Item 62
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:43 pm
Dear Colleagues,
To save us time tomorrow, I would like to ask the sponsors of item 62 (the cost study) for clarification on a few things and raise some questions in the hopes of reaching consensus faster. I also want to offer some draft amendments.
1. Lines 93-94 of version two refers to “costs related to additional approvals or reviews”. Can you please provide examples of specific circumstances you have in mind with this language?
2. There may be affordability benefits (financial and otherwise) of preserving existing housing while we add gentle density. I am concerned that this study only captures cost /benefits of new construction without providing information about scenarios that include the preservation of an existing unit. Within your framework, how might we capture scenarios that allow us to understand the tradeoffs between preservation and demolition while we add additional units? This information seems like it would be helpful, particularly as we consider the merits of tools such as a preservation bonus.
3. Lines 84-85 of version 2 – states we should analyze the costs and associated time for “rezoning for Housing Model Types for which zoning entitlements are not prevalent within the Housing Submarket Model.” How exactly will this be done and how can we capture the variables? We know that in many zoning cases we have agents who do their job very well and engage with area stakeholders to arrive at consensus and others take a different approach that can often exacerbate tensions and prolong the approval process. Can we request the study show us the breadth of timelines, such as cases can take from x amount of time to y amount of time? The average may not tell the whole story.
4. In my view we need to continue to push for improvements to our permitting process and the time that it takes to secure permits. We all know that we have invested considerable resources in staffing, moving online, and the PDC. In my view, the process outlined in this study does not yet seem to go deep enough into the vagaries of the permitting process in ways that might lead to lasting improvements in service and effectiveness. I would like to see direction that the study include room for direct feedback from stakeholders on their experience with the permitting process so we can identify common experiences and potential recommendations for improvements and primary pain points. This component of the study should include a variety of stakeholder perspectives (i.e. large corporate developers, individual homeowners, small scale developers, etc). I would like for this to be included in this scope of work. If not, I want to flag that I am considering authoring a separate item to accomplish that.
5. I would still appreciate clarity on the working definition that staff or the authors are using for “submarket models”. Examples of similar scopes of work using that framework also would be helpful to provide context.
In addition to the thoughts above, I will have two suggested amendments for the author to consider (see below for the concepts). I intend to offer these two draft amendments tomorrow, but in addition I hope the sponsors can provide the requested clarification and where appropriate would consider identifying language they are comfortable with to accomplish what I’ve raised above. Please let me know if I should instead prepare my own language to bring forward as amendments.
Alter Amendment 1: If, and when, the study or staff identify potential options for cost reductions (lines 52-54), the Council directs the City Manager to provide information on the public benefits provided by any associated regulations and fees under consideration for changes. The City Manager should include detailed information on potential impacts to public infrastructure and the environment, including funding impacts on existing or unmet needs, for any proposed changes.
Alter Amendment 2 (draft): I am still drafting this one, but I want to find a way for the study to consider how to incorporate the fiscal and affordability impacts of our administrative rulemaking process.
Regards,
Alison Alter
To save us time tomorrow, I would like to ask the sponsors of item 62 (the cost study) for clarification on a few things and raise some questions in the hopes of reaching consensus faster. I also want to offer some draft amendments.
1. Lines 93-94 of version two refers to “costs related to additional approvals or reviews”. Can you please provide examples of specific circumstances you have in mind with this language?
2. There may be affordability benefits (financial and otherwise) of preserving existing housing while we add gentle density. I am concerned that this study only captures cost /benefits of new construction without providing information about scenarios that include the preservation of an existing unit. Within your framework, how might we capture scenarios that allow us to understand the tradeoffs between preservation and demolition while we add additional units? This information seems like it would be helpful, particularly as we consider the merits of tools such as a preservation bonus.
3. Lines 84-85 of version 2 – states we should analyze the costs and associated time for “rezoning for Housing Model Types for which zoning entitlements are not prevalent within the Housing Submarket Model.” How exactly will this be done and how can we capture the variables? We know that in many zoning cases we have agents who do their job very well and engage with area stakeholders to arrive at consensus and others take a different approach that can often exacerbate tensions and prolong the approval process. Can we request the study show us the breadth of timelines, such as cases can take from x amount of time to y amount of time? The average may not tell the whole story.
4. In my view we need to continue to push for improvements to our permitting process and the time that it takes to secure permits. We all know that we have invested considerable resources in staffing, moving online, and the PDC. In my view, the process outlined in this study does not yet seem to go deep enough into the vagaries of the permitting process in ways that might lead to lasting improvements in service and effectiveness. I would like to see direction that the study include room for direct feedback from stakeholders on their experience with the permitting process so we can identify common experiences and potential recommendations for improvements and primary pain points. This component of the study should include a variety of stakeholder perspectives (i.e. large corporate developers, individual homeowners, small scale developers, etc). I would like for this to be included in this scope of work. If not, I want to flag that I am considering authoring a separate item to accomplish that.
5. I would still appreciate clarity on the working definition that staff or the authors are using for “submarket models”. Examples of similar scopes of work using that framework also would be helpful to provide context.
In addition to the thoughts above, I will have two suggested amendments for the author to consider (see below for the concepts). I intend to offer these two draft amendments tomorrow, but in addition I hope the sponsors can provide the requested clarification and where appropriate would consider identifying language they are comfortable with to accomplish what I’ve raised above. Please let me know if I should instead prepare my own language to bring forward as amendments.
Alter Amendment 1: If, and when, the study or staff identify potential options for cost reductions (lines 52-54), the Council directs the City Manager to provide information on the public benefits provided by any associated regulations and fees under consideration for changes. The City Manager should include detailed information on potential impacts to public infrastructure and the environment, including funding impacts on existing or unmet needs, for any proposed changes.
Alter Amendment 2 (draft): I am still drafting this one, but I want to find a way for the study to consider how to incorporate the fiscal and affordability impacts of our administrative rulemaking process.
Regards,
Alison Alter