December 7, 2022 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:01] Oh, great! I like to call this meeting to order you and I talking about Covid. Danny, Philip, Can you guys hear us now? Yes, hey, Jay. should there be be able to hear it? Yeah. Yeah. So this is all new to us. so yeah, everybody. if you get a have patients with us. and we'll just let the one person in the room. Ryan. can you hear Tiffany? And going. Hey, Ryan, Welcome to the meeting? We're still trying to figure all this out.

[1:02] And are you just participating? Or did you want to, address the Board as part of public coming? No, actually I work at the Mercedes Center with Emily Hamilton. So i'm just here to to to her presentation take notes on it. So i'm just here to listen. Fantastic. All right. Yeah. You have to mute and turn your microphone off.

[2:03] Sorry. How about now. Danny? Can you hear us, Philip? yeah, that and there's no we did it. I'll remember those settings for next step. Yes, please proceed. Well welcome everybody to the December seventh meeting of the Housing Advisory Board. This is our first

[3:11] sort of in person meeting, and quite some time, for as long as I've been on the board in case it's a hybrid meeting. we have 3 head members present. i'll take roll call in a moment and looks like 2 on the zoom So call to order and roll call Julia Ramsey likely to have here Bill over in here Danny Taylor here right now. We're also joined by one of our members from planning Board Park, Mcintyre and Terry Tiffany Bowler and Jay. That's a that of the the house like that planning step. so there is the agenda. The night is not too heavy.

[4:02] I don't think we have any voting items. we'll be approving the minutes at time. 3 item for public participation. If there's anybody on the line that would like to comment on the public. we have a really great guest presentation from Emily Harris, Hamilton and Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Year Vanity Project, as the Mercant is center at George Mason University. It's a very long, very good title. We'll be reviewing any ideas we have for future listening sessions item, 6 matters from the staff. they'll report out on a January 20 fifth meeting on Abu alternatives and then there's the invitation to join plenty Board and the technical review, group, I think already 35 morning we have a one question. Item, 7 debrief meeting and the German

[5:01] I do want to note for any of you who's been attached to that? Our recommendations that we forward to capital, and you got a very good hearing and a on a study session. I think every about a month on some of those recommendations we made, but they had a great conversation about. I really took our recommendations to the heart, and very seriously so I think that's rather buying I want to item 3. That that was a general review. Approval of minutes from October 20, sixth do I have a motion to approve? Removed right any second. All in favor? Hi. Excellent! Thank you. That that's it. We have anyone from the any or public speaking anyone on the line that would like to come in

[6:00] on board. We do not not that case right. There's Emily. I'm ready to speak to it. I don't have her on just yet. Let me see if I can get in touch with her. See if she signed it on. Okay. Well, I get to pick over me when I do that. So Council in one of their other study sessions started talking about It's a it's a single family. It's not even a lot more to you. Do. Flexes and try flexes. I thought that would be a good area of inquiry, or have much, as we read, did research on a to use and made, I think, a very good memo the recommendations we could start looking into that issue. I will note that Emily's comments are for information. We're not ready to take a position and anything she might going on. This is not a political conversation, but it's an information one. She came to us about by way of

[7:03] the toilet center, which is the housing pink tank within the or the Linux to they, as we work at, and it's very impressive. I mentioned your title. She is it's extensively an urban economics and land Use policy and particular. She's going to be talking about other cities that are made provisions to Tony Related to credential and single use areas. she's written about this quite a bit. Not just academic papers, but also with U.S.A. today. Washington Post, La Times to a lot of called Market Urbanism. She received her Phd. In economics from George Mason University. I know I can tell you about the the volleyball team she played on, or something like that.

[8:01] While we're waiting for I could do staff updates that I'd be great. It's good. It's okay. We're moving the agenda out of it. Take it away. J: When you do that, you something else. Yeah. So basically that one has to do with 80 recommendations. I was Michael, my Jim. So the accounts provided some pretty clear direction on a very narrow focus for the Edu update. I'm. Addressing saturation, and some minor code fixes in a couple of I mean. The idea is to turn that around pretty quickly. so they may. they requested the staff and request to come back to have in January or January meeting, and it's likely that they will have like. if not sign that you know pretty well thought through alternatives, but possibly even code language, because I think they'd like to get this back from the next. yeah, by February March. Actually so really trying to move this one forward, recognizing that a lot of the other Council priorities are taking a lot more time.

[9:07] so that's something you can expect. So you'll get the memo hopefully. Well, in advance at least a week. and then, yeah. any questions about that one is the focus getting rid of saturation, which is that the main? That's the number one. That's the number one I know. As Michael said, I think they they did embrace multiple other have recommendations. They did not embrace that the parking elimination now or the more than one at you per while. But I believe all the others are under consideration. I'm not sure if it is the the pre approved plans of all right. I know that that was a hill. Mary

[10:00] is there any way other than the discussion? They had it Study session to. I suppose, where the council might go on the single family zoning issue. I'm sending kind of a timetable on it. I don't think they have not. so my sense just being an observer is that they have a long list of council priorities. and I think they are super focused on the current 10 priorities. And we're looking at single families. I mean, it's not in that. If you have another call or you have a copy of that meeting, because they actually didn't set a timetable for various initiatives. It's good, and I think one of they. They represent a lot of different options. and it was a little hard to follow exactly what the clear direction was, but I think Staff is working on that. So once I have a better sense

[11:05] of what the priorities are on the timing for those I can definitely share that with that. Do they have any other housing related settings coming up? yes, there will be a let me give you the date. It's in January. it will be older housing partners will be providing an update to council on their activities how they work how they function and maybe raising some issues that they've been experiencing. particularly with the permanent supporting house. So I think that'll be an interesting one to follow. Sure but other than that march. Third. It's down payment, assistance, toilet, or is it March? Second first week of March? we will be going back with second, retooled

[12:05] So that middle income, one of them was adopted by or passed by the voters in 2,018 one night. So we've been working with the consultants to try to figure out. How do we retool that? So it works? I met with the project sponsors Bob Yates, Sam Weaver. and they provided some additional clarifications are going to try to they what we put together. That's gonna work. People been taking ahead of their program. Well, we Haven't implemented it all so available. No. So we still have to figure out a lot of things that happen to do with it. but what we have done, and I think I talked about this before is for middle income. We expanded the Hto program home to ownership. So we have a down came in this this program. Now it's a shared appreciation, though. we've talked about that one that's in place. We expanded it from 50 to to 100,000 is the maximum. We expanded the upper income limits to a 120 AI

[13:10] and the associated assets with that as well as to deal with the city. But some money you restrict. You put a a coming in on the house. So it's it's they purchase the home in the market. There's no deed restriction. basically the city gets whatever we put in. We got a sh of that appreciation appreciation when it's on whatever. Yeah. So we we're trying to promote that more. So if you read your I didn't realize the the pamphlet that goes to every boulder resident. It's like 20 pages long. Now I think it was something. It's 16. I don't know about the Newsletter yet. So if you read it through it all the way to a Okay. So you want to go with your update. But just on the screen, and Emily is waiting to be let in.

[14:01] That's Can you do that? No. it's yeah, it's not letting me do any of those things since I made you a host. There's the same way. and then i'll save the last update. Okay, right. Hi, Emily, welcome. Hi! Thanks so much for having me. How are you all doing? we are doing great, so I've already introduced you. But, i'll just give a quick overview about we chatted last week by phone with Jay and You know this: the Housing Advisory Board for the city Boulder, Colorado, as we explained, and our role is strictly advisory. We don't make policy. Ask a lot of anything like that. But a lot of if we do make recommendations to take, you can take it seriously by our council.

[15:02] and a lot of underlying work policy work in boulder is based on studying peer cities. this recently happened with a to use, for example, and our council is considerated. Policies to liberalize, they using city staff studied I think it was 34 here cities, and see what kind of policies they had around things like saturation limits on how to use it. we're really taking that. That's an area we're making progress. But recently our Council and a study section, and they they made housing a big priority. This year. Some of their 10, our priority top priorities are around housing. and they start, as you guess, that they're willing to look at this single family zoning issue not radically, and tend to like your your home. It's going to become a high rate of the incremental steps on a general infill. you know, with a single of a large lot becoming a 2 blocks, or you maybe even a trip like so. they just really introduce the subject. We thought we should educate ourselves about it.

[16:09] so we can make an intelligent recommendation that we would seek to do that early on next year, so that it please take it away and tell us what you've learned. and you were studying on this issue. Fantastic? Yeah, Thank you all again. so i'm an economist. I study housing affordability and the effects of zoning and other land use restrictions at the Mercedes Center at George Mason University. and in particular, I've done quite a lot of work on the rules that make this type of gentle infill construction feasible to build in large numbers. I'll go ahead and share my screen. Oh, it looks like I don't have permission to share my screen right now.

[17:01] Yeah. And each each platform is a little bit different, whether it's Google or zoom or yeah. 2 and a half years ago it was awkward to do Zoom Meetings, and now it's offered to be on the room with people. So it says you should be able to. Okay, yes. Here we go perfect. all right. Can you all see that perfect? Okay. So i'll be talking about some of the principles. I found that make this what I call light touch, density feasible to build I'll talk about how I define this light touch, density, some of the recent reforms that have been intended to make it a newly legal to be built. and then a couple of examples of policies that have been in place longer than this recent wave of reforms, and then have

[18:03] proven to make it feasible to build large amounts of this new infilt construction. So first off what is light touch density. You're all probably more familiar with the term missing middle. and I prefer the term light touch density because missing middle has a very specific meaning. It comes from a firm called opticose design. that does lots of fantastic work on infill construction, but they just have a very specific definition of what they mean by missing middle, and I prefer something that's a bit more expansive. so by light touch density, I mean adding a to to single family houses, which I know you all have already done a lot of work on small lot, Single family development attached townhouses, of course, duplexes, triplexes and 4 plexes, which are probably what most people think of with missing middle.

[19:03] And then also walk up multiplexes. So basically anything that's that lower cost type of stick construction, but on less land than a typical Us detached single family house. and tonight i'll be talking about these middle 3, so small lot, single family construction townhouses, and those 2 to 4 units. And please feel free to jump in with with questions at any point, and of course also happy to take questions at the end. So amid this current housing affordability challenge, that of course, Boulder is severely experiencing, and that's increasingly affecting more and more parts of the country. 3 States have passed laws that make this 2 to 4 unit and other types of light touch, density, construction, feasible to build. Those are Oregon, California, and Maine.

[20:10] and then at the local level. Some of the there. There are more examples than these 4, but some of the examples of localities that are are more relevant to the bolder case. Implementing light touch density reforms include Minneapolis. Spokane, Washington. Portland, which has gone gone above and beyond what State law requires. as well as Gainesville, Florida. And then i'll also be talking, as I mentioned, about a couple of older policies that make similar types of infill construction feasible in the city of Houston, as well as in Pelosi's Park, which is a small town in Bergen County and northern New Jersey.

[21:00] What is some of the reasons that State and local policymakers are increasingly adopting reforms to permit light, touch, density, development? I'd say, first and foremost is concerns about housing affordability also permitting a more climate, friendly type of development, which I know is a a big concern and a lot of bolder policy making as well as racial justice issues single-family. Zoning came directly out of a Supreme Court decision that found it unconstitutional to implement land use restrictions that segregated localities directly by race policymakers at the local level, then turn to rules like zoning for large lot, detached single-family housing to implement racial segregation. in a a de facto way, even when it was no longer constitutional to do so, and in particular in Minneapolis this racial justice angle played an important part in the policymakers justifications for adopting their reforms.

[22:19] and i'll turn now to that Minneapolis triplex reform that i'd say it's probably gotten the most press attention out of this recent wave of reforms. but the amount of attention that it's gotten in the media has far surpassed. I would say the amount of construction that this reform has actually led to starting at the beginning of 2,020. It became legal in Minneapolis to build duplexes and triplexes, where only detached single family housing had been permitted previously. But we've only seen a very small uptick You kind of have to squint to see it really

[23:03] in that type of housing being built since that reform went into effect. Now, why is that? I think it's because Minneapolis has quite strict restrictions in place on how large structures can be in their single family zones. So on a typical single family lot in Minneapolis. it might be legal to build 2,500 or 3,000 square feet. now, if we look at these older examples of light touch density housing in Minneapolis. These are duplex on the left, and a triplex on the right that would not be allowed to be built on under today's roles in Minneapolis, and that's because they're too big. They are too close to their lot lines, and they're too tall. so even though duplexes and triplexes are now legal on paper to build in Minneapolis, and some of them certainly are getting built.

[24:08] it's not necessarily a really attractive proposition for home builders to be, for example, tearing down a single family house and replacing it with a triplex that would add units, but not additional square footage. In most cases. now, as I say, some of them are getting built. Here's an example of a new construction triplex in Minneapolis. They have implemented some other reforms that go really well with light touch, density, development. In Minneapolis, for example, they got rid of all parking requirements in the city. Parking requirements can be a huge barrier to light touch, density, construction. But, as I say, the the amount of national attention Minneapolis has gotten

[25:01] for this reform to single family zoning has not been matched with a a big wave of construction, and i'd say it's falling short of what the proponents of duplexes and triplexes and Minneapolis had been hoping for. I'll turn now to Portland, and the city of Portland had been working on adopting, what they call their their residential infill project kind of at the same time as the State was working on legislation to legalize 2 to 4 unit development on the States single-family lots. and, as I said, the city of Portland has gone further than State law requires to make this infilt construction feasible to build. Sorry this is is small print here, but this is a a diagram from the site Line Institute. That shows what's legal to build under the residential and fill project and relative to Minneapolis.

[26:07] it's possible to build larger structures for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in Portland. And interestingly, they also have quite strict limits on how large single family houses can be under their new program, so they're trying to use these These limits on structure size to encourage the 2 to 4 unit construction rather than single family construction. So a new single family house in Portland can be up to 2,500 square feet. where, as duplexes can be 3,000 and triplexes and 4 flexes can be up to 3,500. Oh, our question! You're saying they can build a but bigger than 2,500 square feet. Yes. yeah. so that's the the policy for new construction, single family. And Portland.

[27:06] Alright. I heard you. I just couldn't believe it. Yeah, yeah, I know it's it's It's not so different from what Minneapolis already had in place on a a 5,000 square foot lot. For example. That would be a floor area ratio of point 5. but it's very different than what I understand the roles to be in boulder. It's very different from where I live in Arlington County, Virginia, where we have enormous new construction, single family houses. so there. partly usually using that strict limit on the size of single family to encourage the 2 to 4 unit development. 3, and my question for you. I'm sure that when you say that the limit in Portland of 2,500 feet, or Minneapolis 3 Dialogue. I don't know what is that, irrespective of the size of a lot? Or is that that just a flat lid on how big it can be

[28:02] in Portland. It's a flat lid on the new house in Portland, bigger than 2,500 square feet, even if it's a 10,000 square foot by right in Minneapolis it's a 4 area ratio, combined with setback and height limits. and so that in that case it does very with the size of a lot on a 5,000 square foot lot in Minneapolis you can build 2,500 square feet of house, but on larger lots in Minneapolis you could build more. Another question. yeah, Emily. So there's no transferable density or transferable square footage either, or if they are in Portland, it's just a flat limit of 2,500. That's my understanding. Yes. yeah, it is and they have additional policies under the residential infilt project in Portland, where home builders can build up to 6 units or larger 4 plexes. If they provide some

[29:10] below market rate units in those so the the square footage I gave was for the UN bonus square footage. but there would not be any bonuses possible for a single family house any way around it, As as far as I understand Again, I think the the limits on 2 to 4 units Square footage in Portland is holding back construction relative to what it would be absent any limits at all. Here is a little bit older house and a duplex rather, and Portland that, is larger than the 3,000 square feet that the residential info program legalized across the city. This is in a zone, where this light touch, density, duplex was already allowed prior to the residential infilt project.

[30:14] the the rates of construction in Portland. have been somewhat higher than Minneapolis. there have been about 400 units built under the red residential infill program. Those include also a to use, which, were their rules, were adjusted under these new reforms. Again, I would say, proponents of this info construction. we're hoping to see more in Portland. It's early days so hard to say what will happen going forward. But so far I would not point to either Portland or Minneapolis as policy environments that really unleash a lot of new infilt construction. They're they're marginal changes that are going to have very gradual effects on their cities housing supply.

[31:12] I'll turn now to Pelosi's Park, which I mentioned is a small town in Bergen County, New Jersey. It's right across the Hudson River from Manhattan and Palestin's Park has had 2 family zoning since the town initially adopted a zoning ordinance. They just never had single family zoning Unlike much of the country. Nonetheless Palisades Park was initially developed in the forties, fifties, and sixties almost exclusively with small detached single family houses on 5,000 square foot lots, even though duplexes were legal all along. But as housing demand and land prices began steeply rising in northern New Jersey and the 19 nineties. Through today we've seen tons of duplex construction. that looks something like this. It's a really interesting

[32:11] town. I'd highly recommend going there on on Google Street View and checking out these duplexes that you'll see on just about every block. It also has a really thriving main street relative to other towns in this area of Bergen County. I would argue, because it's been so receptive to population growth and new construction relative to its neighbors. And here you can see, like what it a typical mid-century house looks like in Palisades Park relative to the duplex next door, and you can see that in addition to adding an additional unit a duplex in Pallis eight's Park adds a lot of square footage. Typically each side of a new duplex is more square feet than the single family house. It replaced. so home builders here are guests adding units, but even more so.

[33:12] They are adding more square feet, and I would argue that, allowing both more units and more square feet to be built relative to what's on the ground is essential for getting this 2 to 4 unit construction, and in significant numbers to that point. So they don't have a square footage limit or a formula for 2 places can be fairly large phones. They can be quite large. Yes, Policy Park does not have an far limit. They do require 5 foot size setbacks. and they also have a height limit, I believe, of 35.

[34:00] I think it's 35 feet, speaking off the top of my head there, so there is an effective limit on how large the structure can be. and as I said, the whole town is almost exclusively 5,000 square foot lots, and basically their restrictions work out to a 5,000 square foot duplex as what's allowed to be built, and what almost always does get built. So we're talking about 2,500 square feet on each side, plus almost always a 2 car garage for each side. and I can fill up a lot of a lot that's what. Yes, they do they fill up a lot of Okay, Thank you. Sure a great study. came out today from David Garcia and his colleagues at the Turner center. David actually put me in touch with you all. so i'll send you a link to their study as follow up.

[35:03] but it includes this great quote from a builder who's building this type of light touch, density, construction, and San Diego, and what he says is the huge factor of the uptake of housing in San Diego is their culture of Yes. and i'd argue that that is that culture of Yes, to light, touch, density, construction is equally as important as those specific rules on the books that determine specifically what's legal to be built. and we can see that in Palestine's Park, with this example here, where if a site is for some reason going to make it difficult to stay within the 35 foot height limit that the town has for duplexes. They allow home builders to dig down their driveways. as we see in this example here, so it's easy to build a

[36:02] duplex on any site in Palisades Park. With these a large duplex units that we see here. Even if the rules on paper might make it seem like a specific site is going to to make it difficult to build that duplex the culture of Yes, toward these duplexes specifically in Palisades Park mean that the the planners and elected officials there are going to make it work. and relative to Minneapolis or Portland, the duplexes in Palest States Park have been transformative in terms of their housing stock, and the amount of population growth that the town has accommodated. Their amount of duplexes has roughly doubled from 1,990 to 2,020 relative to their stock of single family houses. During this time period Palisades Park has permitted

[37:03] duplex units at a rate of about 5% of its single family housing stock from 1990. So far Portland has been permitting residential infilt projects at a rate of about 0 point 0 5 of its current single family housing stock. So if we want to try to put those in apples to Apple's terms is permitting about a 100 times as many duplexes. relative to its single family housing stock compared to Portline Question. Sure. Is that enough supply to put downward pressure on housing prices. It seems unlikely, but i'd be curious to know. The answer is. Yeah, it's a great question, and i'll say no for the Palisades Park case, but it's a a very small town in northern New Jersey, within the New York City City Metropolitan area. So it's really

[38:07] it it's it's not. It's a drop in the bucket relative to their regional need for housing, I would say, if all of the suburbs of New York City we're permitting like touch density development, like Policies Park, the affordability environment would be much better than it is today. relative to its neighbors. New construction in Palisades Park is less expensive, because each new side of a duplex is taking up a lot less land than a new single family house in a neighboring jurisdiction, where that's all that's allowed to be built. One other palace it's park fact that i'll point out relative to affordability is in 1990 before this duplex construction really took off. They had the highest effective property tax rate of the the of all of their neighboring jurisdictions. Today they have the lowest.

[39:10] because, as more households are sharing fixed infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, other public services, Each household doesn't need to contribute as much in property taxes. Now i'll turn to the the Houston example that I mentioned. and Houston has no use zoning, so they've never had anything like single family zoning, but they do have minimum lot size requirements. but in 1,998, within the city's I 6 10 loop which kind of defines Center Houston. They reduced minimum Watt sizes from 5,000 square feet down to 1,400 square feet. Then, based on the success of that, they expanded those smaller minimum lot sizes to cover the entire city.

[40:08] and again, like Palisades Park. This has been transformative for housing development. In Houston. These townhouses, which they they call townhouses in Houston, but they're actually usually detached. have been built in huge numbers in many parts of the city. About 40,000 of them have been built in whole. You can see they have. They come in lots of different sizes and designs. Here's an example of a detached legal family house that was replaced by 8 townhouses. So again, this minimum W. Size reform in Houston generally makes it possible to add both a lot of units and a lot of square footage when it's replacing older single family houses, and it's it's proven to be a really attractive option for home builders and home buyers there.

[41:10] Whereas a lot of recent talk of reform has focused on allowing more units per lot like in Minneapolis, allowing 2 to 4, you or 2 or 3 units on previously single family lots. The Houston reform has made it possible to build more fee simple single family housing. So it doesn't have that component of addressing the historic evils of of single family zoning. But again, Houston never had that that type of land use regulation. In the first place, one attractive approach of the reducing the minimum lot sizes relative to allowing 2 to 4 units per lot. Is it means that each townhouse is just owned by its owner, Whether that's an investor or an owner occupant, there's no need for Condos or

[42:12] any other type of of ownership structure. the New Jersey example of Palestine's Park is probably at the extreme end of laws that are friendly to Condos, and I'm, not an expert in condo law, but from my understanding, Colorado is at the other extreme end of laws that make condos really unattractive to build because of condo defect law in the State. So I think that given Boulders limited influence in and State Condo law Allowing for lot splits or smaller lot, development is one way the the city can encourage and fill development.

[43:01] whereas building, say 2 to 4 unit condos might not be as as feasible under Condo under Colorado's current condo laws. and one very clear trend in this slight touch. Density, development is that in more expensive places and places with higher price to rent ratios like boulder. This new construction of 2 to 4 unit housing is not likely to work as rentals. It's in Portland, for example, almost always built as condos. So i'll just wrap up with 3 points that have become really clear to me and studying this type of development across the country. The zoning details really matter. So in Minneapolis it's not just allowing more units per lot that will lead to a lot of construction. It's also allowing structures that make that redevelopment attractive

[44:01] policymaker intent matters. so it's essential to have planners and policymakers who are willing to get to a Yes, when home builders are proposing this this type of project. and then the ownership structure matters. it's not likely that a rental duplex is going to make sense to build as a new construction in boulder and condo law makes it difficult to turn it. Say a duplex into condos in Colorado. So I think that looking toward structures that are are very similar. on paper that are but that are able to be owned as fee simple is one way that this type of construction will be more attractive in Colorado as a whole.

[45:00] happy to take any more questions that you all have. That that was excellent, and we were so grateful you could join us. It's really it. illuminating. First of all, you're dead on about construction defects in Colorado. But there is. I have just depressed production. you know. When you think of that, it's like the first step of the first place. I certainly did when I was 31 years old. This is condo. It's not a single family home. And then you kind of get some appreciation that keep going up, and that that kind of ladder is just It's here in Colorado. you know. There's been some reform, but not enough to make a huge difference. My question about the production of You know there is some of that happening here in Boulder, but it still tends to be a really high price point

[46:07] like millions of dollars. And you see any branch of that affordability gap. i'm using the strategies because that seems to be I mean a real barrier, you know. It's cheaper than a single. It's still way beyond affordable for school feature. you know a normal person. So what do you think? Yeah, so in places that have really severe affordability problems like Boulder does. I I mean there, there's no easy answer to get to drastically lower cost construction, especially when we're talking about light touch, density. If we were talking about allowing for much larger apartment buildings or something like that in boulder, it would be a different story. But again, within these typologies that Aren't going to have huge effects on how their neighborhoods look.

[47:06] there's just no way to make market rate, new construction and boulder of light touch density that's at a price point affordable to a middle income. house. that, said these reforms certainly stack up so I think it can absolutely be a part of a solution to housing affordability in boulder and in the the broader region in Houston. there's a just entirely different culture to housing construction. so in in many ways it's not not a good comparison to boulder at all. But, I think it's interesting that the city of Houston has a Median House price below the National Median. In spite of decades of above average population, growth, and economic growth.

[48:05] It's these townhouses are are part of that. but also it's acceptance to all types of construction. Hmm. Curious as to why Houston. because I don't even know once. My impression is that they really have an affordable portability problem compared to the coast or older housing team, quite an affordable there it certainly is. Yeah. But they decided to do this. General. Was that more about trying to build up around transit or some other? We it was. It's a been a mix of reasons. Actually, one big reason is that policymakers there are always concerned about affordability, and that's why they have been able to stay affordable. So one big reason for the the minimum wage reform was to reduce development pressures and the the lowest cost parts of the city that we're starting to see.

[49:05] some new construction coming in, and policymakers were getting concerned that those most affordable parts of the city would see new price pressures, so they wanted to be sure that development was feasible in more expensive parts of the city. I think there any other questions part. Well, so it's funny. I I went to high school to town over from Palisades Park. And so yeah, quite familiar with it. And I, you know the funny part is, if you look at those duplexes, what happens is you have, you know, really kind of on a auspicious single family homes there that are real, you know, kind of local homes for people that you know are from there, and then you'd see them get knocked down these giant duplexes that are incredibly gaudy and actually incredibly expensive.

[50:00] And and it would actually also cause I mean the the traffic issues and parking, and everything over there is is pretty so it's kind of a a paradoxical reality that that you see over there because it is just jammed with these giant duplexes, where either side is bigger than the home that was there beforehand that was usually from somebody who's been there for generations. So But the the other thing that it just jumps out to me when we're talking about that is, you did show that the slide with Portland, and even though the wording was small, and my eyes are bet I did see how they do have some requirements for affordability restrictions when you're going to. I think it was. And to me that's the kicker here is that if you had something, you know the 2 things, if it just being zoning, would be either. A. When you have something like a use for your an impact fee. So if you go over 2,500 at that point in time. You're starting to pay a premium which can help fund

[51:02] affordable housing elsewhere, right? Instead of just saying, Well, you can have. You know, 2 sides here. But you know there is no restriction on price or affordability, or anything like that with the Powerpoint model. And Secondly, when you have something that says, if you want to build additional units, then maybe even something like the first unit might be market rate. But the second, third, fourth, etc. Are you restricted at? You know, whatever kind of level? And then to me I saw, I mean as a economist. Do you see that. having some more promise than just saying, we're gonna allow more zoning more density through the zoning, You know. You can take a single family, turn it dual family without those restrictions, because I could tell you from PAL Park. Lacking those restrictions, means that you're ended up with more expensive homes and a lot more impacts. Yeah, lots of great questions in there. So Portland does allow for larger 4 plexes and 6 flexes. If those

[52:06] if part of those new units are below market rate. just as you said in Portland, I believe that is only being used by nonprofit builders. who have some type of subsidy that makes that feasible. which you know, I think is is wonderful when it, when it does work out as a whole. Not very many of this light touch density is getting built in Portland. It's really a a minuscule number of below market rate. Light touch density units that are being built there. But I would absolutely talk with nonprofit builders, and Portland talk with habitat and others about what type of model would help them do more of what they're doing make their dollars go further.

[53:01] I've studied inclusionary zoning in the Baltimore Washington region, where it has the longest history of anywhere in the country. And what I found here is that mandatory inclusionary zoning programs that require developers to set aside a certain percentage of units at a the low market rate price have actually had the effect of raising the Median prices relative to localities that Don't do that so in our region it's acting as a tax on housing construction, certainly benefiting those households that get into those below market rate units, but at the expense to up to the Median home buyer, who doesn't get one of those inclusionary zoning units. I am much more in favor of programs that cannot result in this tax on housing construction, because, of course, more housing. Abundance is what we want to see ultimately to address these affordability problems. so whether that means making programs that work for nonprofit builders

[54:12] or programs that are funded by the city or by the State to make those below market rate units feasible rather than requiring housing the housing industry to make those units itself our. you know, Colin. So that was fascinating. What? initially, I think you began with Minneapolis that right that showing where you had reformed. They had reformed their single accuracy zoning. but it didn't really result in in the didn't have the results that they wanted is that? And I see that reflected in in boulder, in our

[55:04] and a very recent a to you reform, which is okay. We we want some made to use. So we're going to. We're going to change our policies. But you don't really go far enough. You don't get to a culture of Yes, and consequently it it trickles along. So now we're out to embar on another round of 80 reforms. Is there any commonality in successful hotels getting to a call through Yes, does. That? Is that driven by the political body? The city council, is that driven by a strong mayor? Are there? You know. What what is it that that allows for this kind of a greater risk taking and not trying to ensure that every outcome is somehow perfect, that you know there's going to be if you get to a culture of Yes, then there's going to be some things that don't work out just perfectly. I would imagine.

[56:04] So, as a question, is there any commonality amongst among successful locals? in terms of political will that That, you've seen how to get to that call drove. Yes. that's a fantastic question among the political science literature. there is some indication that, as you said, a strong mayor is likely to result in a locality that is more open to housing construction, because the mayor is representing the city as a whole rather than one specific neighborhood. So in general, mayors are more receptive to housing construction than ward based city council system where they are representing smaller geographies.

[57:01] There's also evidence that, at large city councils are more receptive to housing construction than those city Council W. Where each counselor is representing a smaller geographic area. But I think there's also just so much that is more difficult to synthesize, like in San Diego relative to other California cities. There has been this drastic change in their openness to housing construction, both multi family and like touch density. I think it may have been due to a mayor there who made that a big priority. But I think it's also due to like I don't know something in the water that is different in places like San Diego or Houston, relative to some of their peers.

[58:01] Thanks. Related to question Emily. I think some states in Colorado may be moving in this direction are looking at this from the State wide level and taking measures to, you know, potentially real term override of open control. so you know. it's for the to go to everyone in the State to have it tend to in certain places, and that can be restricted at the level. Is, is any of that being implemented? And you see that actually happening in local communities as a result of that State wide leadership. Yes, certainly it's happening. I give the examples of where that's happening with light touch, density in Oregon, California, and Maine. None of those laws are leading to big changes in terms of what's getting built at least so far.

[59:01] but where we are seeing more changes that are leading to significant amounts of construction is with statewide accessory dwelling unit laws. and this is an area where California has been a leader, I think, because they have such an extreme affordability problem affecting so much of the State and the State is, has passed a series of I don't know probably 20 laws over a time period of 3 decades that have made a to use easier to build and chipped away at local barriers to adu construction. And I believe about 60,000 ads have been built across the State as a whole. since these laws that that really started making them easier to build in. 2,017 have taken place so, and and that's

[60:00] again. as in the the Portland example, this is a place where State law and local policy can work together, so San Diego has gone further than what State law requires. to make a to use easier to build. and they are seeing a lot of of construction at them. and I I was directed to locations like transit served areas or areas that already have come back development with existing infrastructure. There have been bills introduced that would legalize the transit Oriented development in California. I think. Also New Jersey has had some bills introduced along those lines in California there are certain like rules about a do you? Parking that very

[61:00] depending on how close the property is to a transit? Stop. In general, I am much more optimistic about state policy that sets the limits on what single family zoning can look like, whether that's requiring 2 to 4 units to be allowed on single family lots, whether that's requiring smaller lot development and areas that are are served by the necessary utilities. rather than a statewide approach to transit oriented development. I just think that is going to prove really hard to do well at the state level. A. And i'm a huge supporter of of trans oriented development and multi-family generally. and it could very well be proven wrong by a state policy that that makes that much easier to build, but I haven't it so far.

[62:02] Okay, do you have time for a couple of more questions. I have one more that i'm going to turn it over to What would you say about a balance of carriage and sticks, and his regulations, either at the local or the they? What are some examples of. Again, this is an area where California has really been experimenting because of the severity of their crisis. and they have, a very, very complicated system. called the reg regional housing needs allocation where each locality in the State has certain quotas for the low market rate, housing and market rate housing. and should they fail to meet zoning requirements that would make these quotas possible to build. those localities will lose certain types of State funding, and in some cases also lose their zoning authority entirely. That's happened in Santa Monica.

[63:06] where enormous apartment buildings are being proposed, because the city is out of compliance with these State laws. on the one hand, I I like this approach. It's a very in theory. Market driven approach where housing can be directed to where it's needed most. It's also a very expensive approach in terms of staff time and resources of figuring out all of these quotas, and how zoning could be adjusted to meet these quotas, and then enforcing these quotas. so i'm not. I I guess i'm on the fence about whether the carrot and stick approach is better, or a state setting limits on the extent of local authority to limit housing. Construction is better. there's another approach next door in Utah, where localities can choose from a menu of options

[64:14] of different reforms to allow a little bit more housing construction. in order to remain eligible, for I believe state transportation grants so it's a much less complicated way of executing that carrot and stick approach. It's still in the process of being implemented. So it's too early to say so far. How? That's working in Utah. Thank you. I think they'll add some questions. Yeah, thanks for a great talk super interesting. It totally lit up my brain. despite the fact that i'm i'm homesick with Covid, I'll try not to be to to lose my train of thought here, or it delirious, or anything like that. But

[65:02] one thing I want to say is that When I think about light touch density, I love that phrase I I we use. I've usually used a gentle infill. But light touch density is great. I think I think one of the lightest possible touches of density ways of doing that is to is to do better about sharing housing boulder has. Actually, we had another article in the in the daily camera the local newspaper this year that that boulders population has been declining over the last 5 years, despite whatever new units have come online. this is due to a you know, a demographic trend of of people aging in place and large homes. So we have. We have lots and lots of single family homes that are are nearly vacant. You might say. You know one or 2 people living in a large house.

[66:00] and to me this seems like there's just lots of opportunity for those houses to to have more people in them roommates, or, you know, different different kinds of the intergenerational family arrangements, or whatever. So I guess I guess just like one starting point is I I would love for someone to to hand me a table for for Boulder City of Boulder that said. here's how many rooms there are in the city. And here's how many of them are occupied. And and just to start off with that data. And and I I just wanted to ask you a question. Did this. Do you know, if anyone is collecting that sort of data, and you know anyone who's thinking about policy around increasing people's willingness to share housing. Fantastic point. I think you are exactly right. And by allowing more people to occupy an existing structure. That's one way where we can get to, as you say, more light in touch density, but without any of the concerns about the aesthetics.

[67:08] or the cost of new construction. It's like the cheapest way to add housing it's it's free. did Boulder recently reform it's occupancy. No that's it. Yeah, the occupancy laws are still in place. it's. It does seem to be something on city council's radar to to reform the the voters voted in in an odd year against occupancy reform. It was kind of a blanket. I don't remember it was a charter amendment, or if it was a statute or whatever. But yeah, we we we came up short on that. But but but there's a bigger issue around. There's just there's that. We've just normalized living alone. you know, and and it's just an expectation that if I have a big house

[68:02] and I can afford to live there by myself. It's it's okay. And there's not nothing to see here. And so anyways, I just I just was curious. If if you know of any efforts around this that are back it. The the only efforts I'm aware of are the the Occupancy law reform, which I think is most active in Colorado, in Denver and Boulder, relative to other parts of the country. I think there are also a lot of land use. Attorneys who think occupancy. Laws are unconstitutional because they are not a regulation of land use. They are a regulation of who is using land. i'm not a lawyer, but I know that that's a a controversial that, to say the least, type of regulation. and then I would just a as far as data. i'll try to track down that that bedroom statistic relative to occupants. I think that should be answerable through census data.

[69:09] and I would just add that there are so many rules that make it less attractive to share space than it needs to be. for example, I imagine Boulder like much of the country, has a rule saying that a single family house can only have one stove unless it has permitted a to you. So loosening up this. This is like such minutia that's being regulated inside someone's house. Can you have a second? 220 rule outlet? Loosening up those types of rules can make it more attractive. And perhaps start to change that culture in terms of whether or not people want to to share their space a little bit more

[70:01] obviously. New York City, just before Covid. on the subway they had signs up showing like an old lady's shoes, and then a young woman's shoes, and they actually have a city agency that helps match up young people to all their people and the over. You would have an apartment that they wanted to rent a room, and the city actually facilitated matching of roommates in that sort of situation. I I love that idea. An arp is a huge advocate of accessory dwelling units and lots of other land use reforms that make that type of intergenerational living and aging in place. a more feasible option. There's a there's a nonprofit i'm aware of called. I believe it's called sharing housing

[71:02] that it gives all kinds of advice about how to find roommates. It's it's mostly geared towards older people. I think. But anyways, they just started Mention that. so I had another comment, and that is Another category of light touch density that i'm a big fan of is something a good friend of mine in in city of Boulder is working on. He's this is David Adamson, for those in the room is is a. Is a housing pilot where his goal is to is to leave the footprint of the structure at as it would be is, you know. So in in in Bo there's lots of examples where there's a 5,000 square foot house for a single family home, and he wants to like. Take something that looks exactly like that. except have it be micro condos. And as a way to address parking, and you know there's there's covenants in place with shared shared vehicles, and car, you know, car share.

[72:07] and he's kind of he's kind of been pushing through a housing pilot initiative, and has just done a gargantuan amount of work, but it's the red tape and the bureaucracy of of this effort have I've made it difficult. He's right now. He's working on a on a co-housing cooperative model, because that's that's an option that's available on both of the micro condo option is not this kind of a new thing anyways I just wanted to put that on your radar. I have your email address, and i'd like to send you the link to his project because it's really It's really kind of an eye opening it's much more than a thought exercise, if you know. If someone who wants to help fund the construction, i'm sure he would look. I love some help, but anyways, I I just want to put that out there, as you know it's it's not just about building town homes and and triplexes. There's you know. I I think there's there's creative ways to keep the aesthetic similar. But allow for you know, single people to to live with a very small footprint in that in that kind of neighborhood.

[73:12] Please do. I? I would love to see that great great Hey, Jerry. i'll I'll be quick great presentation. 2 things you're You're You're kind of about the the zoning of the control. The properties, I think, is spot on one of the state of the city, said, oh, you know we we don't need necessarily to have single families in a single family homes on Lots the zoning controls and drives. What can happen there? So I think the details of the zoning our our critical secondly just on the street in Denver, about 25 months out of here in Northwest. Denver has done a phenomenal job in my opinion of taking small single family home lots and areas like the Highlands Sunny Side, Sloane's Lake. I don't know if you've been out seen any of that, and and redeveloped older, smaller, single family home on smaller watts

[74:07] into all kinds of different things I would encourage, if you ever get out here again, to go to time around and and and take some pictures because they'll be great for your presentation, showing what can be done on on the 5,000 square foot. Not by way of row homes, stacked flats, all different kinds of things, and it's it's reinvigorating those neighborhoods, and it's great and that's just down the street, and then you can all go see it in touch and look at it. And the people that live there think it's wonderful. but anyway, otherwise great presentation Thanks so much. I'm. originally from Grand Junction. So I know Colorado well. and Denver slot houses are are definitely something that I've come across, and they're very similar to how Houston townhouses get built with a shared driveway, and then houses oriented toward that driveway. I I think they're a great model that really works for home builders and home buyers.

[75:11] So anybody have any other questions for Emily? She's been really generous to the Did Lynn have a question. I see I see a hand race as well. I you know. I also encourage you to come through Boulder next time you're visiting home you got it all there. We got any use we got. I think we have tax credit projects. we have 10 cities. we have pretty much everything but tiny, and it's still incredibly unaffordable here, but we have made some right what? It what is the our goal? 15% for what I was saying, how far we got like 8% 8.1 8 point, one. So there're. And you know, we're all we're all going against the tide. But we appreciate your help

[76:00] and really appreciate your time likewise. Thank you all so much for for having me and for your great questions. I'll definitely follow up with the Turner Center study, and hopefully also the the data on unoccupied bedrooms. Thank you so much, Emily. She was great that it was really really good. I wanted. I didn't want to keep it. What city did she say where she was talking about the inclusionary? So many fees she'd mentioned that now to say in Washington, the Washington DC area. That's where, or even with the cuisine or zoning the medium price. What up? Because the higher end is higher. Right? Exactly. You know. I'd like to do okay, and some discussion about absolutely.

[77:05] I've looked up helicopter's part what she was talking. And yeah, it's expensive there. And there are a lot of ugly New York City, and you know they have some housing like 3 bedroom for 6, $700,000. So it's actually not so bad, so maybe it's only 20,000 people. Oh, I started. I started looking at the street Manhattan, that school up I mean 20,000 people in about a square mile. Trust me. Yeah, that's that's where people would rather paved their entire yard. They have to go graphs the same water right anybody hear anything that you know we could discuss further the future policy recommendations start to

[78:04] I mean a big. The big take away from me was. if you just change single around with all the other ratios Right? The doubles in the details of the if the state or city just says, oh, you know no more single family is. Only I mean that doesn't that that in a sorry doesn't get you there, I have to incentivize people who own single family home from a single family hold on a one line, if it's centralized them to redevelop into complexes, or whatever right and and that is all comes down to the right, and Portland's a small city with I can't believe that 25 and you don't have to drive 20 min down the road. You'll see? So well. Yeah. Yeah. So you don't want to talk about you. You have a sunny stacks. Yeah, different country, you know. We they're trying to get how our compact development. Yeah. And they have a good format for it with their street food and the small

[79:08] they're not getting the results. All are actually, I don't know what percent of our lots are large, but those of a lot of. So we don't have that that perspective. I mean, you can still build a big at all through. Yeah, Absolutely. It's like we're based here, right? So it's the size of a lot right in terms of how you can go right. That's why I was asking about that cap about, if the like it 2,500 worth of cap on that, I mean. That's really that's Well, that's very restrictive. Well, here it's proportional, right? So I think that's mainly in terms of North Pole not to pick on one area. But that happens to be an area that still has a slightly rural able to it. There are a lot. but I can tell you the firsthand experience. If you want to take those larger lots in front of them, as well as to build more than one big house on those. It's just that it's not booked upon

[80:03] favorably. You It isn't. I don't change it. That's politics. Yeah, that's there. You go. everyone else any big takeaways. Another question that I don't want to bring it up. Yep. She missed it. Okay. She didn't send an email to him. It's. Yeah. And I'm: sorry you miss the open comment, but you can send an email to have, and we'll respond to it. Any other big takeaways from have board members by by tearing down all this question by tearing down old houses on a 5,000 for a lot.

[81:04] and rebuilding a duplex. Are we really? Is it getting more affordable? I don't know. Question. I don't know if it is for our well, it back up one stuff that all 1950 bungalow that's all all over. all the you know you. You turn out. You have an existing 1,000 score for bungalow and old North Pole right on a 7,000 square foot lot right now. That's worth a 1 million bucks, even if it's not very nice. It's a 1 million bucks great if we allow a city. Take that 1,000 score from bungalow on a on 5 to 6,000 for a lot and allow a duplex. You got a 1 million bucks for the and even if whatever whatever, each side of the duplex is now 1,500 square feet

[82:00] right, a 3 bedroom, 2 duplex times 2. So now you have 3,000 square feet. where a 1,000 square foot house used to be that 1,000 square foot house was a 1 million dollars. I haven't done the math, but I almost can guarantee you that each side of that new 1,500 square foot duplex is going to be worth it's going to sell for a lot more than a 1 million dollars. right right, Terry. I think you just need to look at You just need to look at the Highlands in Denver. You need to look at Sloane's Lake, I mean. I i'll admit I had a client they took a lot of. They took a lot of those old bungalows that used to be over there. They popped them with duplexes. You'll see blocks full of these really tall, skinny zoom like throughout those neighborhoods. And they're incredibly expensive where those neighborhoods used to be a lot of local people, a lot of ethnic people that live there for a long time maintained it. Now it's it's it's, you know, completely Booji, right? And and so, and that that's the reality of it. And I can tell you again.

[83:06] growing up right next to Palestine Park, and every single town's got that same kind of scenario in that area. And what happens is you take that little house. She showed the picture of the little house. and then you knock it down. You have these 2 giant Cody duplexes, which are brand new, which are each are more expensive than that little house. And so it's kind of not getting the result that you want to get. That's what i'm saying. If you're going to do something like that, you have to say, at the very least that second unit. So if you have one house and you're going to build 2 units, maybe you say the first unit could be Mercury the second year it has to be due restricted. If you don't do it, You're just creating more marketable market rate density that's going to go with the the flow of you know, incredible expenses. That's just the way that it's. It's operating here in Denver and back back East as well, and that was my point at the very least. You know to me, if you have a cap, is 2,500 on a single family home, but that you say, if you want to build 4,500, you have to put all this money into a housing program at the very least. Then you're you're kind of

[84:14] proportionally taxing additional sized homes and additional, you know, density implications. But to just allow duplexes by itself is not the panacea. I have a modest proposal, and I think that you know we're going to vote on to that just to the pot maybe it's actually more productive to be continuing to presume the strategy. because, you know, you get your big house, of course, a lot of money. Then you get a small you that that a younger person or someone with limited income. Grant Doesn't. In a way it addresses a missing middle, because it provides income for home more, but it's also providing some housing where it's that is just creating more expensive phones that are.

[85:01] you know. Do that a lot instead of one on a lot? I agree we can. We can talk more about that. I think about this as an example. You know that trail had development. It was originally, proposed just going back 15 and 60 to be a dense development. You know. Town home. with a variety of housing, and we got built or what 2528 single what if, what if each new home was required to have an AD? You? You wouldn't be requiring each person to become a landlord? But they have the option and years from now someone else owns the house. They decide they want over to the apartment. It's there it's set up. It's got the extra 220 outlet, and the bathroom, and the and all that, and you know, like I in the house, because they'll they have a guest week. Nobody, nobody.

[86:00] This would be all over the room. I you can get at an attainable level in our town is really really hard right? The the path to it for as much as people don't like it, or whatever it is. the rental product that's how it it's not ideal, but that's how you can ford live and roller without making a Bazillion dollars. It's my friend. I I know funny story anecdote. I know. Person can afford to buy what now it's. or a place that there for you didn't like living there. So I ended up renting the house they bought in in one where it was, and then came back to Boulder and rented. So they basically got ownership in in the they got ownership for the help we can afford to have out of tenant that made sense, and then we move back to all right. I know that's very common. I can. but but I don't see

[87:00] I don't see a path to especially what happened last 2 years to getting That's bigger discussion. Well. okay. I'd like to. We need a a subcommittee. We have our working group to to look into this whole issue a little bit more deeply. I'd be happy to be. I'd like to Can I say one thing I like the channel i'd like to. I don't know if you can hear me. Oh, great I'd like to channel David Adamson one more time and just say that his his model, for, you know, taking taking the 1,000 square foot home, building something large there. you know, dividing it by 10 does come out with, you know, pencils out to an an affordable for sale kind of a unit. So we've done that in Boulder I mean

[88:01] on North Street. Is that an affordable deal on North Street, right between Broadway and Ninth on the north. So it's not a portal. They're expensive. I like that. They kind of stack up. Yeah, I kind of like that. That's kind of what you're talking about. So is is taking something. You see, family, and they can a duplicate part of the family. We take a single family, bigger lot and 4, 5, or 6 units. That each one is what I put. Then you run into the parking problem, and you run into 5 single 5 multi-family whatever for sale for red next to a big single family and all those. Yeah. I guess I just want to say it's it's it's one possibility in the toolbox. obviously shit sharing so in in David's model there's a shared living space upstairs. Great great kitchen, grand dining room. That's not for that's not going to be for everybody right, and and have and sharing cars.

[89:03] you know. That's I take certain kinds of pro-social city dwellers to to to live with that sort of thing. But we should have those kinds of options for the people that would would thrive in that kind of environment. Yeah, I like what you're saying. I and my main point is, you know, the Minneapolis sorry for got like headlines. nationally and certainly in the planning trading magazines. But you know what we're hearing is it's? It's a lot, I and you know they may be sweeping reform things are. you know we're not really seeing what you're producing what we might want here, so we need to be looking at. So all of the scenarios that we made up. You know they may be brand new thinking of something that happened in a while ago. Maybe the late 90 S. Said that the the Irish Hollow yeah, which is a a bigger and field development. That's totally 10, a group something.

[90:00] And you know they did a lot with the affordability. really with it's like. So I mean, if you, if you go to a single family home there it's like 700 square feet, and then there are at and there I I don't know if they're deep restricted or not, you know. They're like microwave homes or 3,000, you know they just did a lot of the variation within the site some degree, and I would say Irish, how about it? It's a precursor to many of the installments that have happened. Junction north Broadway. When you have a lot of land you can do all that stuff. I think she's talking about it When you have a 5,000 square foot that's got a 1,000 square foot house on it. What can you do with that? Because it's 2 different things when you have 2, 3 acres by Bakers laws can happen. You can really get Iris Halloween. I don't think arrow holds great. but you know there's not a lot of those, but any even though ironically right, that south of Safeway there I saw that concept through. You come through right out the safeway by Irish Hollow. There's that are the complex that they're coming in with a bunch of micro units and townholes. But that's on the other side. That's that's the old sport Authority: yeah.

[91:11] save way. Just immediately adjacent to the same way to the south. Kind of behind the donuts and in Taco Bell, and all over there. Yeah, we're along the creek. It's it's, it's it's it's it's it's it's it's runs north South Lenwood Court used to be a call to the that so when you drive behind, discount, tired to go into save way, you pass through this kind of call de sack. and then you wouldn't say that you go to the safeway parking lot, those terrible terribly, you know. I I I mean they're almost for some people now, and and but they, this is the building because we're we're getting rid of

[92:01] older, probably very inexpensive rental product. And I don't know how many. There are 100 units, maybe something like that. and we're going to be replacing it with new or nice or smaller. You need to something more like 70 replacing with 100 and 40. I believe that. That's that's that's a good of which 80, 80 or 90 are our efficiency. You'll use efficiency living units plus this world town houses. It it isn't it? Well, okay, it's going to be quiet about it. But we're we're supposed to review that last night they got boss. They got June third. It's a super interesting project. It's cool. Yeah, it's very interesting. And the bigger thing that they've done is the current concept plan is through underground. Go ahead and spend the money on underground and parking but that gives them both the space to build up and the open space. They have a pool they have with this big central courtyard, and they have open space that makes it feel like a community cuts out all these curb cuts and everything, and they have. They have one entrance into the garage. That's it. It's it's it's great.

[93:14] We're sorry. Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion around that project around decoupling the carping car cart with them. We're gonna see. We're gonna see about that. We we they haven't come through planning yet. So how we got off on the tangent was, we have a lot of land, and we can do a lot of mixed different types of affordable, not for a big small of that. When you have a $5 worth of the house on it, what can you do? And it sounds like tearing that old house down and building 2, the new duplex doesn't help for equality. A whole lot. You get more people living there, which I guess has no benefits, but it doesn't get cheaper.

[94:01] Yeah. So again, my point is, we could. It's more affordable. Oh. and the single family been building one big thing. Oh, yeah, I mean. So keep in mind that the the conference supplying goal is a diversity of house types. So what you're saying is, you turn it on that 1,000. You go a 4,000, you know. 2, 3,004 or 2 flexes of each side is so. Yeah, yeah, it's more affordable than the and my point of we could draft a recommendation. The Council that says, you know, allow for. and it's not accomplished what we're really trying to get to Someone would be, I think we need to be part of a subcommittee. But these are some other ideas that we could talk about before our next meeting.

[95:02] Be happy to do that it is needed. Volunteer. Yeah, we we should. We can. Is it in like a what i'm on a letter up? Well, we tap into some of the we got little need, but our Council talked about it. There's very. you know, maybe allowing for some black splitting, and that is only effective in reducing products about it. providing true affordability. So what else could we propose? That will actually get to it cool? I think that's it. You know It's like a quantum physics question. I think we're Philip saying you got to build smaller. more smaller units. I I I think that a a 106,000 square foot line to. If If if you want to find a

[96:02] a starter you can move into. You know they they just don't exist, and we're not building any of that. So to to build, like what you said, that that the the overall planning goal is to have a wide variety of power. We are not building anything in that 1,500 in ownership. It's not building it at all. and so, if you were dividing land cost, and as hard to say. Oh, that's that's affordable. A 1 million dollar 1,500 square foot. Oh. one third of the price. Well, it's actually it is. It is more affordable. And you know a a young Google engineer married one kid and wanting to it's like, Well, she is not. This doesn't fall into our Ami classifications and anything else

[97:01] it it is. It is someone that it has the opportunity to own all within that their particular budget that might be 150,000 family household income in here. But it's it works, it works. it it works better than 1 4,000 square foot. Oh, yeah. how do we do that? Cool with that? Well, one way and the to make in that that a recent planning board meeting pointed out, and correctly. that was confirmed by Staff that Yes, our code. if you, if you, if you did, yeah. somehow get permission to go all right on. They want something else for a lot that your initial. these. or multiplied by this 4 times one it would be for a single, for a single.

[98:04] We do not we? You know we do not give any allowance for for the fact that you're You're building up, you flex or private. So if we go forward with policy that that is going to be more permissive. We're going to get to. Yes, more often we still have that we actually have to adjust beads to make it so it's his tool. That's good. Certainly a piece of the pie piece of the equation for sure. I could talk more about that. Okay? After this. Okay? Well, I i'm still looking for ideas, and how we can teach this out. work towards drafting. Some recommendations doesn't have to have in the next meeting, but you know It's kind of it's it's

[99:02] How do we? I want to use the word dens. But how do we create right flexes and 4 plexes on. How do we do that? What what has to go into doing? I think it? It's more than that. I'm planning and a call of how do we create a diversity of housing? and i'm hearing the evidence support this and you that you still might have been very expensive. That was not as expensive as a free standing doesn't. Open it still very expensive. Yeah, there's another person I mean, you could take an existing our account. and i'll end up into a diploma. So that's something. And we would talk about that more, you know, because that that was a big part of the approach, Minneapolis taking the existing housing stock and resizing it.

[100:02] I think we could. Yes, for if you could do that somehow, just lend themselves to doing that more than others. Right? But I think that's a great idea. But back to what I think we can't have full circle Here it was. We have a 1,000 for one of the 5 6,000 people back, and the options are a char it down to the 4,404 million dollar house. Me. you'll 3 1,500 square foot. or or for one, and yes, there are a 1 million dollars each, but that's still better than the 4 million dollar house. Yes, follow me. Yeah, I I agree with that. So so how do we? How do we get from for a first thing to do is to allow it. How do we get? How do we get the the hours of being to about it? You know, as as evidence by the Edu discussion

[101:05] it takes. It takes a group of motivated, enlightened citizens to push counsel. I mean, you know the whole. Id you thing it happened because of you guys, and because of that, are bolder contributing. And so it's, you know, it Hasn't happened yet, but I think it will. I think it's got momentum and and and you know it takes counsel directing staff directing the city manager directing Staff to. and of course zoom back with is this what you want for priorities? But it it just think it takes political will. and some some. I think that's a a very good opportunity to take a single family home on 6,004 foot lots and turn them into much more, you know. Let's let's talk about it. but it's totally different.

[102:02] Very well, it's getting this a lot there. increasing number of commercial size. and they're being developed for the I don't know 1012 town homes. What? It all proof seems to be specialized here. That and you know Folsom. with pearl we know. Hello. I don't see. I I'd see very expensive housing millions of dollars that have been developed there. So and you can you somehow prescribe through his own name, that this the more housing and smaller sizes to sure some level of affordability. Or what do you think? I mean? Basically, they're building 3,000, you know. car repair.

[103:04] but it's it's an opportunity to create it. More. I think it's more. Most people are still so big. J. Are they? Are they not? To our inclusionary housing ordinance? And and they are in in a 10 unit deal. They have to provide to the so right they're going to do cash, and we're getting the they but they they do the cash in blue. Yes. maybe that's not a problem that we should worry about. Maybe it's not a problem. I I don't know where we're going to have super affordable housing on Pro Street or or West, I mean, or these commercial. which you know have spectacular views. the Gold Coast. or it's hard to make it go. anyway. Okay.

[104:01] up and there. all right. That's good. You have to. I think I think the next thing was I Okay. Got a couple of ideas. and what they are. So this is a radical spin on listening sessions. But maybe we want the people that build some of this stuff to come in and talk to us about the challenges of doing it. I don't know if that's if that's that is of interest. Anybody but theoretical ideas, right? We're talking about. I mean, I here's the thing we can. We can theorize on all these issues. But when it comes to the brass tax of the people who are building it, the cost and challenges of building it, and how we get those products delivered. We're just talking about the notion of, you know. Can we take

[105:12] larger homes or homes on larger lots and split that into 2, 3, 4 units as it may be. And and really you want to hear from from the builders and the developers in terms of what the challenges are for that, and what kind of things could help facilitate that and to have it done in an affordable way. And so I think it's it's important to get, you know both sides of the story if we're talking about those things, because certainly there's a pragmatic aspect to it. So I think I would love to hear that. Yeah. we like before and share our calls. I love that idea. I I have a spin on that, and it's something may try that you will. I time ago it's pretty successful. We've had to do a forum

[106:03] that included Developers neighborhood that because some of them were Oh, yeah, and we actually sat down with them, and the developers got to say, here's how I do my work. and the neighbors were surprised to you that they didn't just print money. It was actually kind of a it was an amazing rewards if it works out well, but like oh, you actually build something, and it takes 5 years to get, you know, till the money starts flowing to replenish whatever you've loaned and put into it. Oh, you know it! Meanwhile the mark good to share with you. Well, you know. we you just don't like it when people come in and they ask this anything. Okay. we're gonna put the bike back to. You know we don't want that. But parking at traded faces our home to something like that. So it's actually quite a nice meeting of my through pricing

[107:03] kind of go somewhere, and then the next day I should always have it, and then all the development stuff so. But but my point being a good heaven. almost like her like that. We have a lot of unanswered questions. That right? I just. I don't think either side. I mean it's like anything else in political discourse these days. Now we've even decided to see each other as human being. More. Yeah. The other is part of that. I have to some grade to come by an agreement at least to understand the the other system. Part of that I I could say that you know being on a habitat for Humanity Board as well, is the fact that that that's a good example where technically they're developers. they try to do everything possible to minimize the cost of everything they do obviously right.

[108:06] But I mean, I can tell you several projects that I've handled on the habitat community board where we run into buzz saws of one sort or another, right? And and you know we especially when you have your budget minimized. it becomes incredibly hard to, succeed in getting the product done which is going to put. You know families that are in absolute need into those homes, right. And so I think maybe having something from developers from the open public section. you know, groups like habitat for humanity. Some of these other groups that that do it, you know. And Emily was mentioned in that. I think that could be a really really good Yeah. So I mean, i'm talking about Terry's approach, but I could see, actually see mixing it up 2 of it. Some neighborhood people who I I think I need to do all my developers, I mean. Just let them talk about their perspectives a little bit, and see if there can be some kind of a being in the mind that

[109:04] it's. It's not going to be for profit. But you know that'd be great. and John Coco all for 35 months. A lot of things around, and they can we can, and then we get the other side, too. I think your idea is great. Yeah, I did a session with Andy Bush a couple of years ago. talking about the almost like a kind of like between portability and all the requirements of overdes, and like you and all this stuff up, and i'm in favor of it's great, but I mean it has a lot of con. We have so many. you know, and and that's just the way it is. And it it just you want this. That's great. All this is great in and of itself. It's great, but that has consequences right? And typically that means it's more expensive.

[110:01] or somebody's got to pay for it. and and and so we're like we want this, and it's a huge priority. We all do. But the consequences over here. It goes up. Pay for that. and that's just the word that's our reality here or reality. I can't have agreement. This would be a good listening session. and I just had 1 one bit of new us to. But, Terry just said I, I don't know if it's new us. It's probably pretty blunt. but you know, for decades I feel like people people came to Sorry i'm a little short on words. the the the point I wanted to make to add to what Terry just said is that for a very long time a lot of policy was explicitly about protecting home values and making sure nothing whatever. Devalue a home.

[111:00] And so it's not just like it's unintended consequences of complicated and conflicting policies. I mean what what we have is actually kind of a a deliberate effect. You know it's it's it's the effect of being very deliberate about always protecting home values. You know we we don't. We don't say that out loud anymore, because it's just not politically palatable. But it it was it. Are you? So you don't see I I I see it differently. I think all of the Urban Service district, the blue line, all that wasn't intended to elevate home values. That was just a consequence of it. It was intended to come back city once for all. We didn't want stuff on the mountains we didn't want. We didn't want. We didn't want what all these other places did. We didn't want San Diego? We didn't want New York or whatever. so we wanted to have a compact city with clear lines and develop here and not there, and we went out. We want thousands of acres of open space to preserve it, so it didn't get built.

[112:10] The consequence of all those wonderful environmental and in positive things. The consequence of intended or intended was that values were crazy. I Don't think we went out and did all that with the idea of that's going to make all of our housing prices that maybe i'm too altruistic. So that's absolutely. I mean a a everywhere, you know. Once you mess with with you know, with restrictions there's going to be that natural reality of that the price. you know you're that's just take her with supply and demand, and you know, I I think, in in places like mountain towns and boulder where, you know, we've had a lot of those very sort of policies, and they've served very, very well on a lot of different perspectives. But this is the the one reality of it that we're facing now, which is even that whole paradox that you create a a highly desirable community by doing all those things which then

[113:10] jacks the prices up. And so I mean you see it in every single one of those communities. So there's a a very real aspect to the notion that it wasn't just to protect the value of a home. But in in community building and protecting those other values where it's not the value of the home, but the value of the community. You increase the value of the homes in the community. That's that's what the paradox that we've all of these policies have. Okay. Go back to Paul Danish and the plan and all that stuff in the seventies was that I don't. I can't speak for them, but I don't think they were sitting there going. We want to do all this because we want our housing. Well, I I don't think that was the purpose. That was what happened. But I don't think that was the intent. That's just me to all right now that's a point well taken. But so if we were on the board, when we heard the brief dish from clay, clay pong

[114:05] about the history of racial and equity, and the older planning and something no. But I did go watch the the equity, symposium and size keynote. He did the same presentation, you know, for this is, I mean. This is the national phenomenon with the Us. And a lot of it's baked into a boulder going back to its roots. Well, you know, exclusive of what he's just talking about. You know we were not exempt from types of single family zoning and exclusionary zoning that shaped a lot of American. Well, so you know we we do have some Here is what we need. Before that we need to address to I I just want to make another comment. That is

[115:02] you know there are things around light touch in fill density that will improve affordability. Improve the cohesive rest of our communities, and, you know, make our city better. And that paradox is still gonna exist, you know. Like if if we make a lot of these reforms, I I. I just really believe that the city will be better. and it's not going to make values go down or make you know things naturally more affordable. so that's kind of a good news and bad news how you know. So I think the idea needs or seasoning. But there's someone agree that generally this is a good topic for listening session. Okay, we can just decide. Think about it till the next meeting, and we can make some decision on that. We have other listening session ideas.

[116:05] Oh, that's a good one. It's good. I think one's good to start the focus on. That's what I needed. One. Oh, okay, hey? Did you pay for the matter with the staff, or you? We need to go back and just part more. Okay. so we talked about the a do discussion that we'll have January 26. So you're also you should have all received a hold your all the date for January 30 first. Thank you. and it so it's it's housing and human Services staff is. They give a an overview of inclusionary housing. How it works. What the history of it is. Just to build a certain level of knowledge, so that you can help advise staff on the inclusion or housing, so that'll be a joint. Well, I think it's just going to be a planning board meeting, and we're going to invite, Have

[117:04] and the H. Just a technical review group. I think just i'd be there. I think it will be educational, interesting. so any questions about that. And then the one thing that Mark was talking about the making calls that had mentioned. So yeah, I mean, it's true that the way that the current fee structure is for inclusionary housing is based on number of units. and that was that was intentional back in the day. so there is a slight redation. You pay slightly more for the larger units. It's less for those smaller units. but anything over 1,400 square feet. It's the same exact amount. so we're proposing to change that, so that the larger the unit you propose, the more cash pay The challenge is just that.

[118:00] Basically There was a lot of concern early on, when we adopted the program of having too big of a gradation between the sizes and opening up for legal risk. I don't think that concern is there any more. So I think we're definitely looking at that. but what I've tried to explain to making too, and and others is that you know developers don't typically look at what they're going to pay for cash and blue that's not really how they're going to make a decision about a project early on but I agree with it is kind of a perverse insectic, but just keep that in mind. It's not. It's not a deciding factor for what someone decides to go. Would you characterize what you just described? Jay is, could that possibly be all the of like I don't think we would want to call it

[119:07] Yeah. So the way inclusionary housing my understanding is, it's a legal basis that it so you can set it up as an impact fee, which is what we've done for commercial or you can set it up as we basically inclusion our housing requirements so we could move to an impact fee, but it's going to be a little bit more challenging. You have to do a whole study. And yes, we could do that. I think it's gonna be more challenging to, because you have to have a direct link between what the impact of that development is on affordable housing. So it's going to be a difficult to make the case that. 4,000 square foot house has a significantly larger impact on housing in my community. Right? compared to a 3,000 square foot. So I think that's why we're gonna probably stick with our current program and just increase those gradations so that we can get

[120:05] more inclusionary housing or the much larger units. but it's not going to. I I would I would come again, thinking it's gonna be 5, 6, 10 times what you would pay for like a 900 square foot. because it's already super high. If you think about how much you pay for single family home, it's 204, 250. Sorry, $250,000. City fees. No sorry inclusion right housing fee. What is it if there wasn't a host there before which is rare to most places, have a house. There it wasn't a 100, and you build a 3 or 4 or 5,000 square by houses around 100 grand, 75,000 to 100. It's more than that. Now. What was last? I mean? It's supposed to go away once again. Okay. But if there was a house there, so the inclusion of zoning

[121:02] that particular one. Yeah. but i'll know more than 2 months when we get home. Let you know back again and correct My, I used to. I mean, there's the you know, the value of the house and all that stuff. Place into it's the size of the house getting into too much detail. It's the square footage of the house. They assess some value to a price per square foot that come up with a value. Then it's based on that cost. That's one of the line items of the 30 line Item: invoice again. but that's separate in the anyway. I'll check that number before I throw out a big number like that. Hey, Everyone there! Just throw this out because it's just another way of raising money for I think and the reason I use that term luxury taxes I've been. I've been. I've heard of a a mansion tax in New York City, and it applies to it's a transfer tax and a home sales for a 1 million dollars or more

[122:11] 1 million bucks, 1%, 25 million bucks which is not an over there 3.9%. My understanding is that that money is plowed into the transit system. the subway and it raises something like 360 million a year. A lot of the amount of time for taxes. I i'm going to challenge you. I thought. prohibited real estate transfer fee transfer tax. So there's it. You either have it, or before it got closed out. And then your grandfather, you don't so every time it's married to like the the town of Breckerage city avail. They have a transferred tax. They're sitting on a a, a, a, a, a vertical pile of money.

[123:06] silver, thorn, etc. They have no transfer tax, and they're constantly broke. And so basically put it down. And then, if you didn't have it, you couldn't get it. And so a lot of people don't get it. Yeah. What we've done is you can always negotiate as part of a Pd. Or any sort of you know, significant zoning modification, etc. a voluntary chance for fee. and so like copper mountains, got a voluntary transfer fee. that goes to the county for every new development. for the last 15 years, and when I was at the county I got them to agree to it so So so there's things you can do, but it's also very daunting, because, again, you know, the part of the problem for communities like Boulder is that you know the States change now very significantly, so hopefully. Some of these things will change but for the longest time.

[124:07] you know the state at the State level, and Phil appears well. I agree with you at the State level. They were concerned about property values over anything else, and they didn't want any sort of proactive or visionary land use approaches to things. And so every time one came on they squelch it merger, so that's a That's a real challenge that you know every local government faced in the State of Colorado for the last 30 years. and we can change it out. But yeah, i'll kind of miss the boat on a lot of those things I know. Same Same for city municipal income tax absolutely against the law. Yeah. I remember that that never happened. We almost got cl for doing that a while back

[125:01] and tax. No. you know, when you take some good afternoon. Hi, Bill. hey? Any other discussion? It's been a stimulating discussion right before we debrief the meeting their calendars, but they double check so single family home. What you say? Can I throw it down 33,000. So for a fewer units cash and loo for each required unit. 236,000. Oh, that's cash and move. Okay. So if you do a town home or a smaller attached yeah, it's 181 right and Yes, it's. I'll tell you why it was a higher price point overall for housing, because that money is going to be made up.

[126:05] Can you? Can you repeat that? Okay. 236,000. I mean some change. That's where the developer has to pay the city for the cash in the program. because because they're not building affordable housing as part of the project. If i'm building a single family call in the city limits honest on a on a lot on an undeveloped, Why. awesome. Okay. So for each. Okay, Sorry. So it's 20. So 20% of one unit. So you pay 20% of that. 20 of 236. Okay. 4 million dollar house you're catching a new payment is

[127:00] 20%. How are you doing it? Multi? Is that right? No, No. Okay. Well, your part every it's 20, regardless of so 20% of one unit. Okay. it would be that up about 14 or square feet for one unit. Right? Exactly. It's to create more connections than funds from the so 49 to square, if an now would still pay that. But we're about. But a larger unit would potentially pay more. I think also, if you get to the small units that are not going down. So it does not a whole lot so like. So the difference. Yeah, it's a little less than 500. It's. It's only 84 compar to 84,000. Can you get out of it? Let me just give you a Think about this for a minute, Bill. It's $16,000 for a 500 recording with you.

[128:01] You know what that is per square foot $35 per square foot of additional cost. Sure. it's a commercial development days. Now that's what commercial development pays for square foot right now eliminated the cash and the requirement for small rooms and increased it. Right? You You want to be able to build 49, right? Okay. It seems like the a. Do you have a you know another listening session? Should we get some some? So catch a new? We came up with these numbers to come in and talked with about. I'm gonna talk about it on January 30 first. It seems like the a. To use, you know, if you, if you build on a new lot, and you have a designated affordable a to you. You might get out of some of that fee.

[129:02] Well, it does not apply to the accessory dwelling units because they're not the principal dwelling in their accessory. So you don't pay any additional cash in there that's one of the but but can you get, can you? Can you get out of it by creating an affordable designated a to you? It doesn't apply at all, whether it's affordable or a market rate you're not creating. Technically, you're not creating a new unit with an AD you because it's accessory. Well, that's dumb. Well, it's actually it's actually good because you're incentivizing creating any use. and that I mean, that's the great thing about folder, too, is so. They don't have require separate tab. so you do avoid a lot of fees that you would get with a single family home. What I meant is, if you're building a new single family home on an empty lot, and you're gonna have to pay 20% of this 236,000,

[130:05] because I assume that's what the cost is of a unit of an affordable unit. it seems like you ought to be able to get out of it by going ahead and building that you that's designated affordable. Oh, there we go, I said. It's it's not like that. That's pretty cool it's funny. I can't go to sleep after those wait for an hour. Thanks. Yeah. I think we should go to the meeting debrief. Yes, This being we had information. I don't know we did not make any decisions.

[131:02] We did not make a recommendation. The bulk of the meeting was a great conversation with them on board facing i'm talking about that communities on those lines. I think you like a lot of that. we. And for the general idea for listening session, possibly among it protected having developers to talk about what works doesn't work for them to create a portability. and then calendar check. When is our next? Have meeting this one's out of order. Oh, that's a happy that's right. Okay. 20. It's on January 20, fifth, that December 22, yeah. And then we have the January 30 first to join Planning board. You approved

[132:01] for an exclusionary housing, 101 session. a 100 version airport being would be when 20 s right. for a second February 20 s would be the February. Yeah. Is there anything anyone else would like to bring up in this meeting? I should let our people on the screen. You know that. Oh. we ate some really good food from LED Green, so you missed so don't feel bad about that and we're going to have a 9 business meeting on Monday. So I know about that. Yep. you guys. I hope you got an idea not relating the housing one right excellent idea and light of our new coaching higher. Oh, it'll be exciting. It's it's inspired by that.

[133:06] Okay, right? So great. We hope to see everyone next week having holidays, and we have a motion to adjourn. So moved. so all in favor. I thank you all all right. Everyone.