September 5, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] And on the same. and then final question on the same table. My letter L, does this. If if I have already developed an affordable project, and I've gotten my tax credits on. You know I'm 3 years down the road. This would this have some effect on me? Or is this only on new projects? So the wording is unclear. So whether this is a new project or it actually be retroactive during projects, would definitely not be retroactive, and that's the intent. It's it's a little bit of a complicated section. But the point being, if you have some executed document, a Covenant or a funding agreement from the city, or something like that. We would you. You could develop under the the the agreed upon terms of that document. But it also it needs to. That section needs to address like the the title, I think, will be changed slightly. But it needs to address who gets to go under the old rules and who gets to go under the new rules? And so what we're saying is that

[1:11] If somebody has an approved tech, doc. or has at least one residential building permit. then they can go under the new rules. And so. you know. usually they in the past people the old rules have been a a more beneficial to a developer. They want to stick with the old rules. Well, in this case they would probably want to go to the new rules so essentially that probably needs a little bit of work. But we want to clarify, because obviously developers want to know, can I? Can I choose which set of rules I go under? At what point do I? Am I bound by the new rules or bound by the old rules. And so that that's just what that is all about, just trying to clarify that.

[2:02] Yeah. So I know you wanted to. I have one. I didn't realize we we were asking some of the specifics. Can I go ahead and ask, okay, thank you so much? so, Michelle. I'm looking at on that same part number 4. I'm looking at E, the land dedication. So it's kind of it's kind of confusing. Here's what I understand and correct me where I'm wrong. Because obviously, I feel like I'm not understanding it. It's saying that basically that if the land can be reasonably developed for affordable housing. Then the CIO equals the difference between the appraised value of the land and 50% of applicable. CIL, I mean, yeah. So it's it's 2 different things So let me let me talk about the land dedication. We we split it up into 2 sections because it was so long.

[3:00] So that's been an option in the inclusionary housing program since day one. So for 23 years we've only ever had 2 planned dedications. One was fairly complicated. I would say it was Frazier Meadows, so it was a senior project, and th those are always complicated for the program to deal with. But then the most recent was was diagonal plaza, where they dedicated land and Be and Bhp then took over the land, and we'll build an affordable project. So we learned a lot about the land dedication from diagonal plaza. And so this is essentially just sort of tightening up the code language around the land dedication. So it's clear there are some things that are unclear but as far as the value. It says right now that the value has to be 75% of the applicable cash in lieu in order for us to accept the land. But we talked a lot about that internally. Well, what if somebody just wanted to dedicate land that would only accommodate a fourplex?

[4:03] Would we want that land? If there is certainly scenarios where we would say that would be a great piece of property to have, we could do some for sale units on it even though it might not cover their whole requirement. So we didn't wanna limit the value of the land to be dedicated in the way that it is in the code right now. And so we decided that probably the best way to to handle that would be this sort of generic term of the city must determine. The land can be reasonably developed for affordable housing. And so that we can take a look at whatever land they're proposing and say, Do we have a project that would work there something that would make sense for the location or the size of the land, and not limit it to some size of land that is honestly just sort of arbitrary. So that's what that is about. And then essentially what it says right now is that the land would be appraised, and then

[5:00] If the land is equal or more valuable than the cash and lid, then they don't pay any cash and live but if it's less than the cash in lieu, they have to pay the difference. Okay. and so essentially, we want to make sure that we get some cash. So we're gonna get a piece of land, but no money to develop it. And so what we want in this land. Dedication is a piece of land and some money to develop the land. And so that's what this is trying to kind of. Say that. You know you can give us a piece of land. But if the and but the the cash in lieu. you know it could be valued at at some amount. But you would still need to give us at least 50 of the cash and low so it would be, whichever is larger. The difference between the land value and cash in lieu or 50% of the cash in lieu. So in other words, it guarantees that we would get 50% of the gas cash and Lou to develop the piece of land. We may end up with a smaller piece of land that way, but we're gonna get some money to develop the land. Does that make sense?

[6:19] Yeah, I don't. I'm not sure that it that it reads that way. II understand what you're saying. I'm I'm not sure that it So it would say that that you you would have cash, and Louis associated with the land dedication correct, and the cash and Lou would be the difference between the appraised value of the land and the amount of cash in loop. That's what's missing in there, or 50 of the applicable cash, and loo, whichever is larger. So there is a little piece missing. Thank you. We'll we'll clean that up a little bit. My mind was going around. Thank you for clarifying

[7:03] alright and ml, you any other questions. No, okay. So, Kurt. Why don't you ask your your last couple of questions, and then we will have public comment period, and then we'll have our discussion or specific recommendations we might have for staff. and it'd be great if we could ultimately wrap up by 100'clock, which is an hour from now. sounds great, and thanks, Emily, for raising that I was confused by that. I have a question about item a in the code changes. So my understanding is, we're talking about getting rid of the 80% tier and putting in a 50% tier. That seems like a really significant change. And wouldn't that leave the people who between 60 and 80, who are currently eligible for the system, wouldn't it leave them out in the cold?

[8:00] Well, so this is for rentals. So let me think of how to approach this. So right now, we have 80% of the required affordable use, which there's 25, right? So 20, the 20% and the 5% right 60, am I? And then a smaller amount, whether you look at it as 5 or 20. But it's, you know. for 80%. 80 is higher than then, is typically allowed in affordable rentals. And so what you would anticipate for on-site rentals, because rentals by and large pay cash alone. It's very different than ownership ownership. They're gonna just sell the unit, the affordable unit. And then they're out of it. They don't have to deal with the affordable stuff anymore. After that, right? The the the developer. But with rentals they're gonna hold onto the thing and they're gonna own it. And they're gonna manage it, and it's a much bigger commitment because it's permanent. It's a permanent commitment to having these affordable rentals on site

[9:08] and so rentals by and large are gonna pay cash. and when they don't they're going to they're going to subsidize the cost of the rentals with getting long. Come housing tax credits. Well, low income housing tax credits don't allow 80% rentals. So what the conversations we've had in the past is with developers is they're like, well, I don't. I'm not gonna do the 80, because I can't use litex to finance it. So I know this is getting a little bit detail more detail than maybe you wanna hear. But it turns out that 80% here is not very functional and so we want to replace it with the 50% here would provide some deeper affordability. And, in fact, when a developer goes to get that additional financing for these, this affordable. So think of think of celestial seasonings, perfect example.

[10:00] You know. They kind of carved out a project. They're doing separate financing on that project. They go in for that additional financing. They actually need lower income units to make it attractive to the additional financing. So it actually just fits the model for a you know, for a funded on-site affordable rental project, and all the rest of them are going to pay cash and loo. They're not going to put rentals on site. If they don't get this additional funding to do it doesn't make any sense. Okay, that was very helpful. So just to clarify my understanding, these these people between 60 and 80%, am I that I was worried about? They're not really being served by the Dodsa units. Currently. is that so in general because they're not. Those are. Those generally are not being built. They're they're actually being built by the market, or or they're in the market. With existing older rental projects. So 60% am I. Rents are are are starting to push up against, not new construction.

[11:10] but but rents that you can find in the market in older rental projects. So there's a competition that we just don't want to get into. That's just another reason not to do 80% rentals. Yeah, okay, great. Thank you. That was very helpful. My one other question is about, item I. So my understanding is currently, if you're building single family detailing which we don't have that many of anymore. But we're saying that the currently, the proposed, the currently, the affordable units have to be single, family detached, and we're saying to allow them to be attached down. My question is attached. Tyrannos generally are going to be less valuable

[12:00] than single family houses. People value having space around them. Right? So is there a way to ensure that we're still getting attach? If we're getting in touch town town homes. They're still going to be of equivalent value to the single family homes that we would currently be getting. Well. I start out by saying, we don't get single family homes because they're so valuable. Nobody's going to do them. So so that's one thing. And this is sort of related to the idea of making it more financially feasible to put middle income for sale units on site if you allow them. an a town home product instead of a single family home. It does reduce their cost and make it so. It's a little bit more of an incentive to help out a project that you know. But but I mean. think about how many projects we've ever had with single family homes. not not too many. And they tend to go straight to the cash. And Loo they're not. There's not even a conversation about putting them on site

[13:08] and again, this is just so sort of the sweeten the deal to say. You don't have to take those valuable single family homes and make them affordable. We will accept town homes, which is a great product. We would love to get like we don't get town homes. So if we, if this would help anybody, make the decision to give to do town homes as the affordable product. It would be great sorry my cat loves Zoom calls so so it just gives some flexibility. And and then the other piece of it is, we don't really want to encourage more single family homes. you know. So if they had a project of, say, 50 single family homes, and they wanted to. Do, you know, 7 or 8 of them as a a string of town homes that would probably be a pretty good outcome for the program. Thank you. I just follow up on your your question and Michelle's answer. Are these

[14:08] In any way deed restricted? Or is this a one time affordable option? And then someone buys it, and 10 years later sells it at market rate. You mean this particular line, item, or or just in general. in general. This the the permanent deed restriction that every resale needs to be an affordable to an affordable. purchaser. Yes, I wanted to be. Thank you. I have just one question. 5 s, Michelle. What's your cat's name? His name is Spartakis, but we call him Sparky Barticus. I love it sparky. Thank you. Alright. So that thank you all. Staff. Don't go anywhere far from your TV, from your computers, because we will probably come back to you. But let's go ahead and take public comment. Now, if there is anyone who wants to comment, and then we'll.

[15:11] I think, following comment. I think my suggestion will be that we just sort of go around the table, and if people have thoughts they want to share with Staff to share them, and we'll let Staff move forward from there because we don't have anything to vote on. And alright. So, Amanda, and we've lost. It's just me. Okay. So okay, Amanda, please go ahead. Yeah. If if there's anybody that would like to speak at this time, please raise your hand. Do we have anyone? Yes, it looks like we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, hold on, just one moment. Let me fix this here so that you can speak.

[16:09] That's it. Just me right. You're the you're the only one with the hand raised at the moment, Lynn, but I'll start the timer for you. I think the Planning board has a problem here. I'm the only person that ever speaks at your meetings on the things that everyone in town complains about constantly. and I'm not that smart on this stuff. I'm not that good, you know. You've got my gangly going in circles on this stuff. and I think fundamentally, there's some basic problems. I'm glad. Michelle, I think, has great ideas. but I think that that the general there's some general pre presuppositions, and that is that smaller is cheaper.

[17:02] which it's not smaller, is much more expensive. bigger is cheaper. 4,500 foot is the perfect size. 9 people the size for one washer and dryer, 2 or 3 refrigerators, multiple themed rooms, common space car use and great open space. That's communal. That's what happens in a big space. And this this program. for one thing, bringing the bring it down to 12% first of all next. but makes a lot less cash. And Loo might make it more desirable for more people to do middle income for sale. But it's only 12% so that trade off has to be

[18:03] quantified, you know. Maybe I'm not smart enough to figure out how it quantifies. but it just seems like there's some assumptions in this like that, and maybe it's true, and I'm not in finance. I'm an ultrasound technologist, but it seems like, why is it that these all have to be for sale? The the towns. Why can't they be for rent? And there has to be more of a discussion in the community to where my questions can be answered, because this is one way discussion, and I'm stupid in this area. But I have some ideas, and I'd like them to be manifest, and I'd like to argue with some people about why things are happening, but it's not iterative. It's just me talking for 3 min. and like from the things I was speaking about earlier I've got. I got to one on my list of about 20 different things that I've taken notes on.

[19:08] and it feels like pretty futile. huh! Boy. parking is a lot better with with, you know, when you have. I don't know how you do it. Okay, I really don't. But I think there needs to be some kind of subsidy to influence architects, to design these communal spaces as mainstream living for Glen. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but thank you very much. You went over your 3 min. and we share your frustration that we're not hearing from more of the public. To be totally honest, and I think it's because we're still not meeting in person. It has a lot to do with it. That being said. thank you, Amanda. We will now go to our feedback.

[20:02] to staff. And again, I think what I'd like to suggest. You don't have to follow my suggestion, but in the hopes of actually wrapping up by 10 is, if you have specific feedback. give it and love it. Michelle and and Team will take it into under advisement, and if you hear someone say something that you agree with, just say I concur with board Member X. So we'll go around. I'll go around the table and call on you and and so nobody feels. I'm picking and choosing. Here. I'll start with Kurt. So, Kurt, once you go first. Thanks. I'm I think that this is the great project I'm supportive of all of it. I'm especially supportive of going to a per square foot cash, and I think that that's that's something that I've thought would be good idea for a long time, and so I'm I'm very, very excited to see that, and I'm very excited to see. Item 3. The the the nexus study for replacement of single family houses or

[21:07] or additions. You know. We got 2 to me there's a clear nexus not being a person during the study, but to me it was a clear nexus that bigger and more expensive houses attract people who have higher demand of services and and put a greater demand on the affordable housing resources in the city. So my guess is, it'll be a a pretty straightforward nexus to find. So I'm supportive of that. I was II was concerned, I guess, about the reduction in the from from from 15%, from 25% to 15% in item 2. But I think that you explained it well, and that is justified. And I had concerns about some of the

[22:01] other items in the the code changes. But you alleviated those concerns, too, so sport of a little. Alright. Thank you, Kurt Lisa, I'll call you next. Yeah, II think I support this project. II think Staff and the consultants have put a lot of thought into trying to address it. It doesn't address everything. You know perfectly way. We think it maybe could or should but I know that that means that we'll just keep working on it and trying to improve it further. So I think other other plan members will have more to say. But I just say I'm broadly supportive of of the efforts. It makes sense to me that this is very complex and that sometimes we. I think we're incentivizing something. And we're not really. And so II kind of defer to the what the data is actually telling us. And I'm excited to see where it goes next. Thank you. Thank you. Lisa. Eml, I'll call on you. Thank you. Sarah, are we just talking to

[23:00] Question number one? Actually, I'm just suggesting that whatever comments you have or suggestions recommendations that now is the time to give them, and I'll go back through the circle one more time after everyone had a first go around. Okay, great I will concur with my well, mostly curve on number one, I think the one through 4 have been addressed and are very well spoken to by staff. On number 2, the input I would have. and I don't know if this is possible, but here is my thought. Would there be a means for the cash in blue money to be available to affordable deeded? Properties that are 80 Us. And multi units on Upzon single family parcels.

[24:02] When I look at we just had the does the zoning updates to open up more opportunities for flexes. and of course, ad use have been on the rate on the availability for a while. Now. one of the things, because these are generally owner developed. One of the deterrence is financing. and it seems that if an owner is ready and willing to deed something into an affordable bucket. Is there any means for using some of that cash and blue money into that? Into that unit type. the small. And and I'm guessing

[25:01] at some point when we develop plexus. Maybe there's the opportunity to sell them as well. So that would, you know, even fully buy into or pay into the middle income housing for Sale market, but that, to me, is one of the big deterrents for that product type to contribute significantly to affordable units in established neighborhoods where the infrastructure exists, amenity, rich areas. And and I see again and again the deterrent is affording to have the money to do the development, even if it's a small Edu interest. Rates are high, and you know, people get worried. People who tend to own these are older. residents that have been there for a while, and they're hesitant to get into a big mortgage. But

[26:02] I just think that that could be a a possible solution to get more of that housing type. Any possibility, Michelle, of that ever you know that, Jay addressed, that he's more plugged into the funding side of things. Primary dwelling unit. Right? So it's not considered a separate unit. And the way that we get the formal units there is through the declaration of use right? So in exchange for certain benefits for the edu that gets you know, larger size or not providing parking they have to sign decoration. That's how they get through affordability. But I see where you're going with the plexus. the challenges that I each is really a tool for new development.

[27:01] and you really need us a a certain scale to get those units affordable units on site. so it doesn't work very well for small projects. So that's why small projects where they always pay cash. So they basically make their contribution and use that money and leverage it for other phones. That doesn't mean that we can. think about using cashable funds for people that want to convert say, single family to a triple. You provide some sort of subspe radar up zoning some of these single family areas.

[28:00] It looks. It just seems like there might be a way to this is a holistic way of Okay, what are the other pieces that are missing? And I think financing is is one of them. So thank you thanks, Emil Mark, and then Laura, and and then me. yeah, I wanna thank Staff for this. II that was great presentation. And although complex and a little over my head in certain spots. Ii just II think this whole project is excellent, and it speaks to. When I looked at the timeline. It's like, Wow! This is pretty nimble. And and for a project of this undertaking, anyway, it feels nimble to me. So II commend you for that. My only other request would be it's something I've I've mentioned in the past, and that is some way to you know, Sarah pointed out, that we have done this really great job of distributing affordable housing as a product of cash and blue throughout the city.

[29:11] and most of it is kind of is kind of hidden. It blends in so well. It's not. It's not apparent that that this is affordable. It's not a So it blends in, and I would urge us whether it's in our water bills or in the magazine that seems to come out at random times the city magazine to publicize and feature. what is the has been the product of the cash program? Because the troll on social media that pro on the campaign trail. dating way back and including this cycle, is developers. Get away with paying a little bit of money, and they get to do whatever they want, and and it's like no one says, Oh.

[30:04] these units here were a product of this cash and move. So I would just urge that we kind of lower on the corn a little bit about the product that we have that we've done, because I think we've done a good job with it, and I think your efforts for it just respond real quick. I mean. I mean, I think it's excellent suggestion, of course, and I think Kurt has a similar idea. So every time we brought something housing related to counsel. he highlighted a specific project and and tried to personalize it. So you told the story about the people actually living in that in that before and how would change their lives? So II grew. I think we need to bring that back and and do more of it. But also any other suggestions you have, and we're doing an affordable housing bike tool. So and you'll extend invitation once we have a day to board as well.

[31:03] I went on last year, and I urge every board member to get out there and ride along and visit all these projects. It was a super educational. Okay, thanks, Mark Laura. Thank you. So I'll try not to repeat. I agree with the support of comments. I think Staff have just hit it out of the park with this one. You may recall when we first started talking about the inclusionary housing update. And there was this focus on middle income housing. I got a little clutchy. And I was like, why are we focusing on middle income when it takes so much more money to develop that that I didn't want it to be a you know, dividing the pie, and a bigger slice goes to middle, and a smaller slice goes to low income. And I think Staff have solved that problem beautifully with looking at the the onsite construction of middle income homes. And I think that that's a really great idea.

[32:05] For a lot of reasons. And one that hasn't been mentioned tonight is that if you are putting on site units into a like a condo project or a development that has an hoa. One of the problems that we've seen in the past is that the ho fees are dictated, of course, by the whole Hoa that is dominated by market rate, people who can afford more. And so the ho fees tend to escalate and become unaffordable to people who are low and moderate income, and if the people who are on site are actually middle income buyers rather than low and moderate, then they are more likely to be able to afford those ho a fees in that development. So that hasn't been mentioned. But I think that that's a really nice fringe benefit of the way that staff have constructed this program, I could say so much. I don't wanna take our time tonight. I do. Wanna point out one other thing that hasn't been talked about. In addition to all the wonderful things that have been talked about.

[33:02] Which is this item D in the chart about land dedication. And, Sarah, you told me once I wanna credit you for this. You told me once sometimes when we see a project, we see something that concerns us, and we bring it up to staff, and maybe we can't fix it right then and there in that project, because that project is being constructed under current rules. But Staff are listening, and they will come back to us sometime in the future with a code update that will address that problem for the future. And I think that that has been done here for the land dedication. You folks may remember, with diagonal plaza. We raised the concern about that. The on-site units did not have access to some of the open space that the market rate tenant. Market rate unit tenants did have access to, even though that open space was being counted as open space for the whole project under one site review. It didn't sit well, and there were all kinds of reasons why that might have been the right thing to go forward with for diagonal plaza. But in this code update staff have fixed that and said that if there's a land dedication

[34:00] and it goes through one site review, all of the amenities have to be for all tenants or all of the owners, and if they are not going to do that, it has to be 2 separate site reviews. And that's in Item D, so I think that didn't get talked about tonight. But that was something that fixed a problem that we saw. Maybe it's a very small problem. But I want to credit Staff for listening and for and for resolving that. So I will stop there and just say kudos to staff. Thank you so much, and I'm very happy to support this project for many, many reasons. I'll go last. I'll basically support what everyone else has said. I do have one one thing I would hope that the nexus study wouldn't. would touch on one of the things that's concerning me with the large, the the number of with, with the various proposals and ordinances that have come before us in the last couple of years that have to do with affordability. But don't actually guarantee affordability.

[35:00] Is that all? There's there the the pressure it puts on the price of houses that aren't in any of these programs. Whether it's an increase in the number of people who can occupy a house. And so that increases the value of the house because the rental income can go up. or whether it's because we are supporting duplexes and triplexes on larger loss, which then encourages, might encourage investors to come in and scoop up some land and build triplexes and sell them for a lot of money. Versus actually producing housing. That is. smaller houses that presumably will be more affordable. So I just wanna make sure I would like to suggest that when you do, the nexus study, one of the lines that you pursue is, what are the impact? What are the pension impacts

[36:00] on housing prices above the middle income frame cause? I think we just need to know if what we're doing is putting upward pressure on housing. That's already very expensive. And I realize that a goal of ours and I support this goal is to fill in that middle ground between the 2 ends of the of the house of our current housing. I don't think we want to end up also having our. you know, Median housing price go from the 1.7 million. It is today to the to 2.5 insofar, as at least through policies versus whatever the market can bear. So again, I'm not an economist. I'm II don't know econometrics, but I would hope that that's at least a question. That's part of your scope for the nexus study. Well, you do have an economist that you could ask that question.

[37:01] Do I have an economist to answer that question. Excellent David. So I guess I guess I would start answering a question just framing how these nexus studies typically work. Which is, I think, might be. I guess. So. I've done like 40 of these affordable housing nexus studies for residential projects, and they, and in a couple of them that are for condo conversions where you convert from a rental and then sell that rental unit to condo buyers. And then you k calculate a fee based on that difference and sort of the income of the condo buyer, and all the the spending of the condo buyer on different goods and services, and the jobs that support in their affordable housing needs of the workers to hold those jobs. So it's it's

[38:00] these studies are driven by jobs created by households who live in the market rate units and the affordable housing needs of those workers. That's that's sort of how they've traditionally been done. The way you frame this question is a little bit different. It's if we, if we go the market rate. Sorry at maybe a certain type of market housing is that is that contributing to market market pressure on other other units. I think that's what I think. That's sort of where you were going with that. not where I was going with it, because I obviously, I'm not explaining myself very clearly. I am her. The market in Boulder produces extremely expensive houses, even small one like we. We have made an assumption that smaller is cheaper, and that may be that may be true. I'm sure it's true. And

[39:00] the kind of places I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio. But I'm not. I'm just not convinced personally that it's true in Boulder, where we have limited land, but I'm I'm willing to rot. We throw the dice, but I'd like to understand it insofar, as if it's possible, within the scope of the next. at least, to try to keep an eye on what the implications are of this thing we're trying to do on market, on the price, the price pressure on market rate housing that is, outside this circle of middle income permanently affordable, whatever the language we're call, where what language we're gonna use for it. Cause I just think that would be helpful to know so, and maybe it's not within the scope. This is why it's a recommend, a suggestion rather than a, you know, because I don't know whether it's in the scope. But I do think it's something we need to be tracking. We need to understand whether or not all of these

[40:04] policies that we're passing and pursuing, actually are producing housing that is more affordable to the target audiences, and is not then creating a huge. even larger increase in housing prices. At the top end. I realize there are people who can afford it. But I don't think we wanna be having Median family house price be, you know. even ha! Much higher than it is today, cause it does become problematic. folks who make 121% of ami So that's that's my only recommendation, and do with it what you can. Does anyone else have additional comments? If not, Laura does. Yes, Laura, sorry. I just want to really quickly uplift Eml's idea here, I think she's put her finger on something very important, which is that if we're trying to encourage duplexes, triplexes ad use. Sometimes people have trouble acquiring financing to do that, and they might be very willing to put

[41:11] another unit or 2 on their property, but they end up selling to a developer who tears down their home and builds the most profitable thing, which is a a a very large single family home. So I think Ml. Is suggesting something that is outside the scope of this project. But it's worth thinking about for future future projects of. Is there a way for the city, either through inclusionary housing or some other program to help provide financing to people who want to do those kinds of projects, but can't get market rate financing. I think that's what ML. Was suggesting. Okay. yeah. And, Michelle, you're about to turn. You're saying something, but you're still on mute. you know, this occurred to me. The cab had. They had a lot of conversations around this around, trying to. because they were also presented with the zoning for affordable housing changes.

[42:01] At the same time, the idea being to allow these sort of multi-family models where single family is right now. and you know one approach that we could take to support. That would be that if somebody had an option to do either a single, you know, demo a house, and we, and build a new single family home or demo it, and build a duplex or triplex. The one way that IH. Could be used in that scenario is to say, if you just build a new single family home. Assuming we do the next study, and there's a a linkage fee. You're gonna be subject to the linkage fee. But if you so, it's an incentive based idea. But if you actually replaced a single family home with a duplexer trip triplex or fourplex, we would actually, you know, reduce or wave the cat because you would pay additional cash in Lou. You have additional units. So you would have cash in lieu in those scenarios.

[43:02] but we could actually reduce or even wave the cash in lieu if you made that choice, the choice that we would like you to make, which is to replace the single family home with a duplexer, you know. Would they have to guarantee that the units are affordable. No, it just would encourage them to make that choice, because the question is, if you gonna take a single family home like what? What would motivate you to change it into a duplex or a a you know. a triplex or perplex? It takes money to do that, as as Ml. Pointed out, and you know, in the individual persons calculation of what they're doing it, it might. They might not be very motivated. They just wanna either replace their single family home with a bigger one. But they don't wanna become a landlord. They don't, wanna.

[44:01] you know, sell off prop, you know they they just don't want to go down that road, and it would just be a carrot. It would just say, if you did want to replace your single family home with a duplex then. Right now there's actually sort of a stick approach. You know. You're going to pay some cash in lieu in that second unit we could swing that deal for them. It wouldn't make the units affordable. But to go from the model of single family home to multi-family homes on those large lots is in itself a desirable outcome, right? Presumably. Yeah. Okay, ml, and then Laura. And then we're going to call the meeting and go to go to matters. Thank you, Sarah. So all of this brings to mind one other thing which hasn't come up, and as we open up the single family market to up zoning one of the issues

[45:02] that could kind of derail the intent, IE. To get more reasonably priced housing would be if this market suddenly becomes interesting to investors. and the thing that II believe I might have put this out when we spoke about the up zoning a few weeks ago. But is there any means mechanism? And maybe it isn't. Maybe it's outside the scope. But okay, number 2, input to the Ih program. As 50, Ih can be applied. Do this as the nexus report might persuade to the single family projects could there be? Would it become reasonable to require them to be owner occupied? We do that with a DUS. Right now?

[46:04] That we require the property to be owner occupied. What this essentially does in my in my experience and in my estimation, is, it keeps the investor investor market out investor out of this market. And I think it's a different mindset on why you're building this and what you expect to get out of it. because private landowners and their pro formers, if you will look a little bit different than people who are investing as generally speculative developers to buy, to buy either built a big single family house, which is what is happening now. Right? The developers buy them, built a giant house, and are gone. As opposed to the person who had the original house, being able to add an avu, or add a duplexer triplex

[47:04] in order to remain in the neighborhood remain on the property. So there. There are different reasons why people do developments as as single owners versus developers. And I think the potential to have a result be an affordable development is higher if the project is owner occupied. So I don't know if there's a mechanism for that. But I I'd like to put the thinking out there so that we don't. We don't open up this market, and it becomes very attractive to developers, which is what we've seen in the single family market, and it has really transformed our ability to retain the small and the affordable houses in the neighborhoods. Laura. And then really, truly, we're gonna wrap up. I just wanna say, really quickly, we we talked about some of this at the hab meeting, where I'm the liaison and with the affordability, provisions especially, and I think the thing that that convinced me that that's not a road to go down is that what's the alternative. And the alternative is, if we if we put a lot of restrictions

[48:16] on the duplexes and triplex model, whether it's affordability or owner occupancy, that then restrict what people can do with their property, and how much profit they can make from it. Their alternative is just to go with the large single family house that they can sell to anybody. And so if if you want to encourage that product which is the duplexes and triplexes, it's not. And it's probably not gonna work out for us if we put too many things on it that make them less attractive by limiting what people can do with their property. So so that it's just something to consider. And maybe that's something that with enough brain power, we could figure out how to square that circle. But but that's a consideration. I also just Sarah. I wanted to follow up on what you were talking about with the nexus study and just ask a clarifying question. I know I've heard a lot of people talk about. They worry about inclusionary housing fees because it basically makes the market market rate housing that much more affordable be, or that much more unaffordable. Basically, you're making the everything that's market rate

[49:12] more costly. The benefit that you get is the subsidized housing right is the stuff that the inclusionary housing pays for that is deed restricted, or that is rent affordable rentals. But then everything that's market rate, the price is going up. Is is that what your concern is? I just wanna I just want us to know what the implications are. The same thing like I was proposing that you guys are nice enough to put on the table last week, like we should know, like, gather some data on what the potential impacts of policy XY, or Z is. And in this particular case it's what is the poly? What could be the what could be the knock on effects of of this policy on housing. That's not in the restricted program, whatever it is, and maybe there'll be, you know, the best news would be. There's no impact that'd be awesome. But I think we should at least try to figure that out.

[50:04] Does that answer your question? Yes, thank you. Lisa. And then, really, really, really, truly, we're gonna wrap up Laura, you you just kind of triggered a thought in my mind, and and I'll I'll just echo what Sarah said, that if it's possible to collect the data cause often, if you build it into the design, it's not that hard to pull the data but if you sort of try and figure out later, you can. II recommend looking for that. And then I was just gonna say that writ large something that we tend to do in the city of boulder and Boulder Kenner, more broadly is we do a whole bunch of things that in and of themselves are awesome, and we're doing them for really good reasons, and they're great. And then when you put them all together, they start forcing out certain kinds of people, or making it impossible to build certain kinds of housing or disincentivizing certain things, and so on. So yeah, as we kind of try to fix this, maybe the wrong word, but try to study and understand what we're doing with affordable housing and address some of the things that haven't been working as well as we wish they had, I would just strongly encourage it wherever possible, to do data gathering and and kind of testing, and to look at case studies elsewhere and data from other folks, and just kind of see.

[51:12] what did it actually end up doing? For all that we went in with with wonderful intentions, and I'll leave it there. Thank you. Okay. we. I think we will have given Staff a lot of feedback. Hopefully, you can pull all the threads together in some coherent way, for for the city council in your meeting, your coming meeting. That's coming up and we thank you very much for all that you do for the city and for this presentation, and for this project. And then you all are welcome to head to your bedrooms and to go to sleep, and we will go to matters, and then eventually we will adjourn. Thank you very much, really appreciate the time, and if you do have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out.

[52:08] I was told during the agenda setting meeting earlier today that there were no matters from staff. but the only we only have amant. Not only we have Amanda and Hella left, so I'll ask Amanda and Heller, do you? Hello! Do you have anything for us. I do not. I don't have anything. I'm not sure if Helen does. Yeah, I wanted to just bring up something real quickly. Board members have been sending in questions for staff ahead of time before meetings. Items I discussed at the Planning board meeting, and that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that you all just write your questions and try not to comment in any way on the questions that your fellow Board members may have already sent in may maybe ask a follow up question, but try to be very clean in that regard, just so that it can be construed as some kind of discussion.

[53:01] Awesome. All right. Any com. Anything that matters from the board members. mark. I just tonight, as we took the the earlier vote on the CIP. You know. I mean. I felt a little bad that Lisa and Sarah we're in a position that they felt that they needed to vote. No. on a motion that for the most part you guys were in support. The way I heard your comments. You guys were in support of staff of the original staff motion. And so we have as a board gotten better and kind of following rules of procedure, making motions, discussing those voting on those. But we are

[54:01] focusing on amending the main motion, and there's nothing in our rules that that I read, or in Roberts that prohibit us from having a motion that says we support Staff's work regarding Cip. That's motion one. And then subsequently, there's a second motion planning board rather than an amendment to the main motion. It's just a motion. and those motions would have passed, but the original motion likely would have passed 6 0. Reflecting a truer sense of the board in regard to the cip. And so II simply point that out, and would encourage all of us to think about. Are we amending the main motion cause. Sometimes an amendment to the main motion is the most pertinent and best way to amend that and other times. Just a separate motion

[55:08] it made and you can. We could let the chair know that, hey? I'm going to be making a motion after the main motion, but it's separate. It's a separate motion that there's nothing that says we can't do that, and provide counsel, and staff, with a truer reflection of of our thoughts about the the matter before us. That's very helpful. Thank you, Mark Laura. I just want to agree and say that I would have been totally fine with that there's no reason why these things had to be packaged together, and I, in fact, objected to that in the past, of bundling things together into one motion, so that I had to vote against something. Choose whether to vote against something I mostly supported because I didn't support the amendment, and Sarah and Lisa. I'm sorry that you were in that position, and so I appreciate Mark's suggestion for how we can avoid that in the future, and I'm supportive.

[56:02] Alright, thank you, Kurt. And I think probably there's a mechanism where we could actually separate it. Expose factor right? If a couple of people are are concerned about a particular amendment. There could maybe, I think, be a motion to separate the amendments into a separate motion or withdraw, maybe withdraw it. And okay. alright. Well, we'll try to keep the our fingers on the pulse at future meetings and see what what we need to do. all right. Anything else. Alright! It is 9 44. I am declaring this meeting adjourned. Good night, everyone. Good night, everyone bye.