 a lot of wiggle room if if something happens with a project so but I do like the square footage idea I think that that's a great idea. Mr. Pearson. I'll try and be succinct starting with the first of the triad on slide 16 the on-site percentage requirement I think a lot of these things are multi dial turning dependence so I think you know it would be perfectly fine to reduce the percentages change the mix of moderate versus low depending on you know what happens with you know splitting one to four five and above you know so that it doesn't a 10% doesn't become a 25% requirement in certain contexts I think that that makes sense slide 17 inclusionary standards I think the existing policy is what would get my support I I think there's a lot of different types of economic segregation that can be dealt with with inclusionary housing policy and I think having smaller units with lower quality materials on the inside even if it looks the same on the outside identifies neighbors as being different and has an exclusionary effect on on sort of integrating them the neighborhood economically so I would keep the compatible appearance materials and quality finish similar type and size slide 18 I think there's for me at least there's a little bit of a tension based on you know commissioner Carter made an excellent point you know if it's tied to a percentage the housing market is more expensive there's maybe more of a crunch on affordable housing there's a greater potential fee going into the fund to build affordable housing on the other side I think you know my own personal preference in general is always for reducing complexity and increasing predictability which would would argue in favor of the per square foot with the caveat that my preference would be to not make an onerous prohibitive per square foot fee but to really make it so that it is a meaningful choice for the developer to decide between in lieu and on site yeah just quick clarification are we tackling slide 17 right now are we gonna go back to that we can go back to that we did not discuss it okay so okay I don't know if you guys want to go back to that or not or do we need to have it it's pretty clear okay so starting with the threshold product size or threshold I believe our consultant said that seven units is where it starts to actually get realistic because that's the first time it actually is a would produce a unit on the rental side yeah so I'd say one to seven units would be what I would prefer just because it makes more sense and then five or more that's when you get into the hybrid that we've kind of started discussing before let's see the 10% 8% if it makes if it if it makes it easier to build I don't know why you wouldn't do that it makes more financially feasible I'm on I'm on side of that inclusionary standards yeah making if if you can walk into an apartment complex and pretty much say anybody with four plan why is the low-income I'm highly against that they should be somebody it should be just like anybody else I don't think just because they're in a disadvantaged economic position to the point where they need to get be involved in inclusion your housing housing justifies them being given lesser than anybody else especially in the area that we live in where 110 percent above average pay is considered moderately low income and then the luffy level that's I see both sides I see the two and a half percent of sale price is beneficial because if you sell it for more then it's actually more you get I see the simplistic nature of the per square foot price where someone even like me could understand what they're gonna pay and it's upfront like if you're gonna build 1300 square feet you're gonna pay $13,000 just so you know straight out the bat it's clear it's however should the market take a downturn and houses aren't selling for as much we don't want it to make it prohibitive to build new housing because now that you're you know a 1300 square foot home isn't going for 600,000 anymore it's going for 500,000 550,000 because that's what the economy dictates and now that's prohibitive to build that because you have to pay so much more however else I get the idea that if the economy goes down there's probably less building but then also if there's less building there's less in Luffy so therefore we want as many as Luffy's as possible it's it's a it's a weird cycle so I can't really make a decision on that yeah I think that I think where I would end up landing is because there's no clear answer to me I don't see any purpose in changing it so I would stick with the existing versus changing it just because there's not a clear answer to me as to why we should do it because there's so many factors that could be negative that could negatively affect the Luffy's that we get because of if we change it well I definitely agree with what Commissioner Crepe is saying I think we're also looking for flexibility here and I think the percentage of a sales price maintains flexibility over you know whatever market changes as opposed to the square footage I don't want to make it onerous either and I do you think that there should be a break I don't know exactly what that split should be the on-site percentage requirement looks like if it's been studied that that's what's feasible I'm just really looking for what's feasible what's what's going to that was the word I kept looking for in all the papers is like where's the feasible part and I think I feel a little bit differently about the the standards I think if we think about it that there's going to be these little units that are easily identifiable in in a mix of housing I don't know that that's necessarily the case because we require mixed types of housing in our you know our design guidelines and when we're looking at projects and frequently developers are coming in saying well this these units are affordable that by design we've got attached units mixed in with larger single-family dwellings so I would just hate to think our imagination goes to worst-case scenario that it may not be so identifiable but it may be a part of an interesting mix of housing but that makes it easier for a developer to create it so that's where I stand on that on slide 17 so I think that's that's all I have well you guys jumped into 17 without even giving staff time to present it which is great we can just be done now I just do want to reinforce some of the points that have been made here chair Cisco you just said that having that flexibility to allow variation might encourage affordable design and that we do have other guidelines design review and such to help to make sure it's integrated or does it become apparent as a lower-income enclosure inclusionary unit we've heard also that really it should be even construction method and type of one of the things that have been pretty constant is that if you do allow for a smaller unit that it does produce the same bedroom mix so there's there's some judgment there about what smaller is and and how to accomplish that so I don't know if there's any additional ideas or questions the commissioners have on this particular point that we need to discuss it sounds like many of you in that quick moment that I showed it and moved on you you synthesized your positions on this but it is a something we do want to have clear feedback on yeah just want to make the points from my fellow commissioners I can understand your point about not wanting to have somebody the interior of a house being identifiable as being the affordable unit but a lot of brand new projects where they build a whole group of homes and people are going in buying the houses before they're constructed they can opt for different upgrades and they can say I'll I'll pay extra for the granite countertops or with the whatever bathtub whatever and so the houses end up looking different inside anyway so I don't think that this could this is necessarily a bad thing and I also think allowing a smaller units with the same bitter mix is a good idea as well I mean I live at a hundred year old house that's less than 1400 feet and it's got three bedrooms and it's fine but you know and some people would think that that would be a tiny little level but it's not but so I think there's room for builders to save some money on a housing project and not make these houses to stand out as being the poor people's houses because they're built slightly different than the rest of them anybody else want to comment yeah I didn't get the comment on this one and my initial gut reaction is that why should they be different but I'm not sure I understand the challenges to the builders enough to speak intelligently on that point but it seems to me that if we are looking at lowering the threshold from 15 to 10 or 8 which I do support because the 15 obviously isn't working it's going to be a small enough number of units that I have a hard time understanding how it represents a significant cost difference to the builders so I'm skeptical on this one that's where I am I didn't get the comment on this slide as either but I agree with that chair Cisco that I think this allows a builder more flexibility on how to to achieve inclusion your housing when it is required and I think that obviously I totally understand that though we all go to the worst-case scenario but the reality is these units won't have like a you know a green affordable door on them where they're you know they're identified as being affordable units they have to have the same exterior you know exteriors as the market rate units and I think this will actually make it a little bit more feasible for developer well so it is the is the person that jumped the gun on on slide 17 I thought I'd add a final thought that I think Commissioner Carter put it well which is that I am also skeptical that these types of changes are really the the issue with realizing inclusionary housing I it's possible I'm not a developer but you know it it doesn't seem enough to change how a project would pencil out sitting here at the dais anybody else so as somebody who's currently building a house I'm not so concerned about the smaller unit if it's if it's house if it's a house if it's a single to family attached home apartments it's completely different because anybody who's built a house knows the smaller the house is the more expensive it is to build because there's economy of scale right it's it's the less expensive interior amenities so as you said you know when you go into house you can pick upgrades well if you're low-income you don't get to pick your upgrades you're just given what you're given and one of the best ways to cut costs when you're building a house is to have less expensive amenities and as far as I know interior amenities are not something that the planning commission would take into account when reviewing a project so you could say every market rate has a clawfoot tub and every low-income has you know linoleum floors or or fiberglass bathtubs and that's what I was kind of getting at is because that's not something that we take into account when we're looking at housing projects we we're looking at floor plans distribution this and that but it's it's the less expensive interior amenities that really kind of hits me because there is a vast difference between a composite countertop to a high-end quartz countertop and that's not something that would come before us or anybody as far as I know and I'll just interject here you you bring up an interesting and good point we'll talk about this later is about implementation how do we structure this ordinance and these regulations how are they followed through on yeah and just a follow-up so yes the commission wouldn't weigh in ever on the interior but but if these are inclusionary by contract with the city then we do have the implementation responsibility to make sure that if that you know if that the policy is adhered to and through their monitoring process anything else on number 17 okay next our a couple slides where we actually this one slide talks about how the ordinance may incorporate measures that encourage innovation and has flexibility in it and and there on the left column are a variety of measures our current ordinance allows for and encourages innovation and and we can maybe talk about those a little more detail and then on the right are some ideas that have been presented for discussion so I offer the microphone to my colleagues here who wish to elaborate on these sure so the city's current ordinance allows alternatives to providing units on site of course paying the fee but in addition to that they allow for providing the affordable units off-site so usually that would happen through partnering with an affordable developer to provide the affordable units in an off-site location the ordinance allows for land dedication and for innovative alternatives subject to the discretionary approval process those are all great alternatives a couple others we kind of brought up that we saw in our review of other ordinances one is to allow the conversion of a market rate project to an affordable level so you know rent restricted affordable level and the city has a project like that currently Parkwood Apartments the other is preserving at-risk affordable projects that would be converting to market rate so extending the affordability control so you're not losing you know existing affordable units these allowances for alternatives to on-site units one of the questions is what level of discretionary review so that's you know something to think of that we're going to need to define in the ordinance the geographic dispersion the city has a couple requirements if a developer was going to provide an off-site the affordable units off-site it's required to be within the same quadrant of the city and the concern with that you know because the emphasis is trying to provide options and flexibility so you can get you know affordable units built a developer choosing an off-site option again would most likely be partnering with a nonprofit that may have a site you know anywhere in the city might not necessarily be in the same quadrant so the city might want to be you know more open to allowing off-site options and you know other locations the other geographic dispersion requirement is an impaction determination hard to say and that's in the case of a land dedication the land can't be within I think it's a thousand feet of another affordable housing project this again could be constraining the city we have a map that shows where all the affordable housing projects are in the city and it may be constraining to in some side times developers have sites right next to each other and so this might be something the C might consider doing away with then lastly inclusionary credits this is something that's used in Navado and Ronner Park which allows a greater number of inclusionary units provided in a project you know the first project and say and say if it was an 8% requirement for rental and they provided 16% low-income they could transfer that credit to a future project with that inclusionary credit so if their requirement was 8% low-income and say they did 16 would they and they could theoretically fund those additional 8 units with funds public funds from the housing trust would they be able to then use that the additional 8 credits 8 units that they'd use as inclusionary credits because they're funded with public funds see that's such a great question no so both of the cities that use this prohibit credits on projects that have any kind of public funds or density bonus so this is just you know a market rate project that's providing and this would most likely be a developer that has you know two sites two phases and it's going to make more sense to provide more of the units in phase one and phase two would it also go the other way as to if a developer has two sites if they say that 8% of inclusionary housing for the first site they will add to 16 for the second phase or if they were going to face a project we would recommend not I think the city's had problems with that in the past and you want always want to get the affordable units first yeah yeah last two weeks so on the geographic dispersion I would not be in favor of eliminating the existing provisions I think they need needs to not be clustered and the inclusionary credits I have a real problem with I have a feeling nothing might get built so I would not be in favor of the inclusionary credits Commissioner weeks may I clarify did you say you're not in favor of the geographic dispersion continuing as a requirement and then I think you also said you do want to have the geographic dispersion I would like to keep that right okay not eliminate okay thank you so again I think that these policy options really implicate the the question of what we're trying to do whether it's get inclusionary housing or get affordable housing if it's an inclusionary housing I think the existing requirements make sense if we're trying to get affordable housing built then I think the innovation and flexibility does make sense I think the proposed policies would would help with that with with the big you know downside for me of concentrating affordable housing in certain areas of the city so I think if the decision is made to go forward with the innovation and flexibility I agree with commissioner weeks I think the the same quadrant as difficult as it may be for developers to comply with at least is keeping with the spirit of inclusionary housing and that dispersion of and integration of different income levels my fellow commissioners already spoke but pretty much said everything that I wanted that I was thinking yeah the question of affordable versus inclusionary is is the key the key aspect here on where which way I would go and I completely agree again going back to the geographic segregation putting putting low income in a specific place and not mandating to include it in the same con excuse me in the same quadrant is something that I I'm adverse to yeah so yeah I agree with my fellow commissioners that yeah I'll just leave it that I don't need to talk anymore we've a lot more to go I'm also in agreement with my fellow commissioners I do like keeping the geographic keeping it in the same quadrant I'm not so I don't know about the inclusionary credit idea I would be interested to hear what other people think about that but I'm kind of thinking I'm against that idea because I think that would would concentrate a larger group of affordable housing in one location rather than having it more dispersed but otherwise I'm in agreement with the the comments that were just made can you should call you so I think the on the first what if they allowing market rate to affordable conversions and along with at-risk affordable housing preservation is super important and I think that would be an incredible thing to have I think something that is I'm kind of struggling with this with the talking about income inequality in you know in geographic sense I think a lot of it has to do not necessarily where I think a lot of where units are built are kind of pushed by the NIMBYs in the specific areas so it it's interesting for me to because I'm on the fence of that whether it's having you know because I can see the feasibility behind you know if a nonprofit developer has land that they've already acquired through a different source of public funds and then there's a developer who needs to do off-site you know how affordable that it would be potentially difficult to find a specific you know project in that same quadrant because you're just reducing the amount of probability that you're going to be able to do that in regards to I think I don't see how I guess my question is currently with the way that our affordable housing is spread is it concentrated in one particular location from what I remember reading in the report it looks like it's fairly equally distributed through three of the four quadrants and it's just in the northeast that it's not that's correct you characterize that correctly 10% in in the northeast and then slide nine let's make sure here see so from that perspective it seems like it's not like all of our affordable housing is would be in one quadrant it's more like there is no affordable housing in one quadrant right yeah so I guess in that sense and I think for more you know probability of success I think it would be been more beneficial to allow the to eliminate that provision of geographic dispersion and then I also think that you know dispersing the affordable units if they are you know required to be inclusionary is beneficial unless it is specifically required through financing which I think most of time it's probably going to be because just like our rose and village project you couldn't finance that because I financed it with tax credits that's why they had to put two separate buildings I think that will happen more often than not I was going to add some of these are presented to you these what ifs kind of like an all or nothing but it could be even more complicated than what we're presenting but one of the one of the layers that could be added if you wanted to honor the flexibility but basically make it that that level of flexibility by going out of the same quadrant you could increase the review authority that would allow for that so maybe there's something unusual or there's some other benefits to allowing them to to go out of the quadrant and for example to go to in some cities you know those sort of those those circumstances some cities have that decision at the council or can go to housing authority or in some cities it's even the director you know depending on the level of tolerance for that level of flexibility but that's just another layer so if you if it's either you can have it as an absolute thou shall if you do this option it shall be in the same quadrant or that's the default but if you had some other reason that you wanted to present it would be done in a public setting or what you know however you would set that up yeah go ahead I think that would be a real perfect compromise for that is if if the if the affordable units were going outside of the quadrant that it would get reviewed by the director of housing authority because you the director of housing authorities the person knows exactly where all of our for all of our affordable units are and that we won't be over concentrating on the specific area but your car well thank you director Hartman you said what I was going to ask about but I think with respect to the the geographic dispersion I think you know I think about my own quadrant I live in in the junior college area and found groves also in there so there's a wide range of housing and opportunity sites within the four quadrants and I would be in favor of keeping that is the fault but allowing through flexibility and review the options and I think a lot of these things even the inclusionary credits could be seen more as an incentive and something through the review process but keep the pressure on the developers to make the case for for changing from the default but as far as the defaults go I like the geographic dispersion our current are looking at one of your innovation things of dispersing the units within the project again the pressures on the developer just to give reason why we would do it otherwise I just have a question and on the what if allow market rate to affordable housing would that be by an existing market rate apartment complex and converting it which may be a way of getting some northeast affordable housing okay so definitely him for that because I mean I share the same concerns that have been considered here I think when when I see the our existing geographic dispersion off-site same quadrant I think where's the land where are we building we're getting it all in the southwest in the southeast so that's a concern for me so I like the flexibility that maybe that they could do off-site in a different quadrant namely the northeast quadrant I definitely think that we have to realize the reality of how we're dispersing the affordable housing units in the financing issue and so I think we need to build that that in as opposed to always having the affordable housing people opposing our our policies so that's what I have all right now to the slide regarding implementation this does list the exemptions in our current ordinance than they are a variety of uses which you can recognize many of them are kindred affordable housing type uses and so they can be built without being subject to the inclusionary ordinance so we would anticipate these would continue in the next round of with the ordinance update but there may be other uses that should be added here consideration the other issue is our inclusionary on-site requirement says those units need to be made bound or committed for 30 years and that the suggestion is to make it 55 years which conforms with other state and regulations regarding the term of affordable units the we've talked about a couple things here regarding implementation including approval authority I think as we move forward and develop an ordinance will we've heard comments about the possibility that certain things like these incentives we talked about would be subject to various levels of review and approval so that would be incorporated into our probably recommendation in some form questions we do want to build in kind of regular review so we don't wait 20 years to check you know cut check up on our fees so that that would be another implementation issue I think that's a really good point to stress that this isn't going to be it for my lifetime I do like changing the affordability period to 55 years I just think that that is as we say it is consistent with other programs I don't see why not so it did I would be curious to see what the developers said about that did they talk about that in your meeting at all if that would make a big difference financially our meeting unfortunately didn't have any for-profit developers it was all non-profit so this is you know that's their use to it yeah I like both of the what-ifs I would support both come a short grab key I like both of the what-ifs I'm also in support of both the what-ifs I think it might be beneficial I'm trying to think of why the affordability period would be more beneficial for a developer for-profit or non-profit to be 30 years rather than 55 I wonder if there's something that has to do with financing if it's a for-profit developer if it's a 30-year affordability deed restriction because I know I'm 100 I understand how 55 years is more consistent with any use of public funds for affordability then there's a 55-year deed restriction so I think just for those cases to have something similar to what we were just talking about having a if a affordability period for less than between 30 and 54 years would need you know the director of housing authorities approval before implement but and then have 55 be the default unless there's a specific reason that the developer can show like financing I think the other commissioners have pretty much covered it it does trigger a question for me since there are no what-ifs for exemptions other than to continue the existing we must have it right are there are there no other categories of exemptions that have come up that we need to consider not that we're looking for extra complexity here well I think all of them are pretty they're kindred in the sense that they are for special needs or supportive housing typically I do want to call your attention to that owner builders can construct their own home without having to pay the inclusionary fee and there is a stipulation there that they can only build so many homes every few years before that begins to make them no longer owner builder but rather a contractor and and and need to pay the fee so I did that I think it's once every four to five years they can come in and complete a home without triggering the need for the fee that that was pretty well explained in the materials given us and I have no reason to object to that one so thank you and I'm also in favor of the what-ifs so it's simple all right so we I mean I I'm not going to try to summarize in detail for the interest of time I think this structure that we went through talking it through on each of the points allowed us to get really good comments from everybody is there any other issue or it's something that you it's occurred to you now that we've passed through once do you want to go back to another slide to reconsider a point or a position you made or should we go on to the commercial linkage fee anybody want to go back to anything let's do the commercial linkage fee all right so this is this would be a new fee that's being put considered or proposed and I will introduce it and hand it off to our economic development expert Reisa and the La Rosa who will guide us through so again it's it's intended here to start a program or should we start a program that's the first question so Reisa turn over here okay I just want to be clear that I am pinch hitting for David and I crammed on the slides so bear with me I think I can answer most of your questions I can get through these these these things okay so the purpose of a commercial linkage fee is to mitigate the impact of new market rate development on the demands of affordable housing obviously that's why we're here tonight and because the city currently has no commercial linkage fee we're starting from scratch and have the following questions for you to to consider as we as we move through this basically what we need to know in order to move forward is you know how would the fee fit into our housing strategy you spent the night mostly talking about that how much should the fee increase the total development cost and so this study does review what is financially feasible how should the fee compared to neighboring cities we do have a chart on that and comparable jurisdictions because this does or could have an effect on you know perceived competitiveness and what are the options for payment alternatives and we'll get into that a little bit as well thank you okay so by law we have to ensure that any fee proposed is actually feasible and what that feasibility threshold is and also obviously we have to ensure that there is a relationship between commercial development and affordable housing so with that what the study did is looked at that relationship and we analyzed these three hotel retail restaurant services and business park sectors these were analyzed in the study because they are the most common development types in Santa Rosa excuse me within that study what the what they looked at is the estimated number of workers that would work in the new commercial spaces what the estimate estimated worker household income would be and what the afford ability gap for new lower income household households would be so a summary of the components of the of the study are that it would indeed apply to all new commercial development and it would like the what you've been discussing provide additional funding sources for new workforce workforce housing what that's associated with those developments it is based on the total development cost and financial feasibility and could in fact have an adjustment mechanism based on the cost index so it could be flexible okay all right so the we as I mentioned studied these prototypes because they are the most common prototypes that were common types of development that we've had in Santa Rosa in recent years and I think I already said that well I would just add here that these uses are not their categories that were part of an economic analysis but not drawn directly from our zoning code or a general plan thank you okay so going back to that legal obligation to ensure a fees feasibility this chart shows the housing demand by prototype along with affordability gap of new worker households in order to get us to the maximum fee square footage this the study looked at prototypes estimated number of workers and these are bisector estimated workforce household income income in order to calculate that affordability gap and get us to that maximum square footage fee obviously that maximum square footage fee shown is not entirely realistic when it's on top of all other fees and development costs within the city so these charts show what the black line shows is the yield you need to make in order for the project to become financially feasible and the red bar are the fees and scenarios so look at hotels you'll see that they have the most capacity so even with the maximum justifiable fee that was studied they still are able to meet that baseline yield whereas when you're looking at retail the other two will retail and restaurants is really marginal they would not be able to make it at them at the maximum fee recommended but when you reduce those fees they are marginally they have marginal capacity and that's the same a little bit more so with the business park and light industrial in comparing our other jurisdictions and neighboring jurisdictions you can see that not only if we went with a maximum fee would it blow everybody else out of the water but there are varied options within sectors to consider but looking at the reduced fee of $3 per square foot across the board at least gets us to reasonable financial feasibility and is the place where we think it's most reasonable to start given the capacity charts you saw on the previous slide and I would like to point out this slide shows a $3 fee would be in the mid-range of the fees that are charged locally actually locally as well as in our comparator city so they looked at they look not just locally but but also at our comparator cities so the questions that we are asking tonight are you know what should the city review and implementation of the fees be so meaning frequency of review should we look at this every five years or so and what exceptions should we consider are there what about change of use versus new development type of thing also commercial sector based fees should they be varied in the previous slide you saw you know Rhona Park I think has 69 cents for per square foot for one sector up to I don't recall what you know a few dollars for another sector are they should they be varied by sector and then lastly how can we allow for innovation and flexibility in a development so if that development would prefer not to pay a fee but would like to actually develop housing off-site is that an option what other options exist and that is the last slide on that piece did it so back to you so the first fundamental question is should Santa Rosa have a fee if we don't currently have one so should we embark on this journey and link commercial development and their impact with tech the need for housing to to be in a participant to help us afford housing and then going from that big policy move which is what I'd like you to touch on first and then going into the finer elements should we have a fee or if we have a fee then then where should there be some directives or areas of flexibility questions comments I'm busy reading a note sorry sorry I think we should have a fee personally little editorial here I think it's long overdue so I'm glad to see this coming I in the report it talked about on page 40 about some different options like a they could see it says one option would be for the develop developer to provide affordable housing units on or off-site or to provide a building site so I think the flexibility would be great but I do think for me the bottom line is yes there should be a fee and also the index to change the fee I think in the report it talked about two different indexes and it was the higher or the lower of one or the other I can't remember I don't recall exactly but usually it's looking at at a regional fee which is higher than a national fee so I think it's that's good idea so you're saying going with the higher regional fee yes okay thank you I just have a question does Santa Rosa have a higher amount of commercial development than other cities well in the county yes because we're the largest city by far so we have the most capacity for development within our city limits that's the same for housing as it is for commercial development if you look at our comparator cities not so much perhaps it's but regionally we do fairly well and particularly in Sonoma County we have the most capacity in the most interest within our city limits and so I guess the question is has the absence of the fee incentivized commercial development no I don't believe so I believe that there is capacity in some of these when we talked with we worked with the Chamber to talk to some of our local developers and business like brokers and such and you know they had some concerns but I don't think that this would tip us over it would be incorporated into the land cost it's a one-time fee I don't think it would be something that would be a surprise I think it's more rare that we don't actually have one yeah is that answering a question it does okay more questions or should go for it to try and address the the issues raised I agree with Commissioner weeks I think a fee makes sense it clearly has not had an effect on development to not have it so it certainly is overdue in that sense I think it makes sense to review it relatively on a relatively frequent schedule see what's happening I know you know we're we're still in cannabis land and Santa Rosa's policy goal is to become a regional hub for that industry and all aspects of it including manufacturing and retail and so I think we would want to account for the different types of industries that we're trying to attract and we're also the effects that those industries have I think it does make sense and that's regard to differentiate by the sector I I think this is a great area for innovation and flexibility maybe with some you know real analysis in the downsides of that kind of innovation and flexibility and I think you know change in use versus new development agnostic at this point I guess it depends on sort of the specifics on the ground of what that would look like and what developers would say and is it going to affect things or not it looks like probably not but that would be good good data to have and that's it for me I will say I will say that to the change of use that was something that it was a question raised by those we met with previously and so they did want clarity on that but it was one area where of those we spoke with they were they wanted the most clarity on that piece I think the other question is intensification of use might be another thing that we can look at as well within that yeah I'm kind of more focused on on definitions of certain things so and I guess that's kind of one of your questions for us is what how do we define development what do we want to see I mean the easiest the first go to for everybody's probably ground up construction which makes sense I don't this is one of those things where I'm sitting on the fence I don't like anything that makes it more expensive to build here however if it isn't something that adversely affects the building that's going on currently or the desire to build in the area currently I would like to see on page 39 there's the the comparison of neighboring jurisdictions I would like to if I don't know if it's even possible but like a before and after like when Sonoma County put it in before you know what it was like before after Petaluma that kind of stuff so the rest of my comments are hypothetical if it was in place I think on the higher end would make sense in the county just because we as you said were the main hub of the county were in the county were the largest area conversions if an apartment complex to a to a hotel kind of a conversion or anything like that that'd be something I'd like to get an answer on since it's pertinent now and it may not be in the future but likely will be fire areas if a hotel burns to the ground and they rebuild a hotel will they get charged there's the argument that no the hotel is there before now it's just coming back but those jobs don't exist and so they rebuild they're going to have a whole bunch of need for jobs which would excuse me which would then bring in more employees and raise the need for housing I think every five years is fine I'm more than okay with revisiting every five years and I agree with Commissioner Peterson with the cannabis industry is something that definitely should be looked at I think that's all my comments for right now so my understanding is right now as we're proposing this this would be for new building only that's correct so do we have any ideas like a ballpark number in the like in the last year how much square footage was built in all these different areas like how much money would this generate so we actually pulled for the last three years from 2016 to 2019 just to see what we have and actually for 2019 from we have very few thus far but 2019 for example we had a hundred and fifteen thousand five hundred uh hundred fifteen thousand new square feet of built and the fee from that would be at three dollars per square foot would be about three hundred fifty thousand dollars all told when we look back at the last couple of years or I can look at uh 2018 was a little bit low but and looking for 2016 to uh what was built to date in 2019 um that would be about seven hundred seventy thousand dollars um so it's not substantial uh but it does move the bar okay because um I I am totally in favor of creating some kind of commercial linkage fee I just think um my impression is that we have a lot more retentative existing spaces than we do actually building from the ground up so I would be in favor of um being able to assess a fee for a one-time only thing like we talked about the cannabis business and want to become a hub for that but a lot of that building is going on in existing facilities so if we actually want want to realize some money from from that industry we have to have it tied to like retentative in existing um um industrial space so I would be in favor of figuring that out if we could if there's a way to do that a one-time only thing or a change of use or intensification of use um let's see and I guess um I'm tied to that is I know we've got the table for what other jurisdictions charge but do we have a sense of if do they only charge for brand new building or do they also charge have a linkage fee for retentative of existing spaces I'd have to look back at the report I don't know offhand okay thanks but otherwise that's my comment can I just call you I was just going to ask that same thing do if the other uh communities charge for uh retentative or uh changes of use because for my my personal um comment my gut reaction would be to not have any kind of linkage fee be attached to change of use or retentative it's because specifically if if other communities don't close by then they will just go to those communities you know when I um let me just I asked actually uh on something so I'm sort of going by memory but I recall that it is not typically um retentating um the I believe the uh consultant who did this study said it was generally just not like tenant improvements or or what it was a new build okay and then um I have some more specific oh so real quick the numbers that you were talking about the 115,000 square feet that was developed is that specifically was that specifically hotel or just commercial development oh that was just commercial development I just took everything uh in um at the time when we pulled this well uh there is no this goes up to July there was no record of for example that new well that that was actually just a tenant improvement that was a change in use there was no ground up I should say AC Marriott was not built for example it's not completed nor the one on Santa Rosa Avenue those are the ones that it would impact okay and um I have some more specific questions that I it's just something to bring up but um the number per worker for the hotels it's one worker for every hundred or a thousand square feet or one or one worker per unit for that example and that seemed quite high because if there was a hundred unit hotel then it would be a hundred workers which is a lot and I was the question was is that over the life of the hotel because that doesn't make sense how you would be able to quantify that but just from just personal experience of running a hundred unit hotel there's not a hundred workers um and so and then also something that was interesting is that I noticed that the cap rate that was used for the hotel was actually based on the cap rate of Oakland and Oakland hospitality cap rates are quite high compared to our local cap rates I think the the range was nine and a half to eleven percent or eleven and a half percent and locally were more like eight percent which is if you're talking about a you know it's forty million dollar hot hotel project that's that's a huge difference between a eight cap and a eleven cap so I think yeah those are my comments. Councillor Carter. In general I support implementing commercial development fee I think if there's any way to to tie it to and I'm sure it will be in the ordinance to our need for housing we need to make that clear that that's why we're implementing this fee to support our housing funds. Three dollars a foot seems reasonable compared to what our neighbors do. I don't have anything to suggest beyond that. I think we should look at not reoccupation but intensification of use as a triggering mechanism and what exactly what that mechanism is I can't say but I think of things like the hotel and things like that that have been redeveloped projects that are obviously going to bring a lot of income to the developer that seems like the city ought to be able to take advantage of those kind of opportunities. Yeah can I just recall you? Sorry I forgot to ask one question. I saw that this would be used for workforce development would it also go into the housing trust or is there a separate a separate where would the money go basically? My understanding is it would go into the housing trust. Okay and so there just basically be a specific AMI that this would be considered workforce or is it just going to be at any will it be commingled with the rest? I think we have to get back to you on that question. Well I I do know by law this has to be for workforce housing so yeah so we do in terms of implementation we have to be able to show that paper trail. So then so then it would basically it would go into the housing trust but be earmarked specifically for whatever that workforce AMI is. Okay thank you. Yeah. So what's the definition of workforce housing is it based upon income? So if I had the same question as Commissioner Collier. If I'm not mistaken I think it's like 80% AMI. There's a range that is workforce I believe. So it's something they probably already the funds that they provide are probably already defined as workforce housing to a degree. The housing trust manager did tell us that number and I don't recall that number. The housing trust manager Megan Bassenger did tell us that number I do not recall what it is but we can get that to you. Any other questions? Well I definitely think there should be a fee and I'm listening to what Commissioner Collier is saying about you know because I definitely originally was thinking that capturing some income from the intensive reuse and intensification of uses particularly by the cannabis industry because Commissioner Peterson always asks about the job pay and all of that might be important but I'm also listening to Commissioner Collier go well if other jurisdictions aren't doing that are we going to inadvertently drive away our business. So I guess I'm a little I would I would think we would need to do a bit of work on the definition and and I'm assuming that Hotel E would have not been considered new development but that would have been maybe considered an intensification of use maybe not I don't know but but somehow coming up with the definition and maybe not every I'm just going to use the cannabis industry as an example you know lower level intent uses or or rebuilds you know maybe there's a way to to separate that out saying if it's a maximum you know kind of project and maybe we would take a fee versus something that's a little bit more you know mom and pop I don't know but I definitely think we need the fee and need definitions I think Commissioner Okrepke's like what's a rebuild what's that count as you know that would that would be important to really kind of put that out there. Commissioner Duggan. As far as my comment about maybe tying it to intensification of use it occurs to me sometimes when we have a cannabis project and it's taking over an existing industrial space like lots of times the traffic study will say that that the existing space can have like two or three workers and this use is going to have 20 workers maybe it could be tied to the increase of employees because of their housing needs. Okay interesting. Just an idea. Yeah yeah Commissioner Collier. I think that's interesting but I think it would be hard because nobody would report how many employees you have to there's no other mechanism how to implement that I don't that I could think of but and then also saying perhaps just from what Cheris Cisco was saying maybe have a a minimum square footage where these things start to kick in so if it's like a if it's a you know a entrepreneurial or small mom and pop development or something like that where it's not financially feasible that it's for it's mainly for the intention is to have the larger you know the big box stores or something that are coming in that would be you know be hiring a bunch of people that need housing. Okay yeah Commissioner Pearson. It's just just one final thought as we circle around cannabis just to throw this out there a lot of the jurisdictions surrounding Santa Rosa have severely restricted cannabis so in that specific context to address Commissioner Collier's point I'm not sure they would be necessarily able to go anywhere else. Yeah good point. Any other questions? Mr. Gustafson are we done or do you need anything more from us? You are now rewarded with the final slide. Okay. And thank you really I think this was very helpful and your insight we'll carry that forward in the next series of workshops which are if you wish to participate we'll be meeting with the housing authority on the 26th but and then the following evening with City Council at a study session on the 27th that might be if you have if you have any questions or comments that occur to you after tonight please feel reach you know feel free to reach out to me my phone number is there on your PowerPoint also we do have a web page if you want to keep up to speed as to where we're going with this we'll be posting our memos or staff reports and and this PowerPoint will be there if you want to go back to it and remember it the meeting fondly you can do that so with that we're requesting recommending that the Commission accept staff's report. Do we need to vote on that or no no okay okay good and before we close tonight a couple of things this was a study session not a public hearing so I did have a couple of commenters that were interested in commenting but we ran them out of here by the length of time so there's no one here to comment and then also I failed to call out number nine consent items that we had none tonight so finishing that up before we adjourn and with that we will adjourn to our August 22nd meeting