus on the idea and the recommendation. This has changed a lot since the last round of comments. Mr. Giblin continued his presentation: • The support of development near transportation hubs, a required incentive under the statute. This implements a recommendation from the 2007 Housing Plan and is on the BCC’s November 14th agenda for final adoption. It would increase density from 13 up to 25 units per acre on transportation corridors. • The public land inventory. It’s a requirement of the report that you have a process to review public lands to make them available for affordable housing. • In 2018, the BCC adopted a resolution to encourage the co-location of public facilities and housing that’s affordable. It’s required that a list be produced once a year on any surplus lands that would be maintained on the Real Property Division website. We make properties available, bring them to the BCC for disposition and they can designate properties for affordable housing. We’ve done this a couple of times recently. The success story coming out of the ground now is the Harmony development on Santa Barbara, 82 units of affordable housing rentals on what once was surplus county land. • The County is also doing the co-location at the Golden Gate Golf course where about 250 affordable units would be built in coordination with other onsite county October 17, 2023 20 facilities. • Staffs recommendation is that the AHAC continue to review the list annually and then it should be promoted and advertised to developers. [The AHAC skipped to 7.d due to time constraints and returned to this section after 7.e] Ms. Waller made a motion to move the AHAC report forward with AHAC’s recommended changes. Second by Planning Commissioner Shea. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. The Final Report will be included in the next agenda after the BCC on November 14th. October 17, 2023 21 7. STAFF AND COMMITTEE GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS a. FY2023-2024 HUD and FY 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 SHIP Second Round Grant Application Cycle. (L. Carr) Ms. Carr told the AHAC: • The agenda packet contains a public notice sent out by Community & Human Services about the 22-23 second-round SHIP grant application cycle, which is open now. It opened on October 12. • This explains the funding and application process for funds. Acting Chair Faron asked when a determination will be made on the approved grants. Ms. Carr responded that: • It’s a process where we put out the app and then take applications. • The pre-application period ends on October 19. If those projects meet the program qualifications, then we’ll move forward and invite them to provide a full application from November 1 through November 22, when it closes. • Applications are then presented to the review and ranking committee, which gives us their recommendations and then it’s presented to the county manager. • We’ll be finished in mid-December. Ms. Sonntag said the AHAC needs to select a member to sit on the review and ranking committee. The AHAC votes every year to recommend a member. A discussion ensued, Mr. Terhune and Ms. Waller expressed interest. Because only one member could sit on the committee due to the Sunshine Law, Ms. Waller volunteered to sit on the review and ranking committee on December 20. Ms. Sonntag said there will be another review and ranking committee meeting in March, the larger cycle. That includes the SHIP program, Emergency Solutions Grant, the HOME Program and Community Development Block Grant. That’s for funding sources that will be available. It’s a very long and interesting process that sometimes takes two days, but she encourages everyone to think about participating. It’s how the dollars are spent in your community. Mr. Terhune asked if she had the date for March. Ms. Sonntag said the dates will be published right after the holidays. The application will come out in January, and we’ll publish the dates then. The committee usually meets in early March. b. DSAC Report (H. Roberts) Ms. Roberts detailed her experiences as a non-voting DSAC member at the DSAC’s October meeting: • The first Wednesday of this month was the first time she sat on the DSAC meeting. • The DSAC hears presentations on code enforcement, community planning, public utilities, housing policy, growth, transportation, fire review, operations and zoning. October 17, 2023 22 • We’re especially interested in zoning updates and how the review process operates. She was very interested in the transportation portion, and the DSAC talked about new traffic improvements that are being done. • She wanted to know what the AHAC wants to hear from her monthly report. Planning Commissioner Shea asked what she thought DSAC’s role is. Ms. Roberts said she believes it’s a collaborative process between builders and engineers over how they can improve the review cycle and implementation. She thought it was more builder focused, while she views the AHAC as more developer focused. But they had a lot of opportunities to provide input to the Growth Management Department for affordable housing. Acting Chair Faron said that’s what they said the intent was when she was attending the DSAC meetings. There are crossovers, friction points and common areas of concern and interest between the two committees and we’ll have a non-voting member of the DSAC here. The DSAC has a non-voting AHAC member and the AHAC gets a non-voting DSAC member so there was cross-communication. She thought an ordinance was created. [The DSAC non-voting member was deleted from the consent agenda item the BCC voted on at its September 12th meeting and the BCC only approved a non-voting AHAC member sitting on the DSAC]. Attorney Perry noted that the county doesn’t have the ability to manipulate the AHAC structure. What the county could do is appoint a DSAC member as part of the AHAC. Commissioner Shea noted the AHAC had a non-voting member from the City of Naples, Ted Blankenship. Acting Chair Faron said the point was that we’re trying to improve communication across committees, and she thought we invited the DSAC to have a non-voting member here. If that’s not appropriate, maybe they could attend in the audience. She thought it was already decided. She noted Jamie French suggested it. Attorney Perry said the distinction is that inviting someone to sit with the AHAC is different from developing an ordinance, which is passing a law. c. Upcoming Public Meetings (C. Giblin) Mr. Giblin provided a list of meetings: • Golden Gate Hotel conversion to efficiency apartments, which includes an affordable component, will be heard by the Planning Commission this Thursday, October 19, and is scheduled to go to the Board of County Commissioners on November 14. • The Ascend affordable community that was presented to the AHAC already went before the Planning Commission and is scheduled to go to the Board of County Commissioners on October 24. • The guesthouse Public Information Meeting is scheduled for October 25 at Lely Regional Library. • JLM Living East on Immokalee Road, near Heritage Bay, a Growth Management Plan amendment with a corresponding rezone to request additional densities, is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on November 16 and October 17, 2023 23 the Board of County Commissioners on January 9. • Mattson at Vanderbilt, a 150-unit rental development on Vanderbilt Beach Road is a Growth Management Plan Amendment with a corresponding rezone. It will go before the Planning Commission on December 7 and the Board of County Commissioners on January 24. • The Housing Plan Growth Management Plan Amendments are scheduled to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on November 14. • The Collier County Community Land Trust is holding its annual meeting first thing in the morning on November 16 at the Hilton. If you’d like information about registering or want to RSVP, see Michael Puchalla (executive director, HDC of Southwest Florida), who is in the audience. • All the BCC and Planning Commission dates are the ones we have scheduled now. If the review cycle or developer decides to push something, we can send an update. Feel free to attend. d. November Meeting Date Discussion- Scheduled for 11/21/23 (C. Giblin) Because the regular November meeting was scheduled for two days before Thanksgiving, the AHAC discussed alternate dates and moved the meeting to November 28. [Commissioner Hall left the meeting at 10:39 a.m.] e. Update on the Land Inventory and Marketing It To Developers Acting Chair Faron asked if there were other recommendations on how county land is advertised, or we could talk about it for 2024 or later this year. Are there questions about the recommendation? Ms. Roberts said they could include the list of available properties in the AHAC’s monthly agenda packet, so it would be in front of us each month. Mr. Giblin said we can do that. The list usually doesn’t change in five years. Ms. Waller asked if there was anything on the list you can identify that we should focus on as a property to bring forward. Mr. Giblin responded that: • The list has been pretty picked through. • The Real Property Division and other government entities say local government is not the business of buying land that we don’t need, so if there’s something the county owns, there’s usually a need or a use for it identified in the future. • As the county purchases more properties, staff can look at how we can incorporate affordable housing into those acquisitions. That’s a separate discussion. • As far as land that the county already owns, we look at it periodically and there are not many cherries in there. [The AHAC returned to item 6.a] 9. October 17 ,2023 NEW BUSINESS (None) ADJOURN Mr. Felke made a motian to adjourn the meeling. Second by Ms. llaller. The molion passed unanimo us ly, 8-0. NEXT MEETING DATE 9 a.m. November 28,2023 Conference Room 609/610 Growth Management Community Development Department There being no further business for the good ofthe county, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chair at l0:57 a.m. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMⅣIITTEE These minules were approved by the committee or I I I 15 に力ι `ル ο″りαS Preseれ た″ ,0′αs α″ι″″グ ビ 10. COLLIER COUNTY 24 L-