Today's meeting of the Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Advisory Board of Clearwater is called to order on September 8, 2026. Welcome, everyone. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to the chambers. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. To ensure a complete record of the board's actions, we ask that each individual wishing to speak clearly state your name and spell your last name for the clerk. I will ask the board members to introduce themselves and identify the fields they each represent. We're going to start here. Good morning, Frank Cornier, Construction Industry. Good morning, Charissa Doty, Affordable Housing. Good morning, Sean Austin, Citizen of Clearwater Representative. And I am the board chair, Robin Field, and I represent the lending industry as it relates to affordable housing. Our first order of business is to approve the minutes of the board's August 10, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion? I make a motion. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Minutes are approved. Any opposed? Is there anyone here to speak on items not on today's agenda? If so, please step to the podium and state your name and spell your last name for the record. You will have three minutes to speak on a subject that is not on today's record, today's agenda. Seeing no one come forward, Ms. Call, do we have any e-comments? We will move to the next item. Item 4.1, recommendation to City Council of the 2026. Good morning. Today's meeting of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee is called to order on this day, September 8, 2026. Welcome, everyone. Agendas of today's meeting are at the entrance to the meeting room. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. To ensure a complete record of the committee's actions, we ask that each individual wishing to speak clearly state your name and spell your last name for the clerk. We ask that you limit your comments to three minutes. At this time, I would like to ask the board members to introduce themselves and state the fields you represent. I'm going to start all the way to my left. Michelle Chennault, Community Development Board. Frank Cornier, Construction and Development Industries. Clearwater Council Member, Mike Menino. Sherry Sidoti, Affordable Housing. Sean Austin, Citizen Representative. Sherry DeBlair, Essential Services Personnel. And I'm Robin Thiel, and I represent the lending industry as it relates to affordable housing. This is the second of four meetings of this committee. I thought we had a great discussion at our first meeting. I know we have a lot to discuss today, so let's get right to the agenda. Our first order of business is to approve the minutes of the committee's meetings on August 11th. May I have a motion to approve item 2.1? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. The main item on today's agenda is to continue our discussion, led by Connor Baird from Wade Trim. Mr. Baird, the floor is yours. Thank you. Good morning. Good to see you all again, and some new faces as well. My name is Connor Baird with Wade Trim, which I've learned to say is the company and not another person. And this is our second meeting of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. So I'll start off with a little bit of a recap of the schedule and our last meeting, and then we'll get into the meat of the business today. Here's our first slide. So our schedule. Again, the history of the AHAC. This became a yearly update around 2020, and we are on our 10th AHAC right now. Our meeting schedule, as Ms. Field said, our first meeting was on August 11th. Our second meeting is today, and then we will have a third meeting on October 13th, and our fourth meeting will be on November 17th, all at 9 a.m. in this building. To recap our values, principles, and vision, and our first slide here is our values. Those values are supports a dynamic and competitive economy, improves social well-being and builds a sense of community, aspires to have housing that fits the city's residents, and everyone deserves a safe, affordable home. These are the values from the previous 2025 LHIS report, and then this is your first opportunity to change those, modify those, add anything if you so choose. But for right now, is everyone comfortable with these values, or would we want any edits to them? Yes. All good right now? All right. You'll have other opportunities to fix them in other meetings. Our principles are, number one, affordable over the long term, number two, diverse supply that provides for a mix of income levels and the diverse needs of residents, three, designed to be sustainable, energy, and cost-efficient, and to minimize physical barriers to accessibility, four, an aesthetic character with the surrounding neighborhood, five, strategically located and pedestrian-oriented with access to mass transit, open spaces, educational institutions, and employment or workforce training opportunities, and finally, number six, incentivize to promote incorporation of affordable housing into all housing developments. So again, I ask, is everyone comfortable with these or do we want to modify them? All good? Okay. And then finally, our affordable housing vision. And that's, the city of Clearwater will incentivize the development of a diverse supply of housing that is safe, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and energy and cost-efficient that blends into the aesthetic character of all the city's neighborhoods, proximate to public amenities, employment opportunities, which supports an inclusive community and the diverse needs of residents. Finally, is everyone comfortable with a vision statement? Good. All right. So now we get into our incentive strategies. For those that, to recap our last meeting, you know, we have the barriers and incentives to affordable housing, and some of the barriers are listed there, things like supplier expertise, land availability, codes and regulations by the city, public perception, and numerous others. And then our incentive areas that our Florida mandated are listed there, 1 through 11, which we'll be going through today, as well as the AHAC-initiated incentive areas, 12 through 16, which we will also be going through today. To recap our discussion on the 11th, these are some of the barriers and incentives that you, as the committee, identified at our last meeting. They relate to housing supply, land-use zoning regulations, LAIHTC barriers, taxes and insurance costs, renters and cost burden for renters, low-income senior housing, and then the ADUs and missing middle housing. And some points to be made about those, with the planning and development department for the city of Clearwater, there are sections in the code that regulate and address some of these lot sizes and corner lots, specifically section 6-106.b, address of non-conforming lot sizes. And then the code section 2-203 allows for additional flexibility for the NDR corner lots. And if you have any questions, I know Lauren is here, and she can answer any of those questions if you have any. Our renter and cost burden and fees and utility costs. There's currently collaboration with different partnerships around the city. A prime example of that is the Pinellas Opportunity Council, which provides emergency services programs for, you know, electric gas and water and other utilities like that. And I know Dylan is here to answer any questions for that. Lack of subsidized housing for seniors. There's currently a number of developments that work to house seniors. Some of those are included up there in the Pineberry Senior Apartments, Lexington Club Apartments, and the Madison Point Apartments, and then the Clearwater Housing Authority has the Barbie and Ralph Richards Towers, which has 200 units. And then finally, the ADUs and missing middle income. As I mentioned before, those are addressed in some of the code sections. And, you know, an example of that is the North Greenwood CRA overlay district and implementation, and that's going to incentivize some of these ADUs and missing middle income in the North Greenwood area. Now to get to our big discussion of the day, which is going to be going through our barriers and incentives and recommending if we want to modify those or remove them or whatnot. So, as I said, I know some of you have done this before, but to recap, we're going to go through each incentive area. We're going to evaluate the recommendation from 2025 last year, and then you all at the committee will discuss and consider whether you want to continue it, modify it, or remove that specific section. And, of course, you'll have the opportunity to identify any new affordable housing incentives not covered in the last report that you want included in the 2026 report. So, if that sounds good, we'll go ahead and get into it. Our first incentive area is the expedited review. And recommendation 1.1 is to continue to use the request for expedited permit processing for affordable housing activity form to fast-track affordable housing projects. A single-family project submitted with this form will receive priority during the permit review process by completing reviews of single-family permit reviews within four days of the initial submittal and within three days of all subsequent submittals. And the status of that is a continually ongoing process, but it is completed. That is being implemented. So, if we have any discussion on that. Do we know how many are being used? Like how many times this is? I do not know. I don't know. They can get the answer for you. But, for the most part, we're keeping within those timelines? Yes, I believe so. Continually ongoing with this process, yes. Each of these incentives that I take a look at, I see them listed out. Is there a possibility to provide the board with a scorecard that is really letting us know for each incentive, which ones have been used in the past period, what has been successful for them, and are each of these incentives actually meeting the goals or metrics that the city has set for affordable housing? Now, it seems like a list. Yeah. So, the actual report does have an evaluation of that incentive area and how the city has responded to that, specifically the recommendations that you all have provided. So, that will be within the report, and I do believe we have the 2025, I don't have it with me right here, but the 2025 report, which has that evaluation of, at that time, it would have been the 2024 incentive areas and those processes. But, and that's also kind of the process today where we go through each of those and determine whether, you know, we're meeting that goal or if we need to continue it and whatnot. So, but there is a list that has an evaluation of each of those incentive areas that we can get you. Okay. Thank you. I think it's vitally important any time we can expedite the process of time for builders and developers, you know, saving money. And the challenge is affordability, and that's what we're sitting here discussing, so it totally makes sense. So, we will continue that one. Recommendation 1.2, still on the expedited review, which is regarding the coordination between the housing manager and development services division manager, continue to be the primary and secondary point of contact when submitting different developments and affordable housing projects, and considering that coordination between the two positions. And that's been a process that's been going on according to? Yes, and actually, you know what, I think there, I'm sorry, there is a second part to it. And that is, it's an ongoing process that's currently continuing to be implemented. I have a question. There's, if I recall correctly, there's a plans on file, and is that listed somewhere in this incentive report? Regarding, like, plans that developers can use to submit? Yeah. Plans that have already been approved that can be used over and over. It's coming up. Yes, we have to do that there, isn't it? Okay. Thank you. We're good with continuing this one? Yes. Recommendation 1.3, continue to improve customer service toward potential project applicants by maintaining a positive attitude, offering a quick response time via email or phone calls, making available project requirements and forms, providing a list of potential mentors and experienced, mentors experienced in affordable housing development by end of first quarter 2026, and updated annually thereafter, utilizing new technology to enhance administrative efficiencies and to educate developers about the city's affordable housing incentives and permitting process by means of link sharing, web forms, video webinars, virtual meetings, and other tools. And that process is a continually ongoing process, but it is completed. So we do have a somewhat of a list of mentors? We do. Yeah. Okay. Continue. Recommendation 1.4, developed by the end of year 2024 and annually update thereafter, a brochure and other informational handouts to be published in a prominent location on the city's affordable housing webpage that explain the city's development approval and permitting process to developers, including but not limited to, relationship between city and county policies and the regulation of land use density and intensity. City-sponsored initiatives for affordable housing, such as a request for expedited permit processing for affordable housing activity form, affordable housing density bonus, parking reductions, and non-conforming exemption for affordable housing. That has been completed as of 2024, and it's up for if you want to continue doing that. So really now it's just about updating, continually updating the brochure as needed. Yes, with any new information. And the website. It's all on the website, correct? Yes, I believe so. So continually update that brochure and website to ensure that the most accurate policies and procedures are on there. So it's an annual update. So if there is something that changes within the year, those brochures wouldn't be updated? How often is that done? Specifically to win the brochure. So we do review it on an annual basis. No real changes have been made. Basically, the brochure explains in a pretty simple way how the process goes from having an idea for an affordable housing project all the way through permitting. So nothing in that process has really changed, but we do review it every year. I just want to make a comment. Speaking of technology, the Florida Housing Coalition Conference was just held a couple of weeks ago. And at that conference, there was a technology company by the name of SwiftGov, which is currently working with the city of Jacksonville as well as Hernando County. And they're a technology company that uses AI, and the way they use it is strictly for permitting. So when somebody submits an application, the AI system takes the plans and compares it to a list of codes and requirements. Maybe they tag it to Municode or something like that. But what they're boasting is a much quicker turnaround time for reviews and standardizes a lot of things, much like desktop underwriting. And then it'll filter out cases that might need a reviewer's personal touch. And it sounds like you might be familiar with yours. Hi. Good morning. Lauren Matzke, Planning and Development Director. I'm not specifically familiar with that product, but we have tested out a couple of AI tools previously in the department. As some of you are aware, our platform that we use for our permitting is called Acela. And Acela is going to be rolling out their first stage of AI in the near term. I can't commit to dates because that's not my expertise. But that first level that we're expecting from them is the initial completeness review, so that way it would go more quickly. And for those who don't do permitting all the time, completeness is just making sure you have all of the correct pieces initially for your building permit, at least in this initial thing. So that will also have the added benefit after we've got it fully implemented that our permit technicians, you know, won't be as bogged down doing that aspect, and they'll be able to take on different and more roles helping our customers. So Dan Mayer, who is our IT director, provided a brief update to city council on the AI initiatives that the city has at their budget workshop last month. I don't know the date offhand, but it was pretty informative kind of across the city as well. One of the other initiatives or platforms or tools, I don't know which to use anymore, that we're looking into is another one that Acela has purchased, which is called Open Counter, I believe. And it is, if I don't have the name correct, I apologize, because I always get it mixed up with something else. But it will be a tool that is more on the front end for customers who are like, I want to do X. And whatever X is, you start to type it in, and it starts to talk you through over here, like here's the forms that you need, and here's the process, and can you do it in the location that you're at. I'm not sure of the time frame for that. We're just starting to talk through that, but that also was identified as an important tool for us through the Bloomberg initiative that the city manager and the mayor participated in, and the city's innovation team identified as something worthwhile to bring forward. So our team had been looking at it previously. We now have the additional support from others. So we're definitely looking into AI now that it's kind of getting its bearings. We're not, you know, cutting edge, bleeding edge people necessarily. So I think we have a good level of confidence for what's to come, and I think there will be many benefits that will help housing in general. So thank you. Thank you. Kudos to the city for doing that. I think we're using AI, and there's a lot of mundane, repetitive tasks that AI can handle. So the staff and the reviewers can actually spend more time on, you know, more meaningful tasks. Sure, and in our conversations with Acela, of course, the next step would be, from a building permitting perspective, you know, the review just for the building code pieces because those stay pretty much the same for at least three years, right? And so if we can do that, then, again, it frees up our plans examiners to dig into all the other stuff and, you know, just gives them a little bit more breathing room for the uptick of permits that we have. So working with Acela gives us that stability for our customers because that's the platform that we use. It will be well integrated into the tools that we already have. So I think that was a big reason why that was ultimately selected as the way to move forward for us. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for bringing it up. If you hear of other things, though, coming, that's always helpful for me because I can only attend so many conferences a year. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. So good with continuing updating the brochure and website. Recommendation 1.5 under expedited review. Encourage affordable housing developers of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units to submit for frequently used building. Example plans for pre-screening by the building official to further expedite the staff permit review process. Incentive not used. That's the status right now. They, we have, the planning department has the templates that they're just not quite as utilized. And I believe Rebecca Mulder spoke to this during our last meeting. So good with continuing to use those templates and have them available for developers. All right. Incentive area number two, modification of fees, recommendation 2.1, coordinate with Pinellas County regarding database rate flexibility within the multimodal impact fee to support the provision of affordable housing. That status is in progress. The Live Local Act has halted some of the implementation of that. But as of right now, it's being halted as Live Local Act is being utilized. Continue? We can, yeah, continue it and have it available in the future in case anything happens with the state level. Recommendation 2.2, annually assess the financial, legal, and administrative flexibility of reducing, refunding, or redefining by unit size the cost of impact fees and or permitting fees related to the development of affordable housing and with the goal of being on par with other municipalities in Pinellas County. That progress is in progress. I know there's a fee study being implemented. I'm not sure the status of that. The city staff might have more information on that fee study. Candidly, I don't know how. We're in the process of it with our consultants, the fee study, and that's a review of all of our building permitting and planning application fees as well as anything else associated with the development process. There were some changes in state legislation that required us to pivot, so it's taking us a little bit longer than expected. But we're also trying to navigate the previously mentioned Senate Bill 180, which impacts our ability to do certain things through our community development code that would be considered more burdensome. And there's differing legal opinions regarding whether fees fall into that or not, because ours are located within our community development code. So we're working through it, and it's been really eye-opening in terms of cost recovery and things like that. But it will continue to include discounts for affordable housing projects specifically, which are right now at 50%. Continuing with that one as well. All right, 2.3, the Planning and Development Department will continue to implement the fee schedule of fee rates and charges ordinance to provide for reduction in the plan review and permit fees for single-family homes. That status has been completed, and obviously the fee study that we just mentioned will impact that when it's done. Continue with this one. 2.4, the economic. Could I ask a quick question on that? Lynn just mentioned that the fees were reduced to 50% right now, and this one says previously reduced fees by 75%. Is it, were they reduced by 75% or 50? Just to clarify, just sign. Sorry. This is always my favorite time I get my steps in. You may have been. I apologize. I misspoke. They are 75% currently. And then I mentioned the legislation. I should say that that requires us to change how our fees are assessed because we do it by project cost now, and the legislation requires it to be not by project cost. So many of the municipalities are moving into a square footage-based fee, and so that's what we're looking into doing. But then I would think we will continue to, you know, fees would be smaller for smaller houses or smaller units, which tend to be what is constructed by the affordable housing development community. But in addition, then we would be recognizing the affordability aspect through our fees. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry about that. Recommendation 2.4, the Economic Development and Housing Department will continue to assess with the payment of plan review and permit fees and impact fees utilizing state and federal funds designated for affordable housing, and that status is completed as well. And, again, obviously, most of these are continual processes that remain to be completed every year. I'll live with that one. Incentive area number three, flexible densities. Recommendation 3.1, continue to provide allowance of density and flexibility for affordable housing developments by city policy and to monitor state legislation regarding density flexibility, including but not limited to Senate Bill 180, the Live Local Act. That status has been completed as well, some of it by the Live Local Act, and then through the city as well. All good? All right. Recommendation 3.2, maintain specific parameters to grant density flexibility for affordable housing projects as allowed in the Community Development Code within the different zoning districts of the city. That status is completed as well, similar to the last one, some of it through the state and city. All good? Recommendation 3.3, continue to define the density allowance for an affordable housing project as part of a pre-application meeting prior to formal submission of the civil site engineering requirements. That status is completed. There are pre-application meetings by the city for these projects. All good? All right. Incentive area number four, infrastructure capacity. There's not much in this one. The previous AHAC committees have decided that we do not recommend that the city of Clearwater include the reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very low-income persons, low- excuse me, very low-income persons, low-income persons, and moderate-income persons as an incentive for the provision of affordable housing. As I mentioned, previous AHACs have considered no recommendation on this incentive area. And I think the way we came to that decision was it was never a problem that was encountered, so we didn't think that we needed to have that in here, if I remember correctly. Is that right? I think that's correct. Plus, we don't have enough. We don't want to cap it because we need more, not limited. So continue with that recommendation. Number five, incentive area number five, accessory dwelling units, recommendation 5.1. Continue to allow for accessory dwelling units in non-residential zoning districts as described within the city's community development code. That status is completed, and ADUs are allowed in non-residential zoning districts within the city. With that, 5.2, implement city council comprehensive plan policy QP 6.1.7 and policy QP 6.1.10 to allow accessory dwelling units by providing corresponding standards in the CDC. Such standards may include maximum unit size, parking standards, setbacks, and height requirements, as well as occupancy and tenure requirements so that the principal dwelling unit remains owner-occupied. And the status is completed with ordinance number 9758-24. Do we know? I know ADUs are becoming more and more popular. Do we know? Are we tracking how many ADUs there are and whether or not, like, what the increase of that is year-over-year by chance? I'm just curious. I know that ADUs are a big thing to kind of meet the middle. I'm just curious to know if we know how much those are increasing. I forgot to pull that number before coming so we can get that to you, but I can say that we had three planning applications actually submitted for ADUs this month. So as I tell, we are seeing an uptick in them, and I know we're working with housing specifically to kind of market the fact that those are allowed within the city. So just anecdotally, just based on your own eyes. I know we have three this month, and we've had several approved so far. I actually should check in on the construction of those, because first they go through a planning application, and then they would need to get their building permits and move forward. So I can get an update for you all. Great. Lauren, I have a question while you're up. So 5.1 allows for accessory dwelling units in non-residential districts? Yes. And then 5.2 allows for ADUs, but only where the ADU is to remain, or the main unit is to remain owner-occupied and the ADU rented. Are we going to find that to be the case in non-residential zoning districts? Sorry, can you repeat that last part? Are we going to find that that's the case that that's going to apply where, you know, in a non-residential zoning district that there's going to be an owner-occupied property? I would need to look at the code and clarify, because when we did the updates in 2024, 23-24, we did a full update. Typically in the non-residential districts, it tends to be, like, the caretaker's unit for, like, a larger complex or an industrial site, things like that. That's how I've seen it used. It doesn't get used very often, at least in my tenure here, but I can reaffirm that. Not that I want to step on any toes or anything like that, but, you know, when this was – when 5.2 was adopted, it was – the owner-occupied unit was important. I know that some cities have removed that since that time, so that's something that we'll probably discuss internally, and I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on that or if this is even the appropriate time to ask that, but I already did. So, you know, I'm sure you all have seen the transition where it goes from, you know, kind of the more conservative approach was to make sure that one of the two units was owner-occupied. Some cities went as far as to say, like, the primary house had to be owner-occupied, and then the smaller unit could be rented out. So we did make sure to protect the city's short-term rental prohibitions in our residential districts while working on this, so everything was written in a way to maintain that. But, you know, as I mentioned, like, some cities have gone ahead – they've built their comfort around the ADUs and have gone ahead and removed that owner-occupied rental – or the owner-occupied provision. So I don't know if anyone has experience with that in other cities. So under 5.1, if a developer came to us on a lot that's commercially zoned and they wanted to build some ADUs for rental, would they be allowed to do that? Presumably, yes. I mean, if they were doing a residential use in the commercial zoning, they would likely be doing it through Live Local, which, you know, it negates our zoning rules, or they would have to go through, currently, our comprehensive infill redevelopment project. So because residential isn't a by-right use in our commercial zoning district right now. Thank you. So I don't know if we wanted to modify anything on that one regarding the owner-occupied. Continue it? Okay. 5.3, provide flexibility for other alternative unit types, such as co-housing, to incentivize unconventional solutions to address affordable housing needs and support aging in place within existing neighborhoods. That status is under review. As I previously mentioned, North Greenwood Overlay District supports missing middle types, but not co-housing specifically. Recommendation 5.4, consider educational and financial incentives that reduce barriers to the rehabilitation and construction of accessory dwelling units, such as information about the permitting process, specific to accessory dwelling units, rebates, and other fee reductions. That status is in progress. The ADU webpage provides additional information on that process and information about ADUs in general. Continue with this one as well. Incentive area number 6, recommendation 6.1, continue to allow flexible setback requirements for affordable housing developments. This status is completed. Not specific to affordable housing. It's generally for the whole city, but continue with this one as well. I have a quick question on that. Are the ADUs, do they have flexible setbacks for those to allow for more ADUs to be built on smaller lots? Maybe that's too detailed for this meeting, but are the ADUs allowed flexible setbacks? I don't know if that's great. That's a great question. Yes, there is a degree of flexibility allowed for a reduced rear setback. There would be some different design considerations to ensure we're still looking at making sure there's not something just right up on the fence line with respect to neighbors. But, yes, they have the ability to, I believe it's between two and five feet, and if it goes down to two feet, that's where additional landscaping, I think, we work through it with landscaping. Thank you. That's exactly what I'm curious. Thank you. Okay, so still good with continuing this one? Okay. 6.2, continue to tie reductions of off-street parking requirements to proximity and access to alternative modes of transportation, including transit sidewalks, trails, and other options within the city. That status is completed if it's certified as an affordable housing development. I just have one comment. The reduction sometimes also has to do with the specific population you're dealing with. If you're dealing with a segment of the population that doesn't drive, you know, people with physical impairments or mental, or that might be a case for reducing the parking because they don't drive. Or if, well, this would, I guess, make that point. If you have a senior project and you're providing transportation, then that's a different story. But I think that it's not just these. It also may have to do with the specific population that you're dealing with that may warrant a reduction in parking. We could add something into this recommendation that explains maybe the population in general, or if you have other terminology that you want to discuss with the committee. Yeah. I think I would just like to see something added for population-specific reductions, not just, I mean, I know we have great transportation in Clearwater, public transportation. That was meant to be funny. But, you know, not everybody can use those adequately. If we're doing special needs population housing where we have people with OMRDD issues, they're not going to be driving. So we don't want to, I don't think we want to subsidize or have a developer pay for a bunch of parking spots that are not being used. May I ask a question based on your experience with that? A lot of times people, developers will provide, like, a parking demand study to work on lowering that. Do you find that to be a reasonable approach for the city, or would there be other ways? Because usually it's either, like, we spell it out, you know, it can go down to this, or we might have a threshold for certain instances, or we utilize a parking demand study. And I don't know if they're cost prohibitive or not. Yeah. So this would mainly be for multifamily housing, and it would be for special needs Florida Housing Finance Corporation funding. And developers who are doing that type of housing have more than likely experience doing that in other areas, in other parts of Florida, so they have information on, so they have internal parking studies and parking information that they can provide. You know, you can require a parking study to be done, but again, you know, a parking study for a project that is a special needs population that doesn't drive is going to be a different parking study outcome. And then one that's for traditional family occupancy. Thank you. Do we look at access to public transportation? I know at the college we give free usage of PSTA. I would agree with Mr. Courtney, and we have had our challenges. I know they just opened up a stop by the college, but it's a work in progress, you know, the bus routes. But do we ever look at kind of speaking to that when things are being built, access to public transportation? We receive a lot of feedback that there's not a nearby stop. We have people walking long stretches to try to get to public transportation. Is that ever factored in when we're kind of looking at where affordable housing is, or is it just wherever we can? Yeah, I think there are some incentives for locations of affordable housing towards transit, different modes of transportation. I think that might be what Live Local would allow. I know that there's density. It's allotted for – or, I mean, I'm sorry, parking reductions are allotted in the Live Local Act for properties that are close to major transit centers. But I don't know if there's any other conversations today. The only thing that I would add is that at a county-wide level, as we work together through the four Pinellas Avenues, I know that there is a regular focus on where is that – the transit now but also not likely to be removed, because unfortunately as budgets shrink, PSTA also has to reduce their routes and make those that exist more efficient. So the one that – the road or route that comes to mind is Alt-19 has been studied at length, and they're continuing through the process of looking at how to increase densities and intensities in that area because it has great transit, you know, across the county. But additionally, they're working to look at, you know, what are, like, future enhanced transit options. And enhanced transit could mean, you know, express buses or limited run stops in the interim until something, you know, more enhanced becomes reasonable or feasible in that area. So there's a lot of coordination between transportation and land use in Pinellas County. I think it's something that over the last 10 to 15 years we've shifted that mindset and have done really well. And our transportation planner and our land use planning team attend those meetings regularly to ensure that we're regularly looking at both. So not necessarily specific to affordable housing, that's reserve designated affordable, but also looking at just the housing supply in general, but access to transit. Finally, speaking to that, I do know PSTA has allocated some routes for removal, either recently or within the next couple of weeks slash months. So not that that would be a problem for the college, but I know it's a good point to make regarding the coordination of established routes. And I think they've done, you know, they've reached out multiple times to get feedback from the community. So I think they're doing their best they can. I want to say that for anybody that PSTA is watching. They're doing a great job. It's a hard, hard thing. But we still run into challenges. It's kind of a complex calculus, I think, of where's the best place. And it's the specific community that we're speaking to that need the accessibility. But, yes, they're doing the best they can. So did we want to make any implications to this recommendation? Maybe specific populations? I would like to see the reduction also tied to special needs populations. Okay. All right. And said to vary number seven, flexible lot configuration, recommendation 7.1, continue to allow flexible lot configuration for affordable housing development while remaining sensitive to the character and context of existing neighborhoods. The status is completed. It's based on level of review by the city. If we wanted to continue this or modify it or remove it. I guess I do need some clarification. When you say remaining sensitive to the character and the context of existing neighborhoods, how do you evaluate that? I know the town. Hi again. I know. I sat up in the corner, so I think I said I'd get my steps in. So the way that the city of Clearwater's community development code is structured is different than many communities in that we don't have variances. We have everything is organized around permitted flexibility. So when we're looking at specifically character context, we're looking – well, I guess one quick step backwards is that's because our code was adopted in 1999, and it consolidated a lot of zoning districts, but we were already a pretty built-out community at that time. And so it was organized to help with redevelopment. Since we consolidated – and this is we, not me – since we consolidated the zoning districts, we were really looking at, you know, one zoning district, two or three for residential that would be placed over a whole variety of contexts, some older, you know, pre-war – or not pre-war, but like 1920s, 1930s, you know, early platted days versus, you know, the more suburban context that's also prevalent in Clearwater. And so things that we look at is, is there already a pattern of reduced setbacks that are, you know, less than what the standard, the minimum is? And if so, is that adjustment that's being asked for kind of consistent with generally with, you know, kind of look left, look right? Is there already stuff there? So that's generally how we're looking at it is what's kind of the existing context in terms of reductions to what was determined in 1999 to be the minimum front setback, for example, because some were already set at a 15-foot setback instead of a 20 or a 25-foot. So that answered all. I can provide a link also. Also, we have a quick primer on flexibility on our webpage that we worked to add over the last year because it is just a different kind of context, and it also talks about our levels of approval. So I think sometimes that – or I think that's a useful tool just to get a sense of, you know, how it works in Clearwater since it is a little bit different. Our goal, though, is for most of the things – or many of the requests still remain administrative, although certain ones still do have to go to a public here by our Community Development Board. Lauren? Yes. I was going to let you go back and then have – Thank you. Well, that's okay. I'll get the steps in otherwise. Connor mentioned a couple times the overlay district, and I just wondered if you could give us an update on where it currently stands and what your projected goal is for having that completed done. That one I can speak to more quickly because I'm a little bit more involved in that. So we're actually starting community meetings later this month to meet with the North Greenwood community and talk through our draft of the code and get some specific feedback on, you know, design, or there are certain design characteristics that are important to them. We have on that list reduction of parking and talking through that and just getting their feedback a little bit more on certain specific code aspects. So we have community meetings scheduled in September and October, and I want to say at the very beginning of December. Again, I can get that information shared directly with you all. And then we would be starting public hearings at the beginning of 2027. So we're looking forward to getting that done. That unfortunately took more time due to some fits and starts and hurricanes and things like that kind of throwing wrenches into our plans. And if everything goes well, it will be approved by 2030? I mean, I know I'm a long-range planner at heart, but we're going to get it done next year. Okay. It should be before summer. All right. I can say we've successfully navigated the state review. There were several different pieces that had to be done. We had to do a future land use map amendment and changes to the comprehensive plan to establish this overlay district. Those are scheduled to go back to city council for a second and third reading in October, and then state review will be finalized. And that's really the heavy lift because anything that requires state agency review just takes that much longer. But it's also already been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. That's just another layer on that future land use piece. And future land use is the – that's where we set or establish kind of the density bonuses for these areas to make the missing middle type of housing really work. So now we're digging into the code details, which is really that form of development and reaffirming things that we heard several years ago because so much time has lapped. Like one of the main things that I remember hearing from the community is, you know, like they're primarily a residential community. The commercial corridor is MLK. How do we help MLK thrive? Well, and how do we add kind of a gentle density into the rest of the residential neighborhood so to accommodate the missing middle? But missing middle being the duplexes, triplexes, maybe quads, so four units where one would typically be. But then also looking at that design so it doesn't stand out and overshadow or really not blend with kind of what's there. So those are the pieces that we want to tease out with the community. But it will be a good model for us for other neighborhoods going forward. Has city council already seen some of this or heard? We've not brought any of the details of the zoning district to them yet. So many have attended different workshops and everything on their own time, which we always appreciate. Continue with recommendation 7.1. Incentive area number 8, modification of street requirements. Because such standards are in place to benefit public health and safety, we do not recommend that the city utilize the modification of street requirements as an incentive for affordable housing as determined by the previous committee. So the status is no recommendation on this. We want to continue that. Yes? Incentive area number 9, pre-adoption policy considerations. Recommendation 9.1. As part of its annual reporting, the Economic Development and Housing Department will continue to review all regulations and ordinances that may reflect the cost of housing. That status is in progress. Of course, it's a continually yearly update. So partially completed with this process. Continue this policy as well. Or recommendation, I should say. Recommendation 9.2. Continue the city's interdepartmental review process through which any new regulatory instrument created in the city, ordinances or regulations, or by related state legislation can be evaluated for its effect on affordable housing. The status is completed in an online process. Incentive area number 10, inventory of public lands. Recommendation 10.1. The Economic Development and Housing Department will continue to maintain the inventory of publicly owned land suitable for the development of affordable housing. This is completed and it's required by numerous different processes, including the Live Local Act and also the federal road to housing legislation. Continue this one. 10.2. Continue to publish the public land inventory owned by the city for affordable housing and a link to Pinellas County's inventory on the city's website for prospective developers and non-profit agencies for developing affordable housing. This is in progress and continually updated. 10.3. Continue to make publicly owned land available to prospective developers and non-profit agencies for developing affordable housing. 10.4. Completed and ongoing process. Continue. 10.4. The Economic Development and Housing Department will coordinate with the Planning and Development Department to identify properties having repeat code violations that may be suitable for rehabilitation, acquisition, or demolition for affordable housing. The status is completed and the coordination is continually ongoing. And there's currently a city staff exploring policy and stipulated agreement structure on this recommendation to better enforce this recommendation. Continue with this as well. 10.5. Continue to monitor the policy procedure for distribution of city owned lots. Consider including energy efficient items and related emerging technologies into scoring matrix to support environmentally friendly development in partnership with the Greenprint 2.0 timeline. The status is completed in an ongoing process. If we want to have any recommendations to this or continue removing boothies, aren't we? Incentive area number 11, proximity to transportation, employment, and mixed-use development. Recommendation 11.1. The city will maintain and implement policies of the city's comprehensive plan that incentivize affordable housing development, proximate to transportation hubs, major employment centers, and mixed-use development. And then the status is completed and, as usual, an ongoing process. And I know we discussed this a little bit earlier regarding the college and everything. Do we have – is it – I mean, I don't know what is accessible, but understanding that not every affordable housing placement can be close to transportation, is there ever a thought to possibly subsidizing like e-bikes or other modes of transportation? We have a really good trail system with the Pinellas Trail where people are – I know just because we have a lot of students that use the trail. But anything that could help vouchers or anything that could help with those that are not close to public transportation? I don't know if the city already has something. I'm not sure if the city has anything they may be able to provide for information, but I do know – this is a little bit different than what you're discussing, but I do know PSTA does have discounted tickets and fares for students. I'm not sure if they have any for lower-income individuals, but I do know they have some for different populations. Regarding – Yeah, just like e-bikes. E-bikes or anything, I'm not sure. I know it's a larger thing, but I think there's some kind of Venn diagram of affordable housing of folks that maybe are not close to public transportation because we want it close to public transportation, but understandably it's not going to always be, right? We get that. But I see a lot of people using other forms of transportation. We don't want the little scooters. I'm not saying we pay for scooters. But, you know, if there's anything that we do have, maybe the city already does and I don't know about it. I know we offer, at least for our population, free bus rides with student IDs, but just generally I see a lot of people walking, you know. But we have such a good connecting system in the city. I'm just curious to know if there's any thoughts to helping pay for other modes of transportation, green transportation. The city might have more. Oh, they're right behind me. Yeah. I'll go. Hello, everybody. I'm Dania Perez with housing. So, to answer your question, with CDBG funds, the community block grant, if we can provide tickets for transportation, if they, you know, go through the whole supply and it gets approved, then that could, like, serve it. Okay. For the bus? For it to pay for bus routes. Okay. I was just curious to see if there's anything to help people pay for other modes of transportation, like bikes or e-bikes. Yeah. It could be no. The answer could be no. It's fine. For buses, for sure. The bus, yes. I'm just wondering what that population that I see walk in these long stretches to the, you know, that maybe not be close to public transportation access, if there's anything that we have that is kind of helping them with other modes of transportation, possibly. I can look into it. Yeah. I can look into it. I was just going to add, I know some cities have tiptoed into vouchers to offset the cost of e-bikes. It has not come up in any of our local conversations related to the trail as an asset and also, you know, a safer mode for those who are a safer mode for those who are fortunate enough to have access to it. But some of the conversations that we've had through our active transportation planning and through the comprehensive planning process is to continue to work with the county regarding trail hours and lighting because the trail closes at sunset. But many jobs do not end or school does not end at dusk. So kind of looking at it there, like we have this asset. How can we make it safer and usable legally for those who do need to use it because it is a major transportation avenue for them? Additionally, I mentioned briefly the active transportation plan. And one of the goals of that was to look at some of these certain areas where there is a lot of use, just making those safer connections, right? So we do have these trails, but can you get to them safely? Or we have the activity centers, the schools, and other things. And sometimes it's just that last little bit of connection that can either, you know, can be a deterrent or can really spur the additional usage of those. So that's from that long range planning perspective things that our group is looking into. Yeah, that's great that they're looking at the trail. I mean, is maybe happening. We have a phenomenal trail system in Clearwater. I think it's really a part of our collective community pride. So, you know, and they're difficult to add more of. So it's how do we utilize them and make them just that much more accessible for people. Thank you. So we're good with continuing this recommendation. At Center of Area No. 12, Adaptive Reuse, recommendation 12.1, we continue to allow and promote adaptive reuse involving the conversion of surplus and or outmoded buildings, including old churches, school buildings, hospitals, train stations, warehouses, factories, hotels, office buildings, malls, et cetera, to mixed use. Uses were permitted by zoning district or by Senate Bill 180, the Live Local Act. That is completed. The Live Local Act currently applies to commercial, industrial, religious, institutional, or public lands for multifamily and mixed use, provided that they meet the threshold. With continuing this, Incentive Area No. 13, the Land Development Code, recommendation 13.1, continue to incentivize developers to address recommended design standards for affordable housing development, consistent with Section 3-920.a.3.c.i. You see it there, of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code. Other future criteria to be considered could include but are not limited to provide accessibility features, provide direct and visual access to open spaces for residents, consider play areas when developing family housing, provide nighttime outdoor illumination for safety, use landscape standards and buffers to screen nuisances and separate buildings, centrally locate common facilities, use crime prevention through environmental design when practical and financially feasible, and finally include electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This status is in progress, partially completed, and it's not codified, but there's continually updates to this by the city. That one was a big one. Continue. 14, communication and marketing of affordable housing, recommendation 14.1, continue to improve current communication channels and marketing materials to reach different stakeholders interested in affordable housing. Some of the suggested actions include but are not limited to conduct an environmental, excuse me, an educational campaign in conjunction with regular city communications, partner with Amplify Clearwater and others to broadly promote the benefits of and opportunities for affordable housing development, prepare, update, and keep current marketing materials for the general public in order to promote the different housing programs that the city offers, prepare, prepare, update, and keep current marketing materials that help developers and the general public to understand the application process and criteria, make accessible to the public an inventory and a map suitable of suitable residential vacant lands available for development, include a section on the city's webpage called Affordable Housing and Community Development, specifically dedicated to promote affordable housing, share outcomes and analytics with appropriate city boards and committees, and that status is completed. It sounds like a broken record now, but it is continually updated yearly. Continue with this one. 15, financing. Recommendation 15.1, diversify financial strategies to contribute to the new construction and maintenance of affordable housing and financial assistance to obtain affordable housing, and the status is completed. 15.2, evaluate the feasibility of reducing slash paying code violation liens on lots suitable for affordable housing. housing development. I know we spoke about this a little bit before as well. That status is in progress. Continue with this recommendation. 15.3, ensure city staffing levels are adequate to achieve the affordable housing advisory committee recommendations for the LHIS report yearly. The status is in progress and will continually be in progress. Continue with this one. You don't want to give them less staff. 16.1, develop public and private partnerships for the provision of affordable housing, and that can be included to direct persons seeking information about affordable housing development in the city of Clearwater, to the city's affordable housing webpage listed there. Prepare, advertise, and maintain an inventory of affordable housing providers and developers and any other related organization. Encourage partnerships between current and new affordable housing developers for mentoring and technical training. Establish partnerships with major employers to coordinate the supply of workforce housing. Encourage and support joint development opportunities between the private sector and nonprofits. Engage lenders in training and ongoing discussion with the city relative to underwriting and credit standards, technology solutions, as well as the development of financial products. Coordinate with Pinellas County joint programs for the provision of affordable housing. Coordinate with other entitlement grantees in the region and county to improve consistency. Monitor and encourage citizens to lobby for the development of statewide legislative initiatives to gauge the local impact of their provisions. Partner with lenders, realtors, title companies, inspectors, and contractors through regular outreach to increase knowledge of the city's housing assistance programs. Coordinate with the private sector and nonprofits to provide homebuyer education, home warranties, and other strategies to reduce the cost of maintenance for homeownership. Increase down payment assistance loan amounts to be viable for the homebuyer while remaining financially feasible. Improve the timing of affordable, excuse me, improve the timing of housing quality standards inspections to facilitate closings on home with down payment assistance loans. Partner with the private sector and nonprofits to address third-party barriers to affordable housing and to identify appropriate incentives to reduce labor and material costs for developers and long-term maintenance, operational, and insurance costs for homebuyers. This status is completed and ongoing. So I do have a question about the coordination with other entitlement grantees in the region and having them be consistent. As one who utilizes all of the local down payment assistance programs, I know that there's at least one that is not consistent with the rest. Clearwater is generally consistent with the ones who are all consistent. There's one who isn't, and just wondering if there's been any discussion to bring that last one into the fold. And I think you know who I'm talking about. It's SAPI. Bring them in. Don't go into their fold, please. Bring them into yours. Okay. That was a big one. So continue with that one. And this is just an elementary question. It says, in the last one, to identify appropriate incentives to reduce labor and material costs for developers. Yes. What does that look like? Like, I know that material costs for developers and everything, for everybody is going up. But what would be, I guess, what does that look like? How do we reduce labor and material costs? Dylan might have more to say to this. So one good example is we've recently met with an ADU consultant. He's looking to open a consultant business to assist with ADUs. And the way that he would reduce overall costs would just be through, like, a buying program. So multiple people may want to buy an ADU at the same time, and he would kind of co-opt that together. Or the same thing with the solar. Like economies of scale? The economies of scale, yeah. Same thing, I think, Solar Coalition. I forget the exact name. But they do a similar program, too, where they get a couple of neighbors on board at the same time, and they're able to reduce costs that way. And so we just partner with those folks. Is that okay? Yeah. I would also say if they're taking advantage of those templates, they can material and then use the by-proper. Okay, we will continue with that big one, and I think that's it. So can we move through that pretty fast? So very good. Our next meeting will be on October 13, 2026, in this building. If you have any questions, contact Dylan. We'll have an updated recommendations for you based on our discussion today. And I think that's the end of our meeting. So thank you. Does anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? If so, please step to the podium. You will have three minutes to speak. Do we have any e-comments? I will now close the public comment period. Mr. Mayhew, if you have something to say. No, no, nothing. Okay. Is there anyone here to speak on items not on today's agenda? If so, please step to the podium and state your name. Spell your last name for the record. You will have three minutes to speak on a subject that is not on today's agenda. Well, this is good morning, right? Still, yes. Feels like the day is going by fast. But good morning. Chris Edwards, I'm the Economic Development and Housing Director for the City of Clearwater. And it's a pleasure to be with you this morning. Fantastic items on the agenda. We're always excited about our affordable housing options. One of the things I did want to bring to you today is a concept that we are working aggressively on internally, staff-wise, to explore workforce employer housing program. We've talked with some of our local largest employers who identified a need for their employers to be closer in proximity to their employment location. So we are working on that. Hopefully, we will be able to bring a program to you shortly for your consideration that we could then look to implement as part of our affordable housing programming and incentives. So just wanted to bring that to you today. Yes, sir? Set for rental or homeownership? It would be a combination of both. Any other questions so far? We'll bring back the details of the program. But we want to be, hopefully, Clearwater's the leading city in the county to do that. So we are looking forward to do that. I just want to say workforce is all the college talks about. We're actually not a college anymore. We're a workforce institution. And I don't know if everybody's aware that federal funding is changing to now they will pay for workforce, which they never did before for grants, which is a huge shift for us. Lots of policies are being changed to support workforce. So we're really in it, and we've been in it. And so the thought, because we partner with a lot of the local businesses as well, the workforce, hopefully we're training their new workforce. So I'm so excited that we're doing something about this. I can't wait to hear more. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that update. Appreciate it. Thank you. Is that more geared towards student housing or also for hospital housing? Is that just, how is that tailored? As of now, we're looking at it from the employer focus. So if they do have some, you know, entry-level, you know, employees or whatever in there, yeah, we would consider that. I guess you could say they're recent students. Right. But, yes. Okay. Thank you. I've seen an employer-assisted program before where employers, what they did was they would provide funds for down payment and closing cost assistance if their employees moved within one-mile radius of their location, for example. And it actually, in the one market that I was involved in, it was a university and a hospital. And what it did is it really increased the market value of those residents, those structures within that one-mile radius. And a lot of the employees ended up moving in. And that's great for employers because that means that the likelihood of them calling in because of a car breakdown or, you know, something that requires them to be closer to home, that reduced the amount of call-ins for that and increased productivity. So that was a huge win for the employers. Absolutely. Absolutely. We look forward to launching that and bringing it to you for your consideration. Thank you so much. Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, I will ask Ms. Call, and it actually says Ms. Call, if we've received any public comments by email. I will now close the public comment period and would like to ask if there are any final comments from the committee members. Lastly, I'd like to ask Dylan Mayhew if there's anything additional to report. Our next AHEC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 13th at 9 a.m. in these chambers. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.