Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 10/09/2018Minutes approved on October 25,218 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE October 9, 2018, 10:00 AM, City Hall Members attending: Leslie Black-Plumeau, Michael Simoneau, Todd Rawlings, Tom Bailey, and Sandy Dooley (Vice Chair); Members absent: John Simson, Larry Michaels; Others: Monica Ostby, PC liaison, and Ted Wimpey and Jessica Hyman were also present. Minutes by Tom Bailey/Sandy Dooley AGENDA 1. Call to order, emergency procedure, agenda review, comments from guests 2. Review and approval of minutes of 9/25/18 3. Consider and possibly act on proposal to re-submit Committee’s Inclusionary Zoning proposal modified so that Inclusionary Zoning provisions do not apply to the SEQ zoning districts. 4. Welcome Ted Wimpey and/or Jessica Hyman of Thriving Communities: Building a Vibrant Inclusive Vermont (part of CVOEO), and explore with them how to communicate the value of South Burlington becoming a more inclusive community. 5. Begin development of a multi-media plan for public education initiative re inclusionary housing and inclusionary communities. · What themes resonate with folks that have modest or zero knowledge of affordable housing, inclusionary zoning? · What are the negative stereotypes that we need to dispel and how do we dispel them? · How do we connect supporting a wide spectrum of housing types having a wide spectrum of costs with economic development, healthy development of children, strengthening of families, reducing our carbon footprint, and success of democracy? · What sequence of subjects/topics should we use in this initiative? · Who should be the spokesperson for these messages? 6. Share results of efforts to identify affordable housing “advocates” in community (if time) 6. New Business (if time) 7. Adjourn 1. Call to order, emergency procedure, agenda review, comments from guests: Sandy called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and summarized emergency evacuation instructions. Ted Wimpey and Jessica Hyman from the Fair Housing Project of CVOEO were introduced. There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Review and approval of September 25, 2018 minutes: Mike moved and Leslie seconded that the September 25, 2018 minutes be approved as written, except with the correction of one typographical error. Motion passed. Tom mentioned that the “bike rack” at the end of the minutes is not actually a part of the minutes since it wasn’t actually discussed. However, he suggested a review of the “bike rack” topics should be done at the end of each meeting. 3. Consider and possibly act on proposal to re-submit Committee’s Inclusionary Zoning proposal modified so that Inclusionary Zoning provisions do not apply to the SEQ zoning districts: Sandy asked those present if they had received the draft motion she had emailed to them earlier in the morning. Everyone indicated “yes”, after which Sandy asked if they had had an opportunity to read the draft motion. Everyone indicated s/he had read it. . At this point Mike moved and Leslie seconded that the committee, in recognition of the complexity of adopting Inclusionary Zoning in zoning districts in which Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) is provided for in the City’s Land Development regulations and the need for additional consideration of the consequences of such adoption, submits to the Planning Commission the modified draft of the proposed expansion of Inclusionary Zoning, dated October 5, 2018,* which excludes the application of Inclusionary Zoning to the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) zoning districts. *Note: On October 5, 2018, Sandy had sent a copy of the modified draft of the proposed expansion of Inclusionary Zoning, dated October 5, 2018, to all committee members attached to her email. The agenda for the October 9, 2018, committee meeting was also attached to this email. The discussion on the motion was extensive. Tom commented that since the Planning Commission had kicked back the Inclusionary Zoning proposal we should look through it thoroughly and he added that implementation of the proposal should be studied within the PUD approval framework that dominates South Burlington development permit process. Leslie questioned the nature of the Planning Commission’s specific concerns. Monica addressed the Planning Commission’s response to the Inclusionary Zoning proposal in the two meetings they had held. She said that SEQ density was the “big issue” although the individual opinions of Commission members were diverse. Todd stated that the motion proposes an Inclusionary Zoning ordinance that exempts the least inclusive part of South Burlington from its effect. He said he opposes the proposal because (1) it may violate federal Fair Housing laws and (2) for moral concerns. He added that the value of the land in the SEQ is because of infrastructure that everyone contributed to but which only benefits high earners since they are the only ones that can afford to live there. Monica described a Planning Commission meeting straw poll in which a strong majority supported excluding the SEQ from Inclusionary Zoning. Leslie mentioned environmental concerns in the SEQ which led to discussion of wet lands and open land. Sandy asked Todd whether he could support the Inclusionary Zoning proposal so long as the SEQ was exempt for a “temporary” period, such as no more than two years. There followed a discussion whether a temporary suspension of implementation in SEQ was doable and whether this might be more like interim zoning. Todd explained that he wouldn’t support such a proposal but that he didn’t want to forestall the rest of the Committee from moving forward. Leslie suggested that a better approach might be to frame the proposal as a gradual rollout into areas outside City Center, such as the Shelburne Road and Williston Road corridors that are targeted for growth and are not in SEQ. Todd wondered whether the SEQ was getting more resources that contributed to its “social capital”, which is more available in wealthy neighborhoods, and again whether the proposal violated Fair Housing laws. Ted Wimpey noted that Fair Housing enforcement around the country is usually directed at racial disparities that, he acknowledged, are often coincidental with wealth. Ted added that many municipal entities across the country have implemented Inclusionary Zoning that did not apply to the entire municipality and he was not aware of any that had been challenged on this basis. Jessica and Ted were curious what Legal Aid’s view would be of the question. Monica reopened a discussion of density in SEQ and the environmental concerns expressed through the creation of TDRs, while Leslie questioned the history of TDRs. A discussion followed about how the decisions were made to exclude certain open land in the SEQ from development. Sandy returned to the pending motion and was concerned that there would be an opportunity cost of failing to move forward now with Inclusionary Zoning for the rest of the City excluding the SEQ. Monica mentioned that the next airport noise mapping report, including F-35 data, would be released at the beginning of December. She speculated that one possible result (as part of the school district’s “Visioning”) would be the closing of Chamberlain School and the construction of a new school in the SEQ. Mike alluded to the political reality about open land and housing land in the SEQ. Leslie expressed frustration that housing in SEQ would not be affordable or workforce housing. Todd suggested that persuading the City population was unnecessary; persuading the Planning Commission and the City Council is what is important. Sandy returned to the pending motion and how long a “temporary” exemption for SEQ would be. Monica suggested that the proposal should be expressed as a “phased” expansion of Inclusionary Zoning beyond City Center down primary development corridors. Members discussed the possibility of amending the motion to state that Inclusionary Zoning would apply to the SEQ after a future date specified in the LDRs. Sandy said she did not see how it would be possible to apply Inclusionary Zoning to the SEQ as of a future date for two reasons: (1) that the question of how Inclusionary Zoning and TDRs would interact needs to be resolved before Inclusionary Zoning can be put into effect in the SEQ, and (2) that it is not feasible to superimpose Inclusionary Zoning on particular zoning districts at some future date when we cannot anticipate what the LDRs for those zoning districts will be at that future date. Sandy then asked Mike and Leslie whether they would consider the following change to the pending motion to be a friendly amendment. The change she read was to insert between “which” and “excludes” the following: “, as a second phase of Inclusionary Zoning implementation,”. Mike and Leslie indicated they accepted this change as a friendly amendment. It was about 11:20 at this point. Sandy then called the question. The modified motion now read: Mike moved and Leslie seconded that the committee, in recognition of the complexity of adopting Inclusionary Zoning in zoning districts in which Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) is provided for in the City’s Land Development Regulations and the need for additional consideration of the consequences of such adoption, submit to the Planning Commission the modified draft of the proposed expansion of Inclusionary Zoning, dated October 5, 2018, which, as a second phase of Inclusionary Zoning implementation, excludes the application of Inclusionary Zoning to the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) zoning districts. The motion passed 4-0-1 with Todd abstaining. Mike mentioned that John Simson had, by email from Croatia, indicated his support for the motion. 4. Welcome Ted Wimpey and Jessica Hyman: Ted introduced himself as Director of the Fair Housing Project of CVOEO and Jessica Hyman as Education and Outreach Coordinator of the “Thriving Communities: Building a Vibrant, Inclusive Vermont” campaign. He described fair housing and the methods that communities can put in place to reduce housing discrimination. He discussed the history of using HUD money to set up programs with partners to achieve objectives. Jessica next described that our goal should be more than getting the City Council to understand the issues of affordability. It’s about messaging that housing extends beyond poor people. For example, it is about business owners that cannot find employees because housing for them is not available locally. These employees are people we know, such as school teachers and store clerks. In agreement with Tiffany Manuel (whose article Leslie and Jessica had shared with the committee), Jessica suggested we should stop talking about the “right choice” and start talking about the “smart choice.” She suggested that we should consider what our desired outcome is before deciding on our outreach approach, and that public meetings with comments don’t work. She suggested reading two essays (one, “Slow Democracy”, by Susan Clark), and that for feedback, we should go to where people are, such as libraries and schools (not the Planning Commission and City Council) to make inroads into the social fabric. Monica asked how we can get people excited about this. Ted suggested emphasizing the economic benefits of work force housing and the advantages of having your workers living near you… they are your customers, too. Jessica suggested looking at the demographic history with a look towards the future and the flight of people out of South Burlington who can no longer afford to live here. Todd suggested using neighborhood mapping using Census data as he uses in Burlington. Sandy suggested looking at the historical cost of housing in the Orchards neighborhood versus current sale prices. She noted that homes are not affordable to the people that live there if they had to buy them now. Then she suggested taking that data forward. Leslie suggested getting our “script” down for meetings to promote housing. Monica suggested our Committee should rename itself and rebrand with a goal more related to economic development and not just a “handout.” There was a brief discussion about new membership on the Committee and on next meeting’s agenda. The proposals for homework and the next meeting’s agenda were for each committee member to compose draft “messages” and “talking points”, circulate them to committee members prior to the meeting, and be ready to review what had been drafted. 5. and 6. Agenda items: The Committee ran out of time and did not address the remaining items on this meeting’s agenda. 7. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at noon without formal action. “Bike rack” ● Tom will prepare a “Summary” of the proposed changes (from May 29, 2018, meeting minutes) ● work on Committee’s page on the City’s website ● (Quoted from January 23, 2018, meeting minutes) “John asked Mike to prepare a work plan for the committee to collaborate with Coralee to enhance its effectiveness in communicating with residents via the City’s website and via other means. The plan should include specific assignments to be carried out by identified committee members. Mike accepted this assignment.” Homework (not yet reported on): ● Mike will consult with an accountant regarding what incentives the City might put in place to encourage owners of undeveloped property to sell land at a “bargain price” to private developers. ● Mike will seek Yves Bradley’s input regarding development of more housing along Shelburne Road corridor.