Community Engagement Report:
Housing Now Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Committee of the Whole Meeting
Tuesday, October 9, 2018, 9:30am
1
T I M E L I N E
March Commissioners Meeting
April Presentation to Committee of the Whole
May Contract Work Began
Jun/Jul Stakeholder Engagements
August Community Listening Engagements
Sept Report Analysis
T E A M
A D A M
L A T A R R O
S E R G I O
K I R K
P R O J E C T S C O P E : T H R E E F O L D
P R O J E C T S C O P E : T H R E E F O L D
Analyze Prior Engagements
Meet with neighborhood associations, non-profit developers, and other stakeholders to understand the pain points of past engagements, their experience with the Housing NOW! Amendments, and to surface nuances that need extra clarity.
E N G A G E M E N T A N A L Y S I S : I N I T I A L S T A K E H O L D E R M E E T I N G S
Digging into what has made for good and bad engagements with neighborhood associations.
Understanding the perspectives of not-for-profit developers
Working with equity minded neighbors to surface blind spots.
SWOT-ing an analogous experience to improve engagements
P R I N C I P L E S : I D E N T I F I E D + P R I O R I T I Z E D
P R I N C I P L E S : I D E N T I F I E D + P R I O R I T I Z E D
P R O J E C T S C O P E : T H R E E F O L D
Design, Prototype and Test Engagement Structure
Hosted a “Prototype Engagement” with stakeholders and collected feedback on the structure, usefulness of group processing mechanisms, and content clarity.
All stakeholders were invited to give feedback and shape the final form of the engagement.
Debriefing the experience afterwards to surface what works and what needs to be tweaked.
P R O J E C T S C O P E : T H R E E F O L D
Facilitate Community Engagement Sessions
Refined concept and facilitated four community engagement sessions to meet the stated goals of gathering community feedback on Zoning Amendments 3, 6, 8 and 9.
M A R K E T I N G
Bilingual Flyers
Canvassed around impacted spaces
Presence at 5 National Night Out events
Educational Video
Leveraged networks to share out
17,000+ Views
250+ Shares
Other Outlets
Robocall w/ GRPS +�311 Hold Line�
S E S S I O N S T R U C T U R E R O O T E D I N P R I N C I P L E S
Four Community Listening Sessions
S E S S I O N S T R U C T U R E R O O T E D I N P R I N C I P L E S
S E S S I O N S T R U C T U R E
C O N T E X T
Zoning
101
15 mins
A M E N D M E N T 3
Missing Middle
25 mins
A M E N D M E N T 6
Density�Bonus
25 mins
A M E N D M E N T 8
ADUs
25 mins
A M E N D M E N T 9
Row Houses
25 mins
20
Each session was frame with this big question: Whether or not the community supports moving these amendments from special land use to administrative approval.
Each session was frame with this big question: Whether or not the community supports moving these amendments from special land use to administrative approval.
Each session was frame with this big question: Whether or not the community supports moving these amendments from special land use to administrative approval.
For Every Amendment
E X A M P L E
5 M I N
Examples
24
333 ft
60 ft
20,000 sqft
27
500 FT ALONG THE ROAD
MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
TRADITIONAL BUSINESS AREA
(TBA)
LOW DENSITY�RESIDENTIAL
(LDR)
Traditional
Business
Area
Mixed Density�Residential
500 FT
For Every Amendment
E X A M P L E
7 M I N
Table Talk
5 M I N
Examples
29
They are not zoning experts.
Their goal is to help your table identify the big questions.
30
Table Hosts
The big picture of what it looks like
The zoning article tweaks needed to make it happen.
For Every Amendment
E X A M P L E
7 M I N
Table Talk
5 M I N
Examples
1 3 M I N
Large Group Q&A
33
Online Access Through Aug 28
A D D I T I O N A L L Y
36
37
P A R T I C I P A N T S U M M A R Y
S U R V E Y
2 0 1 0 C E N S U S
38
P A R T I C I P A N T S U M M A R Y
D E V E L O P E R / L A N D L O R D
O W N V S . R E N T
39
P A R T I C I P A N T S U M M A R Y
D E V E L O P E R / L A N D L O R D
A pattern of 20-28% of participants not responding is found throughout the amendments
40
What We Tested
F O C U S
The recommendations from the Planning Commission that the City Commission had a public hearing on March 27, 2018.
41
What We Tested
F O C U S
We weren’t trying to validate or sell these ideas, but to take the temperature of the community.
42
Solid Green - I feel confident enough to make a decision, and I support the amendment as is
Light Green - Not confident, support
Grey - No response
Light Red - Not confident, uncomfortable as is, and recommend...
Solid Red - Confident, uncomfortable recommend...
What the colors represent
Total Participants
Voting Participants
What The Pie Charts Mean
F O C U S
43
Missing Middle Housing
A M E N D M E N T 3
44
Missing Middle Housing
A M E N D M E N T 3
45
50.3%
57.2%
68.4%
58%
Duplexes
Converted
Multi-Family
46
47
500 FT ALONG THE ROAD
MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
TRADITIONAL BUSINESS AREA
(TBA)
LOW DENSITY�RESIDENTIAL
(LDR)
500 FT
Traditional
Business
Area
49
Corner�Lots
Not in line with Area Specific Plans and should vary by neighborhood
Issues of Safety / Overcrowding
Too Small
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Total Participants
14” Minimum Dwelling Width
Voting Participants
50
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Greenspace Implications
Neighborhood Specific Implementation
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Reduce Min Lot Width for Two Family
51
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Should be neighborhood specific and in line with ASP’s
Lack of strict or updated design standards
Eliminates neighbor voice
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Corner Lot w/ Admin Approval
52
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
500ft arbitrary number; start with 100 ft. or one block.
Lack of strict design standards
Consider limiting number of units available.
Total Participants
Voting Participants
500 ft with Administrative Approval
53
Missing Middle Housing
A M E N D M E N T 3
54
68.4%
58%
50.3%
57.2%
Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
A M E N D M E N T 6
55
Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
A M E N D M E N T 6
56
64.5%
57
2,000 sqft
L O T N E E D E D P E R D W E L L I N G
1,500 sqft
30 ft
67 ft
30 ft
50 ft
30 ft
50 ft
60 ft
50 ft
1,500 sqft needed for �1 unit
3,000 sqft needed for �2 units
60 ft
75 ft
4,500 sqft needed for �3 units
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
60% AMI is still not affordable and should consider having some units at a lower % AMI.
Consider a regional AMI.
Extend 15 year commitment to life of building.
Increase the percentage of affordable units to more than 30%.
Failure to perform clause needs to have “teeth.” Do we have the staff to monitor and enforce compliance?
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Affordable Density Bonus
59
Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
A M E N D M E N T 6
60
64.5%
Accessory Dwelling Units
A M E N D M E N T 8
61
Accessory Dwelling Units
A M E N D M E N T 8
62
62.2%
66.7%
65.3%
67.3%
53.3%
What is an Accessory Dwelling Unit?
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a second small dwelling right on the same grounds (or attached to) and consistent in design your regular single-family house.
E X A M P L E S
A tiny house (on a foundation) in the backyard
A basement or attic apartment
A garage conversion
64
LOW DENSITY�RESIDENTIAL
(LDR)
Allow ADU’s by right in any LDR where certain conditions
Amendment #8:
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Revize the 5,000 sqft
Implications on neighborhood character
Develop specific design standards for ADUs to preserve neighborhood character
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Lot Area Requirement
65
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Concerns regarding height compared to main dwelling
Neighborhood specific
Design standards
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Max Detached Building Height
66
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Will change the character
Not strict design standards - concerns regarding height compared to main dwelling
Enforcement
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Permit 2-Story Detached ADU
67
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Design Standards
Consider varying by neighborhood
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Increase Floor Area Ratio Between Primary Residence and ADU
68
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Some limit should exist (via bedrooms or number of persons)
Do we have the capacity to regulate and enforce this?
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Eliminate Maximum Occupancy�of an ADU
69
Accessory Dwelling Units
A M E N D M E N T 8
70
62.2%
66.7%
65.3%
67.3%
53.3%
Non-Condo Zero-Lot Line
A M E N D M E N T 9
71
Non-Condo Zero-Lot Line
A M E N D M E N T 9
72
62.8%
51.3%
53.2%
57%
57%
51.3%
53.2%
62.8%
Zero�LotLine
73
74
500 FT ALONG THE ROAD
MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
TRADITIONAL BUSINESS AREA
(TBA)
LOW DENSITY�RESIDENTIAL
(LDR)
500 FT
Traditional
Business
Area
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
500 ft is too much and arbitrary
Either 100 ft or neighborhood specific
Design standards
Concerns about demolition and displacement
Total Participants
Voting Participants
500 ft. , 8 Units, Admin Approval
76
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Not in line with Area Specific Plans
Consider varying by low density residential neighborhood type
Green space implications
Total Participants
Voting Participants
14’ Minimum Dwelling Width
77
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Lack of design standards
Density and displacement concerns
Potential conflicts with ASP’s
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Remove Minimum Lot Width
78
Recommendations to consider from those not in support
Density, demolition, and displacement concerns
Lack of design standards
Impact on neighborhood character
Green space and setbacks
Total Participants
Voting Participants
Reduce Minimum Lot Area
79
Non-Condo Zero-Lot Line
A M E N D M E N T 9
80
62.8%
51.3%
53.2%
57%
57%
51.3%
53.2%
62.8%
A
S P E C T R U M
S U M M A R Y
W H A T W E F O U N D
Other General Sentiments
“By Right,” “Neighbor Voice/ Input,” and “Push to the Master Plan” were the most repeated expressions of frustration with these proposed changes
82
M O V I N G F O R W A R D
Considerations
83
S P A C E F O R Q U E S T I O N S
84
A D A M W E I L E R
adam@publicagency.org