Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-19 CorrespondenceItem Number: 8.a. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 19, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Jake Story: Council Meeting Viewing online Kellie Fruehling From: Jacob Story <jstory1983@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:37 PM To: Council Subject: Council Meeting Viewing online A I would like to suggest that every council member be visible at all times during the online meetings. Currently the set-up is the current speaker is the only person visible. This is a very different experience from what it's like to watch an in- person council meeting. Thank you for that consideration. Jake Story CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 19, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Item Number: 8.b. Description Alex Kachingwe - Restructing Iowa City Police Department plan Amy Charles - Recommendations re police restructuring [Staff response included] Kellie Fruehling From: Alex Kachingwe <kachingwe.alex@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 7:04 PM To: Council Subject: "Restructuring" Iowa City Police Department plan After reading the "proposal" it is clear that you either do not understand the magnitude of this issue; or you do, and just don't care. If what happened last year impacted you in any meaningful way that would be reflected in this proposal. This proposal as a whole aims to strengthen the police department & completely ignores initial demands of less police involvement and budget cuts to be reallocated to orgs such as CommUnity amongst many others. What you're proposing is teaming up community orgs WITH the police. Giving cops MORE to do. Giving cops MORE power. Giving cops MORE involvement in the community. Inviting cops to be involved in SAFE spaces and positive organizations. As if the issue of impunity and accountability will extend well here. As if they didn't spend a summer tear gassing and abusing protestors. The organization involved with terrorizing the community should not be teamed up with one looking to aid in solving our root issues. i.e. Rec #6 & #9 "integration of Mobile Crisis services into the 911 dispatch process" In regards to rec# 15&16: The audacity to use the term "anti -racist" in regards to policing duties is a blatant show of ignorance and lack of understanding around the history of policing in america. This is fluff. Anti -Racist Policing cannot exist in its current or "restructured" form and to believe otherwise is of massive disrespect to Black folks as a whole. I'd bet Derrick Chauvin was put through anti -racist training. Anti -bias training. Training surrounding diversity/ethics etc etc. What you're saying is ... one more lecture in anti -bias training; community service, one more diversity class and George Floyd would be alive today. Ultimately, what you're attempting is to stretch the arm of police power into a NEW space. We aren't looking for the police to be evolved. We aren't looking for them to adapt. The goal is obsolescence. Less involvement. Less power. All actions should be in that direction. All policy and proposal should be of that caliber. What I hope the next proposal can embody ... is a fierce commitment to addressing the root causes of our issues rather than expanding police power and involvement using methods that have tried and tried and failed elsewhere. I hope you start to take this issue seriously. Kellie Fruehling From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:48 AM To: amy.charles'; Bruce Teague Cc: Laura Gray; Council Subject: RE: Reply requested: recommendations re police restructuring Ms. Charles, Thank you for feedback. I know the City Council appreciates your thoughts and opinions as well. In short, the City has received extensive community feedback over the last months regarding calls for service that involve persons in crisis. Thus, a significant portion of the plan is focused on that topic and specifically how the community can evolve its response to such needs and demands. There is also a significant commitment to education, training and policy detailed in the plan as well. This focus is both internal and external. The dual focus is important as our officers both initiate and respond to calls for service from the community. The external training and awareness plays a large role in how we are asked by the community to provide services in the future. I do hope you get a chance to read through the entire report as your time allows. The City Council and I welcome comments from anyone regarding perceived short -comings. Thank you for the time you have already invested in this matter. It is appreciated. Sincerely, Geoff From: amy.charles[mailto:amy.charles@protonmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 9, 202112:41 AM To: Bruce Teague <Bruce-Teague@iowa-city.org>; Geoff Fruin <Geoff - Fru in@iowa-city.org> Cc: Laura Gray <gray.laura@iowacityschools.org>; Council <Council@iowa-city.org> Subject: Reply requested: recommendations re police restructuring RISK Hello — I've not yet received a response to my question, bolded below. I would appreciate a reply. Many thanks, Amy On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:01 AM, amy.charles <amy.charles@protonmail.com> wrote: Dear Bruce and Geoff, I've watched Geoff's presentation, read the summary, and skimmed the full report and community comments, which I will read with more care soon. First, my overarching sense is of a project sliding away from what is and ought to remain its clear focus: racism, in particular racism's effect on local policing. It is as though Geoff, and maybe council, are afraid to discuss the problem with any vigor. l count 12 instances of the word "racism" in the entire 245 -page report, and some of those are in footnote references and TOC headings; I count five instances of the word "Black" -- in the entire report -- that are not part of an organization name. The recommendations are anxious to put the onus of anti -racism training on community organizations, rather than institutionalizing anti -racism training within the City. I see no serious discussion of racism and how to address it in policing in Iowa City. Nearly all the relevant remarks come from community members, not our City Manager. There is a reason the organization is called "Black Lives Matter" and not "Be More Careful With People who have Mental Illnesses and Addictions", however important that second message is. I would like an explanation for why we are seeing this shift in focus. Second, while I am happy to applaud progress made, and I have no problem with paying taxes for more social services, I am perplexed by Geoff's pleas for maintaining the size of the police force as it is. The rationales appear to be "other comparable cities have more police" -- okay, that's them, not us -- and "we can't tell what kind of a call it'll be before we get there, so it might be dangerous, so we have to treat every call as though it might be violent." Surely we have enough experience, after decades of police calls, to have a reasonable sense of what kind of calls are extremely unlikely to be violent. I scroll through the police activity log on a semi -regular basis and have done for over a decade. I have never seen "chest pain" evolve into a violent call. Reports of burglaries after a student has been away: not violent calls. "Fireworks" - stupid, but not violent. Frankly, a healthy proportion of the calls look nonviolent, and I don't see many that have follow-up posts regarding backup or arrests. I can say from personal experience that having police show up for a non-violent call in the expectation of violence is a powerful argument for not calling the police at all. I have written about this before, but trying to de- escalate a situation in which a bunch of cops show up bound and determined to find an intruder who doesn't exist is not an experience I ever want to go through again. If the police are concerned that the proliferation of guns is making their job so dangerous that they feel they have to treat every type of human trouble as potentially physically dangerous to them, then I have to ask why I haven't heard our Police Department being much more public in advocacy of strong gun control. The last, closest note on that I can recall is Lonny, who isn't part of ICPD, coming out a few years ago against loosening of mental- health restrictions on gun permits. Before that, I can recall a gun buyback of some type maybe back in the aughts. Otherwise? Nothing, really. If it's a matter of deep concern within ICPD, I would expect to hear much more from them on this. If ICPD do share Geoff's view, then I would also like to know why their take is so far from almost everyone else's. I deal with troubled, overwrought students all the time. I walk into classrooms in which there are mentally ill students, students under very real and unbearable pressures. At least once a semester, I've never met these students before. I am not armed, nor do I want to be armed. I fail to see how this would help. Other faculty routinely walk into lecture halls where they'll teach hundreds of students, most of whom they'll never get to know, dealing with the same problems. Hospital and social workers work with troubled strangers daily. We all deal with real human dramas, we all know that now and then they become genuinely dangerous -- sometimes with little or no warning -- and yet we don't go in primed for violence. Further, while I hear Geoff's idea about sending social -services professionals and police in teams to calls that sound low-key, if we're going to do anything like that, it seems to me that the social services person ought to be able to direct the situation, and that we should track the interactions: if it emerges that most of the time, the ride -along cops are hanging out in the car while the social -services (or medical) person does the work, we should conclude that the social/medical person does not need the bodyguard, and divert the resources to the social/medical programs. And if that means fewer police -- terrific! We have a healthier society than we'd thought. 2 Geoff's final plea says: if we reduce the size of the police force, the remainder will burn out. I just am not seeing the reasoning here. If our analysis shows that many of the calls police currently take are in fact best handled by social/medical services, and that they do not need police riding along, then I don't see where the burnout comes from. A significant responsibility, one for which they aren't trained, has been removed. Finally, one of Geoff's recommendations is to hire a communications specialist that does not report to the Police Department. I think that's an excellent idea. Rather than report to Geoff, however, I think this person should report to Stefanie Bowers, thus ensuring that the focus in our policing shift remains on equity, anti -racism, human rights, and the matters that caused a necessary eruption over policing last summer. Sincerely, Amy Charles Iowa City CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 19, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Item Number: 8.c. Description Maria Padron - IC New Affordable Housing Committee [Staff response included] Theresa Lewis -Affordable Housing Committee Kellie Fruehling From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:58 AM To: 'Maria Padron'; Council Subject: RE: IC New Affordable Housing Committee Ms. Padron, Thank you for reaching out and for your recommendation. We are blessed to have such great representation on the HCDC and I know each of the members would make great additions to the committee. My goal is to bring together a committee with diversity of background and experiences, as well considerable knowledge of the housing market and affordable housing challenges and opportunities. Regardless of my selection, I believe there will be opportunity ahead for broader involvement as we shape the plan and prepare it for City Council consideration. Thank you again, Geoff Fruin City Manager From: Maria Padron [mailto:marialorenapadron@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 8, 20217:14 PM To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org>; Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org> Subject: IC New Affordable Housing Committee A RISK Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. City Council and City Manager, Please see the letter attached to this email. Thank you, Maria Padron Maria Padron Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)930-9528 marialorena.padron@gmail.com January 8, 2021 City Council 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: IC AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMITTEE Honorable Members of the City Council and City Manager, I am writing this letter to recommend you appoint Megan Alter as the commissioner designated to represent the Housing and Community Development Commission at the new IC Affordable Housing Committee. Megan has an extensive history of working on affordable housing issues, she is a member of Black Voices Project and serves on its sub -committee on affordable housing as part of its collaboration with IFR. She is a member of the Affordable Housing Coalition of Johnson County. And she is a resident of the South District, which is both the location of low- income housing and recipient of the pilot program to help renters become homeowners. I would have liked the HCDC to have the opportunity to select which commissioner would be appointed for that position, but we were informed today that this position will be filled by the city manager. This is why I am sending this letter to ask you to consider appointing Megan. Thank you for your consideration, Maria Padron Chair Housing and Community Development Commission Page I of I Kellie Fruehling From: Theresa Lewis <theresamurphylewis@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 12:41 PM To: Council Subject: Affordable Housing Committee RISE{ Dear City Manager Fruin, I am writing this letter to request and support the appointment of Megan Alter to the Affordable Housing Committee as a representative from HCDC. As a current Commissioner on HCDC with Megan, I have been impressed with her passion and knowledge of housing issues. Megan has served on the Black Voices Project's subcommittee on affordable housing and is a member of the Affordable Housing Coalition of Johnson County. She also resides in my neighborhood, the South District, and was helpful in the pilot program to support renters becoming homeowners. Megan will be a strong and inclusive voice in promoting an experiential understanding of how creativity and action can benefit a community, and will champion the development of policy and guidelines which benefit the housing needs of Iowa City's most vulnerable residents. I appreciate your consideration of Megan Alter for this appointment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for the work you do each day for the residents of Iowa City. Sincerely, Theresa Lewis 1314 Hollywood Blvd 319.621.8209 CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 19, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Item Number: 8.d. Description Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition: Annexation Policy Recommendation Kellie Fruehling From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 3:17 PM To: Eleanor M. Dilkes; Kellie Fruehling Subject: FW: Annexation Policy --recommendation from Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; JCAHC annexation recommendation.docx From: Sara Barron [mailto:sara@jcaffordablehousing.org] Sent: Friday, January 8, 20213:08 PM To: John Thomas <John-Thomas@iowa-city.org>; Pauline Taylor <Pauline-Taylor@iowa-city.org>; Susan Mims <Susan- Mims@iowa-city.org>; Mazahir Salih <Mazahir-Salih@iowa-city.org>; Bruce Teague <Bruce-Teague@iowa-city.org>; Janice Weiner <Janice-Weiner@iowa-city.org>; Laura Bergus <Laura-Bergus@iowa-city.org>; Geoff Fruin <Geoff- Fruin@iowa-city.org>; Tracy Hightshoe <Tracy-Hightshoe@iowa-city.org> Cc: John Greve <john@crgraceepiscopal.org>; John McKinstry <adisciple0400@msn.com>; heath@iowavaIleyhabitat.org; Simon Andrew <sandrew@housingfellowship.com>; Paula Vaughan <prvaughan@mchsi.com>; jjuenger@nxtbank.net; Andrew Martin <martinconstruction@live.com>; emccabe@htfjc.org; Crissy Canganelli <crissy@shelterhouse iowa.org>; V Fixmer-Oraiz <vfixmeroraiz@astigplanning.com>; Bronis Perteit <bronis@dvipiowa.org> Subject: Annexation Policy --recommendation from Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition A®RU�SW Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Dear Council and Staff: Attached, please find a memo detailing the recommendation of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition regarding the annexation of Carson Farms. This recommendation was approved 11-0 by the JCAHC Board of Directors, who are listed on the memo and cc:ed to this email. I welcome your feedback and questions. Take care, Sara Barron Sara Barron (she/her/hers) Executive Director sara@icaffordablehousina.ora www jcaffordablehousing.org www.facebook.com/jcahc www.twitter.com/jcahcoalition 308 E. Burlington St., PMB 121 Iowa City, IA 52240 319-541-4763 (c) Join us as a member of the Coalition! Visit.https://www.icaffordablehousinci.orci/become-a-member ALC January 8, 2021 TO: Iowa City Council Members, Geoff Fruin, Tracy Hightshoe FROM: Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Board of Directors and Staff Sara Barron, Executive Director; Simon Andrew, Heath Brewer, Crissy Canganelli, V Fixmer-Oraiz, John Greve, June Juenger, Andy Martin, John McKinstry, Ellen McCabe, Bronis Perteit, and Paula Vaughan, Board of Directors RE: Annexation Policy On January 5, the council voted to defer consideration of the annexation of Carson Farms. In advance of your deliberations, the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition offered a reminder about the power of the annexation agreement as a tool that shapes the affordable housing outcomes for this new development. We'd like to use this opportunity to propose a solution that can be pursued without changes to the current policy. In making this proposal, we reviewed the process that led to the adoption of the current annexation policy, with its celebrated affordable housing requirement. We also took a careful look back at what we know so far about the first annexation to occur under the current policy, for the project known now as "Community View." At the end of this memo, we have included a timeline of significant discussions and decisions re: annexation and affordable housing. The timeline includes meeting minutes, transcription, and other notes. Reviewing these discussions revealed both the promise of the annexation policy when it was passed and concerns about how it has been implemented. Our recommendation is that council use the current annexation policy to require the developer of Carson Farms to grant land, equivalent to 10% of the total units to be constructed, to nonprofit affordable housing developers and/or the City and to work with nonprofit affordable housing developers to ensure that long-term, carefully stewarded affordable housing options are integrated into the overall development. There are several benefits to this approach: This recommendation more clearly reflects the intention and spirit of the annexation policy at the time it was developed, a point that is clearly reflected in our review of council/staff discussions at the time. This approach works within the current annexation policy, avoiding the lengthy review process that may be required if the council were to amend the current policy. A clear understanding of how the affordable housing requirement should be fulfilled will be established at the onset of the project. Early, clear expectations have a demonstrable benefit to developers and to the City. kc .w: y A k-rW-Ae HA" 0*0041 • The City and the developer will be freed from onerous compliance, monitoring, documentation, and screening responsibilities over the 20 -year affordability period required by the policy. • Nonprofit affordable housing developers have a lasting commitment to affordability. Rather than expiring at the end of 20 years, affordability obtained under this proposal will be permanently invested with professional stewards of affordable housing. • Nonprofit affordable housing developers have the knowledge and experience needed to comply with any affordability standards of compliance, including income verification, documentation, reporting, etc. • Homebuyers and renters who are considering finding homes in the Carson Farms area will understand as the area develops that it is an economically -integrated neighborhood with a mix of housing types. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. We welcome any questions or concerns you may have, and we look forward to your continued pursuit of strategies that ensure Iowa City is a vibrant, growing, and inclusive place to call home. TIMELINE Adoption of the current annexation policy was part of the City's 15 -point Affordable Housing Action Plan approved in 2017. The first discussion of the policy change to include an affordability requirement began in early 2018. A 2/26/18 memo from City staff emphasized the following priorities for a successful affordable housing requirement: The following parameters have guided staff's development of an affordable housing criteria for annexations: 1. Allow for flexibility in addressing the issues presented by any particular annexation while at the same time giving land owners/developers notice of the basic parameters. 2. Make it consistent with our existing programs (e.g. 10% of units for developments with over 10 units in RFC, • 15% TIF requirement, • affordable defined as housing affordable to tenants at or below 60% area median income (AMI) and homeowners at or below 80% AMI) 3. Emphasize types of affordable housing contributions that will not require City income monitoring of private developments while allowing the flexibility to consider other options in appropriate situations. 4. A preference for long term affordability that does not require income monitoring by City staff. dttrar.4+N�2 kA.l54tp Ik.;ll Council discussed the proposal at its 3/6/18 work session. The following is a partial transcript of the discussion, lightly edited for clarity: Fruin: With annexations, it's important to remind you that the City really holds all the cards. Okay? If it's in our best interest, we will annex the property. If it's not, we don' t have to annex the property. As you'll see in the policy in the Comp Plan, we look at three criteria. One, is it in our growth area, and we're looking then at, can we service it by utilities without overburdening ourselves? Does it fulfill a need within the City by bringing this in? And is control of how that property develops in the best interest of the City? So our annexation policy is already pretty broad. It recognizes that these situations are unique and the City needs to look at the impact of bringing that parcel into the community before making a decision. With annexations we already negotiate a number of topics. When you annex a large subdivision, we look at things like our need for parkland. We even think of things, like, do we need an elementary school site? Down to finer details where we might need a location for an emergency warning siren. So we already go through a process when we' re annexing to think about all the public facilities and amenities that may be needed with that annexation. Now affordable housing has not been one of those criteria, until now, but clearly we can have a lens of affordable housing when we' re looking at residential annexations. [... ] One [goal] would be flexibility. Each annexation is different, and we need to have flexibility in terms of what type of affordable housing we want. Is it single-family? Does the Comp Plan call for single-family development? Is it multifamily development? Is it being annexed into a part of the city that already has a significant amount of affordable housing, or is it being annexed into a part of the community that has a very upper-income demographic? All those factors may lead us to different conclusions on what type of affordable housing we want. Not only in terms of the structure. Is it apartments? Is it single-family? But also the level of affordability that may be best for whatever area is being annexed. [... ] A growing concern that we have, irrespective of the annexation policy, is the monitoring requirements that are coming with the affordable housing regulations that we have, whether it's inclusionary zoning or TIF. Staff is quickly learning that working with the developers to educate them on the process, verifying income, and as we look ahead, continuing to verify income for whatever that affordable housing period is, is a significant undertaking by staff. So we would like to, as we consider future annexations, look for solutions that do not require or have minimal staff checks that are needed to verify that affordability. Any time we are holding the cards, we'd like to see long-term affordability. When we have the Riverfront Crossings inclusionary zoning, it's 10 years. I think with the annexation policy, we can strive for a longer term of affordability, and we should. In some areas we may prefer a fee in lieu of. In other areas, we may prefer a larger swath of land be dedicated for a multi -family LIHTC project. In other annexations it might be individual lots in a single-family subdivision that then we could develop as a city, or partner with a social service agency or a developer to provide that affordability. So, all those things are really hard to anticipate, because each annexation' s different. Therefore it's hard to really write an annexation policy that can encompass all those variables. [... ] We also have established the goal of providing affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the AK Fi3a�'x] C+3i�Fliral AEC anticipated units in the area that's being annexed. And then again, you heard a very flexible approach into how that is provided. Ultimately, that decision would be yours. The annexation must be approved by the City Council. So, if whatever staff were to negotiate while we're working with the land owner or the developer on the annexation, if that did not meet your expectations you would have the ability to modify that, assuming the developer also agrees, prior to that annexation being finalized. I also would say that what we are not saying with this would be a developer choice. If the City really felt that on-site affordable units was important, then we would stick to our guns on that and work with the developer to provide something on-site. Mims: To me what this language does is, number one, it keeps all the power with the City. Because as Geoff said, we don't have to annex if we don't want to. Okay? That is our decision. That is the Council's decision. So we don't have to annex. So we can get out of those developers whatever it is we feel that we want and need for that particular annexation, or we don't agree to annex it. So you have all that flexibility that we can bring to the table and get the best deal that we want, as long as we're meeting whatever our priorities are in terms of affordable housing or any other aspects. So I like the flexibility of the language with the fact that the City maintains control. Throgmorton: On that point, Geoff, that's one of the principles that you identified: define some way to have durability in terms of the affordability. What are you thinking about that, how to achieve that? Fruin: Well, that gets back to the monitoring issue, and we wanted to avoid that the best that we could, and so our thought is right now that we would rely on a couple of different avenues. One, if it's LIHTC, we know that there's a 30 -year period that' s associated with the LIHTC, and oftentimes, you might see the LIHTC provider go beyond those 30 years. If we were to work with an affordable housing provider, like the Housing Fellowship, we don' t have assurance that they're going to maintain them affordable forever, but we know it's their mission to provide affordable housing. We should feel pretty safe and secure that if they end up selling the unit at market rate, 30, 40 years down the road, hopefully their organizations take those proceeds and invest them elsewhere in the community. If the City were to develop them as a public housing option, we would be in control then and future Councils would have the ability to sell, but it would be unlikely that they would move away from the affordable housing requirements. So those are the types of solutions that we' re going to come to the table thinking of. What we want to avoid is the situation that we have in Riverfront Crossings now, which works fine for that geographic area, but where we rely on the developer or the owner, who's not in the business of providing affordable housing, to do income verification in perpetuity. That's when it starts to overburden staff, particularly if you have a large annexation and we now all of a sudden have to monitor 40 or 50 more units forever, that's a lot to put back on staff for verification purposes. So we would look for those partnerships or programs that have long-term affordability built in, or that we'd at least feel pretty secure on. exxa�r AtAp,d*04p Fb.Kir fi7}lk.'f) How the development provides such support will vary depending on the particular circumstances of the annexation, and may include, but is not limited to, transfer of lots to the City. So we're in control. We can control affordability if we own it. An affordable housing provider --that would be like Habitat or Housing Fellowship, where their mission is to provide affordable housing--, fee in lieu where we control how those are invested, or participation in a state or federal program, like a LIHTC, already has a long-term affordability requirement built into it, 30 years. That's why we specifically mentioned those. We did not mention that the developer would own and maintain, because we want to avoid that solution. So we have that goal embedded, but it's not specifically stated. If you want it specifically stated before it goes to Planning and Zoning, you need to give us that direction tonight. Throgmorton: I'd like to draw our attention to a really crucially important aspect of what we're discussing right now, and that is we' re proposing to do something new. I mean there is no annexation policy concerning affordable housing. So the very fact that we're discussing this matters. And, what we have in front of us may not be ideal in terms of the number of units, the long-term character of what comes before us. Maybe it's a little too much flexibility or whatever objections I and you can think of. Still the point is, we would be putting into motion a new policy that requires affordable units as part of any residential voluntary annexation. So, let' s not lose sight of that. On July 17, 2018, Council voted 7-0 to adopt the following language, after revisions and review by the Planning and Zoning + Housing and Community Development commissions: ICS: (;OmPet3nirn�`.i3 Plan LNA8rte, MrrexaMn Po", is lkareby vm, ar,ded to it lucla t follnwintg: If the annexation is lot reski enuatl daveibprnent thwt wilt reroult on The creation of den (10) or more new hQu5ing units, the da veto pment v4I support the Cfty's Acral Of Grealirrg and maintaining the supply of alk,>rdaGle houaing. Such support shell be bered on providing eifordatble ung equal to 10% of IM total untts in the annexed area with ark assurance of Iartg farm affordabW, preferably for a term of not lass iharti 20 years, Irm corn larg is strap be 00onsistsint +rM the City`s exis9takg program requiremer is, Now the development provides e� support will vary depending on the particular circm, stmeas of the snroOxelkin, and may include, but Is not Ymled lo, transfer of lofsr'tmha to the City or an afh}rdable housing provider. tee-trr-lift paid to the CVs affordable huueitrg fund': WdAur patrtfoipation in a state or federal housing pram. in dtterrl*ing the most desirable optidk, prrekwence shat) he vreighted toward Options that help achieve Getter socio eoonr talc belance arming love city negRvrho€rda and amahg achools in the Iowa City Community Sctrool 01strk:t An agree -mart committing The CI%neoMeveloper to the affordable frousing obligation, shat be req,ulred prior tq annexation, and shall be further memorialized, ii necessary, In a conditional roroing agreenotenl, Perused and appmued IT& 17th daryr of __ July 2G 1 q AEOn 12/17/2019, Council considered the annexation and conditional zoning agreement for the parcel off of American Legion Rd, now known as "Community View." The conditional zoning agreement for Community View stated, in part: b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owners shall execute an affordable housing agreement committing to one or more of the following methods to satisfy the Annexation Policy: i. rent or sell 10% of the total units constructed on the above- described real estate to income -eligible families for a period of 20 years from the date certificates of occupancy are issued for each such affordable unit to be administered in accordance with Iowa City Code of Ordinance 14- 2G-8, or a similar state or federal affordable housing program; or ii. convey 10% of the total units to the City or an affordable housing provider for such affordable housing purposes; or iii. the payment of a fee -in -lieu thereof to the City's affordable housing fund, in an amount established by Resolution 18-213, approved on July 17, 2018, or, if said resolution has been rescinded at the time Owners apply for a building permit; as otherwise established by Council resolution. The following discussion took place between council members and staff at this same meeting: Cole: And just for the public's benefit, I just wondered if you could just elaborate on "the developer satisfies the comprehensive plan's affordable housing annexation policy as stated in a resolution." What does that mean? Sitzman: Sure. The comprehensive plan includes a policy that, upon annexation, if development includes 10 or more residential units, that they must provide 10% affordable housing at a certain rate for a period of time. So those requirements will need to be met, if they proceed with residential development. Cole: Thank you. On 4/2/20, representatives for the developers and Sara Barron from JCAHC appeared before the Planning and Zoning commission, which was considering a rezoning from the interim designation to the permanent zoning under which the developer would build the parcel. The following is excerpted from the April 2 meeting minutes: Lastly, Hensch noted since the Comprehensive Plan has this development area 12 to 13 dwelling units per acre, and the applicant is coming in at 14, can they give a little insight on why. Yapp replied there's a couple reasons for that. One is that allocating part of the land for the fire station reduced the development potential for the rest of the property and the other is in working with the 10% affordable housing and just making that work. Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) stated they're really excited to see projects start to unfold and this will be the first one under the Affordable Housing provision included in the new annexation requirements. Her question, or comment, is about how that affordable housing provision will succeed, what it'll look like and where in this process will there be opportunities for review or some transparency about how that will unfold. She noted this is the first time that they have had this situation so it is expected they'll be working it out as they go along. And of course, they have a lot of interest in how that affordable housing provision will be implemented. They know that it won't be the same every time but they're hoping that there will be a clear process through which they can review the recommendations and what's being required as a developer, atra+',..�iusi�7iu�i and hopefully also help to provide comments, feedback, and oversight of what that looks like as the neighborhoods develop. She noted it is not in this part (the rezoning application), other than to say that it will be required for them to meet as a condition so she is wondering about more specifics. Hektoen addressed that question stating that the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing is the model that they will be fallowing for this. So the conditional zoning agreement that gets executed as a result of this rezoning will basically say when they want a building permit they will have to give specifics so the City knows exactly what they're going to build and be able to attach more detail in a similar manner that they do for Riverfront Crossings area. Barron noted in the Riverfront Crossings area it has been just a staff -level decision. Hektoen said it is actually various agreements that Council will be executing, and the conditional zoning agreement will have some detail, it won't say how many units exactly but then there will be an affordable housing agreement that will get executed once they know the unit numbers and the extent of the development. Barron asked if then at this point the developer may not know exactly which of those units that are proposed tonight may or may be used to satisfy the conditional zoning agreement. Hektoen confirmed at this point they may not have that level of detail, at the rezoning stage, worked out they only have a concept plan at this point but that may not exactly be the final number of units. That is a whole other review process, the platting process. Barron acknowledged that makes a lot of sense to her and also hears the applicant saying they are really excited about affordable housing provision and therefore area asking for a little bit of an increased density in part because they are going to try to meet that requirement. Therefore, it seems like they're leaning into that idea, but there isn't anything to review at this point. [A resident of Windsor West] asked if the 10% affordable housing is the entire area so therefore this is affordable housing all of the units. Russett answered that 10% of the units that they build will be priced and rented or sold to income eligible households. Brown asked if then out of the 57 single-family lots 10% of those would be affordable housing. Russett replied not necessarily, there's still a lot of details that need to be worked out with the applicant, whether they want to do on-site affordable housing, there's the option to pay in -lieu fee, and those things need to be worked out but it would be 10% of the total units in the project in both the single-family and multifamily. On 5/5/20, a representative for the developer appeared before the council for approval of the rezoning. Despite previously indicating a need for increased density—above what the zone generally allows—in order to accommodate the affordable housing and other annexation requirements, the representative began to indicate that the developer might choose not to integrate the affordable housing into the newly - annexed land. Bergus: I was just curious about the affordable housing element. John, thank you for calling out this was our first annexation with that requirement and as I understand there's three options for how to achieve that. Do you know which the developer's pursuing? Yapp: Our intent is to have the 10% of the units, on site, um, or possibly off-site nearby, next door possibly, uh, but we've not ironed out all the details. Bergus: Thank you. 0.t�Ylrr�t� FYkKY►7 �S�ti11it�1 ALC On 6/2/20, the Council considered the preliminary plat for Community View. The Affordable Housing Coalition once again pressed for details about how the affordable housing requirement would be satisfied. This transcript is also lightly edited for clarity: Barron: Hi, thank you, Mayor. I apologize, I had an internet glitch and so when Danielle was reviewing the conditions, I missed the affordable housing piece. Can I just ask one more time what information we have about how that requirement will be satisfied? (Mayor responds that this is a time for comment, not for asking questions of staff.) If it was stated, I just didn't hear it. Maybe she didn't say anything about it. I was just hoping you could tell me what she said, But if not then I would just say, we would continue to ask that there be some transparency for how the affordable housing condition will be implemented. We know that we're still working through how to do this with annexations, but it's certainly important to the Affordable Housing Coalition, as well as to the development of the community in the long run, to know how we're going to satisfy those conditions, and maybe John [Yapp, representing the developer] will talk about that. Bergus: Mayor, maybe we could just get a clarification on what the 10% affordable means, just for anyone who's listening, like what the criteria for that would be or how that can be met. Maybe that is a question for John, as to how they intend to meet it, but just so we can be a little more transparent about that, what the 10% might be. If staff or if the developer could speak to that. Fruin: Danielle, can you just clarify how that process is going to work going forward? Sitzman: Sure! So they have committed to complying with the affordable housing requirement that is part of our comprehensive plan. They've signed the agreements of annexation that bind them to a final affordable housing agreement before they proceed to any kind of building permit stage. The developer does have the option of choosing how they provide that. They need to provide 10% affordability. They can either do that on site, near site, or with a fee in lieu or a combination of those things. At this time we're not aware of what the developer would choose to do, but they have indicated that they would likely build them onsite. I guess I would defer to John to see if he has any additional information that he wants to provide at this point. Salih: Is this rented units or for sale? I don't know, I don't understand that. Sitzman: It's the number of units that have to be affordable to the City's requirement for the housing income levels that are in our standards. That would be memorialized in an affordable housing agreement. My understanding, and John can answer this, is that they' re offering houses for sale. Salih: When you say "10% affordable," you mean they will sell it affordable, 10% of them they will sell it affordable, if they choose to do it on site. Sitzman: Right. They also have to meet that requirement if they don' t do it on site. Salih: I really don't know how that's going to work. I will love to know the details. Thank you. Fruin: I can jump in here. It's the same process as we use for the Riverfront Crossings zoning requirement for affordable housing. Oftentimes the projects are underway, then the projects are A&C ..;.,;. (mumbled) legislative approval process, and then we do an administrative affordable housing agreement that has to be approved, to ensure that there's compliance with the Council policy. So, between the time that this item is approved and if they pull a building permit, we have to have an agreement that indicates how they will meet that 10% requirement and the staff checks that. If they can't get that affordable housing agreement signed with us, then they can't get a building permit to start their subdivision. Salih: I ask that question, Geoff, because I know that the 10% affordable is for 10 year and now this is for sale. Is that means we are going to sell it and that it stays affordable, you know, it just kind of confusing for me. How is that going to work? Because this is the first time. I know that the rented unit will be 10% affordable for 10 years and after that it will be normal price, but in this case, these homes are for sale. If they choose to do it on site, they should sell those 10% affordable price to the people who are going to buy it buy it. I don' t know how that's going to work. That's why I'm asking. Fruin: Yeah, sure, and I see Tracy Hightshoe's on the call, and maybe she can jump in because she's probably most familiar with some of the requirements for affordability for when it's rent versus for sale, but we've had both and there's requirements for both, including income requirements for people purchasing the affordable units. So, Tracy, can you jump on? Hightshoe: Okay! When you say affordable in the annexations, 10% has to be affordable. We will get that clarification and we'll enter agreement before they enter it. Affordable just means if it's owner -occupied, I believe they have to be under 80% median income. They can sell the homes to Habitat. They could sell the homes outright for a price. We would look at that. They can also choose to rent. They could sell homes to an affordable housing provider or they could provide affordable rental. They basically have a lot of options, so we won' t know what option they take until they get ready to pull a building permit. Then we'll finalize those options and it'll have to be based on our annexation policy. They'll enter an agreement and then we'll monitor from there. Salih: And who's going to choose which level of the area median income they use? Who' s supposed to decide this is 80%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 30%, who's supposed to decide that? Hightshoe: The builder can choose any of those, up to 809, and then that 80% is based on HUD's area median income. So the level, 80% is set by HUD, that we get updated every year. They can choose anything up to that level. Salih: Okay. They can choose. Okay. Thank you. Teague: All right, any other questions or thoughts or comments? Hearing none, roll call please. Motion passes 7-0. On 9/1/20, Council reviewed the final plat for Community View. In the supporting materials provided by staff, this was the mention of affordable housing: NEXT STEPS: Upon approval of the proposed final plat construction drawings and legal papers the applicant will continue to install the necessary infrastructure. After installation of the infrastructure and execution of an affordable housing agreement detailing compliance with the City's affordable housing annexation policy, the applicant can apply for any necessary A-LC Aix*7 buildingpermits. Regarding the affordable housing annexation policy, the applicant will be required to provide affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the development for a period of not less than 20 years. This may be accomplished by transferring lots/ units to the City or an affordable housing providing, paying a fee in -lieu to the City's affordable housing fund, • and/ or participating in a state or federal housing program. Item Number: 8.e. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 19, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Sean McRoberts: White supremacist attacks on government Kellie Fruehling From: Sean McRoberts <pastormcroberts@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:20 AM To: Council Subject: White supremacist attacks on government AlIX Dear City Council, The insurrection at the U.S. capital building on January 6th was a particularly brazen instance of a long term trend of white supremacist intimidaiton, confrontation, and outright attacks on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color and on the democratic institutions of our country. Witnessing that attack highlighted for me the truth that I have assumed decorum meant peace, and politeness implied respect. The abandonment of decorum and peace has further revealed the violence that has lived in our communities and nation since their inception. I give thanks for the Black leaders who have, for generations, plainly named this truth of white supremacy, and I lament my own complicity in not heeding their calls. I am writing because I know that white supremacy and anti -Black violence are real in our own community. Just as I need to continually recommit to overturning the patterns of racism that persist in me, our community must continually engage in deconstructing racist systems and nurturing anti -racist ways of being. In this moment, I am particularly concerned about overt acts of violence and intimidation against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color leaders and staff in our city government. The lack of clear condemnation, and in fact the affirmation, of the insurrection at the U.S. capital has emboldened those contemplating similar actions across the country. I am hearing from friends and colleagues who have been confronted in public and at their workplaces by anti-government Trump supporters - sometimes armed. While I have not heard of any events in Iowa City, this does not mean they are not happening - or cannot happen - here. I hope that our City Council is discussing ways to ensure the safety of city staff, particularly BIPOC staff, and to prevent and condemn acts of violence and intimidation in Iowa City. I also hope that you are discussing ways to uphold and secure Mayor Bruce Teague and Mayor Pro Tem Mazahir Salih, as their strong leadership as a Black man and woman on the Council also exposes them to greater danger. If there are ways that I can further support you in this work, please let me know. Peace, Rev. Sean McRoberts (pronouns: they/them/their) Item Number: 8.f. AL CITY OF IOWA CITY =�c�- COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 19, 2021 Establish "No Parking Any Time" prohibition on the cul-de-sac of Little Creek Lane Prepared By: Frank Waisath, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: No impact. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (10); Install "No Parking Between Signs" signs with supplemental arrows to restrict parking on the cul-de-sac at the end of Little Creek Lane. Background /Analysis: This action is being taken to allow for large paratransit vehicles to access households along the cul-de-sac of Little Creek Lane. The radius of the cul-de-sac is 25' wide, as compared to 28' wide for the rest of Little Creek Lane. Affected households abutting the cul-de-sac have been notified of the proposed action. ATTACHMENTS: Description Parking on Little Creek Lane cul-de-sac during snow conditions Parking on Little Creek Lane cul-de-sac during snow conditions View of Little Creek Lane cul-de-sac