Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Show All Answers
1.A. Year-round, full-time employees, whether they work in one job or many.
1.B. Alternative 1.A. plus seasonal employees (status quo).
Direction: Mitigate for year-round, full-time employees, whether they work in one job or many (Alternative 1.A).
2.A. Mitigate for 100% of the workforce that cannot afford housing (households making about 200% or less of median income).
2.B. Mitigate for the lowest earning workforce households (for example, about 75% of workforce households make less than 120% of median income (status quo).
2.C. Calculate the mitigation using Alternative 2.A. or 2.B., then reduce the requirement to avoid barriers to development.
Direction: Mitigate for the entire income range of households that cannot afford housing (about 0-200% of median income), but focus the requirements on the lower income households with greater need. (part of Alternative 2.A)
Direction: Mitigate to the maximum, legal extent to meet the community’s housing goal. Include with the draft Housing Mitigation LDRs and draft zoning for Character Districts 3-6, an analysis of how incentives would have to perform if the mitigation requirement were decreased. (part of Alternative 2.A)
3.4.5.A. Inclusionary requirement for year-round employees and employee generation requirement for seasonal employees applied progressively through the approval process (status quo).
3.4.5.B. Alternative 3.4.5.A. except that the inclusionary requirement would be applied to lodging development in addition to residential development.
3.4.5.C. Employee generation requirement for year-round and seasonal employees applied progressively through the approval process.
Direction: Utilize an employee generation requirement (part of Alternative 3.4.5.C) with an implementation approach designed to be consistent with the overall policy direction.
6.A. Residential units with:
6.B. Alternative 6.A plus allow lodging units for seasonal employees with same limits and minimums as 6.A. (Closest to status quo).
6.C. Alternative 6.A or 6.B plus maximum size and feature standards.
Direction: Required housing shall be a residential unit with the following minimum design standards (Alternative 6.A modified). A minimum number of bedrooms per person required to be housed. Minimum livability features such as kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and storage.
7.A. Prioritize location through clear preference for:
7.B. Prioritize production through clear preference for:
7.C. Clear preference for (closest to status quo):
7.D. Define allowed methods without preference:
Direction: Prioritize production of units by the developer through standards that clearly establish the following order of preference and prohibit any method of meeting the housing mitigation requirement that is not on the list (Alternative 7.B modified):
8.A. Only exempt what legally has to be exempt (existing development, already mitigated development, development with no impact).
8.B. Alternative 8.A plus residential units restricted to be workforce housing, even if they are not restricted to be affordable.
8.C. Alternative 8.A plus nonresidential development with minimal impact (agriculture, public/semi-public).
8.D. All of the above (status quo).
Direction: Exempt the list of development types below, which include development that is legally required to be exempt, residential development that provides affordable workforce housing, and nonresidential development with minimal impact (Alternative 8.D):
9.A. Structured independent calculation relief (County status quo).
9.B. Structured independent calculation plus variance relief.
Direction: Allow structured, independent calculation as the only method to seek relief from the housing mitigation requirements (Alternative 9.A). Structured, independent calculation addresses the legal need to have a relief
10.A.The requirements applicable at the time of a project’s first approval apply until the project is complete or expires (status quo).
10.B. A project is subject to updated requirements if the calculation of the requirement is older than seven years or a substantial amendment is requested.
Direction: A project with an existing approval should have to recalculate its housing mitigation requirement if a substantial amendment to the existing approval is proposed. Future approvals should require that housing mitigation requirements be calculated phase-by-phase based on the standard applicable at the time the phase is approved (part of Alternative 10.B).