Agenda - 10-03-2017 - 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

14 1 Chair Dorosin agreed with Commissioner Jacobs that the site control and feasibility 2 points are too high. He said the definition of"developer experience" could be broadened. 3 Chair Dorosin said he is in favor of#4 and #5, and he agreed with Commissioner Price 4 about assigning points to those who seek to preserve existing housing stock. 5 Chair Dorosin referred to workforce housing, and wondered exactly what people mean 6 by this. He said the economic ranges being used encompass workforce housing. He said this 7 may be more of a messaging issue. 8 Commissioner Jacobs said it could be a messaging issue, and suggested getting more 9 information and profiling who is being served by these projects, and how they are employed. 10 Commissioner Jacobs said he would rather define residents by their role in the 11 community not by their income. 12 Chair Dorosin asked if staff would research the salaries of starting teachers in both 13 school systems, sheriff deputies, EMTs, etc. 14 Commissioner Jacobs referred to points #4 and 5, and said if these differentiated 15 between private and non-profits then he would be okay with staff's recommendation. 16 Commissioner Jacobs said with #3, he would prefer to target those who work or live in 17 Orange County. 18 Commissioner Jacobs reiterated a point made at a previous meeting about asking 19 people who are tearing down a home to gift it to Orange County, and then the County can move 20 the house to County-owned property. He said the County could build a community. 21 Commissioner Rich said she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs. 22 Commissioner Marcoplos said affordable housing projects often have unappealing 23 landscaping, and there should be some measure for the provider to provide landscaping, such 24 as trees. He added that many senior units do not have outside porches/screened in porches. 25 Commissioner Price referred to the residency requirement, and said former Orange 26 County residents who could not afford to live here anymore, should be encouraged to come 27 back. 28 29 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to 30 approve: 31 32 1. Due to the inherent differences between new construction and the acquisition and 33 preservation of existing housing, score and recommend new construction projects 34 separately so that they do not compete with the acquisition of existing housing stock. 35 36 Bonnie Hammersley said three proposals for the parcels have recently come in, and 37 staff was hoping to use these criteria for these three projects so that they can move forward. 38 Chair Dorosin clarified that any changes made tonight would be used to score the new 39 projects. 40 Bonnie Hammersley said yes. 41 Commissioner Rich clarified that the applications are only for the parcels. 42 Bonnie Hammersley said yes, and these applications can be ranked by these criteria. 43 Commissioner Price asked if the applicants were expecting to be score by the previously 44 existing criteria. 45 Bonnie Hammersley said the housing coalition requested a delay on the parcels, and 46 she expects they knew there could potentially be changes. 47 Chair Dorosin said if these criteria are going to be use now, any changes should be 48 specific. He asked if a point value should be assigned to preservation, or if the three proposals 49 be evaluated under the existing criteria.