MCCF POSITION DOCUMENT RE COUNTY COUNCIL'S PROPOSED MODERATELY PRICED DWELLING UNIT (MPDU) LEGISLATION
Approved by the Executive Committee on August 19, 2004 and the general membership on September 13, 2004
BREAKDOWN BY ISSUE
CONTROL PERIOD
Support Bill 25-04 extending control period to 99
years for sale and rental units. The
Trombka Report recommended extension of the control period to 99 years, in
combination with creation of an MPDU Rehabilitation Fund (to insure maintenance
of rental units) and an MPDU Preservation Fund (as an equity trust fund to
"preserve stock while giving owners greater opportunity to build wealth").
We are in agreement that these changes are worthwhile because they
will significantly help in stabilizing the MPDU inventory.
The General Plan,
Housing Goal, Objective 4, Strategy F requires that existing affordable housing
be preserved where possible. Of the 11,210 MPDUs built between 1976 and 2002,
only 3909 remained at the end of 2002. This means that 65% were lost by 2002
and more have been lost since them. Bill 24-04 is only a modest effort to
protect existing affordable housing stocks but Bill 25-04 aims at long-term
protection. (30 years vs. 99 years). We support other elements of Bill 25-04
which will be discussed later in this document.
MINIMUM SUBDIVISION SIZE
Support Bill 25-04 because this change in the law
would subsequently produce more MPDUs than is required by the current code.
But, we ask that if the size of subdivisions requiring MPDUs is reduced
from 35 units or larger to 20 units or larger, the Council consider
a code amendment to preserve the character of the communities surrounding
these smaller MPDU projects (for example, imposing significantly greater
mandatory perimeter setbacks than are currently required) and that particular
attention be paid to this issue during the Planning Board approval process.
BEDROOMS REQUIRED
Support Bill 25-04 to help insure that MPDUs are of
adequate size to house families with children.
BUYOUTS AND ALTERNATIVE SITE AGREEMENTS
Support Bill 27-03 to end all buyouts. The equitable
production of units is too important to allow depletion to occur in this way.
Further, buyouts prevent the creation of affordable housing units in
transit centers. Most important, the money contributed does not
necessarily result in more MPDUs and there
has been a significant lag (two years+) in between when some market rate units
become available and when the corresponding MPDUs (or other types of affordable
units provided in agreements) become available.
MCCF also supports
the provision in Bill 25-04 establishing an alternative to providing MPDUs
on site by allowing developers to purchase, and rehabilitate as necessary,
an equal number of similarly sized existing housing
units in the same planning area, which
are not currently under Program control, for inclusion in the MPDU Program.
AMENITY FEES
Support Bill 25-04 to separate and limit the maintenance
and amenity fees in order to open up more developments for MPDU applicants.
In addition, we believe developments that have high amenity/HOA fees
would be good places to provide Workforce Housing Units.
The applicant pool targeted for Workforce Housing Units would be those
folks who are excluded from eligibility for MPDUs because their income is
above MPDU limit of 65% of area median income but who still have difficulty
affording the housing prices in the county.
ZONES SUBJECT TO MPDU REQUIREMENTS
Oppose ZTA 03-09. This proposal is contrary to the
General Plan Housing Goal and Objective 4 dealing with affordable housing.
Strategy C requires that affordable housing be planned “so that it has reasonable
access to employment centers, shopping, public transportation
and recreation facilities.” (NOTE:
At their July 2001 meeting with Council, the Planning Board did not
support extending the MPDU Program to these zones noting "numerous environmental
constraints, particularly lack of sewer service, the limited potential yield,
and the distance from jobs, shopping, and other amenities and services.") We also recommend rigorous, site specific analysis
of locations for affordable housing by all master plan advisory committees,
particularly in planning areas with Rural Large Lot zones. This approach of giving great weight to the
community position was successful in the recent recommendation for affordable
housing inclusion on the Catherine Fraley property in Upper Rock Creek.
ZONING STANDARDS – R30, R20, R10, and R-H zones
Oppose ZTA 04-11 because these apartment developments are occupied
by families with children, for whom green space is particularly needed.
Green space contributes to a quality of life by providing yard
space for these children to play, as well as communal areas where adults can
interact. The green space also provides pervious surface for planting trees,
necessary to cooling and filtering the air, and for increasing absorption
and filtering of surface water, both necessary to protect streams and the
bay. This ZTA jeopardizes availability
of green space for use by occupants of both market rate units and MPDUs.
ZONING STANDARDS
– CBD ZONES
Oppose ZTAs 04-12,
04-13, and SRA 04-01 (for all zones)
and any overriding of master or sector plans.
Nothing in this legislation as written requires any additional MPDUs
above the number already required by current law. To insure provision of MPDUs in Metro area and
CBD high rise buildings, we suggest instead the use of the flexibility
proposed in the Council staff 30-Year Review and Bill 25-04--reduction of required percentage of MPDUs to as low as 10% on site, or
approving building of new MPDUs on alternative site locations within 1/2 mile
of the market rate project (at 12.5% or greater).
ZONING STANDARDS
– R-200 THRU R-90
Oppose ZTA 04-14
because the building standards for the R-90 through R-200 zones are designed
to preserve the character of these areas, and current townhouse development
is already jeopardizing this. Also,
allowing up to 100% attached units may prove a disincentive to building detached
homes, which might decrease their availability to fair market and MPDU buyers
seeking this housing option.
IDEAS WE THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD PURSUE
1. Affordable Housing
Bond: Posted by developers to insure
provision of MPDUs. If the MPDUs in
a development are not ready for occupancy by
the time the market
rate units are rented or sold, the county can
cash the bond and use the money to build or otherwise acquire the mandated
number of units for inclusion in the MPDU Program.
2. Increase availability
period of sale units from 90 days to 180 days.
3. Affordable Housing
Impact Tax on all newly constructed units in the county so that developers
of all types of housing are contributing to the HIF.
4. One-to-one affordable
housing unit replacement ratio on all redevelopment projects, so that there
is no net loss in the total number of affordable housing units on a property
in order to accommodate new higher priced housing. (Civic Federation has requested this since June
2003.)
5. When setting development
standards in master or sector plans, MPDUs should be discussed and vetted
with the affected community specifically on a site-by-site basis.
6. Provision of Workforce Dwelling Units as outlined in the AMENITIES FEES section above.
This Page Last Edited: November 21, 2004.